Case3:10-cv-03647-MEJ Document22 Filed04/06/11 Page1 of 1

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 Northern District of California
3
4 IO GROUP INC, No. C 10-03647 MEJ
5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
v. MOTION TO STRIKE
6
DOES 1-244, ORDER FOR CLERK OF COURT TO
7 REASSIGN CASE
Defendants.
8 _____________________________________/
9
10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Io Group, Inc.’s moves to strike the anonymously filed
11 Consent to Proceed before Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. #21.) Plaintiff argues that this individual has not
12 been named in the lawsuit and, if the Court were to allow this individual to consent to proceed
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
For the Northern District of California

13 before a magistrate judge, he or she may change her mind if the magistrate judge issues an
14 unfavorable ruling. Plaintiff further argues that there is no way of knowing who this individual is
15 since she or he has not even alleged a correspondence to a particular Doe number; thus, he or she
16 can then appear before the Court again, this time declining to have the magistrate judge hear the
17 motion and in that way try his or her luck with another judicial officer. Plaintiff contends that this is
18 fundamentally unfair to it and inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
19 Upon review of Plaintiff’s argument, the Court finds that good cause exists to grant
20 Plaintiff’s motion and have this case reassigned to a district court judge. Beyond the arguments
21 raised by Plaintiff, the Court also notes that there are currently a total of 244 doe defendants in this
22 lawsuit, and the issues of their identities and consents could be a constant issue. Accordingly, the
23 Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to strike and ORDERS the Clerk of Court to reassign this case to
24 a district court judge.
25 IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27 Dated: April 6, 2011
_______________________________
28 Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge