PA LMH v. 441 Reply To MTQ

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
Civil Trial Division

Liberty Media Holdings, LLC,
Plainti,
Jury Trial Demanded
v. April Term 2012
John Does 1-441, Defendants. No. 01874
Order
Today, this day of 201 2, upon
consideration of John Does Motion to Quash, and Plaintis re-
sponse, is ordered that the motion is denied.
vv rnv couvr:
, J.
Case ID: 120401874
23 AUG 2012 01:45 pm
M. COVIN
Control No.: 12075391
By: A. Jordan Rushie
Jordan@FishtownLaw.com
Pa. Id. 209066
Mulvihill & Rushie LLC
2424 East York Street Suite 316
Philadelphia, PA 19125
215.385.5291 Attorneys for Plainti
Plainti,
Jury Trial Demanded
v. April Term 2012
Plaintis Reply to John Does Motion to Quash
Plainti, Liberty Media Holdings, LLC, through its counsel, A.
Jordan Rushie, responds to John Does Motion to Quash as follows:
Background Information.
1. Plainti Liberty Media Holdings, LLC, is being stolen iom
massively through an internet le-sharing protocol known as
BitTorrent. Rather than pay for Plaintis works, anonymous
internet users download and distributed them without Plaintis
permission, and without paying. This is, essentially, the elec-
tronic version of walking into an electronics store, pocketing a
DVD, walking out without paying for it.
2. Because the identities of the internet pirates are unknown to
Plainti, Plainti cannot simply le suit without taking any dis-
covery as to the identities of the pirates that would be sanc-
tionable conduct.
Case ID: 120401874
3. Congress created a mechanism under the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act (DMCA) whereby subpoenas could be served on
Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Under section 512(h) of the
DMCA, a copyright owner or its representative may request a
subpoena to a service provider in order to identify iniingers.
4. However, decisions iom the 8th Circuit and District of Co-
lumbia Court of Appeals appear to have made DMCA subpoenas
unavailable in matters such as this case.
1

