Updated Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena

Posted: August 5, 2011 by SJD in Community contributions, General
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

A couple of weeks ago I published the Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena template that this blog’s reader, Sy Ableman, created. Yesterday he emailed an updated version with the following explanation:

Hi Jane,

I’ve gotten quite a few emails from people who have used my motion to quash template, and I’ve also read responses from Steele Hansmeier that readers have forwarded me.

Some funny bits in their responses, such as “The list of permissible grounds for quashing or modifying a subpoena does not include ad hominem attacks See Fed. R. Civ. P 45…” in reference to the part in my motion about their abuse of the litigation system, which I didn’t even write. It came from a decision I quoted, that was written by a federal judge who presided over one of their BitTorrent lawsuits.

One thing made me want update my Motion to Quash template. The responses always claim that the BitTorrent protocol behaves in a different way than the other filesharing protocols used in earlier cases which were severed for misjoinder. This simply isn’t true. As I mention in my updated motion to quash:

… the analysis [does not] change because the BitTorrent protocol works by taking small fragments of a work from multiple people in order to assemble a copy. Nearly all of the older protocols in the aforementioned cases work in this fashion. Kazaa, eDonkey and various Gnutella clients (e.g., LimeWire) have incorporated multisource/swarming downloads since 2002.

I’ve also added some more lines to the list of BitTorrent cases severed for misjoinder, and some additional quotes from judges who have denied SH’s discovery.

I would like to encourage your readers, in the comments section of where you post this, to add cases and quotes from judges which I did not include.

Sy Ableman

Thank you, Sy Ableman!

Click to open or download the updated document: MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA (updated).

(If your word processor does not understand Open Office format, let me know: I’ll convert and upload this document in other formats.)

Also, I think it will be helpful to see trolls’ responses to motions based on this template, so defendants could modify their motions accordingly. Please point me to those responses, and I will fetch them from Pacer, upload to Scribd and post the links here.

About these ads
Comments
  1. Anonymous says:

    via att vm to text feature,

    “my name is Anthony Palmer. I’m getting in contact with you in reference to the copyright infringement case that has been filed against you here. I would assume at this point have her teen council. If you can please call me with the attorney’s information. My council is not yet received a letter of representation. So if you can please send that in and also you call in to my direct contact line. The number is 818-292-8918. Again it’s Anthony Palmer 818-292-8918″

    And yes I did return the call and yes I did lawyer up immediately! The entire situation is a mockery of the justice system. And ironically the above vm is the first and only contact from the individual so the content of the vm is inaccurate…

  2. me says:

    could someone please double check this for me? i can’t seem to find it, even with pacer…..

    case no.: 12-00331 ca 10 plantiff v does 1-451 miami-dade county florida

    any help will be much appreciated.

  3. Another Doe says:

    Hi all,

    I’m a doe under a Patrick Collins case. Where can I find which number Doe I am? The attached page from the subpoena indicates only the number of does (1-70) involved, not which number I am. I plan to use my Doe number to file a Motion to Quash, since it seems like filing anonymously is already a weak process. I want to at least have some sort of identifier on there. Thanks.

    • onemoredoe says:

      I am another Doe under the same Patrick Collins case. Just got my notice. Now, I was overseas when the alleged offence occurred and have passport stamps to prove it. Can this info be used in a Motion to Quash? Thanks.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        You could try, but if you can’t file the motion (and passport evidence) under a protective order, then the Troll and the world will find out who you are – kind of defeats the purpose of the MTQ. The Troll will also claim that your presence was not required in the US for the BT application to be running OR that others in your household could have done it – and you as the ISP subscriber are the only logical lead. If you are going to file a motion I would add it, but don’t get your hopes up that it is going to get your motion approved.

        DTD :)

  4. anonymous says:

    This is most likely the case you’re talking about.

    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/maryland/mddce/8:2012cv00350/198661/

    It was filed by Mike Meier

  5. Anonymous says:

    Generally, you can check attachments to the complaint when they are up on PACER.

    Another possibility is to contact the legal department of your ISP. They can at least give the alleged IP address number given for the alleged event. The plaintiff troll lawyer may have sent a list to your ISP with the assigned Doe numbers for the case , and you could ask the ISP legal department for it. The alleged IP address number itself could serve as an identifier.

  6. damn says:

    ok, can anyone find any info pertaining to this case?
    nucorp v does 1-451 civil 12-00331 ca 10?
    any and all info pertaining to this case would be very helpful, as i am a doe listed.

  7. Anon says:

    If the case that i am currently being accused of (11-24714) is dismissed (like many others) and i have not filed a MTQ. Can they still come after me?

  8. trolltrash says:

    As far as my understanding goes the MTQ is to stop the troll from getting your name address & other personal info in order to supposedly sue you (its really to threaten you into settlement). If the case is dismissed “with prejudice” (usually only if you settle) they can not sue you for this violation. If it is dismissed “without prejudice” they can still name and sue you up to 3 years from the date of alleged violation. If it is dismissed “without prejudice” they can & probably will still try to get you to settle. Just what I have learned here and other blogs so I am no expert.

    • Anonymous says:

      Are most people lawyering up? Or just ignoring everythign and continuing on with life?

      • trolltrash says:

        My guess is that more people are doing nothing than actually getting an attorney. I am not doing anything. Of course I am not concerned with such worldly things like credit, debt or
        or even spending a couple weeks in jail for not cooperating with the bastard justice system we have. If I see a troll out in public I may have to do a little time in the poky but they will have to pull my foot out of his ass first.

