Opinion
Case No. 2:16-cv-02365-JAD-NJK
06-15-2017
LHF PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff(s), v. QUYNTIN STARKS, et al., Defendant(s).
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is one of several cases alleging numerous defendants engaged in copyright infringement through BitTorrent. On April 27, 2017, the Court issued an order to show cause why the Court should not (1) sever all defendants except the first defendant, (2) dismiss the remaining defendants without prejudice, and (3) quash the subpoenas for discovery to the extent they pertain to any defendants other than the first named defendant. Docket No. 15 (citing Third Degree Films, Inc. v. Does 1-131, 280 F.R.D. 493 (D. Ariz. 2012); Hard Drive Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-188, 809 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2011); On the Cheap, LLC v. Does 1-5011, 280 F.R.D. 500 (N.D. Cal. 2011); LHF Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-20, 2016 WL 7423094 (E.D. Va. Dec. 22, 2016); and ME2 Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-14, 2016 WL 6948333 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 28, 2016)). Plaintiff filed a response. Docket No. 23.
Plaintiff represented that the legal arguments and analysis in the response filed in this case are the same as those presented in LHF Productions, Inc. v. Kabala, Case No. 2:16-cv-02028-JAD-NJK, Docket No. 59 at 2 (May 23, 2017). On June 13, 2017, the undersigned issued a report and recommendation in that case that all but the first defendant be severed and dismissed without prejudice. For the same reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS in this case that all Defendants except Defendant Quyntin Starks be SEVERED and DISMISSED without prejudice.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to promptly serve a copy of this report and recommendation, as well as the order and report and recommendation issued concurrently herewith in LHF Productions, Inc. v. Kabala, Case No. 2:16-cv-02028-JAD-NJK, on any defendant who has not yet appeared, and shall file a proof of service of the same by June 22, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 15, 2017
/s/_________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).