5. Under those cases, a DMCA subpoena may not be used to iden-
tify potential internet pirates where an ISP merely facilitates pi-
racy of content rather than actually storing pirated content on
its own servers.
6. Filing such a subpoena would likely be sanctionable.
7. Therefore, to help determine the identity of the potential de-
fendants in this case, Plaintis led a Writ of Summons, and
asked for leave to take pre-complaint discovery here in Philadel-
phia in the courthouse a scant three blocks iom Comcasts
headquarters.
8. To date, plainti has used the information to conduct reason-
able investigations dismissing those who are innocent or who
have extenuating circumstances.
9. If this Court wishes to authorize plainti to use a DMCA sub-
poena to obtain the information, rather than proceeding by writ
of summons, then Plainti would be pleased to do so. However,
because federal circuits have indicated its unavailability to Plain-
ti, Plainti chose to proceed by Writ of Summons.
Liberty Media Holdings LLC v. John Does 1-441
Plaintis Response to John Does Motion to Quash
2
1
See, e.g., In re: Charter Communications, Inc., Subpoena Enforcement Matter,
393 F.3d 771 (8th Cir 2005) and RIAA v. Verizon Internet Services, Inc., 351
F.3d 1229 (D.C. 2003).
Case ID: 120401874
Argument Opposing this Motion to Quash
10. On August 3, 2012, an anonymous pro se litigant led a motion
to quash the subpoena.
11. There is no way to determine whether the motion was led by a
real party in interest or a stranger to the litigation.
12. As such, the ling is improper.
13. Moreover, apparently John Doe used a template Motion to
Quash that plainti believes was downloaded iom
ghtcopyrighttrolls.com, a website that assists and encourages
pro se litigants to le motions to quash. (A printout of the web-
site is attached as Exhibit A, and the template motion is attached
as Exhibit B).
14. The Motion to Quash found on ghtcopyrightrolls.com is al-
most identical to the motion led by John Doe. (Compare John
Does Motion to Quash with Exhibit B).
15. While ghtcopyrighttrolls.com is an informative website that
blogs about bit-torrent litigation, unfortunately some Does use
it in place of retaining counsel just as John Doe did here.
16. As a result, John Does motion does not address Pennsylvania
law, pre-complaint discovery, or many of the issues already de-
cided in this case.
17. John Does motion also makes improper allegations of a shake
down, which are not true.
18. Plainti is using pre-complaint discovery so it can identify ac-
tual wrongdoers and avoid naming those who are innocent.
19. This is necessary because an IP address is not a person, but
similar to an internet phone number.
3
Case ID: 120401874
20.An IP address will lead back to the person who is responsible for
paying the bill, called the subscriber.
21. Plainti recognizes, though, that just because a person is re-
sponsible for paying the internet account does not mean they
are necessarily the iniinger.
22. However, in most cases, the subscriber will be able to identify
who has access to his or her internet account and ultimately the
wrongdoer.
23. From there, Plainti can prepare and serve a proper Complaint
on the wrongdoer and hopefully put those who are innocent out
of harms way quickly.
24. Liberty understands that many innocent people would rather
settle a case involving adult content simply to avoid being associ-
ated with it.
25. To address privacy concerns, every Doe in this case who has en-
gaged Liberty has been aorded every opportunity to take this
matter to a private arbitration if they feel they were targeted un-
fairly or have a valid defense, including this John Doe. (Exhibit
C).
26. Based on Libertys current investigation, several Does have al-
ready been released iom the case with a telephone call and an
adavit, without any payment whatsoever. (See, e.g., Exhibit D
and Exhibit E).
27. Pre-Complaint discovery allows Liberty to properly vet its claims
and avoid naming those who are innocent.
28. When Liberty is reasonably certain that it has the actual wrong-
doer, it will le an appropriate complaint against them.
4
Case ID: 120401874
29. John Does motion should be denied so Plainti can nish con-
ducting its investigation and le a complaint against those who
pirated its content.
wnvvvvovv, Plainti Liberty Media Holdings, LLC, requests this
Honorable Court to deny John Does Motion to Quash.
vvsvvcrvu::v suvxi rrvu,
A. Jordan Rushie
Pa. Id. 209066
215.385.5291
5
Case ID: 120401874
By: A. Jordan Rushie
Pa. Id. 209066
215.385.5291
Attorneys for Plainti
Plainti,
Jury Trial Demanded
v. April Term 2012
Plaintis Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Comcasts Mo-
tion to Certify Orders Denying Motion to Quash and Motion for
a Protective Order for an Interlocutory Appeal
1. Matter before the Court.
Before this Honorable Court is Plainti, Liberty Media Holdings,
LLCs Memorandum of Law in Opposition to John Does Motion to
Quash.
2. Statement of Question Involved.
Question: Should this Honorable Court quash Plaintis subpoena
before it has had an opportunity to identify the persons who harmed
it?
Suggested Answer: No.
Case ID: 120401874
3. Facts.
Liberty has evidence that 441 anonymous Internet users pirated its
content via their Comcast accounts. Liberty has only the IP ad-
dresses of the iniingers, which is not enough to identify them for
purposes of investigation and initiating suit.
Since Liberty does not know the identity of the iniingers, it initi-
ated this matter via Writ of Summons. Liberty then asked this Hon-
orable Court for permission to identify the internet account holders
so it could eventually unmask the pirates while keep the innocents
out of unnecessary litigation. Libertys request was granted on May
18, 2012.
For the reasons below, John Does Motion to Quash should be de-
nied.
4. Legal Argument.
(a) Liberty cannot dra and serve a Complaint until it knows
the correct party to sue
Imagine this scenario: an anonymous person is making obscene
phone calls. The victim asks the telephone company, Comcast (a
company based in Philadelphia), to reveal the account holders
identity so the prank caller can be pursued.
The telephone number is traced to Mr. Jones. Now that the victim
has Mr. Joness name and address, a proper claim can be led
against him, right?
Not quite. There is one problem just because someone is respon-
sible for the telephone bill doesnt necessarily mean they made the
prank calls at issue. The oending calls could have been made iom
a spouse, a iiend, or anyone else who had access to the phone. But
with knowledge of who the subscriber is, the victim can now conduct
an investigation to determine the wrongdoer. Once it has the iden-
tity of the wrongdoer, it can take action against them.
Plaintis Memorandum of Law in Opposition to John Does Motion to Quash
2
Case ID: 120401874
Back to our oending phone caller. Imagine Mr. Jones was renting
a room to a house guest, and while Mr. Jones was at dinner with his
wife, the houseguest was making prank telephone calls iom Mr.
Joness phone. Aier the parties conduct an investigation, the