  9. so sad says:

    hello everyone I’m new one on these cases(in Florida), I received call from a troll , I told him I didn’t do that, and I will fight in court and I will not pay to him , He told me you ignore the settlement , I said yes , he told me he will sued me in my state ??!!! What will happen to me??Is he really will sue me in my state? Please I waiting for any reply

  10. Anonymous says:

    Relax, this isn’t as bad as it seems. I posted on this thread many months ago when I first received the letter from my ISP saying that they were subpoenaed for my records. Just like everyone else I was scared and uninformed. Thanks to the information on this website I educated myself and learned about the tactics that the troll lawyers are using. I sent in my motions to quash and after a couple of months the judge dismissed the case. But it wasn’t over yet. As I followed related cases on RFC Express I found that the trolls started to name individual Doe’s as well as individuals by name if they obtained that information from the ISP. So, you can imagine how scary it would be to be named in as an individual in a lawsuit. But again, don’t panic. I watched all the cases in my area where an individual was named and in every case the troll dismissed all the cases after the 3 months had expired to actually serve the individual. However, some people did settle which was unnecessary. The cases were dismissed because the trolls never had any intention of going before a jury against you. Trying to sue someone for copyright infringement with only an IP address has so many holes in it that you could represent yourself and put doubt in a jury’s mind.

    In summary, if you are informed by your ISP that you are 1 of many does then file a motion to quash. If you are named as an individual doe, then once again file a motion to quash. If you are named by your name then do nothing unless you get an actual summons from the court (which will probably never happen). Never talk to the troll lawyer, EVER!

  11. Raul says:

    Wasn’t sure where to post this so I am dumping this here. I just reread Judge Alison Nathan’s:

    OPINION AND ORDER
    PERMITTING LIMITED
    EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
    PURSUANT TO A
    PROTECTIVE ORDER

    Now this is not the sort of thing you see every day and it contains some golden nuggets, particularly the section where the Judge discusses an ex parte conference call she had with Plaintiff’s counsel, Mike Meier, to address ” …the Court’s concerns regarding privacy, joinder, and the potential for misidentification of defendants.” With respect to the misidentification issue the Opinion and Order reports that : ; 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. Counsel stated that the true offender is often the “teenaged son . . . or the boyfriend if it’s a lady.” Nice bit of info to cite in a MTQ IMHO. Enjoy http://ia700805.us.archive.org/6/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.390249/gov.uscourts.nysd.390249.6.0.pdf

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Yes this is a good one. Much to read and digest. Thanks Raul!

      DTD :)

      “… The risk is not purely speculative; 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. Counsel stated that the true offender is often the “teenaged son … or the boyfriend ifit’s a lady.” (1117112 Tr. at 16). Alternatively, the perpetrator might turn out to be a neighbor in an apartment building that uses shared IP addresses or a dormitory that uses shared wireless networks. See, e.g., Mot. to Quash Verizon Subpoena, 11-CV -7564 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2012) (Docket #11) (claiming that a Doe defendant did not know how to use a computer and implying that the perpetrator was a neighbor in his condominium). This risk of false positives gives rise to “the potential for coercing unjust settlements from innocent defendants” such as individuals who want to avoid the embarrassment of having their names publicly associated with allegations of illegally downloading “My Little Panties #2.” SBa Pictures, Inc. v. Does 1-3036, 2011 WL 6002620, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30,2011).

  12. Anonymous says:

    Getting calls from a Bill Hagans re: Case No. 11-37821-CA 22, same LA group as Mike Thornton and Anthony Palmer it sounds like. His number is 818-292-8681. Add Bill to the troll list, avoid at all costs.

  13. Anonymous says:

    I’ve received many calls from the same 818 office. I’ve ignored all of them. The last voice mail I received said that they have contacted an attorney local to where I live and will pursue it in court. Should I continue to ignore? Also, more than 120 days has passed since they received my personal info from ISP. Any advise from anyone if I should pursue a motion to court to dismiss original case.

  14. another jdoe says:

    since i am concidered legally responsible for my actions would it not also mean that i am my own legal counsel and thus can file a MTQ under my name as the “legal representative for jdoe# xxx” without actually admitting to being that person?

  15. Marylander says:

    Does anyone know what is going on with case # 11-24714 CA 24? These trolls continue leave their weekly voicemail message that sounds like it’s being read from a script (and it probably is too). I am up to 14 messages over a 5-6 month period. I have yet to return a single call and they have done nothing more than calling week after week with the same idle threats. Does anyone know if this case is anywhere near being thrown out of court yet so they will stop harassing me?

    • Raul says:

      Sounds like a FL pure bill of discovery case and, if so,you should post your inquiry herehttp://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/florida-cases/ Unfortunately as an outsider looking in it appears that the Miami-Dade court system is less interested in justice than generating fees for both defense and plaintiffs’ counsel which is why you have to “pay to play” if you want the harassment to stop. Ultimately it will but I have no idea when as these lawsuits are not governed by any rhyme or reason that I can perceive, just a ferocious desire to soak Does coming in from both sides of the adversarial process;. Shameful and disgusting.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yes, the case is a Miami-Dade county case. See
      http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/florida-cases/

      You can find the docket listing at:

      http://www2.miami-dadeclerk.com/civil/Search.aspx

      Type in Patrick Collins and look for the case and date.
      Case Number (LOCAL): 2011-24714-CA-01 08/08/2011
      Case Number (STATE): 13-2011-CA-024714-0000-01

      If the trolls got your contact number, probably discovery has been granted for your situation. Read the page that Raul suggested.

