that the Does acted in concert. Therefore, the Court concludes that joinder of the Doe Defendants in this action does not satisfy Rule 20(a). 2. Discretionary Severance Even if joinder of the Doe Defendants in this action met the requirements of Rule 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds it is appropriate to exercise its discretion to sever and dismiss all but one Doe Defendant to avoid causing prejudice and unfairness to Defendants, and in the interest of justice. See Wynn, 234 F.Supp.2d at 1088. First, permitting joinder in this case would undermine Rule 20(a)’s purpose of promoting judicial economy and trial convenience because it would result in a logistically unmanageable case. See Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. 11C Music, 202 F.R.D. 229, 232-33 (M.D.Tenn.2001) (<HOLDING>). Second, permitting joinder would force the
holding permissive joinder of 770 putative defendants would not promote judicial economy because the courts courtroom could not accommodate all of the defendants and their attorneys and therefore could not hold case management conferences and could not try all of plaintiffs claims together recognizing that without claim preclusion plaintiffs in small claims cases will not feel obligated to present all of their claims or all of their evidence  and they can simply file again  if need be recognizing that evidence of government knowledge of the defendants conduct could be part of a defendants argument that it did not knowingly submit false claims holding that defendants were not in control and therefore were not supervisors and not subject to liability under  1983 holding that the issue preclusion branch of res judicata does not apply to certain arbitration proceedings because such application would not promote judicial economy consistent judicial outcomes or finality