John Steele and Prenda Law

This is the place to discuss predatory porn lawsuits by John Steele and his gang (Formerly Steele Hansmeier, now Prenda Law, and soon “Anti-piracy law group”):

PRENDA LAW, INC. 1111 Lincoln Road, #400 (Regus Business Center)
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Telephone: 305-748-2102
Fax: 305-748-2103
http://www.wefightpiracy.com

See the Copyright trolls page for the list of scam artists.

Telephone numbers Prenda use to place harassment calls:

305-748-2102
800-380-0840
312-880-9160
305-397-8558
702-445-6064

Supplemental pages
Announcements

January 2014.

An attorney who has represented several dozen folks accused of movie and music downloads would like to speak with individuals who have settled a porn downloading claim (for whatever reason) when they did not download the alleged file or movie.

The attorney is trying to determine if there is a pattern to those sorts of settlements which could form the basis for legal action.

The conversation would be completely confidential, and would not create any obligation on your part. If you are interested in speaking with that attorney, please send him an email to attorney@fightcopyrighttrolls.com.

Comments
  1. Anonymous says:

    Hard Drive Productions, Inc., one of Steele | Hansmeier/Prenda’s best clients, was just sued regarding their conduct in their Northern California cases. The complaint goes for everything, covers the whole extortion scam, lack of copyright registration, attacks the copyrightability of the work and even accuses HDP of violating pimping, solicitation and prostitution laws in the production of their works. This is being discussed like crazy in the comments for the Duffy vs. EFF articles but I think it deserves to be posted here.

    Wong v. Hard Drive Productions Inc. and Does 1-50 (LOL!):

    http://ia600809.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.cand.250725/gov.uscourts.cand.250725.4.0.pdf

  2. DieTrollDie says:

    Well I believe I just had a couple posts from John Steele at dietrolldie.com Here is the cut/paste from it. Such a wonderful person. It was in reply to this post – http://dietrolldie.com/2012/01/14/dtd-torpedo-hits-prenda-case-111-cv-09064-pacific-century-international-ltd-v-does-1-31-troll-paul-duffy/

    “johndoe says:
    February 3, 2012 at 9:18 pm (Edit)

    HAHA! That filing of yours was very entertaining (like watching a handicapped kid pretend to be a lawyer). Too bad you had a real judge read that gem. Judge Leinenweber said “what is this?” before striking it. Keep up the stellar work you crack legal minds! HAHA. Its funny how you write about filing your silly motions but forget to follow up and notify your readers that the judge held their nose and drop kicked your motion into the garbage.

    • We assume you arent going to settle says:

      This comment coming from him.

      “Keep up the stellar work you crack legal minds!”

      He is about as mature as a sperm cell.

    • anonymous WITH prejudice says:

      Steele aka Captain Hubris has a lot of, erm, nerve(?) casting aspersions on others’ skills .

      He is, after all, the ‘ genius ‘ using his stooge Lutz to STILL chase after ( 1.04pm pac time )

      dismissed WITH prejudiced DOES !!!!!

    • Anonymous says:

      What I’m seeing is what I believe to be a wickedly nasty case of NPD…narcissistic personality disorder. Those afflicted with NPD believe that no one else exists, their needs come first at any cost, they are THE BEST at what they do, yada yada you get the picture. In essence, they are delusional. Their reaction to being “challenged” is usually vicious, immature, deriding, chastising, yada yada. How do I know all of this? Three of my ex-girlfriends have NPD, or so I suspect (I really know how to pick ‘em).

  3. Tech says:

    Mark Lutz comedy show, take over 9000+
    “Expect paperwork naming you soon!!!!!eleventyone!!!!”

    You know, after we get done naming the thousand people in trials that were filed months before yours…
    After we explain to the judge in San Jose wtf we’ve done the last 160ish days since that trial started…
    With our one lawyer who has repeatedly screwed up all the cases in your state so far….

  4. Anonymous says:

    wonder what this guy has to say?

    http://info.law.indiana.edu/sb/page/normal/1596.html

    someone should make him aware!

  5. cj says:

    The very crack law team at Prenda cant seem to figure out where they filed suit. First letter says northern district of California, second letter says northern district of Illinois, and the suit was actually filed in the District of Columbia. Can a suit be dismissed for the attorney not knowing where they are?

    • Prenda/Steele Needs an Intervention/Rehab says:

      Received a similar letter. Actual suit is filed in one state with the case # at the top, but listed in the “mass copied pre-made” paragraph template below stating the case was from Northern District of Illinois (this is so last year or before). Wrong!

      This is where you John (The Pirate Hunter) Steele first showed that you were a regular jackass to the legal system, at least relating to copyright litigation (extortion scams). They caught on to your old Chicago style legal/political hijinks and ran your ass out of town (oh sorry you retired), and so you moved your troll and pony show to the next best district.

      Miami, Florida. Its prettier there but in terms of corruption it still smells very bad there. You must have some (shady) connections there else how could a legal eagle like you do business there. The politicians there must be cheap cause you are 1 tight bastard IMO.

      John, we all know you do not have the time or the resources to do “ethical and proper” legal work on your scam er um cases.

      Do your sub-trolls do all their own paperwork because business so bad that you can not afford to hire qualified para-legals to research and send out your notices (like professional attorneys do), or is there just not enough dirty money rolling in from your grand scheme? Do you have so many cases that you & your wart ridden troll spawn can not keep up with them all, so you half ass these “oh so serious” notices?

      My guess this is the result of:

      1. Not hiring paralegals to research & notify (cheap bastard)
      2. No pride in your work as an attorney (do Ctrolls actually experience emotions like pride?)
      3. Non-curable case of the dumbass (most likely as all Ctrolls are definitely afflicted with this)
      4. Stricken by greed (common among human beings, but inherent in Ctroll species)
      5. Do not have the right connections or funds to bribe the corrupt element of our justice system.
      or
      D. All of the above

      Your lack of confidence in your scheme is apparent by your recent comments. You could make these remarks to your troll buddies in private, but you expose yourself (pervert) when you comment on the blogs with childish insults. Very unprofessional for an attorney. Dont have to attend law school to understand the reasoning behind this.

      You may get my name and my personal information, but you will never get a dime from me.
      If I had done what you & yours have accused me of doing I probably would just have settled because its just the right thing to do. Since you seemed to have a random way of accusing people of copyright infringement I would bet that your profit margin will be low.

      We have not seen anything impressive so far in your campaign (extortion plot).
      Whatever the case, I would like to see the minutes transcript from the case if you (Steele/Prenda) actually take someone to trial.

