New Jersey

Trolls
Attorneys who defend troll victims
Relevant posts
Comments
  1. Anonymous says:

    @CM Doe

    It is my understanding that doe numbers are determined by your IPs placement on the list the plaintiff initially submitted as evidence. If your IP was 53rd on the list, you are Doe #53.

    I’m not a lawyer so I don’t totally understand, but the document you linked sounds like it’s saying that this conference is where your information will be handed over to the plaintiff. That would be one explanation for the delay you asked about.

    • CM Doe says:

      Thanks for the reply Anonymous… your explanation makes sense. I’m not fluent in lawyer-speak, so I thought the order was requiring the Does to be represented in the November hearing.

      My ISP letter only contained the single page of the IP listings for which I appear, so I wouldn’t be able to calculate my number. I thought I saw a full digit copy floating out there, so I could calculate my number from there.

      Is this type of hearing common procedure? I just assumed that on Oct 1st COMCAST would simply hand over the contact information to the law firm. If this is not common procedure, I wonder if this judge is onto these bit-torrent cases and is making the trolls jump through some more hoops.

      Thanks again for your response!!

  2. Anonymous says:

    “I thought the order was requiring the Does to be represented in the November hearing.”

    All representatives need to be present, except Pro Se litigants (people defending themselves). So essentially all lawyers need to be there. It doesn’t mean you need to have a lawyer or be present yourself.

    “My ISP letter only contained the single page of the IP listings […] I thought I saw a full digit copy floating out there”

    Mine also did not include a full list. There is a full list out there somewhere, there has to be for them to ask to subpoena it. I saw mine once but lost it before i thought to save it. It was on some type of preliminary document that the plaintiff submitted before making the request for discovery.

    “Is this type of hearing common procedure? I just assumed that on Oct 1st COMCAST would simply hand over the contact information to the law firm. If this is not common procedure, I wonder if this judge is onto these bit-torrent cases and is making the trolls jump through some more hoops.”

    This is my first experience with this type of situation and your link is the first such conference i’ve heard of. I can’t say if it’s common or not. I also made the same assumption you mention but I have learned from this that court processes are riddled with procedure and ritual and it doesn’t surprise me to think that there are extra steps involved just to hand over some paperwork.

    I wouldn’t be too hopeful about the judge being “on your side”. Whenever I’ve dealt with courts (traffic tickets, lol) they are VERY strict. My judge gave the troll a hard time and made him prove joinder and venue were justified before even accepting his paperwork specifically because these troll suits are so prolific. This court is obviously aware of the situation. I also read some of the orders from the same judge given in the past regarding an identical case and they shot down every motion to quash/dismiss.

    • CM Doe says:

      “I also read some of the orders from the same judge given in the past regarding an identical case and they shot down every motion to quash/dismiss.”

      Darn, I was hoping that I’d be able to file a motion to dismiss based on jurisdiction (if I got served) because I don’t live in NJ. :-(

      Thanks again for your responses, Anonymous… much appreciated!!

  3. Anonymous says:

    They will need to sue you in your own state. If they try to sue you in NJ you can get it dismissed for jurisdiction and improper venue because it creates undue burden. They are not at the stage of suing/serving yet, now they are trying to collect your contact information so they can attempt to coerce a settlement. There is no way for us to know if/who they’ll actually decide to sue. To me it seems logistically impossible for a plaintiff to sue each defendant individually because of manpower and time statute limitations.

  4. DoDo says:

    I just noticed that in another Century Media case (Civil Case No. 12-3865) there was an order filed that said that “…all claims against all defendants except John Doe 1 be severed and dismissed without prejudice to re-file….”. Further from there “ORDERED that any subpoena(s) issued in this action to internet service provider(s) seeking information about the identity of John Doe defendants other than John Doe 1 is hereby quashed without prejudice”. Blah Blah Blah…
    So, the deadline from the ISP was October 1st. Would they have already passed the information to the plaintiff, or does the information first go to the court? I.e. do they know the identities of all John Does at this point?
    Thanks!

    • CM Doe says:

      Hey Dodo,

      I can’t seem to find that CM case number. I’ve found 12-03867, 12-03868, 12-03869, 12-03870, 12-03911, and 12-03912.

      Would you happen to still have the link to that order?

      • DoDo says:

        CM, I see it on Pacer, and don’t know how to get a public link. Have you tried searching for 12-03865? Plaintiff is Amselfilm Productions.

        • CM Doe says:

          Ah, I was looking for a Century Media case with that number… my bad. Thanks for the clarification… I’ll check it out.

    • Anonymous says:

      “do they know the identities of all John Does at this point?”

      This is entirely possible but we can’t know for sure unless Jay McDaniel tells us. It may be too late. I don’t see anywhere in the order mentioning that any information already received from ISPs must be discarded and ignored. Perhaps on future motions to quash or sever, people should request that any information gathered so far be disregarded and cannot be used.

