MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ANN MARIE DONIO, Magistrate Judge.
Presently before the Court are seven separate cases filed by R&D Film 1, LLC against a number of John Doe defendants asserting allegations of copyright infringement with respect to the same motion picture and one case filed by Dragon Quest Productions, LLC asserting allegations of copyright infringement with respect to a different motion picture. All eight cases were filed by the same attorney with virtually identical complaints. The number of defendants in each case varies from 28 in Civil No. 13-482 to 105 in Civil No. 13-485. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have infringed Plaintiffs' copyrights by using an online media distribution system, referred to by Plaintiffs as the "BitTorrent Protocol, " to distribute and make available to distribute the motion pictures at issue. Plaintiffs acknowledge in the complaints that each Defendant is only known by an internet protocol "IP" address and provides an exhibit to each complaint that sets forth the date and time at which the infringing activity is alleged to have occurred. A number of courts have recently addressed whether in such situations joinder of John Doe defendants is appropriate. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that joinder of the Defendants is not appropriate under Rule 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiffs filed the complaints in these actions on October 19, 2012, October 22, 2012, and January 24, 2013. In each complaint filed by R&D Film 1, LLC, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants infringed upon Plaintiff's copyright by downloading and sharing copies of " The Divide " through the BitTorrent protocol. (See, e.g., Compl. in 12-6633 [Doc. No. 1] ¶ 3.) In the complaint filed by Dragon Quest Productions, LLC, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants infringed upon Plaintiff's copyright by downloading and sharing copies of " Age of Dragons " through the BitTorrent protocol. (Compl. in 12-6611 [Doc. No. 1] ¶ 3) (hereinafter, the copyrighted works shall be referred to collectively as the "Motion Pictures").) Plaintiffs assert that the BitTorrent protocol allows a user to download separate small segments of data from different users that when compiled together create a full copyrighted work. (Pl.'s Opening Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Expedited Discovery in 12-6633 [Doc. No. 5-1] (hereinafter, "Pl.'s Br."), 4.)
Plaintiffs further assert that the process starts when the "initial file-provider intentionally elects to share a file with a torrent network." (Compl. in 12-6633 ¶ 3.) This initial file is known as the seed file. (Id.) In support of its application for expedited discovery, Plaintiffs submit the declaration of Darren M. Griffin who states that he is a "data supply expert" with a firm engaged by Plaintiff to monitor and stop the infringing activity of the John Doe Defendants. (Declaration of Darren M. Griffin in Supp. of Mot. for Expedited Disc. in 12-6633 [Doc. No. 5-2] (hereinafter, "Griffin Declaration") ¶¶ 1-3.) Mr. Griffin states that "each participating peer intentionally obtained a torrent file for the Motion Picture from a BitTorrent or torrent website[, ]" and that "[e]ach peer then loaded that torrent file into a computer program that reads such files." (Id. ¶ 10.) Mr. Griffin further asserts that "[o]nce loaded, the BitTorrent program employed a protocol to initiate simultaneous connections to hundreds of other peers possessing and sharing copies of the Motion Picture described in the file." (Id.) Mr. Griffin additionally states that "[a]s the film was copied to the peers' computers piece by piece, the downloaded pieces were immediately available to others seeking the file." (Id. ¶ 11.) Mr. Griffin asserts that each torrent file has its own unique "hash identifier" that acts as a "roadmap' to the address of other users who are sharing these media files and specifics about those media files." (Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiffs further assert that a group of users sharing a particular file with a specific hash identifier is defined as a "swarm" and that the users in a specific swarm are "collectively connected to share the particular hash file." (Pl.'s Br. 4.)
In each case, Plaintiffs assert in the respective complaints that the John Does are members of a specific swarm sharing segments of a file that comprise the Motion Pictures. (Comp. ¶ 12.) Plaintiffs assert that based on the John Does' use of the BitTorrent software, "Defendants are engaged in a joint act of infringement [because] each Doe Defendant used BitTorrent and participated in the same swarm to copy and reproduce the Motion Picture[s] resulting in its unauthorized dissemination." (Pl.'s Br. 9.) Plaintiffs' expert asserts that through the use of "specially designed software" he identified the John Doe Defendants as infringing on Plaintiffs' copyright for the Motion Pictures and confirmed this infringement by downloading a portion of the Motion Pictures file from each John Doe Defendant. (Griffin Certification ¶¶ 16-17.)