      The trolls got what they wanted for you and others: a cheap source of revealing contact information that gets around the rulings in Federal court. After discovery, beyond threatening, the trolls would be moving to Federal civil court to bring an individual case further. That court would more likely be in your jurisdiction.

      If you click on “docket” for this case at the Miami-Dade court clerk website, you’ll see there have been quite a few motions to quash or sever. It could be that some ISP’s have delayed release info, but maybe not in your case.

      You might give the law offices of one of the Florida Doe defender lawyers
      There are 8 plaintiffs: PATRICK COLLINS INC, THIRD DEGREE FILMS INC, K BEECH INC, RAW FILMS LTD, DIABOLIC VIDEO PRODUCTIONS INC, NUCORP LTD, BERLIN MEDIA ART JT EK, & ZERO TOLERANCE ENTERTAINMENT INC.

  16. anonymous says:

    thank God i found this discussion…..i just got my subpoena warning from my ISP……it justs says john doe and its from Sunlust LLC does anybody have that here? what should i do??? should i go and file MTQ? i cant afford a lawyer though so i thought i should just wait for it but im to nervous what should i do? T_T

  17. anonymous says:

    its from court of illinois but it says its pending in colorado im getting confused! what should i do? should i file the MTQ myself? how do i do that while remaining anonymous? someone help T_T

  18. Anonymous says:

    I’m in the same boat. I have received the letter from my ISP for case filed in IL as in previous post. I intend to file MTQ but not sure how to do it. Any help will be much appreciated.

  19. Anonymous says:

    I have also received subpoena from suntrust LLC. (court of illinois but pending in colorado)….any guidance will be appreciated…

  20. dbb says:

    I just received my Lightspeed via Comcast in California and am doing research, this is great info. An issue I am considering including in my Motion to Quash with the court is, if Lightspeed is suing thousands for downloading porn with hacked passwords, maybe they should improve the password security, since minors should not be accessing this and probably are. They seem irresponsible by permitting this to happen. Kind of like selling alcohol to minors because you do not check IDs. Also, before the court releases my info I want them to verify that the source of information is valid about my IP address, they have proof there was a download, not just access to the site, was the specific download actually copyrighted as claimed and last, if all these tests are passed, that Lightspeed should need to inspect my computers to see if my household downloaded it or if someone else did using my wifi which is not secure. Federal child pornography cases have searched neighbors and learned the wifi was used by neighbors for illegal activity and the owner of the wifi server was released, not considered responsible. Comments or experiences on these arguments?

  21. IndianaDoe says:

    If the judge is not accepting MTQ is it worthless to file a Pro Se MTQ?

  22. scared says:

    So I didnt submit a mtq last year cause i didn’t know what I was getting it to and the lawyer I saw told me to do nothing but I dnt know what is going on with this case is there any way to find out if there still Sueing me?

  23. CADOE says:

    I have just received a letter from my ISP for Pacific Century International vs John Doe in California. Is it for the District of Florida but it is pending in my state. I believe I am being targeted as an individual and I want to submit a MTQ but I don’t see how I can use some of these templates as most of the things mentioned do not quite apply to my case. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

  24. Raul says:

    You are not being targeted as an individual, the lawsuit is against John Doe + oodles of co-conspirators (Robert Roes). The docket is here where you can view the complaint and some previous motions to quash http://ia700801.us.archive.org/17/items/gov.uscourts.caed.233508/gov.uscourts.caed.233508.docket.html I would recommend using the following as a template but modify it to your own circumstances http://ia700808.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.cod.132021/gov.uscourts.cod.132021.15.0.pdf and http://ia600808.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.cod.132021/gov.uscourts.cod.132021.15.1.pdf Good luck!

  25. DrVenkman says:

    I guess my cherry’s been busted. Just got a notice from Comcast that I’m one of 8 Does in a Patrick Collins lawsuit here in Pennsylvania. Most of the resources I read seem to relate more to MASS defendant suits. I’m worried here, since there’s only 8 John Does in the lawsuit. Should I file a MTQ? Talk to an attorney? I’m not sure how to proceed.

    So glad this site exists. You guys are awesome.

    • Anonymous says:

      Do you live in Pennsylvania? If so, I dont know what grounds you would file an MTQ on. The court has personal jurisdiction over you and the group of Does is small enough that improper joinder would be very hard to prove.

      The number of Does in a case doesnt change the overall advice given on this site IMHO. The trolls dont want to bring anybody to trial – whether they’re in a case of 1,000 does or 8 does. They just want you to settle and embarrass/threaten you until you settle.

      Assuming you live in PN, I wouldn’t waste your money on an MTQ. Rather, I’d start talking to lawyers to see the cost of retaining them simply to act as a buffer for the trolls’ demands. I think this does two things: 1) it doesnt make you an easy target; 2) it shields you and your family from the worst of the harrasment. Hang in there and good luck.

    • Anonymous says:

      There are a few lawyers mentioned here and at DTD’s website. I believe, if I remember correctly, they are from “White and Williams” (Philadelphia) and “Keenan Ciccitto” (somewhere located in the EDPA area). There was a great MTQ from White and Williams a while ago, but I don’t know how that turned out.

  26. doecol says:

    I just recieved a letter from Comcast for the Malibu Media LLD. Shall I file a MTQ on my own or find a lawyer? How much the lawyer’s fee is gonna be? Any adivise for Does in Colorado?

  27. N/A says:

    So should the MTQ be filed for say, Doe #2, or Doe # 2-10 or Doe #1-10?