      This case is an example of why one should file a motion to quash. Submitting a motion and notifying Comcast would have prevented them from supplying your information to the court until after the results of the motion, which in this case would have been the court telling Comcast to keep quiet and your information would never have been sent. If Comcast mailed the information on October 1st then it’s likely the McDaniel law firm already has what they wanted.

      Fortunately, the rest of us can learn from this.

      #####################################
      #####################################
      For anybody else involved with a New Jersey case, especially those being presided over by Judge Faith S. Hochberg:
      #####################################
      #####################################

      Her reason for dismissing the case was Improper Joinder. Her basis for determining this was:

      1) Plaintiff said that all swarm members were acting together by virtue of simply being part of the same swarm. In her wisdom, Judge Hochberg was not convinced that being in the same swarm equated to all members being part of the same transaction. I’ll post her full explanation below.

      2) While joinder may be appropriate where litigation economies can be gained, that is not the case here. This type of case creates severe strain on judicial resources and only serves to save the plaintiff money at the cost of the courts resources.

      3) It would be physically impossible for every party to appear in court should they so choose.

      Her orders on this case were:

      1) Sever all Does except #1. Now the request is for one person only.

      2) Dismiss Doe #1 because he is not in New Jersey.

      3) Plaintiff may file against any defendant(s) in New Jersey, or file in an appropriate court for anyONE else. They will have to file their discovery requests (permission to order ISPs to provide identifying information) on an individual basis.

      4) They cannot file requests with the sole intention of coercing a settlement. If they ask for your identifying information, they must intend to sue. This may be a bad thing for us… ignoring harassing phone calls and letters may have been preferable to actually being sued. Also it doesn’t specifically say that they cannot use any information already gathered before the order was given.

      5) She states that a defendant cannot proceed anonymously unless they can prove BOTH fear of SEVERE harm and that the fear of severe harm is reasonable. So you cannot stay anonymous on the basis of embarrassment or economic harm.

      6) Any defenses challenging personal jurisdiction or venue will be stricken if raised before you are served. Only New Jersey defendants can be sued in New Jersey so jurisdiction and venue will be assumed to be appropriate until you actually go to trial where you can argue this as your defense (even though it’s probably appropriate).

      #####################################
      #####################################
      WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM THIS:
      #####################################
      #####################################

      1) If you file a motion to quash or sever, use improper joinder as your defense. This is a commonly accepted reason across the country in cases where subpoenas are quashed/dismissed.

      2) Cite this decision in your motion. Judges in NJ may “stick together” in this type of situation. If your judge is Judge Hochberg, she will probably agree with herself :D

      3) Don’t bother with requesting to proceed anonymously, it probably isn’t justified. Embarrassment or economic harm have been refused as inadequate reason. First amendment rights were deemed inapplicable in every case I’ve ever seen it used.

      4) File all of your paperwork with a formal motion. Brief and Motion are separate documents. Follow the rules on the NJ District Court website, http://www.njd.uscourts.gov/. Rules are right on the front page under “Representing yourself in Federal Court”. This is very specific, all the way down to which font to use and what font size.

      #####################################
      #####################################
      THINGS TO REMEMBER
      #####################################
      #####################################

      Of course, always make sure that your defense is tailored to your case. Read the plaintiff’s brief (his initial argument justifying why he deserves to get his subpoena) and read past decisions by your judge and judges in the same district to see what has and hasn’t worked. In this case the plaintiff’s reason for justifying joinder was that all swarm members were committing a crime together. The judge disagreed because defendants activity took place over months and there was no proof that any given person worked with EVERY other person. Joinder may be appropriate in smaller groups if evidence of the above can be provided. This probably can’t be proven in this case because in this case because the evidence that Baseprotect gathered was obtained by downloading a portion of the file from every swarm member. They do not state having the ability to know which other members any one member shared with and I think that only the tracker could possibly have this information.

      Judges do not take sides. They remain impartial and follow the letter of the law. In this case, the judge made the plaintiff justify his request for this information before she even started specifically because these cases are so prolific. He provided a reason and that was all it took. It doesn’t matter how weak the reason is, there was a reason given. If defendants give no argument, no argument will be made. The judge WILL NOT defend you. If you make an argument disputing the plaintiff’s reason, then the judge has an opportunity to agree with you and act.

      Submitting a motion will take A LOT of effort. Rules of submitting a motion are incredibly convoluted and pedantic. You should find examples of precedent (decisions made in the past by other judges) that fit your situation and cite them. Don’t get frustrated. At first all of this stuff might make your head spin, but bite off small pieces and digest them individually. As you go, you will pick up the terminology and understand the process more and more. Knowledge is power.

      Suck up to the judges a bit. It seems to be pretty common in documents submitted by lawyers and even in the court generated documents. Use the word “honorable”, that seems to be prevalent.

      #####################################
      #####################################
      If you want to cite this decision as an argument for your motion to quash/sever in another case (which you should):
      #####################################
      #####################################

      READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS. These are Judge Hochbergs own words regarding her reason for making her decision. Use this as the basis for your argument. You will be much better off reading her entire order and even better reading all of the documents in this case. Get a pacer.gov account, it’s free. Don’t be lazy, put in the work and reap the rewards like the three Does who submitted motions to sever and quash did. DO NOT quote this, I am editing it a bit to make it easier to read.

