You're viewing Docket Item 10 from the case MILLENNIUM TGA, INC. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LLC. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:12-mc-00150-RLW Document 10 Filed 03/28/12 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MILLENNIUM TGA, INC.,



Plaintiff,



v.



JOHN DOE,


_______________________________________)


Defendant.











) No. 4:11-cv-4501]


)
)


) Case No.: 1:12-mc-00150-ESH-AK

Judge : Hon. Ellen S. Huvelle


)
)
)
) Magistrate Judge: Hon. Alan Kay
)
)
)

[Case pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas,

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO COMCAST’S NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

AND MOTION FOR REASSIGNMENT





Respondent Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”) filed a notice of related

case and request for reassignment under Local Civil Rule 40.5. (ECF No. 8, 9.) Comcast requests

“that the instant miscellaneous proceedings be transferred for reassignment to Judge Wilkins” in

Millennium TGA Inc. v. Does 1-939, No. 11-02176-RLW (D.D.C. 2011) (hereinafter

“Millennium TGA I”) (ECF No. 8 ¶ 8; ECF No. 9.) Because Millennium TGA I has been

dismissed (see ECF No. 8 ¶ 1), the subsequently-filed miscellaneous case may be deemed to be

related only if the case “involv[es] the same parties and relat[es] to the same subject matter.”

Local Civil Rule 40.5(a)(4). This miscellaneous action does not involve the same parties as

Millennium TGA I. Further, this miscellaneous action does not involve the same subject matter as

Millennium TGA I. Finally, even if the case were related, it could only be reassigned if there is

“good cause” to do so. Local Civil Rule 40.5(c)(2). Comcast has presented no reason as to why

good cause exists for the reassignment of this action. (See generally ECF No. 8.) The cases,

therefore, cannot be deemed to be related and cannot be reassigned to Judge Wilkins in

Millennium TGA I.

Case 1:12-mc-00150-RLW Document 10 Filed 03/28/12 Page 2 of 6

ARGUMENT



This brief consists of three parts. Part I argues that this action does not involve the same

parties as Millennium TGA I. Part II argues that this action does not involve the same subject

matter as Millennium TGA I. Part III argues that good cause does not exist for the reassignment

of the action.

I.

THE INSTANT MISCELLANEOUS ACTION DOES NOT INVOLVE THE
SAME PARTIES AS MILLENNIUM TGA I

Local Civil Rule 40.5(a)(4) requires that when a case has been dismissed, subsequently

filed cases shall be deemed related only if the case “involv[es] the same parties and relat[es] to

the same subject matter.” The instant action has been brought against “Comcast Cable

Communications LLC.” The case in Millennium TGA I was brought against “Does 1-939.” Does

1-939 are not the same parties as Comcast, so the cases cannot be deemed to be related. While

the caption of this case lists “John Doe” as the Defendant, this is simply a result of the fact that

this action revolves around a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena issued in connection

with a case with that caption pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of

Texas. Millennium TGA, Inc. v. John Doe, No. 11-04501 (S.D. Tex. 2011) (hereinafter

“Millennium TGA II”). John Doe and his 938 unnamed co-conspirators in Millennium TGA II are

not parties to the present action, and are, at most, parties in interest. This is insufficient for the

cases to be considered to involve the same parties for the purposes of Rule 40.5(a)(4). Dale v.

Executive Office of President, 121 F.Supp.2d 35, 37 (D.D.C. 2000) (“Furthermore, the court has

adopted a strict position that ‘the same parties’ means identical parties, not parties in

interest.” (quoting Thomas v. National Football League Players Ass'n, 1992 WL 43121, *1

(D.D.C.1992)). The cases, therefore, cannot be deemed to be related and cannot be reassigned to

Judge Wilkins as part of the now-dismissed Millennium TGA I.



2

Case 1:12-mc-00150-RLW Document 10 Filed 03/28/12 Page 3 of 6

Comcast does not argue that the parties in the instant case are the same as they are in

Millennium TGA I (see generally ECF No. 8), and instead asserts that the parties in Millennium

TGA I are the same as they are in Millennium TGA II. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 6.) This has nothing to do with

the relief Comcast seeks; Comcast simply requests “that the instant miscellaneous proceeding be

transferred for reassignment to Judge Wilkins.” (Id. ¶ 8, emphasis added.) Comcast does not

also seek to relate Millennium TGA II. (See generally id.) Nor could Comcast do so if it wanted

to, because the Millennium TGA II is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District

of Texas, and is beyond the scope of the District of Columbia’s Local Rules. See Local Civil

Rule 1.1(a). Comcast does not provide any valid legal authority for the relief it seeks and the

Court should deny its request.

