Case3:10-cv-03647-MEJ Document16 Filed03/14/11 Paget of 3 ‘Name: Possible John Doe E-mail Address: sophisticatedjanedoe@ yahoo.com FILED Pro Se AMI MAR 1M PP 2:32 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT og NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIEGRRYRE 0 seTIn OB aE Ov Cai OMA 10 GROUP INC ) CASE NO.: C 10-3647 (MES) Plainuiff, ) ) MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS vs. ) AGAINST MULTIPLE DOES ) Does 1-244, ) Defendants ) — ) I respectfully request for this moti mn to be determined without oral argument at any date and time that the honorable Judge finds appropriate. ‘Statement of purpose For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum attached hereto, | respectfully request this Court dismiss the claims against multiple Does, and have the related subpoena issued to AT&T modified to not allow discovery of multiple Does. Memorandum of points and authorities Plaintiff filed this copyright infringement case on August 18, 2010, alleging that 244 “Doe” defendants illegally reproduced, distributed and publicly shared copies of plaintiff's copyright protected works on a peer-to-peer network, “eDonkey 2000.” The complaint presents similar allegations to other two eases presently before the Court, 1 Group, Ine. v. Does | - 19, Case No. 10-3851, and JO Group, Inc. v. Does 1 ~ 435, se No, 10- (04382. Those cases also asserted copyright infringement claims against multiple Doe defendants 's works on eDonkey2000. who allegedly reproduced one or more of plai Afier the Court granted plaintiff leave to serve early discovery in Earthlink, Inc. on Case No, 10-3851, the Court considered a motion to quash filed by a subscriber, “Doe Defendant 4.” See Case No. 10-3851, Docket No. 23. In ruling on that motion, the Court found that plaintiff had improperly joined Does 1 through 19. December 7, 2010 Order at 4-6. The Court held that the complaint lacked any specific factual allegations to support plaintiff's claims that the Doe defendants conspired orCase3:10-cv-03647-MEJ Document16 Filed03/14/11 Page2 of 3 otherwise acted in concert. Id. at 5. Instead, the only speci factual allegations were that the Doe defendants used the same peer-to-peer network to reproduce plaintiff's works on different dates. Those allegations, however, were insufficient as a matter of law to support joinder and allow plaintiff to benefit from filing one, as opposed to many, lawsuits, Id. at 5. In so ruling, the Court relied on other cases where courts, faced with similarly deficient allegations, sua sponte severed the claims of the misjoined defendants and dismissed the severed defendants. Id. at 5 (citing Laface Records, LLC v. Does 1 - 38, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14544 (E.D.N.C. Feb, 27, 2008); Interscope Records v. Does 1-25, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27782 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 1, 2004); BMG Music v. Does, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53237, No. 06-01579 (Patel, J.) (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2006); Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Does 1-12, No. C 04-04862 WHA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2004) (Alsup, JD). ‘The Court also issued a similar ruling on the Case No. 10-04382 and ordered Does 2 through 435 to be SEVERED and DISMISSED from that action, This complaint suffers from the same defects the Court identified in JO Group, Ine. v. Does 1 - 19, Case No, 10-3851, and /O Group, Inc. v. Does 1 ~ 435, Case No. 10-04382. There are no facts to support the assertion that defendants conspired with each other to reproduce plaintiff's works on eDonkey 2000 and the allegations that defendants simply used the same peer-to- peer network to download plaintiff's works ~ on many different days at many different times — is insufficient to allow plaintiff to litigate against hundreds of different Doe defendants in one action. Consequently, Does in this case should be dismissed on the grounds similar to those in aforementioned cases. In this light, the Order authorizing early discovery and the issuance of a subpoena on AT&T should be deemed overbroad (Docket No. 10). The subpoena should be modified to not allow discovery of multiple Does, and AT&T should be ordered to not discover multiple Does. Dated this 9 day of March, 2011. Respectfully submitted Joh. Doe E-mail Address: sophisticatedjanedoe@yahoo.com Possible John Doe, pro seCase3:10-cv-03647-MEJ Document16 Filed03/14/11 Page3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE *Use this form to show that a paper or document (other than a complaint) was served (sent or ‘red) to an opposing party in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. A different form is needed to serve a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.* ‘Case name: ‘Case number: What document was served? (Write the full name or title of the document or documents, e.g.| “Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment") How was the document served? (Check one.) Placed in U. S. Mail Sent by fax Hand-delivered Sent by delivery service (e.g., FedEx or UPS) To whom was the document sent? (Write the full name, address, and fax number of everyone who was sent the document. Usually, they will be the lawyers for the opposing parties.) When were the documents serv ia Who served the documents? (Who put it into the mail, faxed it, hand-delivered it, or sent it delivery service? That person should print his/her name’ and address and sign below.) | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the information in this certificate of service is true and correct. Signature: Printed name: Address: sdjan CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [VLSP TEMPLATE]