houseguest admits his misdeeds, and the culprit is apprehended.
BitTorrent litigation works similarly; an IP address is essentially an
internet telephone number. At this point, Liberty has the internet
telephone number of those who injured it, but little else. It needs
pre-complaint discovery to fully investigate its claims.
Liberty has no desire to sweep innocents into its claims. Instead,
Liberty wants to be certain it has identied the wrongdoer before
making allegations in a Complaint.
(b) Jurisdiction is not a proper objection to a Writ of Sum-
mons. John Does Motion to Quash relies on a canned
brief it downloaded om an internet website, which is
probably why it does not address Pennsylvania law.
John Does motion to quash was downloaded iom a website,
ghtcopyrighttrolls.com, and therefore does not address Pennsylva-
nia law. Jurisdictional issues were briefed in Comcasts Motion to
Quash and Motion for a Protective Order, both of which were de-
nied by this Honorable Court.
Pa.R.C.P. 1028 provides the exclusive procedure for objecting to
subject matter jurisdiction. The rule plainly states: "Preliminary
objections may be led by any party to any pleading and are limited
to the following grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the action or the person of the defendant, improper
venue or improper form or service of a writ of summons or com-
plaint..." (emphasis added).
Our courts have conrmed that jurisdictional arguments cannot be
raised to a Writ of Summons because a writ is not a pleading. The
Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained:
3
Case ID: 120401874
Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure the
exclusive method by which a party may raise "jurisdic-
tional" objections is by preliminary objections. C. E. Wil-
liams Co. v. H. B. Pancoast Co., supra at p. 170, Pa. R. C. P.
1017(b), 1028(b), 1032. But preliminary objections may
not be led until aier the complaint is led. This is true
even though certain "jurisdictional" objections may be-
come apparent immediately aier service of a writ of
summons and before the complaint is led. The inclu-
sion of preliminary objections in the list of allowable
pleadings, Pa. R. C. P. 1017, indicates that it was in-
tended to be a response to a prior pleading; a writ of
summons is not a pleading. Also, the Note of Procedural
Rules Committee to Rule 1017 states that "[a] prelimi-
nary objection may be led to a complaint, answer, reply
or counter-reply," without mentioning a summons.
Moreover, waiting until aier the complaint is led
would accord with the policy of the Rules to reduce the
pretrial stages of the action, and to telescope the various
dilatory actions of the defendant, 1 Goodrich-Amram
1013(b)6, p. 54; Vant v. Gish, 412 Pa. 359, 368, 194 A. 2d
522, 527 (1963), because the objections raised by the
writ of summons could be disposed of at the same time
as the objections raised by the complaint independently
of the writ. Monaco v. Montgomery Cab Co., 417 Pa. 135, 140-
141 (Pa. 1965)
The explanation logically ows iom the intent of pre-complaint
discovery, which is to obtain particular facts, such as all proper
parties liable to plainti for injury, or the identity and where-
abouts of witnesses. Luckett v. Blaine, 850 A.2d 811, 818 (Pa.
Commw. Ct. 2004) (emphasis added).
The Third Circuit has also conrmed this principle. In Sikirica v. Na-
tionwide Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 2005), the Third Circuit held
that a Writ of Summons was insucient to support removal, and
that only the ling and serving of a complaint was sucient to meet
4
Case ID: 120401874
Section 1446(b)s denition of an initial pleading. Id. at 222-
223. This is because [a] Writ of Summons, without a complaint,
does not state a case or controversy sucient to satisfy the require-
ments of Article III of the Constitution and statutes and rules estab-
lishing the federal court's jurisdiction. Gervel v. L & J Talent, 805 F. Supp.
308, 309 (E.D. Pa. 1992)., n.4.
Following Sikrica, federal courts have consistently held they have no
subject matter jurisdiction over a suit initiated via Writ of Summons
until a Complaint is led. For instance, in McFarland v. Muse, Civ.
No. 5-1155, 2005 WL 2133672 at *1 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 1, 2005), the
district court explained: [t]he Federal Rules and the removal stat-
ute presuppose that an initial pleading setting forth a claim for re-
lief has been led [w]ithout such an initial pleading, the removal
of a Writ of Summons alone is premature since [the federal court]
cannot have subject matter jurisdiction. (emphasis added).
For instance, in Lane v. CBS Broad. Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
26906 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 2, 2008), Defendant attempted to remove a
suit initiated via a Writ of Summons into federal court by arguing:
Plainti is [] clearly telegraphing her intention to assert claims
against CBS Broadcasting based on federal anti-discrimination
law". Id. at n. 6. However, the court rejected the argument, stating:
While Defendant may very well be correct with regard to the
particular claims that Plainti will bring, at this point Defen-
dant is only speculating based upon what Plainti has "tele-
graph[ed]" and "suggest[ed]" through her state court ling. 6
(Doc. No. 1 at 3.)
Id. at 19-20.
Given that John Doe has led a template motion to quash it down-
loaded iom a website, it comes as no surprise that the motion does
not bother to address settled Pennsylvania law.
5
Case ID: 120401874
(c) Disclosure of the Does identities will not necessarily
cause them any harm if they were not ininging on Lib-
ertys content.
Disclosing the identities of the Does will not harm the John Does if
they did not iniinge on Libertys content. In that case, a deposition
can be conducted anonymously and the wrongdoer will be identi-
ed.
The Does have also been oered private arbitration to ensure they
do not settle the case simply out of fear of being associated with
adult content.
Several of these cases have been resolved by a telephone call and a
private adavit between counsel. Libertys goal is to identify the
wrongdoers so it can take them to trial. Pre-Complaint discovery
allows Liberty to do precisely that.
5. Relief.
Liberty respectfully requests this Honorable Court to deny John
Does Motion to Quash.
vvsvvcrvu::v suvxi rrvu,
A. Jordan Rushie
Pa. Id. 209066
215.385.5291
6
Case ID: 120401874
Exhibit A.
Fightcopyrighttrolls.com Printout
Case ID: 120401874
8/17/12 For those who have just received a letter from their ISP Fight Copyright Trolls
1/6 fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2011/06/22/forthosewhohavejustreceivedaletterfromtheirisp/
Fight Copyright Trolls
Let's demote copyright troll species' status first to endangered, then to extinct
Stay updated via RSS
For those who have just received a letter from
their ISP
Posted: June 22, 2011 in Court documents, Defense, Readers contributions
Tags: bittorrent, copyright troll, mass bittorrent lawsuit, troll
8

