The US District Court for the District of New Jersey held in Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-11 that joinder of multiple John Doe defendants was appropriate in a copyright infringement action alleging unauthorized copying of works through the BitTorrent protocol.
The US District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a decision in Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-11 on April 11, 2013. In the context of a motion to quash or modify a subpoena due to improper joinder, the court held that based on the allegations made in the complaint, joinder of the John Doe defendants was appropriate at the early stage of the case.
The plaintiff, a copyright owner, alleged that the defendants copied its motion pictures through the use of the BitTorrent protocol and the internet. The plaintiff hired a computer investigator to identify the internet protocol (IP) addresses of the individuals who used the internet to reproduce or display its works. To learn the identities of the defendants, the plaintiff sought and was granted permission to serve third-party subpoenas on the internet service providers (ISPs) to which each defendant subscribed. One of the John Doe defendants filed a motion to quash or modify the subpoena, arguing that the requirements necessary to apply joinder of defendants were not met.
The court initially noted that improper joinder is not a basis for quashing or modifying a subpoena under FRCP 45 but went on to analyze the issue. The court noted that various district courts have reached inconsistent results in actions related to file sharing of copyrighted works using BitTorrent, and that no circuit court has yet addressed the issue.
The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit generally favors a liberal interpretation of the joinder rules. Joinder is appropriate where a question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise and relief is asserted against the defendants jointly or is based on the same transaction. The court noted that the most frequent reasons for denying joinder in BitTorrent cases were that:
The plaintiff needed to show a more definite connection between the defendants.
A large number of John Doe defendants would present case management problems.
The court held that neither of these concerns were present in the instant action. As a result, the court held that joinder was appropriate, but stated that the issue could be revisited if discovery revealed that the defendants did not participate in the same transaction.