You're viewing Docket Item 8 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-ESH-AK Document 8 Filed 03/26/12 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA







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





Plaintiff,




MILLENNIUM TGA, INC.,


v.

JOHN DOE,






Defendant.









NOTICE OF RELATED CASE AND REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT

Pursuant to Local Rule 40.5, non-party Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

(“Comcast”), by and through counsel, hereby submits this Notice of Related Case and

respectfully requests transfer of the above-captioned miscellaneous proceeding to Judge Robert

L. Wilkins, who was previously assigned to Plaintiff’s previously filed and dismissed case

asserting nearly identical claims. In support thereof Comcast states as follows:

1.

On December 7, 2012, Millennium TGA, Inc. (“Millennium”), Plaintiff herein,

filed a complaint captioned Millennium TGA v. Does 1-939, No. 1:11-cv-02176-RLW, in this

court (hereinafter “Millennium TGA I”). The action was assigned to Judge Wilkins. Millennium

voluntarily dismissed that action a week later on December 16, 2012.1 (See Ex. A, Millennium

TGA I Pacer Docket Sheet.)


1 Comcast argues in its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 7), that Plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed Millennium TGA I to avoid being in front of Judge Wilkins who had earlier
denied a copyright infringement plaintiff’s motion for an ex parte discovery order. Nu Image,
Inc. v. Does 1-23, 799 F.Supp.2d 34 (D.D.C. 2011). In Nu Image, Judge Wilkins analyzed a
discovery request to authorize subpoenas on multiple ISPs to obtain the identifying information
for various IP addresses alleged to have been used to illegally download copyrighted works. The
IP addresses were for a multitude of subscribers not resident in this district and, with a non-

Case 1:12-mc-00150-ESH-AK Document 8 Filed 03/26/12 Page 2 of 5

2.

Thereafter, on December 20, 2012, Millennium re-filed essentially the same

complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, as Millennium

TGA, Inc. v. John Doe, 4:11-cv-4501-VG (hereinafter “Millennium TGA II”). As explained

below, the complaint in Millennium TGA II involves nearly identical parties, facts and claims as

the previously dismissed complaint in Millennium TGA I. (Compare Ex. B, Millenium TGA I

Compl. with Ex. C, Millenium TGA II Compl.) In Millennium TGA II, the caption list only one

“Doe Defendant” but alleges that there are 938 unnamed Doe co-conspirators, whose identities

Plaintiff seeks in discovery. These 939 Does are the exact same Does in Millennium TGA I who

allegedly downloaded the same movie over the same periods of time.

3.

Although Millennium TGA II is pending in the Southern District in Texas,

Millennium served a subpoena on Comcast in the District of Columbia. Comcast objected to the

subpoena and Millennium has now commenced the above-captioned miscellaneous proceeding

to resolve its motion to compel. (See Dkt. 1.) The instant miscellaneous action was filed by

Millennium on March 7, 2012, and has been assigned to Judge Ellen S. Huvelle.

4.

Also on March 7, 2012, Millennium submitted to this court a Notice of

Designation of Related Civil Cases Pending In This or Any Other United States Court, pursuant

to Local Rule 40.5(b)(2). (Dkt. 2.) In that notice, Millennium indicated that the instant

miscellaneous proceeding is related to Millennium TGA II, which it filed in the Southern District

of Texas. Counsel for Millennium did not notify the court that it previously filed and voluntarily


resident plaintiff, Judge Wilkins found no good grounds to assert jurisdiction or venue in D.C.
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a). Judge Wilkins required the Nu Image plaintiff to make a prima
facie evidentiary showing that all Doe defendants were likely to reside in this district – before
serving subpoenas on the ISPs – on the grounds that it would comport with fundamental notions
of fairness and would not impose any real burden on plaintiff, given the “geolocation services
that are generally available to the public to derive the approximate location of the IP addresses
identified for each putative defendant.” Id. at 37-42.



2

Case 1:12-mc-00150-ESH-AK Document 8 Filed 03/26/12 Page 3 of 5

dismissed Millennium TGA I in this court, which involved nearly identical parties, facts and

claims.

5.

Local Rule 40.5(a)(4) defines a related case and explains that “cases whether

criminal or civil, including miscellaneous, shall be deemed related where a case is dismissed,

with prejudice or without, and a second case is filed involving the same parties and relating to

the same subject matter.” (Emphasis added).

6.

Pursuant to Local Rule 40.5(a)(4) the instant miscellaneous proceeding is related

to the dismissed Millennium TGA I proceeding. First, the Millennium TGA II proceeding, which

underlies the subpoena at issue in this miscellaneous docket, involves the same parties as the

Millennium TGA I proceeding because (1) the plaintiffs in each proceeding are Millennium; and

(2) the John Doe alleged “co-conspirators” in Millennium TGA II share the same IP addresses as

the John Doe defendants in Millennium TGA I. (Compare Ex. B, Millennium TGA I Compl. at

Ex. A (chart of Doe defendants) with Ex. C, Millennium TGA II Compl. at Ex. B (chart of Doe

co-conspirators).) Second, both Millennium TGA I and Millennium TGA II relate to the same

subject matter – Millennium’s allegations that the copyright for its work, the adult video

“Shemale Yum – Jenna Comes A’Knocking!”, has been infringed through the use of the

BitTorrent file sharing protocol.

7.

Local Rule 40.5(c)(2) requires that “[w]here the existence of related cases in this

court is revealed after the cases are assigned, the judge having the later-numbered case may

transfer that case to the Calendar and Case Management Committee for reassignment to the

judge having the earlier case.”



3

Case 1:12-mc-00150-ESH-AK Document 8 Filed 03/26/12 Page 4 of 5

8.

In accordance with Local Rule 40.5(c)(2), Comcast respectfully requests that the

instant miscellaneous proceeding be transferred for reassignment to Judge Wilkins, who was

assigned to the earlier-filed and related Millennium TGA I proceeding.



Dated: March 26, 2012



Respectfully submitted,



















































/s/



John D. Seiver
Leslie G. Moylan
Lisa B. Zycherman
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 973-4200

Counsel for Non-Party Comcast Cable
Communications Management, LLC

4

Case 1:12-mc-00150-ESH-AK Document 8 Filed 03/26/12 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE



I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 26th day of March 2012, true and correct copies of the

foregoing document was served via ECF upon all counsel of record:

Paul A. Duffy
PRENDA LAW INC.
161 N. Clark Street
Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 880-9160
Fax: (312) 893-5677
Email: [email protected]












/s/



John D. Seiver











5