i
1 Vote
()
Note that a new version of the motion was uploaded on August 5. Please read this post first and then follow
the link at the bottom of this page.
To the best of my knowledge, this is not applicable to currently open IO cases. However, I hope
it can help the blog visitors looking for help with other troll cases (there are quite a few
according to the blogs search statistics.)
I have received a letter with a draft of a motion similar in spirit to the motion that I filed for my
case. Unlike my motion, which was a motion to dismiss multiple Does because of improper
joinder, this one is called MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA. The author
suggests to file this motion on behalf of John Doe, i.e. without signing your real name. This is
exactly what I did (http://www.scribd.com/doc/54297987/310-Cv-03647-MEJ-Docket-16-
Exhibit A
Case ID: 120401874
Motion-to-Dismiss) (I also listed my e-mail instead of an address, and the court is still sending
new filings to me). Consequently, I believe that this kind of a motion will likely be filed. I dont
know, however, whether the judges will read these motions: I dont think that the judge on my
case read my motion (http://www.scribd.com/doc/55048420/310-Cv-03647-WHA-Docket-38-
Motion-to-Dismiss) before striking it as improperly filed
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/55118336/310-Cv-03647-WHA-Docket-39-Order-Striking-
Motion-to-Dismiss) (i.e. without a real name and address). On the other hand, similar motions
worked in IL, and because each judge makes his own decisions, who knows, maybe this
motion will work in some courts. I think it is worth trying: I did and I dont regret that I spent
time on this. The more motions are filed, the more likely it is that the judges will pay attention.
One piece of advice: dont mail the motion from a location close to your home. I asked my
friend in a remote state to re-mail my filings. If your case is filed exclusively for a Californian IP
addresses, you could drive a couple of counties away from your home and mail it from there.
Remember that your envelope will likely be filed as well
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/55048425/310-Cv-03647-WHA-Docket-38-2-Envelope), so
consider writing down your Doe e-mail address instead of any postal address there: this way
you will not look like trying to mislead the court.
And dont forget to correct the number of Does on the case, which is mentioned not only in the
header, but also, e.g., on p.p. 2 and 5.
Also fax a copy of your motion to your ISP: in my experience, they love these faxes since they
dont have to work on compiling Doe lists until the judge rules on the motion.
Hi Jane Doe,
For the 20,000+ cases in California, Steele Hansmeier and others are going after California
residents only, so the personal jurisdiction argument wont do.
Many of these cases are being severed for misjoinder. Ive attached a sample Motion to
Quash or Modify Subpoena which includes this argument. I think that it would help John
Does to go after this procedural issue at this early stage, as it will make the Plaintiff
reconsider whether its worth it to shake down every John Doe if it costs them $350 apiece.
Also, every other type of argument gets answered with OK, you can bring that up later.
The attachment is in OpenOffice format. I hope that your readers would find it useful. Its
important that every defendant take this, change it to reflect their current case, maybe
adding or removing what they see fit, and filing this when they receive their subpoena
notice.
Remember to send a copy to the plaintiffs counsel, and of course, your name is John Doe.
Sy Ableman (mailto:syableman@hushmail.com),
Pro Se Attorney and Serious Man
Click to open or download: MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
(http://fightcopyrighttrolls.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/steele_quash.odt)
Exhibit A
Case ID: 120401874
Updated version: MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
(http://fightcopyrighttrolls.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/steele_quash_v2.odt) (see the new
post (http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2011/08/05/updated-motion-to-quash-or-modify-
subpoena/)).
(If your word processor does not understand Open Office format, let me know: Ill convert and
upload this document in other formats.)
See the update (http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2011/08/05/updated-motion-to-quash-or-
modify-subpoena/).
Comments
1. Linda says:
September 11, 2011 at 12:18 am

