Judge Leo Sorokin is tired of troll Marvin Cable’s lies, denies ex-parte discovery

Posted: November 7, 2012 by SJD in Copyright Enforcement Group
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Judge Leo Sorokin
Magistrate Judge Leo Sorokin
(Massachusetts)

Thanks to Jason Sweet and Dan Booth for the hilarious news, a must-read order denying ex-parte discovery re-requested by copyright troll Marvin Cable in Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-79 (12-cv-10532-GAO), Discount Video Center, Inc. v. Does 1-29, et al. (12-cv-10805-NMG), and Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-36 (12-10758-GAO).

While two major posts are promised and overdue¹, I cannot help posting Magistrate Sorokin’s smackdown ruling dismantling Marvin Cable’s copyright troll cases: a good excuse is that it does not take a lot of my time, as the document is self-explanatory, easy and fun to read.

Read the embedded order below. A couple of teaser quotes:

The Plaintiffs’ proposal — i.e., that the Court permits the Plaintiffs to subpoena the names of the subscribers and that the Court then leave it to the Plaintiffs to figure out the rest pursuant to informal communications — is unacceptable.

The Plaintiffs’ lack of interest in actually litigating these cases as demonstrated by the history of this litigation also weighs against permitting ex parte discovery.

The course of action the Plaintiff has stated it intends to pursue also suggests an improper effort to engage in judge shopping and evidences a disregard for the Court’s limited public resources.

…a bad faith effort to harass the third-party subscriber…

…the Plaintiffs have repeatedly said one thing and done another.

The Plaintiffs’ counsel has also repeatedly said to the undersigned, and to other judicial officers of this Court, that he intends to litigate the claims he has brought. Yet to date, counsel has sued well in excess of one thousand Doe Defendants in this District, and as far as the Court is aware, he has never served a Complaint upon a single individual defendant.

 

So, essentially, Sorokin calls out Marvin Cable on his lies in virtually every paragraph of this 8-page document with a nearly 3-D hint sticking out of a flat document surface: GTFO of Massachusetts’ courts with your ill-conceived mass cases!

No matter how unbelievable it sounds, some people are so obtuse they can miss such a hint, and I have a bad feeling that our hapless troll may put on his John Adams costume once again — to entertain us and to anger judges. And it won’t end well.

Raul adds:

A great Order that will, hopefully, resonate across the country. As Booth & Sweet pointed out in their tweet earlier today, “Judge Sorokin gave Cable just enough rope to hang himself.” The Order reads like an indictment of Cable’s overreaching, lying and overall craven behavior before the court (this indictment applies to most if not all copyright trolls). The second act of this comedy will be if and when Prenda gets rolling now that the audience has been warmed up.

Media coverage
Update

12/18/2012

Judge Sorokin finally brought the hammer down on Marvin Cable today and recommended dismissing the above-mentioned cases without prejudice for failure to serve the defendants.

On 11/16 Marvin Cable replied to the Order to show cause featured in this post trying to keep these cases on life support.

Judge Sorokin was not impressed:

The Plaintiffs advance several reasons in support of a finding of good cause. None have merit. […] The Plaintiffs have no one but themselves to blame for their inability to utilize information gleaned from the quashed subpoenas. The Plaintiffs engaged in the violations necessitating the Court’s remedy by telling third parties to whom Congress has accorded some measure of statutory privacy protection (i.e., the subscribers) that the Plaintiffs had sued them (the subscribers) for copyright infringement when the Plaintiffs had plainly not sued them. Moreover, the Court did not apply the 120-day rule at that time, but rather the Court gave the Plaintiffs another opportunity to propose a discovery plan tailored, as required under the law, toward identifying the identity of the persons the Plaintiffs chose to sue. As already explained, the Plaintiffs failed to advance this type of proposal.

…the difficulties, delays and rulings in this case all result from the Plaintiffs’ actions or inaction. The Court has repeatedly given the Plaintiffs ample opportunity to proceed properly with their cases. Since the Plaintiffs filed these cases, they have repeatedly failed to advance a plan compliant with the straightforward rules of procedure for limited ex parte discovery in order to learn the identities of the persons they have sued. In light of the opportunities they have had to make such a proposal, my previous rulings on these proposals and the Plaintiffs’ conduct of this litigation, I RECOMMEND that the Court find that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish good cause to extend the deadline, and that no other reason exists to exercise its discretion to permit an extension of the deadline. Accordingly, I RECOMMEND that the Court dismiss these cases pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure to effect timely service.

