ORDER & OPINION

JULIE E. CARNES, Chief District Judge.

This matter is presently before the Court to resolve an issue that has arisen regarding the possibility that plaintiff is continuing to take discovery as to unnamed Doe defendants who were severed from the action and whose cases were dismissed without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

The plaintiff brought this copyright action, as well as eleven (11) other essentially identical actions in this district (the "Killer Joe cases"), against anonymous defendants identified only by their internet protocol ("IP") addresses. In its complaint, plaintiff asserts that the unnamed defendants "acted in a collective and interdependent manner" to unlawfully reproduce and distribute plaintiff's copyrighted work, "Killer Joe." (Compl. [1] at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff filed a motion to take discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference because plaintiff asserted that the only way to obtain the actual names of the alleged infringers was by subpoenaing third-party Internet Service Providers ("ISPs"), who keep the names associated with the IP addresses as part of their regular course of business. (Pl.'s Mot. for Leave (Pl.'s Mot.") [2] at 8.)

The Court initially granted plaintiff's motion for discovery, issuing an Order to that effect on May 8, 2013. It later, however, raised, sua sponte, the issue of whether the unnamed defendants were properly joined under FED. R. CIV. P. 20. (May 28 Order [4] at 2.) Specifically, in its May 28, 2013 Order, the Court found that the unnamed defendants had not been properly joined and for that reason, it severed all of the John Does, except for the first one, and dismissed the complaint against these other Does without prejudice. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff was instructed that he could re-file an action against each John Doe, but must do so separately as to each defendant and designate the new actions as "related" to the severed action. (Id.)

On June 14, an Atlanta-area attorney, Blair Chintella, contacted the Court's deputy clerk to alert the Court that potential clients had recently contacted him regarding the Killer Joe cases. (See Attachment #1, Letter from attorney Blair Chintella.)1 This attorney provided the Court with a copy of a letter sent by the ISP to his potential client. (Comcast Letter, Attachment #2.) The letter from the ISP was dated June 12, 2013 and attached the subpoena it received, which was dated May 20; the letter does not indicate when the subpoena was sent. The attachment to the letter also shows that the person identified was John Doe #25, not John Doe #1, in the related action; Killer Joe Nevada, LLC v. Doe 1, Civ. No. 1:13-cv-01527-JEC.

After this initial communication with the Court, the attorney received two more e-mails from potential clients on June 14 and provided redacted versions of these e-mails to the Court. (Attachments #3 and #4.) Both of these e-mails indicate that the potential defendants only recently received these notices from their ISPs regarding the subpoenas. One e-mail indicates the specific case involved, Killer Joe Nevada, LLC v. John Doe 1, Civ. No. 1:13-01492, and that the potential defendant received notice from his ISP on June 13, 2013. The other e-mail is silent about both of these facts. Neither e-mail indicates which number John Doe the senders of the e-mails were.

DISCUSSION

As noted in the Court's previous order, this present litigation is part of a wave of litigation around the country in which copyright holders attempt to assert claims against many unknown defendants by joining them into a single action. (May 28 Order [4] at 2.) Unfortunately, before the Court focused on the misjoinder problem, and then severed and dismissed Does 2-100, it had granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to take discovery in order to subpoena the names of the individuals identified by the IP addresses associated with the alleged copyright infringement. (See May 3 Order [3].) Obviously, now that this first order has been vacated and Does 2-100 have been severed and dismissed without prejudice, (May 28 Order [4]), the subpoenas are null as applied to these John Does.

The recent information provided by Mr. Chintella concerns the Court. Although the correspondence and e-mails do not conclusively show that subpoenas were being sent after May 28, at the least, they strongly suggest that plaintiff has yet to contact the ISPs to inform them of the Court's decision nullifying all subpoenas except for those directed at John Doe #1. For these reasons, the Court REMINDS the plaintiff that discovery should have been discontinued and rescinded as to all defendants who were severed and dismissed. The Court DIRECTS the plaintiff to immediately contact the ISPs in each case to rescind and withdraw previously-issued subpoena for each such defendant. Further, any information that plaintiff may have obtained through these subpoenas must be returned.