0

0

i
Rate This
My processor does not understand Open Office format. Can you please convert the
document?
Reply
sophisticatedjanedoe says:
September 11, 2011 at 2:46 am

0

0

i
Rate This
First of all, as you are commenting to this (outdated) post, not to the updated motions
one, Im afraid you did not read it yet. Did you?
Try this a MS Word format. If you still have problems, let me know. In that case I will
have to ask you what word processor (and which version) do you use.
Ill make sure to put the link to MS Word version links to the posts.
Exhibit A
Case ID: 120401874
Exhibit B.
Template John Doe Motion to Quash om Fightcopyrighttrolls.com
Case ID: 120401874
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
BOY RACER, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DOES 1-60,
Defendants.
__________________________/
CASE No. C-11-01738 MEJ
MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY
SUBPOENA
MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
I received a letter from my ISP regarding a subpoena, which included a copy of
the Order Granting Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Take Discovery.
From accounts of previous defendants of Steele Hansmeier, these subpoena
notifications are followed by demand letters. These letters -- which demand around $2900 to
avoid dealing with their lawsuit
1
-- and their phone calls, which are persistent
2
, are the reason I
am filing this motion, and for this reason, I respectfully request that I be allowed to do so
without revealing my personally identifying information.
INTRODUCTION
To cut court costs while suing as many individuals as possible, Plaintiff's counsel,
Steele Hansmeier is using improper joinders in their mass lawsuits alleging copyright
infringement through BitTorrent. These lawsuits include over twenty-thousand defendants in
1 Google search: steele hansmeier letter
2 Google search: steele hansmeier phone calls
Exhibit B
Case ID: 120401874
the Northern District of Calfornia alone. Steele Hansmeier (Formerly Steele Law Firm, LLC)
also has mass lawsuits in Illinois, including a BitTorrent case nearly identical to this one, CP
Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-300 case 1:2010cv06255, and in this case the court notes before
dismissal:
[I]f the 300 unnamed defendants have in fact infringed any copyrights (something
that this court will assume to be the case, given the Complaint's allegations that so
state), each of those infringements was separate and apart from the others. No
predicate has been shown for thus combining 300 separate actions on the cheap -
if CP had sued the 300 claimed infringers separately for their discrete
infringements, the filing fees alone would have aggregated $105,000 rather than
$350.
Later, Judge Milton Shadur writes about Steele Hansmeier's abuse of the litigation system in
more than one way with its ill-considered lawsuit:
This Court has received still another motion by a Doe defendant to quash a
subpoena in this ill-considered lawsuit filed by CP Productions, Inc. (CP)
against no fewer than 300 unidentified Doe defendants this one seeking the
nullification of a February 11, 2011 subpoena issued to Comcast
Communications, LLC. This Courts February 24, 2011 memorandum opinion
and order has already sounded the death knell for this action, which has abused
the litigation system in more than one way. But because the aggrieved Doe
defendants continue to come out of the woodwork with motions to quash,
indicating an unawareness of this Courts dismissal of this action, 1 CPs counsel
is ordered to appear in court on March 9, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. Counsel will be
expected to discuss what steps should be taken to apprise all of the targeted Doe
defendants that they will not be subject to any further trouble or expense as a
result of this ill-fated (as well as ill-considered) lawsuit.
CP Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-300 case 1:2010cv06255 (dismissed ALL John Doe defendants)
In another Steele Hansmeier BitTorrent case in Illinois, Judge Harold A. Baker
writes in denying the motion for expedited discovery:
Plainly stated, the court is concerned that the expedited ex parte discovery is a
fishing expedition by means of a perversion of the purpose of and intent of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23.
VPR Internationale vs. Does 1-1017 case 2:2011cv02068
In the Northern District of California, these nearly identical BitTorrent cases have
been severed for improper joinder:
Pacific Century International LTD v. Does 1-101 case 4:2011cv02533 (severed
Exhibit B
Case ID: 120401874
does 2-101)
IO Group, Inc. v. Does 1-435 case 3:2010cv04382 (severed does 2-435)
Diabolic Video Productions, Inc v. Does 1-2099 case 5:2010cv05865 (severed
Does 2-2099)
New Sensations, Inc v. Does 1-1768 case 5:2010cv05864 (severed Does 2-1768)
In yet another nearly identical BitTorrent case, filed in the Northern District of
California by Steele Hansmeier, Millennium TGA, Inc v. Does 1-21 case 3:2011cv02258, Judge
Samuel Conti found the same joinder problems, and wrote in his order denying request for
leave to take early discovery, This Court does not issue fishing licenses; And these nearly
identical BitTorrent cases in the Northern District of California by the same plaintiff Boy
