Lightspeed password hacking cases
Cases
There are a couple of cases filed by Prenda Law on behalf of a pornographer Lightspeed Media Corp.
Florida Miami-Date county court:
- 12-05673 CA 05
Illinois St Clair countly court
- 11-L-0621 11/03/2011 LIGHTSPEED MEDIA VS AT & T
- 11-L-0683 12/14/2011 LIGHTSPEED VS JOHN DOE
Complaint was amended on 8/2/2012, naming Anthony Smith, AT&T and Comcast representatives as defendants.
On 8/9/2012 removed to Federal Court (ILSD 3:12-cv-00889 – see below).- Complaint — original quality, no exhibits.
- Complaint— scanned, all exhibits.
- Comcast’s motion to quash subpoena and vacate order granting discovery (incl. memorandum in support) (3/19/2012)
- Memorandum in support of motion to quash and/or motion for protective order by Embarq and Verizon — first 16 pages (3/20/2012)
- Consolidated motion & memorandum to dismiss by Jason Sweet (June 2012)
- First Amended Complaint (08/03/2012) — AT&T and Comcast are named as defendants.
- The Supreme Court of Illinois
- Emergency motion to stay (5/22/2012)
- Motion for supervisory order (5/22/2012)
- Explanatory suggestions to the Motion for supervisory order (5/22/2012) — Appendix contains many IL 11-L-0683 filings
- Lightspeed’s Objections to motion for supervisory order (5/29/2012)
- Reply [to objections] brief of moving ISPs (5/29/2012)
- Supervisory Order (6/27/2012)
- Audio recording of the hearing before the Illinois Supreme Court in the LMC v. AT&T
Southern District of Illinois
ILSD Lightspeed Media Corporation v. Smith et al 3:12-cv-00889— state case (11-L-0683) was removed to the Federal level upon defendant’s request. Dismissed 3/19/2013.Lightspeed Media Corporation v. Lukas Shashek 3:12-cv-00860-WDS-DGW— state case (12-L-927) was removed to the Federal level upon defendant’s request. Dismissed 2/15/2013.
Maricopa County Superior Court (State of Arizona)
- CV2012-053230 11/03/2011 LIGHTSPEED MEDIA CORPORATION v. WORLD TIMBERS, INC., an Arizona Corporation, and JOHN DOE
- Defendant World Timbers, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (07/03/2012).
- Ruling denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (11/02/2012).
- LIGHTSPEED MEDIA CORPORATION v. ADAM SEKORA (CV 2012-053194)
Case history from the Maricopa county state court- 07/10/2012 Answer to complaint
- 12/10/2012 Ruling
- 12/17/2012 Status conference set
- 1/7/2013 Order to compel Lightspeed to produce forensic logs
Superior Court of the State of California
- LIGHTSPEED MEDIA CORPORATION v. Jеssе Nаsоn (voluntarily dismissed)
Defendant attorney: Morgan Pietz of Pietz Law firm (post about this case)
Relevant pages:
Relevant posts:
- Lightspeed Media Corporation v. John Doe: a quick Q & A
- Attorney’s opinion: Lightspeed’s claim is a farce
- Lightspeed Media v. John Doe: a quick follow up Q & A
- Lightspeed v. Doe news. Early Halloween scare: Unusually lame demand letter
- Prenda Law starts using robocalls to intimidate its targets. Will IARDC continue keeping its head in the sand?
- Illinois Supreme Court ends justice mockery, kills the farcical Lightspeed v. Doe case
- Lightspeed Media Corp. v. John Doe, St. Clair county 11-L-683: A behind-the-scenes look (and it ain’t pretty)
- Lightspeed Media v. John Doe: a must-read motion written by a real IP attorney
- “Guava” and “Arte de Oaxaca” scams hit Cook County court
Media coverage:
- ArsTechnica: Illinois Supreme Court nixes latest porn trolling scheme by Timothy B. Lee
- XBiz (may be NSFW due to explicit ads): Lightspeed Media Adds AT&T, Comcast to Lawsuit by Rhett Pardon
- ArsTechnica: Porn copyright troll sues AT&T and Comcast, says they side with pirates by Timothy B. Lee
Announcements
- Please take an effort to document all the interactions with the plaintiff. Copy and file mailings, record conversations, preserve voicemails. This information may really help in a possible counter-action.
- This request does not cancel the advice not to answer any questions over the phone. Be extra careful.
- Mind the state wiretapping laws. Illinois, for example, requires consent of both parties to record a phone conversation, so if you are recording a call, start your conversation with a polite warning and suggest that continuing the conversation implies consent to record. If you reside in a “one-party” state and the incoming call is originated in a “one-party” state or the caller ID is masked, no such warning is necessary. Certainly, preserving voicemails does not violate any laws. Further reading.
Comments
I just have got a chance to this unique web-webpage not long ago.
I had been in fact captured with the bit of assets
you’ve gotten right the following. Big thumbs upward to make these kinds of great blog web site!
in maricopa county in az the LMC vs world timbers shows a “Judgment Of Dismissal ” on 5/8, and in the lmc vs sekora case shows the same on 5/15, don’t know exactly what’s up because the dockets don’t show motions from plaintiff asking for permission to dismiss (in both cases parties had answered and in atleast one i am pretty sure counter claims were filed) so all i can assume from the bare dockets is that a settlement was met and lightspeed pony’d up some dough.
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseSearch.asp and search lightspeed under business name. bottom 2 cases are these (cannot link directly to dockets)
i think the only lightspeed case left that they haven’t tried to dismiss the one in miami dade county court, which has been idle for almost a year…..if anyone in phx could get these dismissal judgements for us to read i am sure we would all be soo happy.