On February 13, 2013, the Court issued Orders to Show Cause in each case requesting Plaintiffs to address whether all John Doe Defendants except John Doe 1 in each case should be severed. (See, e.g., Order to Show Cause in 12-6633 [Doc. No. 6] Feb. 13, 2013.) In response to the Orders to Show Cause, Plaintiffs assert that the use of the BitTorrent protocol to download and upload the copyrighted work constitutes a series of transactions or occurrences as required for joinder under FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a)(2). (Pl.'s Response to Order to Show Cause in 12-6633 [Doc. No. 7] (hereinafter, "Pl.'s Response"), 4-6.) Plaintiffs claim that common issues of law and fact exist as to all Defendants due to the manner in which Defendants downloaded the respective work. (Id. at 6-7.) Additionally, Plaintiffs assert that Rule 20(a)(2)(A) is met because the complaints allege that Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the alleged copyright infringement. (Id. at 3.) Although the exhibits demonstrate that individual John Doe Defendants distributed segments at different times, Plaintiffs argue that the timing of the alleged infringing activity does not preclude joinder. Rather, Plaintiffs argue that a BitTorrent user may share a particular file long after the user actually downloaded the file. (Id. at 7-9.) Plaintiffs further assert that Rule 20(a)(2)(B) is met because in each case, "Plaintiff will have to establish against each putative defendant the same legal claims concerning the validity of the copyrights in the movies at issue and the infringement of the exclusive rights reserved to the plaintiffs as copyright holders." (Id. at 7.) Finally, Plaintiffs assert that joinder in this case would promote judicial efficiency. (Id. at 7, 9-10.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 provides in relevant part that defendants may be joined in a single action if "any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences." FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a)(2)(A). Additionally, there must be a question of law or fact common to all defendants. FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a)(2)(B). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, misjoinder does not serve as a ground for dismissal of an action; rather, "[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party." FED. R. CIV. P. 21.
In examining whether joinder is appropriate, the Third Circuit has noted that "[f]or courts applying Rule 20 and related rules, the impulse is toward entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged.'" Hagan v. Rogers , 570 F.3d 146, 153 (3d Cir. 2009)(quoting United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs , 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966)). The Eighth Circuit stated in Mosley v. Gen. Motors Corp . that joinder permits "all reasonably related claims for relief by or against different parties to be tried in a single proceeding [and that] [a]bsolute identity of all events is unnecessary." Mosley v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 497 F.2d 1330, 1333 (8th Cir. 1974). However, "[p]ermissive joinder rests within the sound discretion of the court, who must determine whether the proposed joinder comport[s] with the principles of fundamental fairness.'" Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does No. 1-30, No. 12-3896 , 2012 WL 6203697, at *8 (D.N.J. Dec. 12, 2012)(hereinafter, "Malibu Media 1-30")(quoting New Jersey Mach., Inc. v. Alford Indus., Inc. , 1991 WL 340196, at *1 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 1991)). "[S]everance of parties where joinder is not required is committed to the court's discretion if it finds that the objectives of the rule are not fostered, or that joinder could result in prejudice, expense, or delay.'" Id . (quoting Raw Films, 2012 WL 1019067, at *3); see also 7 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, et al., FED. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1652 (3d ed. 2001).
Courts have reached different decisions on whether joinder is appropriate in cases against multiple John Does for copyright infringement in connection with the use of the BitTorrent protocol. See, e.g., Malibu Media 1-30, 2012 WL 6203697 (permitting joinder); Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-5 , 285 F.R.D. 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)[hereinafter, "Malibu Media 1-5"] (permitting joinder); Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-22, No. 12-5091, 2013 WL 1704291 (D.N.J. Apr. 19, 2013)(severing and dismissing all defendants other than John Doe #1); Amselfilm Prods. GMBH & Co. KG v. Swarm 6a6dc, No. 12-3865, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 186476, (D.N.J. Oct. 10, 2012)(finding joinder to be inappropriate and severing the defendants); Next Phase Distribution, Inc. v. John Does 1-27 , 284 F.R.D. 165 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)[hereinafter "Next Phase 1-27"] (not deciding whether joinder was proper, but severing the defendants based on practical considerations). As noted in Next Phase 1-27, "[t]he fact that multiple courts, in well-reasoned opinions, have arrived at opposing conclusions suggests that there is no clearly correct answer to this question." 284 F.R.D. at 169.