Plaintiff shall ensure that this information is communicated to each ISP by June 25, 2013 and shall report back to the Court by July 1, 2013, providing copies of these letters to each ISP, as well as a report as to its compliance with this Order.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, plaintiff is DIRECTED to notify each ISP that the previously-issued subpoenas are no longer valid, except as to the first John Doe. Any information that plaintiff may have obtained through these previously-issued subpoenas must be returned. Plaintiff shall ensure that this information is communicated to each ISP by June 25, 2013 and shall report back to the Court by July 1, 2013, providing copies of these letters to each ISP, as well as a report as to its compliance with this Order.

SO ORDERED.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

ORDER

Plaintiff provides this [Proposed] Order to define the scope and parameters of the requested expedited discovery. WHEREFORE:

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference is granted; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, subject to the protective order set out herein, Plaintiff Killer Joe Nevada, LLC ("Killer Joe Nevada") may immediately serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the ISPs listed in Exhibit A to the Complaint to obtain information to identify Does 1-57, specifically his or her name, address, MAC address, phone number, and email address. The disclosure of this information is consistent with the ISPOs' obligations under the Cable Service Privacy Act, 47 U.S.C. 551(c)(2)(B), which provides:

The subpoena shall have a copy of this order attached;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ISP will have 30 days from the date of service of the rule 45 subpoena upon them to serve Does 1-57 with a copy of the subpoena and a copy of this order. The ISPs may serve Does using any reasonable means, including written notice sent to his or her last known address, transmitted either by first-class mail or via overnight service;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Does 1-57 shall have 30 days from the date of service of the Rule 45 subpoena and this Order upon her or him to file any motions with this Court contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or modify the subpoena), as well, as any request to litigate the subpoena anonymously. Should any John Doe file a motion to quash, motion for protective order, motion to dismiss, motion to sever, or similarly styled motion seeking similar relief, that specific John Doe's information will be withheld from the Plaintiff until after the Internet Service Provider to Plaintiff. The ISPs may not turn over the Doe defendants' identifying information to Killer Joe Nevada before the expiration of this 30-day period. Additionally, if a defendant or ISP files a motion to quash the subpoena, the ISPs may not turn over the moving Does' information to Killer Joe Nevada until the issues have been addressed and the Court issues an Order instructing the ISPs to resume in turning over the requested discovery;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the subpoenaed entity shall preserve any subpoenaed information pending the resolution of any timely-filed motion to quash or other similarly styled motion;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if that 30-day period lapses without a Doe defendant or ISP contesting the subpoena, the ISPs shall have 10 days to produce the information responsive to the subpoena to Plaintiff. A Doe defendant who moves to quash or modify the subpoena, or to proceed anonymously, shall at the same time as her or his filing also notify her or his ISP so that the ISP is on notice not to release that Doe defendant's contact information to Plaintiff until the Court rules on any such motions.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to maximize judicial efficiency, the Court will delay ruling on all Doe motions to quash, motions for protective order, motions to dismiss, motions to sever, or similarly styled motions seeking similar relief filed until all such motions have been filed. All such motions should be filed by deadline set, 2013. out in order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiff will file a single opposition to all motions to quash, motions for protective order, motions to dismiss, motions to sever, or similarly styled motions seeking similar relief filed. Plaintiff's opposition is due ______, 2013. 30 days after the deadline for above-described motions by John Does for the last ISP served.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any John Doe who has filed a motion to quash, motion for protective order, motion to dismiss, motion to sever, or similarly styled motion seeking similar relief, if they so choose, can file a reply by ________, 2013.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an ISP that receives a subpoena pursuant to this order shall confer with Killer Joe Nevada and shall not assess any charge in advance of providing the information requested in the subpoena. An ISP that receives a subpoena and elects to charge for the costs of production shall provide a billing summary and cost report to Plaintiff.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Killer Joe Nevada shall serve a copy of this Opinion and Order along with any subpoenas issued pursuant to this order to the listed ISPs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any information ultimately disclosed to Killer Joe Nevada response to Rule 45 subpoena may be used by Killer Joe Nevada solely for the purpose of protecting, investigating and resolve Killer Joe Nevada's rights as set forth in its Complaint.