      –begin citation–

      While Plaintiff alleges that each defendant distributed pieces of the same work, Defendants’ alleged instances of distribution are spread across various dates and that permissive joinder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) is not appropriate where Defendants’ only determinable connection to one another is the similar method of distributing the same work, and where Defendants’ alleged instances of distribution constitute separate transactions

      There is a split among federal courts across the country as to whether the numerous defendants in copyright infringement cases such as this have been properly joined. While this Court appreciates that those who participate in the same swarm are virtually ‘connected’ by the same copyrighted work, this Court is not convinced that the purported instances of distribution, as identified by digital rights enforcement company Baseprotect and listed in Schedule B of the complaint, are a part of the same transaction, particularly because they span across various dates and times. Although there may be multiple individuals who distribute pieces of the same work and are thereby described as being in the same swarm, 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. As cited in the case Third Degree Films, 280 F.R.D. [at line or paragraph?] 498 (finding that participation in the same swarm does not constitute the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences for purposes of joinder because a particular swarm “can last for many months” and “during those months, the initial participants may never overlap with later participants”). Without more connecting them, 187 defendants who have distributed pieces of the work at different times cannot be permissively joined in this case. For joinder to be appropriate, Plaintiff must show a more definite connection between participants in the swarm, namely that the group of defendants sought to be joined have directly participated in the same transaction. For example, the Plaintiff might be able to establish joinder by showing that on a certain date and time, a particular subset of the swarm distributed pieces of the work to a common downloader.

      While permissive joinder may be appropriate where litigation economies can be gained, that is not the case here where 187 defendants are being sued in a single action, as this creates a severe strain on judicial resources.

      This filing strategy may save Plaintiff a substantial amount of money in filing fees but it causes a significant burden on judicial resources. Furthermore, a case with 187 defendants would be “inefficient, chaotic, and expensive.” Not only would normal routine case management be problematic, but it would be physically impossible for every party to appear in court should they so choose.

  5. JohnD says:

    3 more lawsuits from this Troll, just hit RFC,

    2:12-cv-06281-SRC-CLW
    2:12-cv-06345-JLL-MAH
    2:12-cv-06346-ES-CLW

    Plaintiff: Malibu Media LLC
    Plaintiff Counsel: Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law

    114 does for a possible $400,000 windfall for these lowlifes……..

    “Don’t feed the Stinkin Trolls!!!!”

  6. anonymous says:

    cm vs. john does 1-944 Civil Case No. 12-3868 has been quashed, meaning Jay Mcdaniels does not have the info of the does…

    ORDERED that any subpoena(s) issued in this action to internet service provider(s)
    seeking information about the identity of John Doe defendants other than John Doe 1 is hereby
    quashed without prejudice

    and from the order i read in pacer it says that in order for him to get that info he HAS to sue, heres one of the orders…

    ORDERED that the following requirements apply to any matter re-filed in this court as a
    result of this Order:
    1. Plaintiff shall attach to its complaint a certification indicating that it will not engage
    in any coercive settlement or litigation tactics with defendants upon learning their
    identifying information, acknowledging that it has notice of possible sanctions for
    non-compliance.

    basically they are screwed from trolling and have to actually sue now. could be good or bad but im guessing its game over for trolls.

    i dont know how to link the pdf but ill email it to anyone who wants it.

    • Koragi says:

      Can you email me the document please? johndoebydesign80@hotmail.com

      Thanks!

    • DoDo says:

      So does anyone know what happens next? Judging by PACER the cases are not yet closed. Can the plaintiff ask the judge to reconsider? What is the timeline for the plaintiff to do anything?

      • random dude says:

        From what i understand they can still sue, but not everyone together and they have to sign something saying they are not gonna use “coersive” tactics for settlements, also they have to be sued in the appropiate jurisdiction. i think the conference they are having in november is for the plaintiff to lay out exactly which does they want to sue and then they will get the does info at that time. In order to be sued in New Jersey they will have to prove that you literally and directly connected to a computer in new jersey.

        Im not an expert so dont take everything i say like its 100percent truth lol.

  7. anonymous says:

    their is another document about a conference that was set out on the same day as the dismissal i have no clue what that is about.

  8. Raul says:

    Late to the party but FANTASTIC NEWS!!!!!!

  9. Koragi says:

    So amazing reading this info! Also, big thanks to DieTrollDie for responding to my email last night. This is a huge step forward to getting this thing said and done for good. :)

  10. JohnD says:

    Looks like Game companies have joined the darkside in NJ

    1:12-cv-06611-JHR-AMD
    Dragon Quest Productions LLC

    1:12-cv-06539-JBS-KMW
    Battle Force LLC

    Plaintiff Counsel: Stamatios Stamoulis of Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC

    “Don’t feed the Trolls!!!!”

    • SJD says:

      These are not game companies but low-budget film producers, although it is easy to be confused given their names.

