Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Ex parte motion for expedited discovery denied in Hard Drive v. Does 1-90

In Hard Drive v. Does 1-90, a mass John Doe case based on alleged BitTorrent downloads of a movie, pending in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, the Court, by Hon. Howard R. Lloyd, Magistrate Judge, has denied plaintiff's ex parte motion for expedited discovery.

Judge Lloyd's decision held that

the court will not assist a plaintiff who seems to have no desire to actually litigate but instead seems to be using the courts to pursue an extrajudicial business plan against possible infringers (and innocent others caught up in the ISP net). Plaintiff seeks to enlist the aid of the court to obtain information through the litigation discovery process so that it can pursue a non-judicial remedy that focuses on extracting “settlement” payments from persons who may or may not be infringers. This the court is not willing to do.

Order Denying Expedited Discovery

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous said...

I appreciate that copyright holders are frustrated, but the obvious abuse of the judicial system to intimidate innocent people along with guilty ones as a business method cannot be condoned. So happy to see the court recognising this.

Anonymous said...

Finally a Judge that can see the folly...

Matt Fitzpatrick said...

Not only was the motion for discovery denied, Does 2-90 were severed sua sponte, as the court found no reason to believe any Does had acted in concert.

Perhaps after all these years courts have caught on to the issues of fishing expeditions and improper joinder at the heart of spamigation.