 


¹ In Colorado, Malibu Media v. Fantalis et al docket is overwhelmed with new extremely interesting activity;    In Illinois, John Steele reached new lows in the turd of a lawsuit Guava (Lightspeed) v. Skyler Case: the hearing that took place this past Monday, and recently filed fraudulent federal cases deserve detailed attention.

Comments
  1. It is nice to see the Massachusetts District (in PACER language, the court is called “MAD”) get in line regarding taking down these cases. Note to Judge Sorokin –> There are OTHER copyright trolling cases in MAD that, wouldn’t you say, are ripe for a CONSOLIDATION? [hint, hint].

  2. Mike says:

    I cant wait to see the first articles come out that speak of ISP’s that support VPN’s for their customer retensions LMFAO! Fact of the matter is that it’s Constitutionally no ones fcuking business what you download and is a 5th amendment violation.

  3. Raul says:

    Great post about a great Order that will, hopefully, resonate across the country. As Booth & Sweet pointed out in their tweet earlier today, Judge Sorokin gave Cable just enough rope to hang himself. The Order reads like an indictment of Cable’s overreaching, lying and overall craven behavior before the court (this indictment applies to most if not all copyright trolls). The second act of this comedy will be if and when Prenda gets rolling now that the audience has been warmed up.

    • 88 Year Old Defender says:

      I’m sorry but I can’t hold back any longer. I have to confess the truth. I practically wet myself when I read the Sorokin Order and I can only imagine how wet Cable was when he saw it. Finally, a judge who plotted the moves, and then executed them with precision. Talk about a bench-slap right in the cheeks. I was giddy.

  4. that anonymous coward says:

    *munches on popcorn*
    Oh the entertainment value…
    I wonder if enough of these cases implode if it might change some ISPs minds about trying this BS with CCI.

  5. Excellent post as always!

  6. The Tod says:

    Nice post SJD!! I would like to thank the troll for over staying his welcome. Great job!!

  7. DieTrollDie says:

    Such a nice read- Thanks SJD & Sweet/Booth. I wonder if they will be stupid enough to ask the judge to reconsider. I would love to see the response to this,

    “Before the Court quashed the subpoenas previously issued, the Plaintiffs had ample time to amend their Complaints with information they might have acquired from the informal discovery process it claims it wishes to pursue. The Plaintiffs never sought to substitute the name of any person for any Doe Defendant. Indeed, Plaintiff Patrick Collins, Inc. has sued at least 11,570 John Doe Defendants in litigation around the country without ever serving a single defendant. 2 (Footnote 2: See 12-cv-10532-GAO, Docket # 26 at 4-5. Patrick Collins has not refuted these Assertions)”

    I wonder now if the Trolls in general will try to submit a “reasonable discovery plan” to identify the true defendants in these cases. If they are foolish enough to submit one, they had better follow through with it. As it stands now, this order is just one more log on the funeral pyre for the Trolls.

    DTD :)

  8. Subscribe says:

    Subscribe

  9. […] and Illinois have all handed down decisions excoriating the tactics of peer-to-peer plaintiffs. The latest addition to the genre comes from Massachusetts federal Judge Leo […]

  10. […] Judge Leo Sorokin is tired of troll Marvin Cable’s lies, denies ex-parte discovery […]

  11. […] and Illinois have all handed down decisions excoriating the tactics of peer-to-peer plaintiffs. The latest addition to the genre comes from Massachusetts federal Judge Leo […]

  12. […] and Illinois have all handed down decisions excoriating the tactics of peer-to-peer plaintiffs. The latest addition to the genre comes from Massachusetts federal Judge Leo […]

  13. Anonymous says:

    Another one of Marvin’s cases is Severed and Quashed

    Order Issued Yesterday) 1:12-cv-10760

    http://ia601200.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.mad.143652/gov.uscourts.mad.143652.28.0.pdf

  14. Anonymous says:

    heads-up on an update regarding one of Marvin Cable’s cases in Massachusetts (case: 12-cv-30085-MAP)