      Either have a team of “crack legal minds” (Prenda) working on these cases John,
      or you have a team of “legal minds on crack”!

      I believe its the latter.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Has the docket page for the 1,495 HDP case been down?

    http://ia700708.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.150362/gov.uscourts.dcd.150362.docket.html

    Any updates on what the ruling was??

    • Indeed down. Other Recap summaries are available. Bizarre…

    • anonymous says:

      The docket is still available, there has not been a ruling as of yet. The only update is a corrected docket entry.

    • Donald Duck says:

      It’s been down like that since yesterday afternoon. But as another poster pointed out, no updates on PACER. So no news yet.

      • Anonymous says:

        So has our information been given to the trolls yet or no?

        • Bambi says:

          Don’t know yet, I haven’t received any calls. Possible that they’re just sifting through the info now, or the ISP’s wised up and hasn’t released anything. In either case, just stick to the game plan and we’ll find out soon enough.

      • Sloop John D says:

        The documents on PACER have not been updated either. So at this point, no news is good news, I believe. Perhaps, His Honor, decided to listen to the arguments put forth by the EFF.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Okay so i have now been called by mr. lutz twice now in regaurds to the settlement letters….no such letter has arrived. anyone else getting calls but no letters? and any new word on openmind vs does 1-565? i keep looking for anything new and have yet to see anything. any hope of it getting thrown out? lol. keeping my fingers crossed.

    • Tech says:

      Don’t expect them to be able to count or actually send mail when they say they did. Poor Mr. Lutz has thousands of people to harass, you can’t expect him to keep anything straight.

      • Anonymous says:

        He called me once and left me a message beginning with “Hi Mar…errr, (insert my name here), this is Mark Lutz calling from Prenda Law how’re you doing this morning?” like I’m his old college drinking buddy. I can’t believe this dickhead earned a degree in finance from a Pac-12 school, it obviously cheapens Arizona State’s reputation (like it even had one after what I’ve heard).

        He’ll call you 3 times during the span of a week and he’ll have a script for each time, but then he’ll mix up the scripts. He’ll threaten to sue you on day 1, then beg you to settle on day 2, then threaten to sue you on day 3. “blah blah blah federal lawsuit blah blah” then “our plaintiff wants to settle” the next day, followed by “blah blah federal lawsuit grrrrr more lawyers blah blah blah” on the third day, etc. How can ANYONE take this idiot seriously when he’s this big of a fuck up?

        If they can’t hire any more morons to work the phones, how am I supposed to believe that they have more lawyers.

  8. The pirate hunter says:

    Its too painful to read some of this sad blog without responding to a few things.

    1. The EFF’s motion is for the judge to allow them to actually file an amicus brief. The issue for the judge now is whether the EFF has a unique perspective that allows them to bring facts and law to the attention of the court that the court would otherwise be ignorant of. Because if the purpose of the brief is to simply argue against one side, that would be improper. I know this site is not big on real caselaw, But this judge you people have never heard of, Judge Posner has an excellent opinion stating exactly that. An amicus brief is a “friend of the court” role, and thus if someone would like to oppose a motion for leave to file an amicus brief, they attack the objectivity and motives of the so called amicus. That is why Prenda cited some of the EFF’s past to show what they are about.

    2. the ARDC’s website is http://www.iardc.org. They have investigated this type of litigation and I hear that Prenda has received over 10 complaints in the past 4 months. All have been simply dropped. People can file as many as they want. The problem for Freetards is that since a sitting Federal judge says what Prenda is doing is AOK, then what exactly is the ARDC going to say? “Judge, your an idiot that doesn’t understand the law”. No, I think the ARDC, and the lawyers who compose it, probably will continue to defer to judges appointed by the President of the United States. Which brings me to my favorite;

    3. When Freetards file their silly MTQ. and they keep getting rejected, its because your telling the judge, “Judge I know you looked at this case, and issued an order. But let me tell you (in a completely conclusory, non-legal argument) why you are a fool that made a mistake. Here is a news flash, the judges know from day one all about our cases, and have spoken amongst themselves about these cases in judicial conferences. They know when they sign a discovery order what it means.

    4. One post, which makes fun of Steele for making fun of pirates (a bit ironic) must not be paying attention. I’m not aware of a case in the past three months that Prenda has lost (although I am not practicing in CA and have heard some there have been kicked). Bragging about filing a pleading, like dietrolldie filed recently is fine. But then you Freetards forget to update your site with the inconvenient truth that the hail mary you were all excited about was kicked out. dietrolldie’s “torpedo” must have missed the proverbial boat. And I am sure this site got right on the fact that Judge Castillo threw out the EFF’s last 100+ page opus. If I was a pirate, or hosting some sad site like this, I wouldn’t want to write about Judge Castillo’s complete destruction of every one of the EFF’s arguments either.

    5. Not everyone who posts here in favor of protecting copyrights, or who posts making fun of you Freetards is Steele. There is more than one attorney who makes good money off of fighting pirates. Some of us are feeling neglected. And one of my fellow pirate hunters is mad his photo isn’t on your troll board! How can I have nailed more pirates than Steele and hardly every get mentioned!?

    6. We pirate hunters love to read these blogs. Its not like we aren’t coming up with new litigation every month. Some work, some don’t. Sometimes we even get idea’s from these posts. (for example, I think its time to rotate area codes we call from). Have a wonderful Superbowl Sunday, I will!

    • Doe X says:

      Riiighht. Your not Steele. We believe you. That is why you spent that longwinded diatribe FUDIng around about the EFF and how successful Prenda has been in every location but Calif. A few cases in California??? Prenda is getting its ass kicked in California. Please be honest if you are going to even bring up your success there recently. Good luck with the Yuen lawsuit BTW. I guess you would consider his firm some fly by night Freetard haven anyways. Ignorance is bliss. What is a freetard anyways?? I am shocked that they give law degrees to people who write like a 13 year old boy. You argue that this IARDC group has received all these unsuccessful complaints, thus validating the morality and legality of your extortion scheme. I guess if it helps you sleep better at night.. We will see what the courts think about your scheme now that a lawsuit has been filed by a Doe. I know these are tough times… Keeping Spinning Johnny Boy or whoever the heck you ar. Happy super bowl sunday!! Drink some Pirat Ale.. or more of your sad, sad Kool Aid.

    • DJ says:

      Yeah, yeah, we get it. Motions to quash are silly, complaints to the ARDC are futile, we’re all pirates, blahblahblah. Please post more often, John. I do enjoy reading your rants.

    • Comment to #6 (in conjunction with the first sentence: “Its too painful to read some of this sad blog” …. “6. We pirate hunters love to read these blogs”….)