      • JohnD says:

        opps, my bad,

        thanks SJD :)

        • JohnD says:

          Another one by this stinkin Troll!!

          1:12-cv-06633-NLH-AMD
          Plaintiff: R&D Film 1 LLC
          Plaintiff Counsel: Stamatios Stamoulis of Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC

          Never even heard of these Companies

          “Don’t Feed the stinkin Trolls !!!”

  11. Anonymous says:

    There have been a flurry of activity by Cerillo yesterday:
    First MOTION for Extension of Time Within Which to Effectuate Service on John Doe Defendants by MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. for all cases initially filed 6/26/2012
    Request for Summons to be Issued by MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. as to Prabhuku Maramreddy. (CERILLO, PATRICK) (Entered: 10/24/2012) – case 3:12-cv-03898-JAP-LHG

    and what are people’s take on:
    ORDER that a Settlement Conference will be held on 11/29/2012 at 02:30 PM in Trenton – Courtroom 7E before Magistrate Judge Lois H. Goodman. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lois H. Goodman on 10/9/2012. (eaj) (Entered: 10/09/2012) – case 3:12-cv-03900-AET-LHG

    I wonder how Mr. Maramreddy messed up to be singled out already.

  12. JohnD says:

    Looks like they will keep filing since they are getting settlements from people, below is just one I found doing a quick search on RFC.

    Court Case Number: 3:12-cv-04695-JAP-DEA
    Plaintiff: Patrick Collins, Inc.
    Plaintiff Counsel: Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law
    Defendant: John Does 1-41

    Date # Docket Text
    10/12/2012 16 STIPULATION AND ORDER of Dismissal with prejudice as to John Doe 6 ONLY. Signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano on 10/12/212. (mmh) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
    10/12/2012 15 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice and Notice of Settlement as to John Doe 6 Only by PATRICK COLLINS, INC.. (CERILLO, PATRICK) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
    10/11/2012 14 Notice of Settlement and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice as to John Doe 11 ONLY. Signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano on 10/11/2012. (mmh) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
    10/10/2012 13 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice and Notice of Settlement as to John Doe 11 Only by PATRICK COLLINS, INC.. (CERILLO, PATRICK) (Entered: 10/10/2012)

    • SJD says:

      Cerillo is an interesting fruit. Rumors say that he ignores any attempt to contact him by defense lawyers, which may be a serious violation of the RPC.

  13. I’m happy to say Jay McDaniel has met his end thanks to our law firm (in at least two of his cases).

    I’m involved in a number of other cases representing Doe Defendants. Generally, the information on this site is wonderful. If you’d like specific advice, I’m always open to chatting with Defendants at no cost.

    My contact information is available at: http://www.mwm-law.com/amansharmaesquire.html

    We deal with Cerillo in NJ and his allies Fiore & Barber in PA quite a bit too.

  14. Anonymous says:

    been dead here for a while any new news on century media? does anyone think they will pursue the does individually that have been severed thus far?

  15. JohnD says:

    yet another one from this stinkin Troll:

    1:12-cv-06885-RMB-JS
    File Date: Tuesday, November 06, 2012
    Plaintiff: Voltage Pictures
    Plaintiff Counsel: Stamatios Stamoulis of Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC

    “Don’t feed the stinkin trolls!”

  16. Another one in NJ. Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-19. 3:12-cv-06945-MAS-DEA. Plaintiff Counsel: Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law.

  17. Mike says:

    So if I got one of these notices that they contacted my ISP with a subpoena for my info, what should I do? I emailed a few of the lawyers, but its a weekend so I don’t expect to hear back til next week. It doesn’t say the file they think I dled is, and there’s a half dozen computers in this house, so IDK who downloads what, if it was even downloaded. Anyone know the best course of action? How much a lawyer charges to file a motion to dismiss? If this ruling saying IP addresses aren’t people means anything?

    http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-a-person-bittorrent-case-judge-says-110503/

    Thanks

  18. Anonymous says:

    (11/19/2012 20 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by MALIBU MEDIA, LLC (CERILLO, PATRICK) (Entered: 11/19/2012)
    Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-46). Can I expect this to be over now?

    • Anonymous says:

      What does this means ? I have this on the case i am John Doe in :
      NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. (CERILLO, PATRICK) (Entered: 01/31/2013)

      Please advise
      The case details are here. http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/new-jersey-district-court/99129/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does-1-40/summary/
      I am getting the call from Someone named Bill Higgings.
      He mentioned to me that He will file the case against me.
      What should I do ?

      • Anonymous says:

        I’m one of us 1-40. Also I received phone call from CA. Did you contact lawyer for help ? if yes who ? What we should expect next ? Please any advice ?

        • anonymouseavenger says:

          This is a common tactic by the trolls. Avoid the phone calls. Search around on the site and you ought to find the numbers associated with them. Don’t talk to them.

          As far as the dismissal, they dismiss mass doe cases all the time. However, the statute of limitations is three years from the date that they allege the infringement… so they can refile the case or file against an individual at any point in time during those three years. However, as is noted in a lot of areas on this site: they rarely go after people individually.

          If you feel threatened you could always contact one of the three lawyers listed above.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Whoah! I am not sure what happened but yes, I see that Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-46 2:12-cv-03905-SRC-MAS has a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.

    The danger here is it does not specify if is its “Dismissal with Prejudice” because that means the plaintiff is permanently barred from further litigating the same subject.

    Unfortunately all the other NJ cases by Cerillo on that starting date do not say the same thing and he has named and served summons to a handful of people in Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-62 3:12-cv-03900-AET-LHG

    Let us hope this is a sign of the first domino falling for the Cerillo cases in NJ. But don’t celebrate just yet, he may be re-organizing to pursue easier prey.

  20. JohnD says:

    Is this good news or did they collect enough out of the 37 does to close it before anyone is on to them?

    Court Case Number: 1:12-cv-04710-RBK-AMD
    File Date: Thursday, July 26, 2012
    Plaintiff: Patrick Collins, Inc.
    Plaintiff Counsel: Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law
    Defendant: John Does 1-37

    11/26/2012 7 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by PATRICK COLLINS, INC. (CERILLO, PATRICK) (Entered: 11/26/2012)
    11/26/2012 ***Civil Case Terminated. As per 7 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. (drw) (Entered: 11/26/2012)

    • doh! says:

      Notice of Voluntary Dismissal’s are almost always without prejudice when done to dismiss a case. Unfortunately it could mean any number of things, but it most definitely means you could still be on the hook. As someone mentioned earlier they might just be re-grouping–perhaps they have found one or two to name based on an admission or the likelihood that they’ll get a default judgement. Just keep on keepin’ on until you get something official from a court like a summons. Anything short of that you can typically ignore (although it’s never a bad idea to talk to an informed lawyer to see where things stand, etc). Good luck.

      • JohnD says:

        Thanks for the reply, not my case, but I was trying to keep people updated as much as possible

        “Don’t Feed Trolls !!!!

        • JohnD says:

          Another 3 filed 12/12/12 by Troll Patrick J. Cerillo

          Patrick Collins Inc.

          2:12-cv-07614-JLL-MAH
          John Does 1-8

          3:12-cv-07620-PGS-TJB
          John Does 1-13

          Malibu Media LLC

          2:12-cv-07615-CCC-JAD
          John Does 1-11

          People must be settling for this troll to keep filing new cases.

          “Don’t feed the Stinkin’ Trolls”

  21. doecumb says:

    As JohnD reported, Patrick J. Cerillo, attorney filed 4 more cases last week for the porn purveyors Patrick Collins Inc and Malibu Media LLC.

    By plaintiff association, he is part of the large porn purveyor copyright troll lawyer group that includes Keith Lipscomb, Steven Eisenberg, Deborah Baker, Jason Kotzker, Jon Hoppe, Leemore Kushner, Christopher Fiore, and Mary K. Schulz.

    So far in calendar year 2012, 65% of ALL copyright cases in New Jersey have been copyright trolling cases, mostly for porn purveyors. The porn purveyor copyright troll agenda dominates dockets of Federal courts even where real intellectual property issues are major concerns. This is more evidence for porn purveyor copyright trolls misappropriating court resources.

  22. JohnD says:

    Thanks doecumb, I missed one, they must have posted it after I saw the 3

    1:12-cv-07643-NLH-AMD
    Malibu Media LLC
    John Does 1-18

    “Don’t Feed the Stinkin’ Trolls”

  23. Anonymous says:

    Hey guys, does anyone have any news about case 2:12 cv 03907-ES-CLW? The latest information i can get is that the judge on the case was switched in decemeber.

  24. Raul says:

    In case you missed SJD’s twitter feed Ray Beckerman noted a nice Order of Judge Falk in Third Degree Films v. Does 1-110 (12-cv-5817). The judge severs Does 2-110 from the lawsuit and then denies expedited discovery to Troll Cerillo as to Doe 1 because:

    ” plaintiff fails to define John Does 1-110 in its complaint other than to state that “[e]ach Defendant
    is known to Plaintiff only by an IP address.” (Comp. ¶ 2.) In some instances, the IP
    subscriber and the John Doe defendant may not be the same individual. Indeed, the
    infringer might be someone other than the subscriber; for instance, someone in the
    subscriber’s household, a visitor to the subscriber’s home or even someone in the vicinity
    that gains access to the network. See VPR Internationale v. Does 1-1017, No. 11-2068,
    2011 WL 8179128 (C.D.Ill. Apr. 29, 2011). As a result, Plaintiff’s sought after discovery
    has the potential to ensnare numerous innocent internet users into the litigation placing a
    burden on them that outweighs Plaintiff’s need for discovery as framed.
    Granting Plaintiff’s motion has the potential to permit Plaintiff to obtain detailed
    personal information of innocent individuals. This could subject an innocent individual to
    an unjustified burden.”

    http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/thirddegree_johndoes1-110_130117OrderDenyingDiscovery.pdf

  25. JohnD says:

    Thanks Raul for the update,
    looks like some Judges are finally catching on.

    “Don’t Feed the Stinkin Trolls”

  26. JoseDoe says:

    Could anyone tell me what this means?

    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/new-jersey-district-court/99121/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does-1-30/summary/

    1/21/2013 24 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by MALIBU MEDIA, LLC (CERILLO, PATRICK) (Entered: 01/21/2013)

    Are we all off the hook?

  27. JohnD says:

    What does this mean?

    3:12-cv-07620-PGS-TJB

    2/21/2013 11 AMENDED COMPLAINT against JOHN DOES 1-13, filed by PATRICK COLLINS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B to Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit C to Amended Complaint, # 4 Exhibit D to Amended Complaint)(CERILLO, PATRICK) (Entered: 02/21/2013)

    Troll Cerillo did this in a bunch of cases also

    did 2 single doe cases:

    2:13-cv-00971-WJM-MF
    Friday, February 15, 2013
    Plaintiff: Malibu Media, LLC
    Plaintiff Counsel: Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law
    Defendant: John Doe

    2:13-cv-00973-FSH-PS
    Friday, February 15, 2013
    Plaintiff: Malibu Media, LLC
    Plaintiff Counsel: Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law
    Defendant: John Doe

    • JohnD says:

      Another single Doe by this Troll – Patrick J. Cerillo

      3:13-cv-01159-FLW-LHG
      Wednesday, February 27, 2013
      Malibu Media LLC
      Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law
      Defendant: John Doe

      Anyone have any thought on what is happening in NJ with these?

      thanks again to SJD, DTD, Raul, TAC and others who has helped to educate with their great work !!!!

      • JohnD says:

        4 more hit RFC Express from Troll Patrick J. Cerillo,

        one even says assigned an IP address, what do you think he is trying to do?

        Scare tactics for sure, but do you think they answered the exculpatory evidence request or did they ignore it?

        thanks for any input

        3:13-cv-01185-PGS-DEA
        File Date: Wednesday, February 27, 2013
        Plaintiff: Malibu Media, LLC
        Plaintiff Counsel: Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law
        Defendant: John Doe

        2:13-cv-01179-FSH-PS
        File Date: Wednesday, February 27, 2013
        Plaintiff: Malibu Media, LLC

        2:13-cv-01105-ES-SCM
        File Date: Monday, February 25, 2013
        Plaintiff: Malibu Media, LLC

        C-M13-972J
        Court Case Number: 2:13-cv-00972-SDW-MCA
        File Date: Friday, February 15, 2013
        Plaintiff: Malibu Media, LLC
        Plaintiff Counsel: Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law
        Defendant: John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.54.255.28

        • JohnD says:

          Some more from Troll Patrick J. Cerillo:

          3:13-cv-01159-FLW-LHG

          2:13-cv-01176-KM-MAH Defendant: John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.32.191.163

          2:13-cv-01104-ES-SCM Defendant: John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.35.11.132

          2:13-cv-01106-WHW-CLW Defendant: John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.70.130.138

          Anyone have more info? or thought on what he is up to

  28. Cm says:

    Looking at the rfc express website it looks like the century media lawsuits may have been dismissed

  29. JohnD says:

    Another two from Troll Patrick J. Cerillo :

    2:13-cv-01178-FSH-PS Defendant: John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.142.2.132

    2:13-cv-01180-KM-MAH

    • JohnD says:

      Just noticed these on RFC by Troll Patrick J Cerillo,

      Looks like a lot settled (I hope not), because they still have a lot other cases still open, especially Malibu Media ones.

      2:12-cv-05815-FSH-PS
      September 13, 2012
      Patrick Collins, Inc.
      Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law
      Defendant:John Does 1-50

      3/5/2013 ***Civil Case Terminated. (jd, ) (Entered: 03/05/2013)

      2:12-cv-05817-WJM-MF
      September 12, 2012
      Third Degree Films, Inc.
      Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law
      Defendant:John Does 1-110

      1/18/2013 ***Civil Case Terminated. (jd, ) (Entered: 01/18/2013)

  30. Anonymous says:

    so, i just read in frc express for this
    RFC Case Number:

    C-P12-3908J

    Court Case Number:

    2:12-cv-03908-KSH-PS

    File Date:

    Tuesday, June 26, 2012

    Plaintiff:

    Patrick Collins, Inc.

    Plaintiff Counsel:

    Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law

    Defendant:

    John Does 1-43

    Cause:

    17:101 Copyright Infringement

    Court:

    New Jersey District Court

    Judge:

    Judge Katharine S. Hayden
    Referred To: Magistrate Judge Patty Shwartz
    case:

    ————–civil case is terminated. 2/28/2013

    does tha mean this is over?

  31. Anonymous says:

    it looks like the Patrick j cerillo case for does 1-43 . it shows that the civil case was terminated on rfc express. Is this good news?

    • JohnD says:

      Can anyone tell me what this order means?