Racer, again represented by Steele Hansmeier, have been severed for improper joinder:
Boy Racer, Inc v. Does 1-52 case 5:2011cv02329 (severed Does 2-52)
Boy Racer, Inc v. Does 1-71 case 5:2011cv01958 (severed Does 2-72)
ARGUMENT
1) Plaintiff Has Improperly Joined 60 Individual Defendants Based on Entirely
Disparate Alleged Acts
The Plaintiffs joinder of 60 defendants in this single action is improper and runs the
tremendous risk of creating unfairness and denying individual justice to those sued. Mass
joinder of individuals has been disapproved by federal courts in both the RIAA cases and
elsewhere. As one court noted:
Comcast subscriber John Doe 1 could be an innocent parent whose internet access
was abused by her minor child, while John Doe 2 might share a computer with a
roommate who infringed Plaintiffs works. John Does 3 through 203 could be
thieves, just as Plaintiffs believe, inexcusably pilfering Plaintiffs property and
depriving them, and their artists, of the royalties they are rightly owed. . . .
Wholesale litigation of these claims is inappropriate, at least with respect to a vast
majority (if not all) of Defendants.
BMG Music v. Does 1-203, No. Civ.A. 04-650, 2004 WL 953888, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 2, 2004)
(severing lawsuit involving 203 defendants).
Rule 20 requires that, for parties to be joined in the same lawsuit, the claims against
Exhibit B
Case ID: 120401874
them must arise from a single transaction or a series of closely related transactions.
Specifically:
Persons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if: (A) any right to relief is asserted
against them jointly, severally or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or
fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Thus, multiple defendants may be joined in a single lawsuit only when three
conditions are met:
(1) the right to relief must be asserted against them jointly, severally or in the alternative; (2)
the claim must aris[e] out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences; and (3) there must be a common question of fact or law common to all the
defendants. Id.
Joinder based on separate but similar behavior by individuals allegedly using the
Internet to commit copyright infringement has been rejected by courts across the country. In
LaFace Records, LLC v. Does 1-38, No. 5:07-CV-298-BR, 2008 WL 544992 (E.D.N.C. Feb.
27, 2008), the court ordered severance of lawsuit against thirty-eight defendants where each
defendant used the same ISP as well as some of the same peer-to-peer (P2P) networks to
commit the exact same violation of the law in exactly the same way. The court explained:
[M]erely committing the same type of violation in the same way does not link defendants
together for purposes of joinder. LaFace Records, 2008 WL 544992, at *2. In BMG Music v.
Does 1-4, No. 3:06-cv-01579-MHP, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53237, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. July 31,
2006), the court sua sponte severed multiple defendants in action where the only connection
between them was allegation they used same ISP to conduct copyright infringement. See also
Interscope Records v. Does 1-25, No. 6:04-cv-197-Orl-22DAB, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27782
(M.D. Fla. Apr. 1, 2004) (magistrate recommended sua sponte severance of multiple
defendants in action where only connection between them was allegation they used same ISP
Exhibit B
Case ID: 120401874
and P2P network to conduct copyright infringement); BMG Music v. Does 1-203, No. Civ.A.
04-650, 2004 WL 953888, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 2, 2004) (severing lawsuit involving 203
defendants); General Order, In re Cases Filed by Recording Companies, filed in Fonovisa, Inc.
et al. v. Does 1-41 (No. A-04-CA-550 LY), Atlantic Recording Corporation, et al. v. Does 1-
151 (No. A-04-CA-636 SS), Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc. et al. v. Does 1-11 (No. A-04-
CA-703 LY); and UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. Does 1-51 (No. A-04-CA-704 LY) (W.D.
Tex. Nov. 17, 2004), RJN Ex. A, (dismissing without prejudice all but first defendant in each of
four lawsuits against a total of 254 defendants accused of unauthorized music file-sharing);
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs Miscellaneous Administrative Request
for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26 Conference, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.,
et al., v. Does 1-12, No. C-04-04862 (N.D. Cal Nov. 16, 2004) (in copyright infringement
action against twelve defendants, permitting discovery as to first Doe defendant but staying
case as to remaining Does until plaintiff could demonstrate proper joinder).
Plaintiff may argue that, unlike the RIAA cases, its allegations here are based upon use
of the Internet to infringe a single work. While that accurately describes the facts alleged in
this case, it does not change the legal analysis. Whether the alleged infringement concerns a
single copyrighted work or many, it was committed by unrelated defendants, at different times
and locations, sometimes using different services, and perhaps subject to different defenses.