    On 11/25/12, Marvin submitted a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal for a single Doe. The following day, Magistrate Judge Jennifer Boal issued an order for Marvin to submit a response as to why a settlement was issued, in apparent violation of court order issued on October 4, 2012 (#70). In his Response to this Order (#71) Marvin states:

    “The circumstances surrounding JD80’s situation, are different from other John Does in
    this case, but not unique – many John Does are involved in other similar cases in this District.
    Many John Does, like JD80 are alleged to have used the same IP address to infringe
    copyrights.
    The other case JD80 was involved with also approved an early discovery order, in a
    similar process to the one in this case. JD80’s IP address identified him in both cases. Often
    when a John Doe contacts the Plaintiff’s Counsel, Counsel for the Plaintiff will alert a John
    Doe, or his or her counsel, to the alleged use of the same IP address to violate other
    copyrights in other cases in this District, even in cases where the subpoena process has not
    been approved in those other cases. John Doe may choose to use this information in whatever
    fashion, in assessing the potential upcoming claims against him, as was done here.
    Further, JD80’s Counsel was aware of the Order in this case. At JD80’s urging, both
    cases were negotiated and settled at an amount acceptable to JD80 to avoid ongoing legal
    defense costs. Both cases were negotiated and settled at the same time as JD80 did not wish to
    leave one case pending. Defense counsel’s time spend negotiating both settlements easily
    included both matters with no additional costs to JD80. In the event, this Courts Order was to
    discourage settlements altogether, Plaintiff is ready to return the settlement sum for the given
    case. However JD80, through counsel, respectfully requests that the settlement is allowed and
    Plaintiff’s Voluntary Dismissal is accepted by the Court.”

    This response apparently did not satisfy Judge Boal, as she later issued another order that scheduled a Status conference regarding the recent order and response for 1/3/13
    Attorney Marvin Cable then submitted a Motion on 12/20/12 to request that the hearing be rescheduled to a later date, citing:

    On January 3rd, Counsel for the Plaintiff is already scheduled to appear before
    Judge Saylor for status conferences. Third Degree Films v. Does 1 – 72, No. 1:12-cv-10760-FDS,
    ECF. No. 30 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2012); SBO Pictures v. Does 1 – 41, No. 1:12-cv-10804-FDS,
    ECF. No. 41 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2012); Third World Media, LLC v. Does 1 – 21, No. 1:12-cv-
    10947-FDS, ECF. No. 21 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2012); PW Productions, Inc. v. Does 1 – 19, No.
    1:12-cv-10814-FDS, ECF. No. 24 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2012); Paradox Pictures v. Does 1 – 20, No.
    1:12-cv-10815-FDS, ECF. No. 17 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2012); New Sensations, Inc. v. Does 1 – 175,
    No. 1:12-cv-11721-FDS, ECF. No. 13 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2012).

    Upon closer review of each of these cases

    1:12-cv-10760 — Court Order on 11/5/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
    1:12-cv-10944 — Court Order issued 11/2/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
    1:12-cv-10804 — Court Order issued 11/2/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
    1:12-cv-10947 — Court Order issued 11/5/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
    1:12-cv-10814 — Court Order issued 11/2/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
    1:12-cv-10815 — Court Order issued 11/5/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
    1:12-cv-11721 — Court Order issued 11/5/12 by Judge Saylor severing all Does and dismissing claims without prejudice
    Marvin cites that he had scheduled conferences for the original date of January 3rd with Judge Saylor. The ECF’s that Marvin lists, do not appear in any docket list that I am able to find. Unless there is some off the record action going on here, it would appear that Marvin was misleading the Judge Boal in order to get the continuance. He even cited that the 1/3/13 date was his birthday.

    Can you enlighten me? Are there additional docket items that would not be listed?

  15. […] Marvin Cable has had enough troubles recently. I wrote about his failures here, here and here, but after a while, MA judges’ rulings became so consistently and predictably anti-troll that […]

  16. […] this lawsuits is not about “Jeff Cums in Colby’s Mouth,” a subscriber can be treated as an infringer and it is fine to threaten and harass him or […]

  17. […] an ISP subscriber with an infringer, a common troll’s modus operandi that was thoroughly addressed in Massachusetts last year. Also, the plaintiff’s attorney Maureen VanderMay tried to argue negligence, which is […]

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