      Court Case Number: 2:12-cv-07614-JLL-MAH
      File Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012
      Plaintiff: Patrick Collins Inc.
      Plaintiff Counsel: Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law
      Defendant: John Does 1-8

      2/26/2013 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 4 Motion to Expedite Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 2/25/13. (DD, ) (Entered: 02/26/2013)

      thank you

      • Doh! says:

        I think it means that a “limited” discovery has been approved—usually meaning the troll can ask for your name and e-mail address or home address, but NOT your phone number so the harassment is sometimes limited. It can sometimes be much more specific than that–some judges have been specific that very limited information can be given under seal to the court. Generally it’s a somewhat-favorable ruling for does, depending on the exact wording.

  32. Alan Coopernuts says:

    What is the deal with Cerillo’s voluntary dismissals and Judge Arpert’s ruling quashing subpoenas on internet carriers? Does the quashing make illegal all of the information that Cerillo had previously received from the carriers?

    • JohnD says:

      Please correct me if I am wrong, but the voluntary dismissals usually means they got a settlement, and the quashing means the carrier will release the info, unless the carrier fights it themselves.

      “Don’t Feed the Stinkin Trolls”

      • DieTrollDie says:

        It is very hard to tell what each order actually states from only reading the docket text. Need to read the actual order to be sure. A voluntary dismissal can be for single Does, multiple Does, or the entire case. It can also mean a Doe settled (with prejudice) or the Plaintiff just decided to end the case because it benefited them (without prejudice). As far as quashing the subpoena, the judge has to make it very clear that the Plaintiff cannot use the information they already have – otherwise they are free to use it.

        DTD :)

      • JoseDoe says:

        Not necessarily. Single Doe dismissals CAN mean settlement, especially when there’s no MTQ or MTS in the docket. If there’s not Motions initiated by the Doe, then it’s reasonable to assume a dismissal is a result of a settlement. Motions, whether successful or not, may result in dismissals, as the local counsel might feel the Doe is too expensive to deal with.

        Mass dismissals are new, and might just mean that the local counsel is scared off by the antics of Prenda, even if it’s a Lipscomb lawsuit.

        Quashing a subpoena means deleting it. The ISPs wave the quashing order at the trolls and shout “Your mother was a hamster…” The Personal information cannot be squeezed out of the ISPs.

        HOWEVER: it’s up to you to ensure that these successfully quashed subpoenas are brought to the attention of the ISP. As we have seen in Judge Wright’s world, the trolls are…..not as diligent about these details as the Does are. Sure, the details aren’t supposed to be released, but you shouldn’t rely on 1) the trolls letting the ISPs know and/or 2) the ISPs checking PACER to see if a quash is in effect.

        Is the subpoena for your Doe IP quashed? Get on the horn with your ISP NOW to ensure they mark their records accordingly.

      • Anonymous says:

        There are three common types of voluntary dismissal by a troll.

        Individual Doe with prejudice – almost always means settlement.

        Individual Doe without prejudice – usually means plaintiff was unable to pursue for some reason. eg. because ISP responded that they did not have the subscriber record.

        All Does in a multi Doe suit – Often doesn’t mean anything, after the troll has the contact information they went to court for there is no reason to keep a mass case open. They have their names for extortion threats and if they choose to followup in court the next step would be a new case against a single defendant. Could also mean actually abandoning the case.

        Quashing a subpoena is only helpful if the information has not already been released, once the troll has your name the court can’t make them give it back.

  33. Gordon says:

    I am talking about all Does remaining being dismissed. I understand that they can refile but it seems pervasive on the Perillo filed Malibu Media lawsuits that he is dismissing all remaining cases under multiple docket numbers.

  34. Alan Coopernuts says:

    What is happening with Cerillo’s Malibu Media Suits in NJ? Is he now doing Lipscomb style single doe cases out of the old cases…ie where the bittorent was well over a year ago? Or is he starting with more recent does? It would seem difficult for them to obtain computer information on old computers, possibly replaced, with Win 8 migration, etc. Also, Cerillo doesn’t seem to send the same warning letters as other trolls, demanding non-destruction of “potential evidence” but rather resorts to annoying phone calls by guys that sound like hi pressured camera salesman.

    • Anonymous says:

      All of the complaints that I have read in Malibu’s flood of single doe filings this year have claimed the most recent download took place within, at most, two months of the filing and most are more like 3-4 weeks. So it seems like all of these are new cases, not rehashes from previous mass suits.

      Reformatting your computer for Windows 8 (or for any other reason) after receiving legal papers would look an awful lot like spoliation whether the trolls’ extortion letter specifically mentioned it or not. That would suit Lipscum just fine should one these go to trial.

  35. pentium says:

    Not intentionally reformatting. But, if not noticed of a subpoena or a subsequent case, doesn’t the information get stale. I would venture that a percentage would do a clean installation for windows 8 and that many would have purchased a new computer on cases that our a year, 18 months, 2 years old, etc.