That attenuated relationship is not sufficient for joinder. See BMG Music v. Does 1-203, 2004
WL 953888, at *1.
Nor does the analysis change because the BitTorrent protocol works by taking small
fragments of a work from multiple people in order to assemble a copy. Nearly all of the older
protocols in the aforementioned cases work in this fashion. Kazaa, eDonkey and various
Gnutella clients (e.g., LimeWire) have incorporated multisource/swarming downloads since
Exhibit B
Case ID: 120401874
2002.
1
Discussions of the technical details of the BitTorrent protocol aside, the individual
Defendants still have no knowledge of each other, nor do they control how the protocol works,
and Plaintiff has made no allegation that any copy of the work they downloaded came jointly
from any of the Doe defendants. Joining unrelated defendants in one lawsuit may make
litigation less expensive for Plaintiff by enabling it to avoid the separate filing fees required for
individual cases and by enabling its counsel to avoid travel, but that does not mean these well-
established joinder principles need not be followed here.
Because this improper joining of these Doe defendants into this one lawsuit raises
serious questions of individual fairness and individual justice, the Court should sever the
defendants and drop Does 2-60, from the case.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.
Dated: 6/25/2011 Respectfully submitted,
s/John Doe
John Doe
Pro se
1 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2004/12/30/deployment-matters/
Exhibit B
Case ID: 120401874
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on 6/25/2011, I served a copy of the foregoing document, via US
Mail, on:
Brett L. Gibbs, Esq.
Steele Hansmeier PLLC.
38 Miller Avenue #263
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Exhibit B
Case ID: 120401874
Exhibit C.
Oer for Private Arbitration.
Case ID: 120401874
Subject: Uberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Does l-441
From: "A. Jordan Rushre" <jordan@fishtownlaw.com>
Date1 8/3/12 At!g 3, 20127:11 PM
To:
CC: Marc 'Randazza
BCC:
Dear Mr. or Mrs. Doe:
we received yo1Jr motion to quash. _I war1ted to one dftlie issttes ii'l it our.teplyin due: course ...
Lit>erty underStands that some,people c-oerced. don't want to_ be
gay ;l)ornagraphy. We getthat, we do: tC?.:
innocent justbecaus.e you're afraid of befng associ(lted with p.orn. is {lOf Jn6;v.t.we{lo 'b;u$lfle$s. tlEineral
Mar-c Hanaazza, has manaated that anyoFie who so.
We are willing tboffery:oy a !l)fivateafbitratiorl, or to ' lte reswon$iMfaJ:j(i!lisof:}, 'If
yoo nave a .legitfmate defense to:this case, we are mO,te than wilting : \Mf _ of
refusing to money: from. if all indications areoth<1t . .. _ _ _ . ;Its to
find the! personorespof'l$ible fonfistril;)titing libefly'swork: Our goatds'tiottoseel:(.qpic _. _
initiated this ma{tentia a \o/rit Q'f Summons; requesting - ' .-
resporisiDle lnsteado(justan 'If:! Precpmplaint - . . .. _ .
culpai:>Je paftY befere we nave. tomake aiJegations ih .court ;we. _ _
than'later, Mdmove ttiewayand focus on the C!Jfp'a'ble. par;tY; 0 , oil'Qiiwe
int_ent"to Vt" - , , - _- ., ,
I'm n.etsute ityou knowtf:iis; out a
interested in april{ate arbitratio-n, I wil.l' tell them to hdlcl off onp>redUCit1Q :lfyp,lt\tJ .k_' . .. .. ,_. .. :a__.. ...._.__ .
conversati'dfl allbut your or just fptyou to ask: liberty - a'"" """ "" _ . _ .,, r "'
any manner tnat makes yoU: feel Mr. !las _. . ... -_ .
when po.tert:tial to,eh{i.l,age ,in lntorrnar ;i;>re,suit_disGover( So; if .. -
to have some d()clitnent!it19Apfovidetl, or it- yousirJ1ply wish to u.s, ; , <
commtinicationare Oflen. We fr:t a way ftiat you can call in, sothatyou canma1:ritain
' . - .
Have a: nl{::eweekend. Ple.ase me'l(il\l()W do,:,an(t dpri'i h:El$itate 'to tfYOU ques'ttOrl$ Of .
concerNs;-M -is;afso on tliis'email. g-pJ).redat ybur'i:itferttioril to 'tlils m'attek: - . .
Sincere!;.
A .. Jofdan Bus hie
Muivinitl.& -Hushie bLC
!'he Fishtown .. . ..
2424 E Stree.t, Suite.316 r
Philaa$1ptlia, PA 19t25 '
Office: 2t5:3!,P.5291
Direct:
efax:
www.fjstitownlaw:com
* Ucerrsefi tnPAa'Ao taJ
Exhibit C.
Case ID: 120401874
Exhibit D.
Adavit.
Exhibit D.
Case ID: 120401874
WEBER GALLAGHER SIMFSQN
ST ,APLETON FIRES & NEWBY, LLP
Joseph Esquire (ID 21376)
Jacqueline Lux., Esquire (ID 309073)
2000 Market Street, 1J
1
h Floor
(21 5) 972-7900
Fax: (215) 5647699
jgoldberg@wilaw .com
jlux@wglaw.com
LIBERTY MEDIA HOLDINGS LLC
\\S.
DOES 1-441
Attorneys for Defendant
Jane Doe, also known as B.A.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
APR1L TERM, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 01874
AFFIDAVIT OF B A
I, B A hereby swear and affirm that:
l received a July 30, 2012 letter from the Comcast Legal Response Center, attached
hereto as Exhibit. A; notifying me that the lntemet Protocol ("IP") address assigned to me
allegedly uploaded or downloaded a movie without permission from Liberty Media Holdings,
LLC onFebruary 1, 2012 at 7:ll a.m. GMT. I did not upload or download a movie belonging
to Liberty Media Holdings. LLC on February 1; 2012. I live with my daughter, P
A only, and no one else had access to my computer on February 1, 2012 at 7:11
a.m. GMT. At the time ofthis alleged activity, !had an unsecured wireless router.
Sworn ..c .. r.ibe.d befi.o.re
me this . .. day of August,)OJ7 ..