    Doing it for Maliu Media in CA also …

  28. Anonymous says:

    Has anyone questioned the method that Trolls used to get the IP address? To find out the IP address in the p2p, the Troll has to upload the file in a swarm to monitor whoever downloading the file from it. In another word, the so called ‘unauthorized file sharing’ complained by troll can not be accomplished without the Troll’s participation. Is it a legal way to get the evidence for these cases? How can the Troll proves itself not the original seeder for these p2p files?

    • Anonymous says:

      You have a point there – my thoughts exactly – talk about baiting

    • Anonymous says:

      they could probably argue that it is their intellectual property since they are working with that porn company

      • anonymous says:

        Incorrect. They may be acting as an agent for the porn studio. But, to say it is their IP, they would have to have ownership of said IP.

  29. HelpDoe says:

    I just received notice from my ISP that they’ve been subpoenaed for my information. It’s a Malibu Media case filed in Florida. I don’t live in Florida. Any suggestions for what I should do to get ahead of this? Can I keep myself from being named? Any help is greatly appreciated – so glad these sites exist.

  30. doecumb says:

    (Usual disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer. This is for discussion purposes only and not to be construed as legal advice.)

    From the description, there is improper jurisdiction (out of state Doe residence) in addition to other flaws in the troll cases. Improper jurisdiction is a good basis itself for a motion to quash.

    It’s very IMPORTANT to be clear whether this case is in a Federal Court in Florida, or in a State of Florida county court (Miami-Dade, for instance). There are DIFFERENT procedures for responding to Federal and to Florida State court cases.

    Start by reading the two discussion sections for Florida Federal:

    http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/discussions-by-state/florida/

    and Florida State cases:

    http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/florida-cases/

    You’ll find discussions about different cases and how Does have responded. There’s also info about and some posts by Doe defense attorneys. If beyond reading you need professional orientation, some will do an initial consultation for a low price or free. At this stage, for a Federal case, you don’t necessarily need a Florida licensed attorney to advise you. But do find a lawyer with copyright troll repelling experience if you go this route.

  31. JP says:

    Is any one familiar with Massachusetts CASE #: 1:12-cv-10948-DPW? T

    The impression I have after reading several posts is that COMCAST files their own Motion to Quash in some cases. I need help and must file an MTQ without legal help. Is it ok to plagerize someone elses motion?

  32. Johndoe24714 says:

    Just wanted to let you all know that case 11-24714 is still active, I received a message from a troll (a female) requesting my attorney contact information. I did not answer to call, will not answer the calls and will not respond to anything other than an official court summons. Someone tell me I’m doing the right thing lol

  33. Johndoe24714 says:

    Just wanted to let you all know that case 11-24714 is still active, I received a message from a troll (a female named Serena Duncan) requesting my attorney contact information. I did not answer to call, will not answer the calls and will not respond to anything other than an official court summons. Someone tell me I’m doing the right thing lol

    • Doe24714 says:

      I am in the same case as you. I haven’t heard anything from them in a few months. But I expect to get this call now as well. I have done basically the same thing. I haven’t answered any of their calls and don’t plan to do anything unless I get an actual summons. From everything I have read here on this site and dietrolldie.com, this is a good course of action unless they actually send us a summons.

  34. JD says:

    Can someone help me with filing a Motion To Quash? I’m not a lawyer and don’t understand a lot of this. I have the “template” but not sure what to do with it/what all i need to change, since my info is different. As of now they only have my IP, I have not been “named”.

    Sunlust Pictures, LLC. v. Joe Doe
    1:12-cv-00656

    Thanks!

  35. Anonymous says:

    Does anyone have insight into this case # 12-01794 CA13 ? It was left as part of a voice mail from a Serena Duncan on my answering machine, with a request to call back with my lawyer contact information. I am ignoring at this point.

    • JohnDoes24717 says:

      Serena Duncan is also working on case 11-24714. Below is a transcript of a phone call received. I am ignoring them.

      “Hello my name is Serena Duncan I am contacting you with regards to case number 11 dash 24714 and I’m assuming you have retained council for this case I do need you to have your Atty. contact me as soon as possible at.

      8183321291 and if you have not retained council yet I do need you to contact me either way so that I can provide you with information on this case again I’m for is.

      8183321291 thank you so much and have a great day.”

      I hope she gets frustrated that i’m not answering :-)

  36. [...] that are being served in these mass-infringement cases.  There are also several pretty good sample Motions to Quash out there.  But the question is: which one do I use?  The answer should be, the one that [...]

  37. Doe says:

    Received letter from ISP on Aug 23, re: Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-43 Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-12597 BAF-MJH.

    Was scared, thanks to this site i am now far less scared. The way in which this whole thing is handled is so malicious it should be illegal. I thought my ISP would protect me from this type of harassment.

    In my case, I have Bank records that show that i was across the country at the time my IP was supposedly theiving them of their precious pornography. In addition, i have records that state that my ISP had misconfigured my router, leaving it open on the day in question. Can these be used in a MTQ?

    Looking for support still, I’m unsure if i should attempt to quash with these reasons or do nothing.

    I am also considering requesting my IP log for the day the case is asking for to see exactly what they will try to use against me. Are IP logs from an ISP generally understandable without hard IT experience?

  38. Wilbur says:

    Could somebody upload the letter in Word format? It isn’t copyrighted now is it?

  39. Wilbur says:

    Am I the only one that thinks the people prosecuting these cases may be the same ones uploading the content, dangling it as bait?

    • ShifferBrains says:

      You are not the only one. But you see, I have developed a super hi tech software that has cost me $250,000 that can solidly determine who the uploaders of the porn files were regardless of VPN’s or other IP hiding gimicks. I carry this software around with me in a briefcase and all the names of the individuals who are guilty of uploading these porn titles. My software is 100% accurate and I will open this briefcase and show the world what is in it if the trolls force my hand.

