Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
 
1
123456789101112131415161718192021222324
S
TEVENS
L
AW
O
FFICE
,
 
PLC
Ryan J. Stevens (AZ Bar No. 026378)309 N. Humphreys Street, Ste. 2Flagstaff, Arizona 86001Phone:
 
(928) 226-0165Fax: (928) 752-8111stevens@flagstaff-lawyer.com
 Attorney for Plaintiff 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
PATRICK COLLINS, INC.,Plaintiff.v.JOHN DOES 1-54,Defendants.Case No. 2:11-CV-01602-PHX-GMS
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DOENO. 6’S OMNIBUS MOTION TO (1) QUASH SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO FED.R. CIV. P. 45(C)(3) OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ISSUE A PROTECTIVEORDER; AND (2) MOTION TO SEVER DEFENDANTS FOR MISJOINDER
Case 2:11-cv-01602-GMS Document 11 Filed 11/04/11 Page 1 of 22
 
 
2
123456789101112131415161718192021222324
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
 
Introduction………………………………………………………….…………..5-8A.
 
Doe 6’s Motion is Critically Flawed…………………….………….….….…6B.
 
Doe 6’s Purpose is to Make Litigation Prohibitively Expensive.........………7II.
 
Facts……………………………………………………………………….........8-13A.
 
Data Retention and Dynamic IP Issues Weigh in Favor of Joinder................8B. Suing Defendants Individually Is NOT in Their Best Interests……………..9C.
 
Doe 6’s Motion Does Not Comply With the Rules and Should Be Denied onThat Basis Alone…………………………………………..………………..10D.
 
Plaintiff is Entitled to Recovery…………………………………………….10E.
 
The Way BitTorrent Works, Infringers Continue to Distribute FiledIndefinitely………………………………………………………………….11F.
 
Same Swarm BitTorrent Infringement is Logistically Related…………….11G.
 
Doe 6’s Computer Arguments Cut Against Him……………………….…..12III.
 
Legal Standard for Joinder……………………………………………………13-16A.
 
The Infringement Occurred Through a Series of Transactions.....................131.
 
The Logical Relationship Test………………………………………….132.
 
The Infringement Occurred Through a Series of Transactions…………15B.
 
The Defendants Are Jointly and Severally Liable…………………….........15a.
 
Contributory Infringement is a Jury Question…………………….161.
 
There Are Common Issues of Fact and Law……………………………16IV.
 
Legal Argument……………………………………………………………….17-21A.
 
Courts Overwhelmingly Support Joinder; And, The Cases Cited by DefendantHave Been Expressly Dismissed……………………………………….…….171.
 
The Cases Relied Upon By Doe 6 Have Been Distinguished In Such aWay As Would Make Joinder Proper Here……………………….........18B.
 
Doe 6’s Reliance on Judge Gibney’s Sua Sponte Order is Unjustified………20C.
 
Joinder is Required By Fed.R.Civ.P. 1……………………………………….21V.
 
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..21
Case 2:11-cv-01602-GMS Document 11 Filed 11/04/11 Page 2 of 22
 
 
3
123456789101112131415161718192021222324
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Canus Prod., Inc., 173 F. Supp.2d 1044, 1055 (C.D. Cal. 2001).12Berlin Media Art E.K. v. Does 1-144, 2011 WL 4056167 (E.D. CA. 2011)…………..14Broadcast Music, Inc. v. TLM Investments, Inc., 2010 WL 2891524, *6 (D. AZ 2011)...5Call of the Wild, 770 F.Supp.2d at at 343……………………………………………….12Call of the Wild v. Does 1-331, 274 F.R.D. 334 (D.D.C. 2011)…………………….…13Call of the Wild v. Does 1-1062,770 F.Supp.2d 332, 344 (D.D.C. 2011)………....1, 6, 14Camelot Distribution Group v. Does 1-1210,2011 WL 4455249, *3 (E.D.Cal. 2011)…14Costar Group, Inc. v. Loopnet, Inc., 164 F. Supp.2d 688, 696 (M.D. 2001)………….…11Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9
th
Cir. 1997)……………………………….10De Dios v. Int’l Realty & Investments, 641 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9
th
Cir. 2011)…………….4Donkeyball Movie, LLC v. Does 1-171, 2011 WL 1807452 (D.D.C. 2011)……………13First Time Videos, LLC v. Does 1-76, 2011 WL 3586245 (N.D. IL 2011)………..…1, 16First Time Videos, LLC v. Does 1-500, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2011 WL 3498227(N.D.Ill.,2011)……………………………………………………………………………16Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1–46
 
 ,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67314 (N.D. Cal.2011)………………………………………………………………………………....11, 15Hard Drive v. Does 1-55, 2011 WL 4889094, (N.D.Ill 2011)………………………….16Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-188, 2011 WL 3740473 *4, (N.D. Cal.2011).............................................................................................................................10K-Beech Incorporated v. John Does 1-54, Case No. CV-11-01604-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz.2011)………………………………………………………………………………………6Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-62, 2011 WL 1869923 (S.D.Cal.2011)….14, 15Maverick Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Does 1-2115, 2011 WL 1807428 (D.D.C.2011)…………………………………………………………………………………......13MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1–149, 2011 WL 3607666, at 3 (N.D.Cal. 2011)……………….11MCGIP v. Does 1-316, 2011 WL 2292958 (N.D. Ill. 2011)…………………………….16New Sensations, Inc. v. Does 1-1,474, 2011 WL 4407222, (N.D.Cal. 2011)……..11, 15New Sensations, Inc. v. Does 1745, 2011 WL 2837610 (N.D. Cal. 2011)………...11, 15NuImage, Inc. v. Does 1-22,322, 2011 WL 3240562 (D.D.C. 2011)……………………13Pacific Century Intern., Ltd. v. Does 1-48, *6 (N.D. Cal. 2011)……………….10, 11, 15Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-35, 11-cv-00406 (E.D. VA 2011) (Dkt. 15)……………17Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-2590, 2011WL 4407172, * 6 (N.D. Cal.2011)………………………………………………..……………………………10, 11, 14Raw Films, Ltd. v. John Does 1-32, Case No. 3:11-cv-00532 (E.D. Va. 2011)…………16United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966)…………………….....9
Case 2:11-cv-01602-GMS Document 11 Filed 11/04/11 Page 3 of 22
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more