You're viewing Docket Item 14 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 14 Filed 04/17/12 Page 1 of 3

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 RESPONSE TO COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC’S

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY



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



authority with the Court. (ECF No. 13.) Comcast cites to, and attaches, four different court

orders. (Id.) The four attached orders are not informative with respect to the issues pending

before this Court.

Comcast’s citation to Pacific Century Int’l, LTD. v. John Does 1-37, et al., No. 12-1057

(N.D. Ill. March 30, 2012) is not informative because the court’s order was not a final decision

and, as Comcast notes, is currently being reconsidered by the court. (ECF No. 13 at 1.) Comcast

only attached the court’s original order and failed to provide the Court with the Rule 59(e)

Motion to Amend or Alter Judgment. Plaintiff has attached the omitted motion hereto as Exhibit

A. This Court should place very limited reliance on a decision that is subject to being

reconsidered.

Case 1:12-mc-00150-RLW Document 14 Filed 04/17/12 Page 2 of 3

Comcast’s citations to three unrelated cases1 are also not informative because they

involve different parties, different pleadings, different jurisdictions and different counsel for the

plaintiffs. For example, all of the cited cases involve multiple Doe Defendants. In the case

underlying this action there is only a single Doe defendant. A single individual, of course, cannot

be misjoined with himself. Comcast’s focus on severance decisions is misdirected in this

instance.




DATED: April 17, 2012










Respectfully submitted,

MILLENNIUM TGA, INC.







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


1 Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-23, Case No. 11-cv-15231 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 26, 2012); Cinetel
Films, Inc. et al. v. Does 1-1,052, Civil No. JFM 8:11-cv-02438 (D. Md. Apr. 4, 2012); K-Beech, Inc. v.
John Does 1-41, Civil Action No. V-11-46 (S.D. Tex. Mar 8, 2012).



2

Case 1:12-mc-00150-RLW Document 14 Filed 04/17/12 Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on April 17, 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





3