  40. Chance says:

    My elder mother (68yrs old) just received the letter from her ISP. She asked me to look it over and tell her what it was all about. ( She thought it was in reference to some lawsuit against her Cable company/ISP).

    It basically says she has until 10/5 (to file a motion to block or quash) or they’ll have to release her info to the Plaintiff:

    Troll Lawyer Leewood Kushner for Third Degree Films.

    The case is Third Degree Films vs John Does 1-4 in the US District Court for the Southern District of California.

    Anyone out there familiar w/this case? I’m reading extensively here and elsewhere to prepare myself but there is alot of info to absorb and much seems to depend on the state, court type (state/fed) and several other factors. Can’t really afford a lawyer but I don’t want my mother being harassed and I’m afraid if they get her info she’ll fold and pay the ransom, I mean settlement, which she can hardly afford. Any help, clarification or direction to seek would be greatly appreciated. Thanks all!

    • Raul says:

      Here i s the docket of the lawsuit http://ia600803.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.casd.391220/gov.uscourts.casd.391220.docket.html As you can see from the order permitting discovery, if your mom does not oppose the release of her info, her ISP is only going to release her name and address. http://ia600803.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.casd.391220/gov.uscourts.casd.391220.5.0.pdf In theory this means she won’t be receiving threatening emails or calls, just threatening letters. CA attorney Nick Ranallo is a dynamite attorney and he offers a free initial consultation, you should give him a call http://ia600803.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.casd.391220/gov.uscourts.casd.391220.5.0.pdf If your mom qualifies he may represent her pro bono?

      http://www.ranallolawoffice.com/practice-areas/california-and-new-york-p2p-copyright-defense

      • Concerned Victim says:

        So what happens when the ISP does release phone numbers as well? My mother who received a letter is a 56 mentally disabled woman with Paranoid-Skitzoid disorder barely making a living off of Social Security. As you can tell with this diagnosis she is already in a troubled mental state and this has only pushed her further and recently back in October tried to kill herself. I am doing everything I can to re-ensure her that neither of us have done anything wrong because we haven’t but every time a letter comes in the mail or a phone call comes in she goes off the deep end.

        I am the only person in the home who has a computer and I definitely didn’t download the stuff these trolls are saying that was downloaded. Neither one of us have the money to fight them in a court battle. I already lost everything I have of value in a unrelated lawsuit a few years ago and can’t even find a job in this dying economy. I would love to pay for an attorney but I am lucky if I can even pay my orthopedic bills and up and coming physical therapy and have already dished out the last dollars I had to put a deposit down on my appointments since I have no medical insurance.

        I have been trying to keep up with as much information as possible about this and have been considering launching my own site to help educate the masses about scum like this. It has made both of our lives hell because of everything that has been going on an because I am the only user she blames me when I have done nothing wrong. I keep showing her all of the information that I have dug up but it doesn’t help much since she is Schizophrenic.

        • doecumb says:

          As to what happens, the track record is that troll demands continue a while, so it costs trolls almost nothing to make them (and callers are probably being paid on commission).

          The most direct way to stop unwanted/harassing troll calls and letters is to be represented by an attorney. The cost of an attorney “only” shielding your household from troll calls should be very low.

          Since money is limited, think about contacting a nearby law school for a free legal clinic, your state’s or county’s bar association for lists of pro bono (volunteer, no fee) lawyers, or even the state chapter of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) for a pro bono lawyer recommendation. It’s also possible, given your mother’s situation, that a federal or state disability office could give a recommendation. There may even be laws in your state specifically protecting the disabled in this situation. Shielding a client from calls is not expected to take much of a lawyer’s time.

          It’s possible that if you answer a troll representative’s call and tell them directly not to call again, that they will keep to that. Say as little as possible. Clearly give the message “Don’t call again. Technically, telecommunications law is on your side about unsoliticited calls. But we have reports that telling trolls not to call only works sometimes.

          http://dietrolldie.com/2012/02/15/the-richard-pryor-response-or-what-to-tell-the-troll-when-he-calls/

    • Anonymous says:

      It is nice that they are picking on 68 year old ladies…… My mother got one too and she is 68 as well…..

      • Chance says:

        I know right?! WTH? I still haven’t told her the real situation, it’ll freak her out so badly that it might put her off eating. I’m hoping to get a plan together this/next week after some more reading. Going to try to get a consultation w/the lawyer Raul rec’d above and I read a few instances where another Ca. lawyer ,named Peitz I believe, was able to seemingly get the upper-hand on these sorry excuses for human beings (trolls)…worried about the cost of an MTQ. EspeciallyI haven’t read anywhere where one was successful in Ca. but oddly enough, i also can’t seem to find any specific references to anyone actually being sued (by one of these pornTrolls). Am I just missing them?

  41. Chance says:

    Raul, thanks for the quick reply, links, info and referral. I’ll read through the docs and then contact that attorney. W/no phone #s released i may just try to have my mother ride this out….Thanks again!

  42. Anonymous says:

    Hello,

    I recently received a letter from my ISP provider, to let me know that I am a doe in the Openmind Solutions, Inc v. Does 1-565, and was wondering what I should do.

    I reside outside in a state where trolls are not active. I have no experience with this at all, and received this letter today, but have only until 9/20/2012 to file a MTQ (which I think is unreasonable). Someone please help me. I’m terrified for my life, and for my father as he is the account holder, and whose name would be released. I do have an unsecure wireless router. Thanks!