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defeating_personality_disorder

    • instigator says:

      Well I guess the life of a troll mostly is one of obscurity. Yes I am sure that by using different area codes you will net more $$ for you guys (sarcasm intended).

      This isnt about being in favor of protecting copyrights. Its about collecting money by threatening a lawsuit for something you can not prove to begin with. These “freetards” you mention have to work to earn their living, not scam it from someone else.

      “I’m not aware of a case in the past three months that Prenda has lost”

      I must have blinked and missed all these jury trials that have taken place in Ca. I wasnt aware that people have been tried & found guilty by a jury in a civil case or cases there.

      Great, gotta go smells like “pirate hunter” in here.

    • Anonymous says:

      “Judge, your an idiot that doesn’t understand the law”. Well, I could pick that sentence apart. First of all, “your” refers to a possessive…so, you’re saying that the judge has an idiot? That makes no sense, go back to school. “…that doesn’t….” should be “…who doesn’t….” Oh, and periods go INSIDE quotations. Four years of undergrad at Georgetown and three years of law school and you still can’t properly construct a sentence. That’s just sad.

    • Anonymous says:

      I noticed the grammatical errors as well and for that reason find it hard to believe a lawyer wrote that. It’s just vanilla comment troll methinks. At least it was an entertaining read…

      • Anonymous says:

        If that wasn’t John Steele, he sure as hell acts like him, along with makes the same grammatical and sentence structure errors as Steele does. The arrogance, hubris, and general lack of respect for anyone and a Steele trademark. Also, he’s well read as far as the lawsuits are concerned (by well read I mean delusional, just like Steele). I’m 99.999% sure that “The pirate hunter” is John Steele.

    • JDS says:

      Ignore this douchebag, whether or not he is Johnny boy or some other scumbag troll doesn’t really matter. There are more important things to do than to take this seriously.

      If these guys were real “pirate hunters” there are two cases in CA where the judge asked them to stop mucking around and name the alleged pirate in a lawsuit if they dare. The fact that Pretenda Law doesn’t have the balls to go after two individuals, let alone thousands of Does, is proof enough that these imbeciles are just paper tigers.

    • CTVic says:

      I wonder what our resident douchebag troll hopes to accomplish with his not-so-cleverly enumerated comments here? He creates a situation that demands a public response, aka blogs like this. Then he posts misinformation and insults in a childish attempt to get people “riled up”?

      It’s like a beekeeper who builds a hive with the intent of harvesting the honey … but he keeps throwing rocks at it because the bees are so funny when they’re agitated. The first result is that the hive doesn’t produce honey like it should, because the bees are more focused on defense than actually making honey. The second result is that at some point, the bees are going to get sick of it and finally sting the fucker to death.

    • Once you go BLACK says:

      Hey John,

      How’s Kerry? Tell her I said hi! Have you figured out she has no gag reflex?

      Shaquille

      • Anonymous says:

        totally inappropriate in this forum!

        • I’m against moderating comments since I believe that fighting speech with speech is much more effective, so my speech is: let’s not fall lower than trolls. They target their victims’ family members, and we think it is disgusting. Targeting trolls’ families is equally despicable.

    • Steel eath Shit says:

      All of the Does’ actions that Steele and his accomplices deride (make fun of) DO HURT THEM!!!
      Keep the MTQs and complaints to http://www.iardc.org coming!

  9. Anonymouse2 says:

    Let’s analyze the reasons for posting here or other sites like these…

    Site owners and Does: Try to help save ourselves and others who have been implicated money
    and calm fears by shining light on the situation. I think few would even berate anyone else for settling with the trolls after being given the best possible information and determining that (unfortunately) it makes the most sense in his/her situation.

    “Pirate hunters”: To make more money for themselves by continuing to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt -and gathering intel. Basically, their posts are more insidious ad spam that you might find in other forums.

    What would these site owners possibly have to gain by not spreading as much good information as possible? There is nothing being sold on this site and there is no ad revenue. The only possible “ego-stroking” could come from helping others save money and calm their fears. Disseminating poor information would only tarnish that. Meanwhile “pirate hunters” stroke their egos constantly in their posts on such sites by belittling their opposition and spreading FUD because it GIVES THEM POWER AND MAKES THEM MONEY.

  10. Anonymous says:

    So, seeing some of the post on here in regaurds to the submitting summons. this is what i uncovered:

    If summons is not served on a defendant within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. However, if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

    so does that meen since the openmind vs does 1-565 was submitted to the courts on oct 25 2011 they have until feb 25 2012 to submit summons or the case is to be dropped?

    I have no law background so I am just trying to get an understanding and majority off yall know alot more then i know in regaurds to such things. I am just trying to get answers. because if they dont serve them by then i will no longer have to worry about this case and the phone calls will stop?

    btw got another call about those letters they supposedly sent to me, in which i never recieved. can that be considered harrasment?

  11. DieTrollDie says:

    It is best to figure the 120 days from the date the Troll got your info from the ISP. After that, you will need to file a Motion to Dismiss based on this. The Troll will likely claim the ISP took to long or that negociation are slow. The judge may grant them more time. Even after it is dismissed, the Troll can refile a new case. You are not in the clear until the three years pass.

    DTD :)

  12. Anonymous says:

    So I see some of the cases in Illinois just got dropped, anyone know what’s going on there?

  13. CJ says:

    Perhaps it is time for the Does to fight back along with the taxpayers. If you wanted to sue 1500 people it should cost $525,000 in filing fees. These attorneys are doing it for $350. That is a difference of $524,650 for one case alone. They are making the courts go through a lot of work, going through motions from Does and the plaintiffs and discovery and al the other fun that accompanies these cases for $350. Who pays for all of that extra work, taxpayers! If there are 10 similar cases that is 5.24 million dollars! How do you think the public would react to finding out that over 5 million dollars of tax money was paying for these suits? I think they would be pissed and there would open season on trolls.
    Maybe it is time to file suit against these attorneys to recoup this momey they have been wasting on their hunts and extrotions schemes. The ones who file these suits and waste time and money then withdraw the suit when they find out what they need or that they arent going to win. They should have to pay these costs just like the losing party would in a suit. Pay to play or go away!
    This is abusing the system and at the taxpayers expense.
    The lawsuit abuse reduction act seems like it would apply here

    • CTVic says:

      Precisely!
      The spin that we see in the media when trolls initialize their scams is hilarious! All this heavy-handed rhetoric about millions of dollars in theft, and the enormous cost of piracy! The comments to these articles almost always consists of “dirty pirates”, or “sick porn fiends!”

