Lightspeed password hacking 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
- 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)
- 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
- 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
- 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.