Scribd

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);