      Nobody ever mentions to John Q. Taxpayer that the Copyright Troll’s fishing expedition depends entirely upon this one little loophole that’s allowing them to pay a single filing fee to attempt a law suit against thousands of independent defendants at one time. The fee is supposed to be a deterrent against frivolous lawsuits that would put unnecessary burden upon the taxpayer-funded court. Nobody mentions that filing against thousands of defendants at once puts ENORMOUS burden on these taxpayer-funded courthouses.

  14. confused says:

    Question: The name of the attorney on the case that was filed(and shows on PACER)does not appear anywhere on the letters I have received and the names on the letters of the firm and the attorney are nowhere to be found on the documents that were filed and show on PACER. How do I know they are actually representing the Plaintiff if they do not appear on the documents filed with the court?
    That seems kind of odd.

  15. confused says:

    Not only that but the address of the attorney on the court documents lists a different state than the attorney that is sending me the letters. How do I know they are together or not?

  16. anonymous says:

    Someone here can probably give you more information if you list the name of the attorney on Pacer, and the one in the letter.

    Or, just list the case number and court.

  17. JDS says:

    Some more promising news… on Feb. 3rd Facciola issued a memo opinion and order in yet another case, reversing his earlier order to grant discovery and asking the troll to first do geolocation and show cause that DC is the proper venue.

    Case# 1:11-cv-00055
    West Coast Prod v Does 1-955
    Juicy White Anal Booty 4 (seriously?)
    Troll: Ellis L. Bennett @ DGW

    The noose tightens further in DC!

    Run Troll Run :D

  18. JDS says:

    Well, this is interesting. Judge Beryl Howell in DC (Case# 1:12-cv-00048) has issued an order granting early discovery to the trolls as usual. What is unusual though is that the order is appended with a court notice explaining to the Does what is going on, how they can respond in court to protect their identities, and the perils of contacting the Trolls. Trolls/ISPs are ordered to attach this information with the subpoena.

    http://ia700806.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.152214/gov.uscourts.dcd.152214.5.0.pdf

    Is she finally wisening up to the trolls’ extortion tactics? Should be interesting to track the progress of this case. The troll here is our beloved Paul A. Duffy from Pretenda Law.

    • meh. says:

      What is interesting in this subpoena of ISP info; the ordered preservation of IP information. Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2703(f) and 2704 – 90 days from legal request to preserve unless extended order sought (if i’m reading that correctly); otherwise 180 days most ISPs keep the information on record. (at least Comcast – someone leaked an internal handbook called “Law Enforcement Handbook” a few years ago which states Comcast’s proceedures but take this with a grain of salt) So the real question is; if ISPs will hold that information internally regardless of order for 90 from date of request.

      While other subpoenas for ISP information have no court ordered preservation instructions via the Judges (at least in the northern florida courts)

    • I also was amused by the fact that she wrote a very good instructions maybe she read my post? :)

      • JDS says:

        I sure hope so :)

        In fact, it would be nice if every judge included this kind of info with the court order/subpoena, so there’s less chance of Does getting into trouble due to ignorance. Adding a link to discussions on this blog wouldn’t be a bad idea either, but that ain’t gonna happen :D

  19. DieTrollDie says:

    Thanks for the info on Prenda case DC 00048. I can’t get to PACER right now; is there anything else filed? I sent a declaration to refute on this case. Wondering if it was filed yet. Thanks
    DTD :)

    • meh. says:

      DTD – have you thrown some motions to the most recent Northern Florida cases? Especially now they been consilodated under one Judge.

    • JDS says:

      DTD, not filed on Pacer yet. In fact nothing from anyone but the plaintiff and the judge. She asked Duffy to refile the list of IPs with Doe #s for each, which promptly did.

      Given that this is Judge Howell, I’m not very optimistic about torpedoes/MTQs succeeding. But we can only hope that better sense prevails …

  20. confused says:

    The case number is 1:11-cv-01274. Letters are from Prenda, Paul Duffy of the Chicago and Miami Duffys. The documents on PACER are Anderson of the Virginaia Andersons. How would the normal daily citizen being blackmailed for copyright infringement be able to know if the 2 were related? Looking at the case on PACER and not seeing Prenda or Duffy, I would have dismissed this letter as a scam(well more of a scam than it already is) from some con artist lawyer not affiliated witht the suit in any way. Then there is the various states the suit seems to be filed. The best part is that they have my name and address and continue to hassle me with calls and letters knowing I am not in the jurisdiction that the suit was filed(not even close). Is that harassmentr?

    • Anonymous says:

      might be a tactic to get you to call and find out what is going on. Since they already have your info, keep all records and ignore. When the their time comes, it can be used against them.

      And believe me, it is coming!

    • I wrote about a crook Anderson a while ago. He was ordered by a judge to reveal his relationship to Steele, but declined (read: has shown a middle finger). Instead he accused an anonymous filer in lying, which is a slander IMO, but the scumbag knows that a Doe won’t come after him.

  21. Just Some Guy says:

    Just talked to Comast about 01741-JDB-JMF. While they haven’t handed things over yet, apparently it is “packaged and ready to go out.”

    Last time I talked to someone there he was reasonably helpful and encouraging. The guy I talked to today said they wouldn’t check the docket and it might be goingout anytime unless I personally had filed a motion and faxed them a copy. This guy also only referred to the original Nov. deadline, where the last guy looked closely enough to see the Feb. 1 deadline…

    I might try again this afternoon and see if I get a better guy. Sad news as I expect Facciola will probably be ruling in favor of the Does sometime soon. Let’s hope it’s not too late.

    • Spork says:

      Well, that’s confusing. I talked to someone at Comcast a few days ago who said they wouldn’t be sending any info out until everything on the docket (MTQs, EFF amicus brief) was resolved. I would hope there’d be better internal communication about this, since it seemed to me there was only one Comcast Legal Response Center. This person agreed when I asserted that there was a standing order staying the subpoenas, so it didn’t seem like any release was imminent.

      • Anonymous says:

        Well that is a little disconcerting. I supposed I am a little confused by all of that considering the fact that there is nothing on the docket stipulating that the stay of the subpoena was ever lifted. I don’t really see the correlation between the judge saying that you have until 2/1 to determine if you want to unseal your MTQ and Comcast releasing subscriber information.

        • Just Some Guy says:

          That’s good to hear. I probably just got a crappy guy on the phone that time. The first time I talked to someone he said they’d check the docket before a release and only release when it was clearly legally required.

          The second guy even sounded unpleasant. I haven’t called again, maybe I will on Monday. Anyone else call Comcast this week?

  22. Anonymous says:

    Anyone have or know anything going on with this new case in Eastern District of CA?

    Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Unknown
    Docket Number: 2:11-cv-03476

    • Anonymous says:

      There were a couple cases filed recently in the Eastern district, it looks like the Trolls are just moving on after getting all their cases dropkicked into the garbage in the Northern District.

      These are just more mass-Doe suits with a slightly different template. Instead of Does 1-X they sue John Doe or Unknown, and the rest of the IPs are co-conspirators, otherwise it’s just more of the same. I don’t think it would be too cynical to suggest that the slight difference in presentation is just to make the cases less likely to be recognized as Copyright Trolling at first glance, as the dozens and dozens of Plaintiff v. John Does 1-X case titles have made them recognizable to judges. This changing of case naming conventions probably has the same motivation behind it as changing the firm name from Steele | Hansmeier PLLC to Prenda Law, Inc., just an attempt to outrun their own reputation.

      I thought I saw a post about one of these cases already getting hit with joinder/discovery problems but maybe someone else is more up to date.

    • Anonymous says:

      Similarly,
      Pacific Century International, Ltd. v. John Doe
      Docket Number: 2:11-cv-03479

  23. Anonymous says:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/81224194/01741-JDB-JMF-33

    [...] vigorously opposes the EFF’s Motion for Stay [...] and grant Plaintiff any and all further relief that it deems to be reasonable and appropriate.

    Is it wrong that I find all this “vigorously motioning for relief” apropos for a porn case?

  24. Anonymous says:

    Has anyone actually looked into the Copyright claim on any of these specific Prenda cases? Most of the time they don’t even include a copy of the Copyright application, only a vague application number in the complaint. The application number is of little use when searching the US Copyright Catalog.
    I did find a TX case where the supposed application for Copyright was included (it looks fairly generic but contains info). TX Case 4:11-cv-04430 (http://archive.recapthelaw.org/txsd/940026/). What’s interesting is that many of the John Doe IP Addresses have Date/Time that are before the Application Date on Exhibit 1.2.
    I’m wondering if 1) this might be grounds for MTQ in this case, 2) if you could use this Exhibit 1.2 as MTQ evidence in other cases for the same video, 3) if this would be a valid defense for other videos where the plaintiff is alleging abuse on a date that is prior to a Copyright application.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Has anyone actually looked into the Copyright claim on any of these specific Prenda cases? Most of the time they don’t even include a copy of the Copyright application, only a vague application number in the complaint. The application number is of little use when searching the US Copyright Catalog.
    I did find a TX case where the supposed application for Copyright was included (it looks fairly generic but contains info). TX Case 4:11-cv-04430 (http://archive.recapthelaw.org/txsd/940026/). What’s interesting is that many of the John Doe IP Addresses have Date/Time that are before the Application Date on Exhibit 1.2.
    I’m wondering if 1) this might be grounds for MTQ in this case, 2) if you could use this Exhibit as MTQ evidence in similar cases for the same video, 3) if this would be a valid defense for other videos where the plaintiff is alleging abuse on a date that is prior to a Copyright application.

    • Anonymous says:

      The problem is that they normally don’t include the application with a service request number. Supposedly if they submit it digitally the copyright should be registered in less than 3 months, if they submitted it by mail it can take years. I doubt you’d be able to pry the number from Prenda law if they didn’t add it to the court documents already. On the other hand many of their clients have only a handful of registrations, specifically HDP and Pacific Century. Out of all the hundreds of videos on their sites something like 15-30 are registered.
      I’m going to laugh my ass off if they’ve been committing fraud on both the courts and the copyright office in these cases, well at least laughing it off once they’ve been lined up against the wall.

      • Anonymous says:

        For this case http://archive.recapthelaw.org/txsd/940026/ they did as Exhibit 1.2

      • Anonymous says:

        HDP is definitely a big offender in this regard. The Copyright Office only shows 19 registrations for them and a couple are dupes. I’ve looked up the titles for a number of cases and there are plenty that don’t show up, some going back to early last year, so they should have been registered by now if applications were ever filed.

        They also appeared to get better about at least filing applications towards the end of last year, so they must have realized their earlier sloppiness would come back to haunt them. This turned out to be the case in the Wong v. HDP complaint, where they did register the work but not in a timely manner and therefore don’t qualify for statutory damages.

        I think HDP has been defrauding the courts like crazy and if the Wong case or some other ambitious Doe + lawyer goes after that angle they will end up torn to shreds. I’ll bet dozens of their complaints are flat out lying when they state an application is pending.

        • Anonymous says:

          Here’s a fun one, they assert it has an application
          http://ia600705.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.cand.243801/gov.uscourts.cand.243801.4.0.pdf
          http://ia600705.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.cand.243801/gov.uscourts.cand.243801.1.0.pdf
          But the company in question (amateur creampies by pacific century) has never previously filed a single copyright registration. In addition they did not include a service request number like the later case that was mentioned above. I’d hate to see what would happen if a competent IP lawyer was involved in this case were it to make it to trial…

        • Anonymous says:

          I love how theatrical Gibbs is in that one complaint (Pacific Century v. Does 1-48). Is he this funny all the time? I haven’t read many of his complaints.

          “This is an action of necessity. Plaintiff brings this suit as its only way to adequately preserve the value of its unique copyrighted work from those unlawfully downloading it over the Internet. Plaintiff has exhausted all other means in attempting to protect its work, and it now turns to this Court as its last line of defense.”

          Exhausted all other means, last line of defense….bullshit Those DMCA takedown notices didn’t work? I also love how the copyright registration says “SEE ATTACHED COMPLAINT” under “Title of Work.” It’s like they filed the registration and the complaint at the same time. Erm actually the complaint was filed the day before the registration was filed. Infringing on a copyright that doesn’t exist, I love it.

  26. Anonymous says:

    The Lutz comedy show continues. He just called me and left me a voicemail. APPARENTLY my setlement deadline had passed (who knew!?) and he was calling me just to let me know that it had passed and that the client was “generous enough” to extend that deadline until later this month. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that there’s a status hearing early next month on the case and the judge is getting sick of Duffy’s shit? Who knows, but I’ll find out because I’m not paying that asshole :)

    • Anonymous says:

      record and save the voicemails, they might come in handy real soon!

    • johndoeanonymous09878 says:

      I patiently await my call as well. There was an order listed in pacer for 1:11-cv-01274 but no documents uploaded yet.

    • Anonymous says:

      Oh I’ve saved all of Lutz’s calls on my digital voice recorder. He couldn’t even remember the Prenda phone number in this one. “Call us back at 305…uhhh….” I’m thinking “Your stupid ass calls probably 500 people in a day, and you can’t even remember the phone number?

