IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—D.N.J.: Mixed results for movie studios seeking to amend complaint against telecom service provider, (Dec 7, 2023)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., LL.B.

Evaluating the prejudice to defendant RCN Telecom, the delay in filing for amendment, and efficiency of the procedure, the court partially granted and partially denied the motion to amend.

In a nuanced ruling, a federal district court in New Jersey granted in part and denied in part a motion to amend the complaint in a high-profile copyright infringement case against internet service provider RCN Telecom Services, LLC (RCN). Adhering to liberal standards for amendment under Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court permitted the addition of 13 new plaintiffs and 20 new works, adding more factual clarifications and removing certain plaintiffs and works no longer relevant to the case. However, the court denied the addition of Screen Media Ventures, LLC (Screen Media) as a plaintiff and more than 320 of its copyrighted works as subject matters, stating it would unduly prejudice and burden defendant RCN (Bodyguard Productions, Inc. v. RCN Telecom Services, LLC, December 6, 2023, Bongiovanni, T.).

Background. The lawsuit arose when roughly a dozen copyright owners, including the studios behind Rambo: Last Blood and The Hitman’s Wife’s Bodyguard, sued RCN Telecom Services for copyright infringement as well as violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA. The lawsuit revolved around the infamous BitTorrent network, a peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol that has long been the bane of movie studios and other copyright owners. The lawsuit contended that RCN failed to take adequate steps to prevent its users from accessing the network, thus exposing it to secondary liability under the Copyright Act and the DMCA.

In October 2022, the court largely denied RCN’s motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiffs subsequently filed the instant motion for permission to present a Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint. The motion aimed to incorporate an additional 14 plaintiffs, notably Screen Media, and extend the lawsuit to cover 343 new works in the lawsuit, add new allegations concerning two new third-party detection systems, clarify other factual allegations, and delete certain plaintiffs and works that were no longer a part of the case.

Parties’ arguments. Plaintiffs argued for the court to grant their motion to amend under the broad guidelines of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). They emphasized that the amendments, notably the addition of new plaintiffs and associated copyrighted works, would not significantly slow the proceedings but increase their efficiency.

Plaintiffs also claimed that their proposed amendments were not futile. They stated that their claims had already survived a motion to dismiss and that adding Screen Media as a party and its copyrighted works broadens the scope of the original complaint.

RCN urged the court to deny the plaintiffs' motion, citing Screen Media's undue delay in proposing amendments, the potential unfair prejudice these amendments could cause RCN and the perceived futility of Screen Media's amendments. RCN also argued that Screen Media's involvement would transform the case, citing that a significant portion of the proposed additional works related to Screen Media and new third-party detection systems would be introduced, complicating the lawsuit.

Objecting to the plaintiffs' proposed amendments and questioning their timing and necessity, RCN emphasized the plaintiffs' failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in introducing these amendments. RCN claimed that incorporating Screen Media and its over 320 works would unfairly increase its litigation costs and burdens and introduce complexity and potential confusion into the legal process.

RCN also claimed the plaintiffs' amendments were futile because they lacked substantial allegations and notices about the new infringements. Furthermore, RCN objected to including 13 new plaintiffs and approximately 20 new works, citing the plaintiffs' failure to justify the delay in including these works. RCN claimed that allowing these amendments would unfairly broaden the lawsuit's scope and disrupt the established case schedule.

Court’s analysis. The court scrutinized the plaintiffs' delay in proposing amendments and acknowledged the plaintiffs' preliminary proposal for a case schedule that required amendments to be filed by early February 2023. However, the court stated that such a schedule was never formally implemented. As a result, the absence of an official deadline for filing motions to amend pleadings or join parties absolved the plaintiffs of any responsibility for failing to meet the non-existent deadline.

According to the court, the critical question was determining whether the delay is 'undue,' burdening the court excessively, or 'prejudicial,' unfairly burdening the opposing party. The court considered whether the plaintiffs' proposed amendments would cause undue prejudice in this context.

The court determined that including Screen Media as a plaintiff alongside over 320 registered copyrighted works would be unduly prejudicial to the defendant. The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, which emphasized efficiency and similarity in legal claims. According to the court, broadening the case through the proposed additions would impose an unfair and substantial burden on RCN, particularly regarding discovery and trial preparation.

Regarding the plaintiffs' other proposed amendments, the court acknowledged RCN's objections, which were limited to the plaintiffs' delay in proposing these amendments, but did not raise concerns of prejudice or futility about the inclusion of 13 non-Screen Media plaintiffs and roughly 20 new works.

Given the liberal amendment standards under Rule 15 (d) and the case facts, the court approved the addition of these plaintiffs and works. It determined that the plaintiffs' delay was not significant enough to warrant the denial of their motion to amend. The court also granted the plaintiffs’ motion to make additional factual clarifications and remove certain plaintiffs and works no longer relevant to the case.

The Case is No. 3:21-cv-15310-RK-TJB.

Attorneys: Michael Cukor (McGeary Cukor LLC) for Bodyguard Productions, Inc. Edward Frederick Behm (Armstrong Teasdale, LLP) for RCN Telecom Services, LLC.

Companies: Bodyguard Productions, Inc.; RCN Telecom Services, LLC

Cases: Copyright NewJerseyNews