N'otar;:Plic .
HOANG VAN TRAN

NOTARY PUBLIC
.
COMMISSION EXPIRES

:..;., :' .. :;. .: ... ' 'o M 0 ..... , ',; ',;j.., :, '
Page 1 of I
Exhibit D.
Case ID: 120401874
.GALL4:G$R:SfM:tSON
FJt6i:$ & 1-ltl'-
..
Jacquelin.e. Esquire (I:J).
2000 Market Street, J3th ..
PA l9W3
(215) 7900
,
, .
f
..
vs. A9lYL TERM, 2012 ..
I
I
).
i
I
!
' ''' . , _'._ .-. '- .
I)OlES l-44J .. ' crv1t Ac'rioN No. oJat4 '
,,
r resiqewitlj M i My a; J\fiY
. ft9m the petiter, as thfi! !fi.
Internet Protocol ("IP'') to llef 9t (fovo'dliladt4 a tn9Vie ' ..
without pcrmissi&n ftorn Lib"erty Nfedia 7:H .
I di'd -not uploa9-:or down:IQad a :@()vie to J;..ibc;rcy, l,
.
-. .
nu'l tbi -:- 3 : , . day 201 Zi .

Case ID: 120401874
Exhibit E.
Adavit.
Case ID: 120401874
ST\TE OF lLLlNOIS
:SS:
COOK COUNTY
The undersigned, Adam E. Urbanczyk, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. That affianr is an attorney-at-law and that this affidavit is made on behalf of and at the requesr of rhc individual
subscribed to rhc internet account associated with the 67. 175.162.89 IP address on 02/ 10/ 20 12 at 04:03 (Gil H)
("SubsCliber"); and
2. That Subscciber's, via his TP address, is listed as a potential responsible party in tJ1c discovery action Liberty Media
Holdings LLC v. Does 1-+1, Case l o. 12-1874 (Philadelphi:t County, Pennsylvania);
3. Tl1:1t Subscriber is not a technologically sophisticated party and ts unfamiliar with Bir Torrent or other ftle sharing
prowcols;
4. That Subscriber <.lid not download "Down on d1e Farm" or any Corbin Fisher-related film;
5. l11at on the date associared w-ith Subscriber's lP address- February 10, 2012 - Subscriber utilized an unsecured
wireless rourer ro access his intemet accounr;
6. That Subscriber restdes m an apartmenr bwlding and lives in very close proxirrury to his neighbors; and
7. l11ar after explaining the foregoing ro .\.Jordan Rushic, counsel for Liberty ilfcdia Holdings, llC ("PlaintifP'),
Plaintiff has agreed to disregard Subscriber as Plaintiff, satisfied with Subscriber's representations a d..attestation, is
nor interested in simplr coercing setrlemenr payments from Subscriber and is focusing irs res / ccs on pursuing the
actual individuals res()onsible for infringing conduct .
.Affiant further sayerh naught.
si-
Swom to before me day of .\ugust, 2012.
"OFFICIAL SEAL"
MIRIAM MORADO
--
E. Urbanczyk, on behalf of rhe
6 .175.162.89 Subscriber
. \ u, U .C - Torrenrlirigacion.com
365 N. Jefferson
Chicago, lL 60661

(312) 715-7312

MV COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 23, 2014
-
Exhibit E.
Case ID: 120401874
Certicate of Service.
I, A. Jordan Rushie, certify that I sent a copy of Plaintis Reply to
Non-Party Comcasts Motion for Certication to the following par-
ties via electronic mail:
Corey Osborn, Esquire
One Penn Center at Suburban Station
1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1700
John Doe
Alleged IP Address: 68.84.104.002
johndoe1441pa@gmail.com

A. Jordan Rushie
Dated: Thursday, August 23, 2012
Case ID: 120401874
Certicate of Service.
I, A. Jordan Rushie, certify that I sent a copy of Plaintis Reply to
Non-Party Comcasts Motion for Certication to the following par-
ties via electronic mail:
Corey Osborn, Esquire
One Penn Center at Suburban Station
1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1700
John Doe
Alleged IP Address: 68.84.104.002
johndoe1441pa@gmail.com

A. Jordan Rushie
Dated: Thursday, August 23, 2012
Case ID: 120401874

PA LMH v. 441 Reply To MTQ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PA LMH v. 441 Reply To MTQ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia

Civil Trial Division

HOANG VAN TRAN

You might also like