  27. DJ says:

    I see Timothy V. Anderson filed a case late last year in the Eastern District of Virginia. Nothing to see on the lawsuit summary on RFC, could someone check PACER?

    2:11-cv-00690-MSD-FBS

    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/virginia-eastern-district-court/87512/first-time-videos-llc-v-john-doe/summary/

  28. Anonymous says:

    http://ia700708.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.cand.248111/gov.uscourts.cand.248111.15.1.pdf

    Steven Yuen says he spoke to Johnny Boy on the phone on Febuary 6th, guess that suit against Hard Drive Productions, Inc. was enough to get him out of retirement! No wonder he’s been angrily trolling the forums again!

    • JDS says:

      Oh snap! Gibbs and Prenda are in a whole lotta trouble! Yuen and Wong are giving ‘em hell on earth even before Gibbs’ imminent relocation to eternal damnation.

      Btw, love the two footnotes by the judge on the last page of his order http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.248111/gov.uscourts.cand.248111.15.7.pdf

      1 Plaintiff’s motion includes an argument that it more reasonable to take Wang’s deposition than
      simply to name her as a defendant. Given plaintiffs’ admission that it lacks knowledge as to
      whether Wang is responsible for the alleged infringement, naming her as a defendant at this juncture would present a serious Rule 11 issue. As such, the argument **has the appearance of an improper threat.**
      2 Plaintiff asserts it learned Wang’s identity through discovery undertaken in a prior action.
      **Nothing in this order should be seen as an endorsement of the methods by which plaintiff obtained Wang’s identity,** or as a precedent for obtaining discovery into the identity of Doe defendants in cases like these through such incremental steps.

      Suck on that Johnny boy :D

      • Anonymous says:

        and he would also need to explain his involvement with Prenda, He told the courts that he was retiring but is still actively involved.

        • Anonymous says:

          I wonder if he might be opening himself to some unlicensed practice trouble like Terik Hashmi.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Gibbs just dismissed some cases without prejudice in the Northern California Courts.

  30. Anonymouse2 says:

    Several of the MTQs and protective orders are showing on the 01741 case now with names. Does that mean the EFF amicus curiae was for naught now?

  31. DieTrollDie says:

    John Steele has been active on two posts at my Blog (http://dietrolldie.com/) Here is a screen shot – http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/jsteele17feb12.jpg. Also some really good replies to his comments.

    DTD :)

    • Anonymous says:

      Hah he’s a real piece of work. He refers to himself as a “real Troll” and implicitly states that his firm doesn’t make mistakes….right, that’s why one of his clients is going to be chewed up and spit out by an actual IP litigator (one who’s actually been in front of a jury), because he doesn’t make mistakes. Hubris, gotta love it.

  32. DJ says:

    Anyone have info on Malibu Media, LLC? They have filed 16 lawsuits in the last 10 days. They’re being represented by Adam Silverstein in California, Jason Aaron Kotzker in Colorado, and Wayne O’Bryan in Virginia.

    • Anonymous says:

      I just did a quick Google search and there are files for it on justia and rfcexpress. Seems like they just filed a crap ton of cases against 15 to 20 Does per case.

      I can’t get the details of the cases but they are really recent as you said. To me it seems like another random company, who I honestly have never heard of much like a lot of these companies out there, trying to do a cash grab before they can’t anymore.

      Maybe someone else can post some details, I’m sure there is a person who could.

    • anonymous says:

      Malibu Media, LLC is a company behind the website x-Art.com. Some Malibu Media, LLC/x-Art video titles in the allegations are “Carlie Beautiful Blowjob”, “Girls Night Out”,”Kat Translucense” ,”Kristen Girl Next Door”, “Megan Morning Bath,” “The Rich Girl Part #2″, and “Tiffany Teenagers in Love”. According RFC, Malibu Media, LLC has filed at least 24 cases in the last 10 days. It may be more, since there is usually a lag in posting cases on RFC. There are several hundred does combined in the allegations.

      Five of the troll lawyers involved are Adam M. Silverstein of Cavalluzzi & Cavalluzzi in California, David Wayne O’Bryan of O’Bryan Law Firm in Virginia, Jason A. Kotzker of Kotzker Law Group in Colorado, Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC in Maryland, and Christopher P. Fiore of Fiore & Barber LLC in Pennsylvania.

      The plaintiff business is a new troll. The complaint states the principal place of business as 31356 Broad Beach Road, Malibu, CA 90265. The five lawyers listed have all submitted copyright troll cases before in their states for adult studio troll plaintiffs. They have some previous troll plaintiff adult studio clients in common.

      Malibu Media, LLC is a company behind the website x-Art.com. Some Malibu Media, LLC/x-Art video titles in the allegations are “Carlie Beautiful Blowjob”, “Kat Translucense” ,”Kristen Girl Next Door”, “Megan Morning Bath,” and “Tiffany Teenagers in Love”. Some cases allege an “X-Art Siterip”.

      • anonymous says:

        the posting was messed up and should read:

        According RFC, Malibu Media, LLC has filed at least 24 cases in the last 10 days. It may be more, since there is usually a lag in posting cases on RFC. There are several hundred does combined in the allegations.

        Five of the troll lawyers involved are Adam M. Silverstein of Cavalluzzi & Cavalluzzi in California, David Wayne O’Bryan of O’Bryan Law Firm in Virginia, Jason A. Kotzker of Kotzker Law Group in Colorado, Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC in Maryland, and Christopher P. Fiore of Fiore & Barber LLC in Pennsylvania.

        The plaintiff business is a new troll. The five lawyers listed have all submitted copyright troll cases before in their states for adult studio troll plaintiffs. They have some previous troll plaintiff adult studio clients in common.

        Malibu Media, LLC is a company behind the website x-Art.com. Some Malibu Media, LLC/x-Art video titles in the allegations are “Carlie Beautiful Blowjob”, “Kat Translucense” ,”Kristen Girl Next Door”, “Megan Morning Bath,” and “Tiffany Teenagers in Love”. Some cases allege an “X-Art Siterip”.

      • Raul says:

        I am amazed that Wayne O’Bryon has the nerve to go to court after being made to essentially lick the dog shit off the shoes of Judge Gibney to avoid Rule 11 sanctions. All the while he is still pursuing suits on behalf of K-Beech who are bringing multiple lawsuits on a copyrighted 2006 DVD that they pirated from Combat Zone (“Grand Slam”), retitled “Gang Bang Virgins” which they then fraudulently applied for and obtained a copyright on which they are now suing Does for copyright infringement. This has all the appearances of a fraud on the Copyright Office and on the courts in which these suits are now pending. Likewise it may very well be criminal and, at the very least, a civil RICO violation.