  43. Anonymous says:

    Thanks Raul for your help. I posted the prior message before reading your post. So basically you are saying to not file a motion to quash? And that i should make a new email account and link it to the ISP account? And that i should also open a p.o box at the post office and change the address on file with ISP? As well as change my dads cell phone number which is the contact number to a google voice number? Couldnt i just buy one of those tracfones and do the same? Do i have to worry about a sheriff showing up at my housr with a subpeona? How long would i have to wait to know if my fathrr has to go to court? I do not even know how to begin to explain this to my father as he is gone until sunday! Im afraid hes going to freak out! How can I persuade ISP to not give up the information which would include mac address, email, phone, address, and name? Cant i just change the phone number on file to a bogus #? sorry for all the questions but im terrified of all of this especially letting my father know about this matter. Is it worth the $150 to speak to the copyright lawyer for 30 min over the phone but not represent me? Thanks again for all the help!

    • Raul says:

      The overwhelming majority of these lawsuits are like yours, a son allegedly infringing on a parent’s ISP account, so can you just level? if not you have to figure out the subterfuge, I suck at it, the wife always catches me.

      • Anonymous says:

        Thanks again for your response Raul. But what about the other questions i had as far as changing contact information and when/if i should expect a sheriff to serve my house with a subpeona? How lo g after my fathets info is released should i expect action? Should i contact an attorney asap/file a motion to qaush(still unsure what/how to do that) and i still believe only given a weeks notice from cablevision is not a timely manner. Thanks again

        • Raul says:

          I’m tired read the FAQs above and do not worry about a sheriff. Also check out dietrolldie.com “newbie” and report back once you have read up.

        • doecumb says:

          What Raul said. And, I started to write a longer reply, but here’s a few points:

          I agree with Raul. It’s best to have a straightforward discussion with the household. You may be surprised at how supportive family can be. Also, an older generation is less familiar with tech stuff. They didn’t grow up with it. It may take explaining of tech details and how troll parasites are distorting legal process to extort Does.

          If it’s helpful to speak to a lawyer, it’s possible to get a free first consultation with many of them. And BTW, at this stage, it doesn’t need to be a lawyer in your state. Any U.S. lawyer would be fine. But look for a lawyer who has experience with these porn lawyer trolls and with copyright. Even most very good lawyers know almost nothing about this racket.

          No, a sheriff is not going to show up at your door about this stuff. Even if the information is released, it may be days or weeks before the trolls call. The usual harassment tactics are repeated calls over weeks and months, always threatening to “move forward” legally and repeating or increasing their demand. You can find sample letters and transcripts on this site.

          Even in the very rare possibility that a Doe account holder is “named” (served a subpoena), the trolls go through months of their harassing phone/mail demands. And if a subpoena was served, it would typically be done by a civilian delivery person. Each step toward trial has a lower already small chance of happening. DTD mentions some particulars here:

          http://dietrolldie.com/2011/11/07/taken-from-the-files-of-“don’t-panic”-or-“what-can-i-expect”/

          As Raul pointed out, changing contact info may make it harder for the trolls to harass with calls and letters. But it’s often possible for trolls to get contact information another way, like on the net.

          It’s hard to answer specifics about an ISP response, since it varies between companies. The ISP will do what they are ordered by the court to do. The ISP might report the address of the installed service, for instance. The “persuading” that would matter to them would be that you or your lawyer are filing a motion-then they would not release information until a judge rules on the motion and only if the judge rules for the trolls.

          Get rest. Plan later when you are rested and well nourished.

        • doecumb says:

          Here’s more:

          Raul’s advice is practical, as usual. If you are still up, get a good night’s sleep. Work on this during the daytime.

          If the porn copyright trolling issue is new to you, make sure you read the FAQ’s here and at DTD ( http://dietrolldie.com/newbie-noob-start-here/ ).

          Make sure your parents and any household members are very aware to AVOID speaking to or contacting the trolls. Educate your family that this is extortion (in the moral sense, and maybe more) and the trolls may try to twist any comment against you.

          We understand that this crap is puzzling and upsetting at first.

          As Raul notes, in a mass case like this, the probability of being singled out is very low.

          If there’s a special some reason the awful troll allegation would cause trouble, (your father is a public official, for example), there’s the option to make a motion either to quash or for extension of time. Yes, the time is short. Since it’s the weekend, if needed, lawyer consultation would probably be available starting Monday morning. That’s ONLY if the time (to do it yourself) or cost is worth it to you to try reduce ALREADY small chance of court action to a very small chance.

          Also, if harassing troll contacts are too upsetting, find a lawyer to basically just shield you from the contacts, for a much smaller fee than filing motions. Trolls would have to make contact only through your lawyer. You can also tell the troll yourself to stop calling.

          http://dietrolldie.com/2012/02/15/the-richard-pryor-response-or-what-to-tell-the-troll-when-he-calls/

          You have some things going for you. First, this is a mass troll case, so there will be a sizable number of Doe defenders responding. Second, since you don’t live in DC, a strong argument can be made for “improper” jurisdiction-it’s not your Federal district. That’s added to other arguments against the troll case.

          Third, this is a Duffy/Prenda troll operation, and their ships are leaking in many jurisdictions. Fourth, it’s getting pretty far in time from the dates of allegations (roughly 8/30/11 to 10/19/11). Even if there were good evidence (there’s not-all the trolls have is an IP address allegation), the troll legal discovery process might be harder at this late date (Things have gotten to discovery step only in a small fraction of 1% at most).

