Washington
Active trolls
Attorneys who defend troll victims
- Bradford Patrick: a Doe defender from Tampa, Florida. Obviously, licensed in Florida.
- John Whitaker: an attorney from Seattle. Check his blog “Copyright Infringement Advisor.”
- Mike Matesky: an attorney from Seattle who defends individuals accused of copyright infringement in download cases.
- Benjamin Justus and Lory Lybeck are attorneys at Lybeck Murphy, LLP in Mercer Island, Washington, they comprise the Download Defenders team.
- Gary Marshall, Seattle attorney, has been defending movie download cases for three years. Check out his blog.
- Scott Jerger: an attorney who defends troll victims in Oregon and Washington.
Relevant posts
Announcements
Comments
Why is there no troll activity in WA?
I will be moving here shortly, but I got ISP letter recently and not sure if they can sue me in home state?
I haven’t been able to figure out if a troll has moved in WA state. There has been what seems to be increased activity from Richard J. Symmes of Symmes Law Group. In the past month, he’s filed a bunch of cases in the Western Washington Court. The companies he represents don’t seem familiar to me. Here are some of the plaintiff’s
R & D Film 1, LLC
Riding Films,Inc
Zembezia Film (Pty.) Ltd.
The Ledge Distribution, LLC
Any have any ideas what this guy is up to?
Troll.
http://torrentlawyer.wordpress.com/tag/frontier-law-group/
I have a freind who has been named in two separate lawsuits just this week filed by this guy on behalf of Zembezia Film
Yes, it looks like the trolls have landed in Washington State. I’m starting to get a large number of calls from people right now for these cases, which all appear to have been filed by the same plaintiff’s lawyer.
What is the best course of action. Friend receives notice from his ISP that they are order to give personal info to the Plaintiff. Any basis to quash the subpeona or does he simply what to be served and then answer to avoid a default?
The best course of action will depend on your Friend’s particular circumstances. He should give one of us a call and talk about the best solution for him. Sometimes people don’t want their name in public filings; sometimes they don’t care. Some people want to fight the trolls on principal, other times they just want out. I don’t think there really is a one-size-fits-all answer to that question.
I recently received a subpoena for my ISP to relinquish my information, the plaintiff being Zembezia Film by this Symmes troll. To make matters worse I don’t even remember watching the movie they claim I accessed, and I can’t find any evidence as such.
The sad part to all of this is even though they likely have no evidence to stand on in court, it appears it would have cost me more money to attempt to fight back. So I’ve already settled through an attorney to keep my information private.
SpazD,
Do you have a copy of the complaint or can point to it? Thanks!
DTD
Here’s a link to the complaint. . .
http://www.scribd.com/doc/136934435/Zambezia-Amended-Complaint
Thanks John. I will review in a while. The system I’m on doesn’t like Scrib.
DTD
Thats one of the many cases that have been opened for Zembezia Film in WDWA. I prefer not to name the specific case publicly though, but here is a list: http://www.torrentlitigation.com/archive/zambezia-film-ltd.html
SpazD: Your story is very familiar. I am getting a large number of calls from people who tell me that they have no idea why they are being named and they never even heard of the movie they are accused of downloading.
How about dropbox?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5ghvhajfu53ip55/Amended%20Complaint.pdf
As with Mr. Whitaker, I am currently representing multiple clients who have received subpoena notices in cases filed by plaintiffs’ attorney Richard Symmes.
The link to my name at the top doesn’t seem to work, but you can contact me via my (soon to be improved) website at http://www.mateskylaw.com.
Good luck,
Mike
Thanks for noticing the broken link (common mistake: WordPress requires “http://” prefix, which I failed to add). Fixed.
If you’ve been sued by a copyright troll in Seattle, check here to see if your case has been “quashed” http://goo.gl/f67K5
Of course this would happen after I’d already settled…
Anyone know anything about the Elf-Man troll in Western Washington? We have been named as a Doe in this (fwiw, we actually did *not* download this movie – never even heard of it until we got the notice from comcast).
Seattle case subpoena has been quashed – anyway to see the judges remarks on the quash so we can use it over here and hopefully get the same result?
I believe Mr. Whitaker’s link (above) actually contains a link to the Order in the Elf-Man case. Judge Lasnick has been issuing nearly-identical orders in all the W.D. Wash. cases over the last few days giving the plaintiffs 14 days to show cause why all Does (except for the first Doe in each case) should not be severed for misjoinder. So, we’ll probably know a lot more about how these cases will ultimately be treated in 2-3 weeks.
Thanks Mike – I checked the link and I wasn’t sure if what he was citing was only for the Eastern Washington order. There is a separate order in Western Washington (2:13-cv-00115-TOR) which is Does 1-29 under Judge Thomas Rice.
John – if you are following this thread, do you know if this is the same? Do you represent folks over here in Western Washington?
This Order was issued by Judge Lasnick in the Western District of Washington: http://www.scribd.com/doc/140696849/ORDER-Quashing-Subpoenas-in-Elf-Man-Case
I’m not sure of the status of the Elf-Man case proceeding under Judge Rice in the Eastern District of Washington.
Hello, yes I do represent quite a few people here in the Western District of Washington. I don’t represent anyone in Eastern Washington yet.
Any one working on this case in eastern wa don’t know what to do about these notices we have received 4. Can anyone help…
I am going to try to submit an anonymous motion to quash using the the template on this site (and updating it accordingly). Since they were all quashed in Western WA, I am hoping that they will be in Eastern, too.
I submitted the motion to Quash today. Basically used the same template on this site with the Argument in tact. I made some changes to the Introduction (below).
J Prater – you may want to submit a motion to quash (anonymously) as well. Perhaps if Judge Rice gets several of these this will get quashed sooner rather than later.
I received a letter from my ISP regarding a subpoena, which included a copy of the Order Granting Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Take Discovery.
The practice that Maureen VanderMay is attempting is commonly referred to as copyright trolling. From accounts of previous defendants of this kind of case, these subpoena notifications are followed by demand letters. These letters — which demand between $2000 and $4000 to avoid dealing with their lawsuit — and their phone calls, which are persistent , are the reason I am filing this motion, and for this reason, I respectfully request that I be allowed to do so without revealing my personally identifying information. That being said, I do want to offer the court a means of contacting me and have therefore created an anonymous email address:
INTRODUCTION
To cut court costs while suing as many individuals as possible, Plaintiff’s counsel, Maureen VanderMay is using improper joinders in their mass lawsuits alleging copyright infringement through BitTorrent. These lawsuits include hundreds of defendants in Washington alone. Maureen VanderMay has filed an identical mass subpoena in Eastern Washington: Elf-Man, LLC v. Does 1-152 case No. C13-0507RSL. Justice Robert Lasnik notes in the Order to Show Cause Quashing all Subpoenas:
“As the full extent of this assignment has become clear, the Court admits to some concerns regarding both the appropriateness of joinder and the possibility the judicial authority of the United States may be used to wrest improvident settlements from pro se litigants under threat of huge statutory penalties. The Court is not alone: other judicial officers in the Ninth Circuit are beset by the same concerns and have taken various paths to mitigate the potential for abuse. See, e.g., Ingenuity 13 LLC v. John Doe, No. 2:12-cv-9333-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2013); Voltage Pictures LLC v. Does 1-12, No. 2:13-292-AA (D. Or. May 4, 2013).”