  33. anonymous says:

    Malibu Media, LLC., is a soft-core photography company/studio.

    It is owned by Brigham Field. A search on Manta doesn’t reveal too much.

    http://www.manta.com/c/mrn0fx6/malibu-media-llc

    There are currently 19 cases

  34. Anonymous says:

    A few interesting notes about these cases, based on the ones posted on the archive, it appears as though all of the IP addresses are found within the district of the case, and the copyright registrations are included with complaint.

    With regard to the registrations, it appears as though they were all registered on about 11/20/11. Most of the dates of infringement occurred after this date.

    Lastly, only a handful of the videos are actually registered at all, and this is made abundantly clear in the complaint. I am not sure how you can file a lawsuit against a torrent when the torrent contains 98% unregistered works.

    Any chance someone could upload the other cases to recap?

  35. Anonymous says:

    Which companies does this group mainly represent?

  36. Anonymous says:

    Oh lord, watching Gibbs try to get out of the HDP vs Wong case and being trampled by Yuen is like watching a retarded kitten in a wet paper bag.

  37. Raul says:

    From Wong’s opposition papers: “Either scenario, however, creates a justiciable controversy between Mrs. Wong and Hard Drive that involves the validity of its purported copyright to the adult pornographic work, and her claim of non-infringement.” Sounds like there is something highly suspect about either the creation of the pornographic work (who actually produced it /whether it is a renamed work which was earlier copyrighted by someone else al la K-Beech) or whether the copyright application was otherwise fraudulent. “Amateur Allure-Jen” has yet to be issued a copyright registration. I can’t waait to see how this plays out.

    • Anonymous says:

      Sounds like Ms. Wong is taking some good advice.

      “Standing up to a bully, whether some blowhard attorney, or an 8th grader feels good. Try it sometime.” –John Steele

      • Thanks for reminding – I saw John’s post in the past, but it faded in my memory. Now I enjoyed re-reading it. First I added the phrase you quoted as an epigraph to the post about Ms. Wong/Steven Yuen’s counter strike.

        Second, if you read John’s essay carefully, you’ll note 2 things:

        “I suppose I can see how being an ass might get you somewhere if you are up against a pro se party who has no idea of what is happening”. Pretty telling, isn’t it?

        “I think it has something to do with going through middle school and being subjected to the evil whims of 8th graders”. So basically John analyzes/admits the reason behind his obvious insecurity.

        Cool.

        • Anonymous says:

          Maybe we should start a collection fund to send him to therapy where he can work on these issues. I imagine the alcoholism, desire to be accepted by porn company insiders and suing thousands of random people on the internet might just fade away if he got some help.

        • Anonymous says:

          I’d be drinking heavily if I had this entire shit storm drop in my lap. Then again, I don’t have the level of hubris that Steele possesses…thinking that his house of cards won’t collapse. He looks pretty plowed in those wedding pics SJD posted…on the party bus

    • JDS says:

      Also from Wong/Yuen’s opposition to dismiss:
      “Hard Drive‘s $3,000 settlement demand to Mrs. Wong is the equivalent of the 3,000 pound elephant in the room that Hard Drive never mentions in its moving papers.”

      So Gibbs tried to backtrack saying he never really claimed that Wong had infringed the “copyright” of his “work of art”, but decided to send her an extortion letter for a $3000 settlement anyway!!! Really??? :D

      Love how Yuen is tightening the screws on this douchebag.

      Brett bud, there’s no way you are weaseling your way out of this suit. Maybe you should go back crying to papa bear Johnny “i retired” Steele for help. Oh wait, then Judge Spero would just put both of you away! HAHHAHAHAHAHA :D

      Run Troll Run :D

  38. Raul says:

    Like the honeypot schemes these trolls set up. A troll trap was set and a greedy troll took the bait and now he finds himself on the receiving end. NICE!

  39. DJ says:

    ORDER. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that The hearing on the instant motion is CONTINUED to 10:00 a.m. on March 9, 2012, at which time the court will conduct a combined hearing on the motion and the issue of joinder/severance. (See Order For Details). Reset Deadlines as to 3 MOTION for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference. Motion Hearing set for 3/9/2012 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 301 before Magistrate Judge Thomas Rawles Jones Jr. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas Rawles Jones, Jr on 2/22/12. (nhall) (Entered: 02/22/2012)

    this was issued in all of Wayne O’Bryans cases filed on the 17th

    • Raul says:

      Wayne is the Rodney Dangerfield of trolls-he gets no respect. Do you think that Judge Gibney and Judge Rowles have had a little conversation about said southern troll?

      • DJ says:

        Sounds like Judge Rawles Jones Jr. is already thinking theres a joinder issue. Is it normal for so many cases to be seen by the same judge? He has all nine of O’Bryans cases.

        • Raul says:

          Yes it is normal. An attorney has to file a statement as to whether one particular case is related to another one in an effort to facilitate judicial economy and typically/sometimes (depending on the court) these related cases get assigned to the same judge.

        • Skruuball says:

          Which is why the Trolls often jump through incredible legal hoops justify stating that cases are NOT related…

        • Anonymous says:

          unless they find a Troll friendly judge, like the Ex-RIAA lobbyist or Reggie B Walton, both in DC. They have would have no problem if all cases are assigned to them!

  40. Raul says:

    As an afterthought, perhaps what is beginning to gel in the Eastern District of Virginia is what occurred in the Northern District of Georgia last year.

    A troll by the name of Bryan Knight instituted four lawsuits on behalf of Raw Films, K-Beech and Patrick Collins in the beginning of September. Between the end of September and the end of December four different judges had, either on their own volition or on a Doe MTQ, found the plaintiffs argument for joinder to be wanting and quashed the subpoenas as to everyone but the Doe1(s). Mr. Knight slunk back under his bridge and is now, presumably back to chasing ambulances, filing sad divorce cases or whatever a troll engages in when he is not extorting. To date, no new troll lawsuit have been filed in the Northern District of Georgia.

    • Anonymous says:

      I read somewhere, I believe the actual case documents on DTD’s site, where the judge mentioned in the Georgia case that this has been happening around the country and crushed the case based on joinder issues. They already know what’s going on there and I believe most states do/will soon.

  41. anonymous says:

    SJD and Ars tweeted an article from an adult industry magazine earlier. The last few sentences really hit home and applies to the trolls.

    “For adult studios, on the other hand, it is unlikely that the message from this is that the legal strategy has no merit, though they would probably agree that some of the lawyers they’ve been using are not exactly A-listers.”

