IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF
THEELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN ANDFOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,
F~0ItiPA
Case No. 11-29024-CA-05
..
-
'""
;
;1,
:x
..
3:Ia
,
co
:::0
:
:)
-
.
:-;,
r-
(
0"\
)
"
"
}
OY RACER, INC., a foreign corporation, )
.-,
-
"
-"
..,
0
::t:
--,
,
.
~
J:"
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
f:\'
"
)
JOHN DOES 1-615, )
)
Defendant(s). )
----------------------------)
Order Quashing Subpoena, Vacating Order to Compel-and Dismissing ComplaintThis cause came before the Court on March 20, 2013, on Plaintiffs supplemental motionto strike all pending motions objecting to subpoenas as moot. The Court reviewed the motion,any and all responses filed thereto, and heard oral argument.This is one
of
many lawsuits known as "copyright troll" suits. They commonly are filedagainst hundreds
of
"John Doe" defendants and then used in order to attempt to obtain or ''troll''for names
of
subscribers
of
an Internet Service Provider ("ISP") such as Comcast CableHoldings, LLC. The plaintiff then uses that subscriber to attempt to elicit a settlement from eachnamed defendant before the defendant is publicly identified.The federal courts have shown extreme hostility to these suits, identifying them as fishingexpeditions that improperly join numerous defendants (thus avoiding court filing fees), as failingto meet federal pleading standards, and as being used to extort settlements from defendants whoare neither subject to the courts' personal jurisdiction nor guilty
of
copyright infringement, butwho are fearful
of
the consequences
of
being publicly named as a defendant in a suit that seeks
Bk 28039
Pg
2741
CFN
2012019507903/19/2012
15:16:21
Pg
1 of 9 Mia-Dade Cty, FL
disclosure
of
the contents
of
their personal computers.
i
Typically, federal courts have dismissedthese mass lawsuits.
2
The Plaintiff in this lawsuit seeks to invoke Florida's ancient equitable doctrine
of
thepure bill
of
discovery. Defendant John Doe 376 argued in response to the Complaint that thisequitable device is not available to allow the plaintiff to pursue its objectives, and requested bothdismissal
of
the Complaint and an order vacating this Court's order
of
October 13, 2011,compelling Comcast Corporation to respond to a subpoena served by the Plaintiff. A number
of
other John Doe Defendants filed motions to dismiss, quash, and/or compel. Instead
of
In
CP Productions,
Inc.
v.
Does 1-300,
No.1
:1O-cv-06255 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24,2011),U.S. District Judge Milton Shadur held "there is no justification for dragging into an Illinoisfederal court, on a wholesale basis, a host
of
unnamed defendants over whom personaljurisdiction clearly does not exist and --more importantly --as to whom
CP's
counsel couldreadily have ascertained this fact." Slip Op. at
2.
2
See, e.g., Boy Racer,
Inc.
v.
Does 1-60,
No. C 11-01738 SI (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19,2011)(order granting Doe Defendant's Motion to Quash and Dismissing Case Without Prejudice);
10
Group
v.
Does
1-19, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133717, at *8-9 (N.D. Cal. Dec.
7,2010)
(plaintiffsallegations that the defendants conspired with each other to provide the infringing reproductions
of
the works were "wholly conclusory and lacked facts to support an allegation that defendantsworked in concert to violate
plaintiffs
copyright");
Laface Records, LLC
v.
Does
1 -38, 2008U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14544 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 27, 2008) (ordering the severance
of
claims againstthirty-eight defendants where plaintiff alleged each defendant used the same ISP as well as thesame peer-to-peer network to commit the alleged copyright infringement, but there was noassertion that the multiple defendants acted in concert);
Interscope Records
v.
Does
1-25, 2004U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27782 (M.D. Fla. Apr.
1,
2004) (magistrate recommended sua sponteseverance
of
multiple defendants in action where only connection between defendants wasallegation that they used same ISP and peer-to-peer network to conduct copyright infringement);
see also BMG Music
v.
Does,
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53237, No. 06-01579 (Patel,
1.)
(N.D. Cal.July 31, 2006) (finding improper joinder
of
four Doe defendants where the complaint allegedthat each defendant used the same ISP to engage in distinct acts
of
infringement on separatedates at separate times, and there was no allegation that defendants acted in concert);
TwentiethCentury Fox Film Corp.
v.
Does
1-12, No. C 04-04862 WHA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16,2004) (Alsup,J.) (severing twelve Doe defendants in a copyright infringement case where although defendantsused the same ISP to allegedly infringe motion picture recordings, there was no allegation thatthe individuals acted in concert);
cf
In the Matter
of
DIRECTV,INC.
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS24263, No. 02-5912 (Ware, J.) (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2004) (severing and dismissing hundreds
of
defendants in a case alleging that defendants purchased and used modified access cards and otherpirate access devices to permit view
of
plaintiffs programming without authorization).2
Bk 28039
Pg
2742 CFN
2012019507903/19/2012
15:16:21
Pg
2 of 9 Mia-Dade Cty, FL
responding to the substance
of
these motions, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed John Doe 376and the other moving Defendants, and moved
to
strike those motions
as
moot. Plaintiff furtheragreed that the Court should modify its October
13, 2011
order to relieve Comcast
of
itsobligation
to
respond to identify the dismissed Defendants. The Plaintiff appears to have takenthis tack to avoid a Court ruling that would undermine its effort to continue to misuse thisCourt's jurisdiction to achieve Plaintiffs ends. However, as noted by John Does 376, this Courtdoes not have jurisdiction over the subject matter
of
the Complaint. Furthermore, it would beinappropriate
to
allow Plaintiff
to
proceed in the manner it seeks.This
Court
Lacks Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
It
is a basic principle that "the limits
of
a court's jurisdiction are
of
primary concern."
Polk
Co.
v.
Sojka,
702 So.2d 1243,
1245
(1997). Therefore, a Court is
required
"to address theissue
sua sponte
when any doubt exists."
Id
Defendant John Doe 376 brought a substantialjurisdictional defect to this Court's attention, and in light
of
the morass
of
pleadings and motions(as is to be expected when
615
individual anonymous defendants are joined together), this Court-on its own initiative -first will address the jurisdictional issue. After so doing, this Court findsjurisdiction lacking,
as
explained below.The Supreme Court often has recognized that the First Amendment protects anonymousspeech.
3
Other federal courts have held that Internet users sharing copyrighted works via theBitTorrent application are themselves engaged in anonymous speech that warrants First
3
Watchtower Bible
&
Tract
Soc.
o/NY,
Inc.
v.
Village o/Stratton,
536
US
150
(2002)(ordinance requiring registration
of
solicitors violates the First Amendment);
Buckley
v.
American Constitutional Law Found,
525
U.S. 182, 200 (1999) (invalidating, on FirstAmendment grounds, state statute requiring initiative petitioners to wear identification badges).
As
the Court has held, "[a]nonymity is a shield from the tyranny
of
the majority."
McIntyre
v.
Ohio Elections Comm'n,
514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995) (invalidating state law that prohibiteddissemination
of
campaign literature that did not name issuer).3
Bk 28039
Pg
2743 CFN
2012019507903/19/2012
15:16:21
Pg
3 of 9 Mia-Dade Cty, FL
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