II.

THE INSTANT MISCELLANEOUS ACTION DOES NOT INVOLVE THE
SAME SUBJECT MATTER AS MILLENNIUM TGA I

Local Civil Rule 40.5(a)(4) requires that when a case has been dismissed, a subsequently-

filed case shall be deemed related only if the case “involv[es] the same parties and relat[es] to the

same subject matter.” The instant miscellaneous action involves a motion to compel Comcast’s

compliance with Plaintiff’s subpoena. (ECF No. 1.) The case in Millennium TGA I involved the

infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrighted work by several unknown individuals. These two actions,

therefore, do not involve the same subject matter. Comcast has failed to explain how it believes

the two actions involve the same subject matter. As a result, Comcast’s request to relate the cases

should be denied. Spencer v. Rumsfeld, 209 F.Supp.2d 15, 18 n 2 (D.D.C. 2002) (Denying a

motion to relate because the party “never articulate[d] how this case ‘relat[es] to the same subject

matter’ as the earlier case, as required by Local Civil Rule 40.5(a)(4).”



Once again, instead of arguing how the instant case and Millennium TGA I are related,

Comcast focuses on the similarities between Millennium TGA I and Millennium TGA II. (ECF



3

Case 1:12-mc-00150-RLW Document 10 Filed 03/28/12 Page 4 of 6

No. 8 ¶¶ 2, 6.) But, once again, a case pending in the Southern District of Texas has no bearing

on whether the instant miscellaneous action should be deemed related to another action in this

District.

III. GOOD CAUSE DOES NOT EXIST FOR THE REASSIGNMENT OF THE

ACTION

Local Civil Rule 40.5(c)(2) explains that even if cases are determined to be related they

are only reassigned if “good cause exists” for the transfer. Comcast attempts, but fails, to show

good cause by explaining that the Honorable Judge Wilkins issued an order in Nu Image, Inc. v.

Does 1-23, 799 F. Supp.2d 34 (D.D.C. 2011), in which he denied a motion for discovery in an

action in which a party sought Internet service providers’ subscribers’ identities. Comcast seeks

to claim that Plaintiff dismissed its case in Millennium TGA I to avoid being in front of Judge

Wilkins. (ECF No. 8 ¶ 1 n 1.) Comcast’s stated desire to forum shop, and have this case

reassigned to a Judge that Comcast believes will be favorable to it, does not meet the

requirements of good cause. Comcast’s failure to provide any “good cause” for the relief that it

seeks (see generally ECF No. 8) defeats its attempts to reassign the case. Lopez v. Council on

American-Islamic Relations, 741 F.Supp.2d 222, 239 (D.D.C. 2010) (finding that good cause did

not exist for the reassignment, because the court was more familiar with the case than the target

court of the attempted transfer).

Further, Judge Wilkins ruled on a discovery motion in Nu Image. 799 F. Supp.2d 34. The

instant action involves a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena. (ECF No. 1.) There is

no way to predict how Judge Wilkins would rule on the instant case. Judge Wilkins did not

decide on a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena in Millennium TGA I, and, as a

consequence, there is no valid reason to believe Judge Wilkins is in any better position than this

Court to decide the issues present in this action.



4

Case 1:12-mc-00150-RLW Document 10 Filed 03/28/12 Page 5 of 6

CONCLUSION



The Court should deny Comcast’s request to deem this case and Millenniuim TGA I to be

related, and its motion to assign this case to Judge Wilkins in Millennium TGA I. This action

does not involve the same parties as Millennium TGA I. This action does not involve the same

subject matter as Millennium TGA I. Good cause does not exist for the reassignment of the

action.



Respectfully submitted,

MILLENNIUM TGA, INC.

DATED: March 28, 2012








By: /s/ Paul A. Duffy
Paul A. Duffy, Esq. (D.C. Bar Number: IL0014)
Prenda Law Inc.
161 N. Clark St., Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 880-9160
Facsimile: (312) 893-5677
E-mail: [email protected]
Counsel for the Plaintiff









5

Case 1:12-mc-00150-RLW Document 10 Filed 03/28/12 Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on March 28, 2012, all counsel of record who are
deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document using the Court’s CM/ECF system.



















/s/ Paul A. Duffy
PAUL A. DUFFY





6