    Full article http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/Florida-Hashni-Case-is-Most-Recent-Copyright-Lawyer-Misstep-465602.html

    [sjd — restored from spam. Usually I check spam folder daily and unspam false positives, but if you want you can always shoot me a short email "hey, please check the spam - my commend is not going through"]

    • Anonymous says:

      I must say I am a bit surprised by the cynical tone of the article, present from the first to last paragraphs. I figured an industry publication would at worst be matter-of-fact, more likely tending to supportive of the litigation. But I get the impression the author has a low opinion of Copyright Trolls.

  42. confused says:

    update on Af Holdings v Does 1-1140 1:11-cv-01274
    MINUTE ORDER. The Court having considered the plaintiff’s status report, and to ensure expeditious resolution of this action, it is ORDERED that the limited discovery authorized by this Court’s September 8, 2011 Order shall close on March 2, 2012. It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff shall name and serve the defendants in this action by March 9, 2012. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 2-14-12(lcrbw3). (Entered: 02/14/2012)

  43. Anonymous says:

    Looks like a number of well written motions by the Does has been filed in 1:11-cv-01741-JDB-JMF questioning disclosure of Does due to 1st amendment protections (incl. CA state law), improper joinder, and improper jurisdiction. Hope Judge Facciola sees through this extortion racket and rules soon.

  44. Anonymous says:

    http://ia700803.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.cand.251599/gov.uscourts.cand.251599.12.0.pdf

    In Wong v. HDP Gibbs has replied to Yuen’s reply. Looks like these goofs are actually trying to pretenda to be IP laywers. Kind of sad really, just the quality of the writing is bad, just based on the prose you can tell Yuen is in a different league.

    • Anonymous says:

      Not to mention that Gibbs’ entire case is based on the “we didn’t sue her” and “this is the wrong jurisdiction (for her)” defense…which is a load of bullshit.

      • Anonymous says:

        Not to be confused with the classic, “I know you are, but what am I,” defense. This might devolve into ,”Nuh uh!”…..

  45. Anonymous says:

    any new info on open mid solutions vs does 1-565?

  46. Anonymouse2 says:

    Looks like 2 more Does in Maryland settled in the 01741 case (Verizon and Comcast IPs).

  47. Anonymous says:

    Good news for some does in NorCal 5:11-cv-03336. Voluntary dismissal without prejudice of almost all does per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Only 19 IP addresses are still on the hook at this point.

    • Doe X says:

      Same thing in HD productions vs. does 1-166 in N.Cali. All Does dismissed except for a rather large list of exceptions. Not sure what the angle is here.. Gibbs is up to something. He still hasn’t answered the motion to show cause that is due by today in the Hd vs. 1-166 either. Hmmmm

      • Anonymous says:

        He’s up to something all right, up to his ass in his same old BS and I hope the Judge is onto the scam.

        On the 5:11-cv-03682 (AF Holdings LLC vs. 1-166) case, from the February 7, 2012, order to show cause: “Plaintiff has still not filed proof of service as to any of the Doe Defendants. 195 days have now passed since the filing of the original complaint, and 187 days have passed since Magistrate Judge Lloyd’s Order authorizing expedited discovery. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause by February 29, 2012, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to serve the Doe Defendants as required by Rule 4(m).” Etc. So on 2/28 instead of serving anyone, he dismissed a bunch and leaves 75 open (2 of which are actually duplicates of the same IP address – so check your sloppy work Gibbs.) This is a despicable attempt to persuade the court to allow him more time to continue to extort a smaller group (the remaining list is Comcast & Cox Does only) – so expect Gibbs to claim they took too long to provide info or some similar BS excuse. I highly doubt that almost half of the original does somehow incriminated themselves. If the Judge wants to do the right thing, the Judge should see that this is a shakedown scam and terminate this and the 11-cv-03336 (AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-135) case too because they are full of the same Gibbs/Prenda/Steele BS.

        • Anonymous says:

          On the 11-cv-03336 (AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-135) case, the remaining 19 Does correspond exactly to the original 19 Verizon Online Does. But not a one from Comcast or Cox as they left in the the 5:11-cv-03682 (AF Holdings LLC vs. 1-166) case. And not a one from any other ISP. Smells like a maneuver to salvage a sinking case and at best an experiment to see “what can we still get away with?”

          C’mon Judge Koh, do the right thing and kick ‘em. Kick ‘em hard.

        • Anonymous says:

          Just read SJDs tweet on the the 11-cv-03336 (AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-135) case: “It appears that all 19 IPs are Verizon customers from SOUTHERN CA, while lawsuit is filed in Northern CA. Bizarre http://t.co/WEB0gIcv 2 hours ago”

          Bizarre for certain. The trolls clearly don’t respect jurisdiction. It’s all part of the game of what can we get away with. This maneuver is another display of blatant disrespect for and abuse of the court. Hope the judge catches this and spanks them with a really big troll stick -

        • anonymous says:

          If the remaining defendants are in southern CA, this could be considered forum shopping by the troll attorneys. As said above, hopefully this will damage the plaintiff and their lawyer’s case and remaining reputation.

        • Doe X says:

          I think you are referring to HD 1-166. I don’t know if this is a move to get more time because Gibbs also dismissed most of the Does that had pending motions to quash. He only had one or two of them on the exception list. I think there is more to all the Does being from those two providers. Either these are really 4-5 does who logged multiple IP addresses are Gibbs is just losing his mind. Don’t forget he needed to file a response to the show cause order or the rest of the people will dismissed anyways.. It will be interesting to see what appears on the docket from Mr.Gibbs in the morning.

  48. Anonymous says:

    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/california-northern-district-court/90917/seth-abrahams-v-hard-drive-productions-inc/summary/

    Stephen Yuen is bringing another suit against HDP.

    I put the docket and complaint in RECAP. They usually have some lag time, so if you can wait and don’t want to pay, keep checking with the RECAP plugin. I’ll send links later when it gets posted.

    Very similar to Wong complaint. Worth noting are that the plaintiff was a defendant in HDP v. Does 1-118 in Northern District of California, and that the work in question was not registered until November 2011 for infringements that occurred around March 2011. Registration dates are assigned as the date an application was submitted, so that means Scumbag Steele didn’t even file an application until seven months after he had filed the mass-Doe suit, even though he asked for statutory damages in the complaint. Total fraud, Yuen is going to bust his ass.

    An interesting twist in this one is that Yuen is also alleging defamation due to this plaintiff being included in Prenda’s “Top 25 Pirates” list. I remember we have previously discussed how foolish this behavior was on Prenda’s part and it looks like it’s come back to bite them and now we know why they removed that part of their site recently.

    This is really getting good! Keep Gibbs up at night!

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