Cases rejecting joinder have concluded that the BitTorrent technology does not support a finding required under Rule 20 of a same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences. For example, in Amselfilm, the district court found joinder to be inappropriate stating that "[w]hile this [c]ourt appreciates that those who participate in the same swarm are virtually connected' by the same copyrighted work, this [c]ourt is not convinced that the purported instances of distribution... are a part of the same transaction, particularly because they span across various dates and times." 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 186476, at *3 n.3. Additionally, the Amselfilm court noted that while the parties may be in the swarm by virtue of the hash identifier, "it is probable that different people within the swarm never distribute a piece of the work to the same person, or at the same moment in time" and that "[w]ithout more connecting them, 187 defendants who have distributed pieces of the work at different times cannot be permissibly joined in this case." Id. at 4 n.3. The Amselfilm court additionally stated that joinder of 187 defendants would be "inefficient, chaotic, and expensive, " and that it would be "physically impossible for every party to appear in court should they so choose" and that joinder would be a strain on judicial resources. Id. at 5 n.4, 6. Based on the above reasoning, the Amselfilm court severed and dismissed without prejudice all defendants other than John Doe defendant 1. Id. at 6-7; accord Third Degree Films, Inc. v. John Does 1-110, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27273 (D.N.J. Jan. 17, 2013)[hereinafter, "Third Degree 1-110"](agreeing with the Court's holding in Amselfilm and denying without prejudice the request for discovery as to John Does 2-110 "in contemplation of severance and dismissal, " but not severing because the issue was not then before the court).
A number of other cases have similarly found joinder to be inappropriate. In Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-39, No. 12-6945, Doc. No. 23 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2013) [hereinafter, "Malibu Media 1-39"] the court "revisited" its prior holding in a separate case finding joinder proper and followed the holdings in Amselfilm and Patrick Collins v. John Doe 1-43, No. 12-3908, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46369 (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2013) [hereinafter "Patrick Collins 1-43"] (severing Doe defendants 2-41). Based on the reasoning in Amselfilm, the Malibu Media 1-39 court found that there was an insufficient connection between the John Doe defendants to meet the requirements of Rule 20(a)(2) and noted that "its ability to efficiently manage the pretrial phase of this action with the present number of defendants could be compromised by permitting joinder, causing a strain on judicial resources." Malibu Media 1-39, No. 12-6945, Doc. No. 23, at 2. The court therefore severed and dismissed all defendants except John Doe 1. Id. at 3. Likewise, in Third Degree Films, Inc. v. Does 1-131 , 280 F.R.D. 493 (D. Ariz. 2012) [hereinafter, "Third Degree 1-131"] the District Judge held that the requirements for joinder had not been met.
Courts have also found severance appropriate based on several discretionary factors. For example, in Third Degree Films 1-131, the court stated that even if joinder was appropriate under Rule 20, joinder would be inappropriate because:
[e]ach [d]efendant may have different factual and legal defenses, and would then file completely unrelated motions that the [c]ourt would have to resolve within the context of one case. Simply associating the correct response and reply to each motion could take significant time before even reaching the merits of potentially unrelated defenses. Further, scheduling and conducting hearings and discovery disputes among 132 parties would be almost impossible. Additionally, during discovery, each [d]efendant, who might appear pro se and not be an e-filer, would be forced to serve paper copies of all filings on all other parties, and would have the right to be present at all other parties' depositions, all of which would be a significant burden on each [d]efendant litigant. Also, because of the potential prejudice to each unrelated [d]efendant, the [c]ourt likely would not undertake to conduct a trial for all 131 [d]efendants at the same time. Thus, the [c]ourt would effectively sever these cases for trial, and conduct over a hundred separate trials with different witnesses and evidence, eviscerating any "efficiency" of joinder. Finally, all of these issues would certainly needlessly delay the ultimate resolution of any particular [d]efendant's case, which again weighs against efficiency and the opportunity for the [d]efendant to receive a prompt resolution of his or her case. As a result, having considered the fundamental fairness to the parties, and the management issues for the [c]ourt, applying this discretionary standard, the [c]ourt alternatively finds joinder is not warranted.
Id. at 498-99 (footnotes omitted). Similarly, in Next Phase 1-27, the court noted that it is very likely that each John Doe defendant will assert different defenses, that the court would be forced to address different defenses, motions, and discovery disputes unique to each defendant, which would become complicated and unmanageable. Next Phase 1-27 , 284 F.R.D. at 169-70. Moreover, the court in Next Phase 1-27 noted that "it is conceivable that several John Does identified in this case did not actually download the Motion Picture" and that even if the John Doe defendant did not download the movie in question, due to the pornographic nature of the movie, some of those John Doe defendants may feel compelled to settle the lawsuit confidentially in order to avoid embarrassment. Id. at 170 (citing Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-176 , 279 F.R.D. 239, 242 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("Plaintiff's counsel estimated that 30% of the names turned over by ISPs are not those of individuals who actually downloaded or shared copyrighted material.")). Id. at 170; see also Patrick ...