          Fifth, if it’s easy to show that a router was not secured, that’s another point for your Doe defense. Sixth, not only is there no troll lawyer rep for this troll group in your state, but also the trolls have done badly in cases in neighboring states. Your state’s courts may know about these trolls already. Many Does have done well with many less favorable factors than these. With time, it’s easier to get perspective on the nasty troll business.
          (Usual disclaimer: This is not to be construed as legal advice and is for discussion purposes only.)

    • Anonymous says:

      UPDATE: So I just spoke with the subleona/legal department and it seems as if the Judge made another court decision which I will be mailed a copy of tomorrow. Apparently, the judge has extended the time for Does to file a MOTQ to the end of October, but will not accept any Anonymous MOTQ, all that seeks MOTQ will have to personally identify themselves. This to me means that this case is chugging alon quite nicely for The Plaintiff, and the judge is siding with the plaintiff and their legal counsel.

      Thoughts?

  44. Anonymous says:

    Thanks again for all the support as well as links to all the info. Its still very hard for me to wrap my head around of all of this and fear the consequences of telling my father (still trying to piece together what I shouls day and how I should say it.

    I do fear that because Prenda has gone to great lengths to battle my ISP in order to receive the names of thosr who IP addresses they indentified, that Prenda will be going after ISP’s subscribers more harshly than others. Does that make sense?

    • Anonymous says:

      Update: Changed the contact email to the ISP account to a new gmail account, as well as made a google voice # the main contact account through my personal email and forwarded to my personal phone so my father will not receive the threatening phone calls once information by ISP is released to the trolls. Did i do the right thing? I also plan on getting a PO Box on monday and changing the address to the PO Box.

      Do you think this will send up a red flag

      • Raul says:

        I think you are good to go, just make sure your ISP is made aware of the updated contact info.

        • Anonymous says:

          Does anyone know if the ISP notifies you as to WHAT data they sent to the plaintiff when they release your information? By what data I mean specifics. “This is the MAC address we gave them, this is the phone number we gave them, etc.

      • Anonymous says:

        I’m not sure, but I imagine that your ISP takes a snapshot of your account when they get the subpoena so changing your contact information after the fact might not make a difference.

        • Raul says:

          You have to call their legal/subpoena compliance department and tell them to update the personal contact info before release.

        • Anonymous says:

          They will be sending the info that was current last year

        • Anonymous says:

          Does anyone know if the ISP notifies you as to WHAT data they sent to the plaintiff when they release your information?

        • Anonymous says:

          Each case is different. Prenda asks for name, address, telephone, email, mac address, as well as users activity log.

  45. Chance says:

    Been trying to track down any relevant cases that are similar (Jurisdiction, Judge, Troll, Porn co). My PACER acct is apparently taking awhile to activate (i still haven’t received my initial login email)

    The troll filed in the proper jurisdiction which unfortunately is also their own so it’d be easier for them to proceed if I can convince my poor old mom to resist the initial rounds of settlement harassment. Also w/her subpoena being for only 4 Does (in addition to sharing jurisdiction) it’s seems likelier and easier for them to actually pursue litigation.

    With so few Doe’s and two of the main MTQ points, (those of “joinder” and “improper jurisdiction”) being essentially useless to her I’m wondering if the cost of hiring a lawyer to file an MTQ is even worth it…

    • Anonymous says:

      Told my father about this entire situation. He basiclly said “let them sue and call
      Me and they can speak to my lawyer. I dont have time for this crap.” so i told him i would continue handling everything including change of address. The more I look into this case and past prenda law cases, the more i see what a joke they are, an how they just want to scare people into extortion. Apparently 3 does have already been voluntarily dismissed according to rfcexpress.

      • Chance says:

        Any idea how/why thjose 3 were dismissed? I wonder if they got lawyers to represent them or filed MTQs….

        • Anonymous says:

          Maybe they settled.

        • Anonymous says:

          http://ia600601.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.150838/gov.uscourts.dcd.150838.16.0.pdf

          Same for 2 others does…. Not sure how they were voluntarily dismissed

        • That Anonymous Dude says:

          One did settle (dismissal with prejudice). The rest did not settle. A dismissal without prejudice equals no settlement. The IP in the last dismissal is in Sarasota, FL. Not exactly within the DCD jurisdiction. Two more in Virginia. Maybe they’re gonna file individual lawsuits. In Florida that’s gonna be hard since Joe Perea is Judge Seitz’s bitch right now and in Virginia, Timothy Anderson isn’t exactly associated with Prenda anymore.

          This is NOT how you file a motion to dismiss…
          http://ia600601.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.150838/gov.uscourts.dcd.150838.18.0.pdf

        • Anonymous says:

          So should I just wait this out and see what happens?? It seems like Does are getting dismissed left and right. My ISP Is scheduled to release subscriber info to plaintiffs on 9/20 and it seems like a MOTQ will just be turned down and a complete waste of time. Any thoughts? Kinda scary if they are planning on filing individual lawsuits in states they dont have jurisdiction in.

        • That Anonymous Dude says:

          I would wait it out, that’s what I did. It’s that or pay them $3400. I’d say that getting a bunch of phone calls and letters is better than forking out $3400. If you can weather the storm then you’re fine as long as you DO NOT speak to them. No contact, at all, whatsoever. People make the mistake of calling them, professing their innocence, blaming other people.