    • Doetidoe says:

      I can tell you from personal experience that if too much time goes by there wont be much they can do. In my case they tried to come after me for allegedly downloading months before, and in the interim I had gotten a new computer and scrubbed and donated the old one. I politely told them on the phone that I had my donation receipts as well as my new computer reciepts, so whatever they were accusing me of all the evidence would have to come from their side (which, as we’ve seen, is incredibly WEAK evidence) and I’d see them in court. They tried one or two more scary calls, but that was well over a year ago and I haven’t heard from them since.

      I think the only thing that matters is when you got the letter as opposed to when you re-formatted or upgraded or whatever. If you got the letter then the next day decided it was time for a windows 8 upgrade that might look kind of fishy…

  36. William III says:

    I have never received anything from the trolls in writing though I did get a notice of the ISP request. All I got from the trolls were the usual intimidating phone calls and I gave them the Richard Pryor response. The calls started around 18 months ago and continued for a few months and then stopped. Since my John Doe case was so long ago can I consider myself safe as well?

    • JohnD says:

      Noticed this today on RFC:

      Case – 3:12-cv-07620-PGS-TJB
      File Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012
      Plaintiff: Patrick Collins Inc.
      Plaintiff Counsel: Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law

      5/20/2013 24 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by PATRICK COLLINS, INC. (CERILLO, PATRICK) (Entered: 05/20/2013)

      Is it for one person, or is it for the entire case?

  37. CuriousDoe says:

    What happens if you have two computers? The Copyright trolls couldn’t possibly know which one did the downloading or even the fact that a person HAS more than one computer.

  38. CuriousDoe2 says:

    Been a couple months since any posts. It’s a little creepy quiet! Does anybody have news as to what is going on in Jersey?

  39. Warden Wright says:

    Well, I saw that Cerillo filed a new lawsuit against a single Doe on 8/2.

    • Anonymous says:

      Five new Malibu suits on 8/2. It had been exactly four months since their last batch in NJD.

      • JohnD says:

        Question, does Troll Cerillo already have the info on the IPs?, or he already got the info from the ISP (ina previous case against multiple does) and these are the scare tactic to entice a settlement?

  40. Amazing Grace says:

    Question: I received numerous harrassing calls from Malibu Media (X-Art) people about alleged illegal downloading almost two years ago. I initially told them I would look into it and to call me back. I looked into it and found all of the computers in our house not to have an downloaded porn on them. Plus, not even the kids had bittorrent programs.

    The next time they called, I told them this and they insisted that I must not have checked hard enough. I told them I did and that I live in a condo unit and maybe someone got a hold of my wifi which wasn’t secured. They told me everybody secures their wifi. I said I don’t and I know plenty of people who don’t.

    They said they would get back to me.

    I haven’t heard from them in nearly two years. Could I still be a target?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      If two years has past, I would say you are very likely free and clear. After the notification and calls, did you secure the WiFi connection? If you haven’t, it could happen again. Having an Open WiFi can be nice, but sometimes it comes with some risk of what other people may do on it.

      DTD :)

    • doecumb says:

      DTD is much more knowledgeable but I agree. Strategically, trolls have every reason to move on to threaten fresher targets. Newly frightened Does are better targets. It’s harder in general to make a stale legal case, and hard to investigate many months and years after an allegation.

      For newer readers, please avoid talking directly to trolls except MAYBE to tell them not to call again. Let’s view this case as fortunate that talking to trolls probably did not cause big harm. We have hundreds of examples of porn copyright trolls and their lackeys acting in bad faith, and almost none of trolls acting in good faith.

      http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/faq-men/faq/

      “So what should I say/write?
      Just hang up / ignore his emails. If for any reason you want to communicate with plaintiff’s lawyer, consult with an attorney first, and not just any attorney, but one with experience in copyright litigation field and have a good reputation.”

      http://dietrolldie.com/newbie-noob-start-here/

  41. Collette Rides Pony says:

    Any update on the Malibu Media cases in New Jersey? Any new filings or dismissals? Anything? What is the Statute of Limitations on these cases?

    • JohnD says:

      the Statute of Limitations is 3 years from the date of infringement, any updates from others would be appreciated

  42. Raul says:

    Do not want to jinx things but even with the service of a few summons it appears that this troll is not as aggressively pursing these case as are the rest of Lipscomb’s stable.

  43. I am defending these cases in New Jersey and New York.
    Leslie A. Farber

  44. JohnD says:

    Troll Cerillo is at it again in NJ:

    Court Case Number:3:14-cv-03864-MAS-DEA
    File Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2014
    Plaintiff: Malibu Media LLC
    Plaintiff Counsel: Patrick J. Cerillo

    Court Case Number:3:14-cv-03866-MAS-DEA
    File Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2014
    Plaintiff: Malibu Media LLC
    Plaintiff Counsel: Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law

    • JohnD says:

      8 more from Mr Troll Cerillo in New Jersey for Malibu, same date 6-27-2014, didn’t show up the other day

  45. JohnD says:

    4 more in New Jersey by Troll Cerillo for a total of 14 so far,

    typo on previous date 6-17-14

  46. JohnD says:

    16 more in NJ from Mr Troll Cerillo for Malibu dated 7/10 and 7/11

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