        • That Anonymous Dude says:

          You literally have a better chance of being hit by falling airplane parts than being named and served in an individual lawsuit. Even less if you just ignore them. They aren’t gonna go outta their way to cut this case into pieces just to file individual lawsuits. My guess is that they’re trying to make it look good and proper so Facciola doesn’t sever the case because of joinder issues, although he doesn’t seem to give a shit about joinder since he crawled out of his hibernation hole last month. If they dumped every defendant who’s not in DCD they’d probably be left with like one (which is the definition of fraudulent joinder).

          Facciola is not very receptive to MTQs and it’s of my opinion that filing a motion will just paint a target on your back. Just calm down, don’t freak out, I’ve been in your shoes so I know how intimidating this is right now but eventually you’ll literally laugh about it. Well, I know I did when Lutz was calling me and leaving his “uh huhuhuhuh” Beavis & Butthead extortion messages but I have a fucked up sense of humor.

        • Anonymous says:

          Thanks for your support and advice! I read on other sites and maybe here as well that I should atleast pick up in phone calk and tell them

          1. Im innocent
          2. There is no copy of the movie on my computer
          3. I will fight you in court
          4. Have a nice day and do not call back

          I heard if you dont atleast tell them this once than the trolls can say to the courts you ate being evasive and negligent making it easier for the trolls to get a subpeona to investigate your personal computers and schedule a pretrial interview you, family, and friends. Is this true?

          Also raul can you please edit any specific information on all posts including ISP provider and actions taken. Thanks

        • That Anonymous Dude says:

          No no no. DO NOT call them. If you want them to fuck off, just hire a lawyer for a small fee to intercept their communication. Do not try to do this yourself unless you know EXACTLY what you’re doing because they’ll take a simple phrase like “I did not download the movie” and use it against you. I’ve seen people get named for shit like that.

        • That Anonymous Dude says:

          That’s the Richard Pryor Response…key word, response. It’s for when they call you, you DO NOT call them. And I still wouldn’t use it unless I accidentally picked up the phone. It’s from back in February, when the shit hadn’t yet hit the fan for Duffy and Prenda. Now it’s just all kinds of ugly and they won’t risk going after you unless they have something on you. DO NOT EVER call them. Don’t send them a letter. Don’t email them. Do not initiate contact of any kind.

      • Anonymous says:

        I was never planning on contacting them, just thought i should use the pryor response to deflect a case of being negligent or evasive to the courts. Some people say use the response others say DO not use the response or talk to them at all. Its 50/50. Not sure exactly what to do now. I just want this all to go away with as little stress as possible. This whole situation is ridiculous.

        Some people have been named for being evasive and some people have been named for talking to them. What to do…what to do???

        • That Anonymous Dude says:

          Sorry, I was sleep deprived (to put it mildly). I’ve been working all night and only getting 2 hours of sleep. Anyway, I would (if I were you) just ignore them, but if you do accidentally answer, use the Richard Pryor Response (or just hang up on them). These cases you’re referring to aren’t in Illinois and they’re older cases, several of which have resulted in a counter-action so Prenda is rethinking the whole “defendant is being evasive.” I live in IL, I ignored them for 14+ months, they finally left me alone. Whatever you do is up to you, but IMO you should ignore them.

          Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the above is for discussion purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.

  46. Chance says:

    Raul – In your reply, you stated that according to the Discovery Order, my mother’s ISP would only be releasing her name and address but NOT her phone #. I’m on PACER looking at the documents but can’t seen to find where this is noted/stated. Can you explain where among these documents I can find that info? Thank you

    • antikosmos says:

      ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE THIRD
      PARTY SUBPOENAS PRIOR TO A RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE

      “Each subpoena must provide a minimum of forty-five days’ (45) notice before any production and shall be limited to one category of documents identifying the particular subscriber or subscribers on the “Hit Date (UTC)” listed on Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Motion. (Id.) The requested information should be limited to the name and addresses of each subscriber. Any subpoenaed third party may seek a protective order if it determines there is a legitimate basis for doing so. The ISPs shall have fourteen calendar days after service of the subpoenas to notify the subscribers that their identity has been subpoenaed by Plaintiff. Each subscriber whose identity has been subpoenaed shall then have thirty calendar days from the date of the notice to seek a protective order or file any other responsive pleading.”

      http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.casd.391220/gov.uscourts.casd.391220.5.0.pdf

      • Chance says:

        Thank you, thank you antikosmos! Much appreciated! BTW – Spoke to Nick Ranallo on Monday, he’s a nice, patient guy, easy to talk to, will probably retain him on or close to the “release date” of my mother’s info. I want to resist these trolls but will have to see what she thinks after I fill her in this week. Thanks to Raul, antikosmos and all you that help us here and other like-minded sites!

  47. steven says:

    is it possible to have the motion to quash converted to MS word? i am an unfortunate recipient of a susbpoena from AF Holdings LLC. this is puzzling at best, especially after reading it.

    • SJD says:

      It is possible, but instead I will remove even this one (don’t have time): it is grossly outdated. This area of law is very fluid and so many things happened in 1.5 years… I suggest going to http://dietrolldie.com/motions/ instead and see what’s available there. DTD has much more expertise than me in motions.

      Also, I hope you read around and know that AF Holdings may be a fake company (Coopergate), so the entire house of cards will most likely collapse soon. In the meantime, it, of course, does not prevent crooks from contacting and harassing people.

  48. Anonymous says:

    I got hit with “nucorp, ltd. et al v does 1-451″ about 7 months ago and i did not file motion to quash. My lawyer said i would get something in the mail within a month, but 7 months have passed already. Anyone know whats going on?

  49. [...] letter from her ISP. She asked me to look it over and tell her what it was all about,” reads one comment posted to Fight Copyright Trolls in September. “Can’t really afford a lawyer but I don’t [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s