Posts Tagged ‘12-cv-10805’

Judge Leo Sorokin
Magistrate Judge Leo Sorokin
(Massachusetts)

Thanks to Jason Sweet and Dan Booth for the hilarious news, a must-read order denying ex-parte discovery re-requested by copyright troll Marvin Cable in Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-79 (12-cv-10532-GAO), Discount Video Center, Inc. v. Does 1-29, et al. (12-cv-10805-NMG), and Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-36 (12-10758-GAO).

While two major posts are promised and overdue¹, I cannot help posting Magistrate Sorokin’s smackdown ruling dismantling Marvin Cable’s copyright troll cases: a good excuse is that it does not take a lot of my time, as the document is self-explanatory, easy and fun to read.

Read the embedded order below. A couple of teaser quotes:

The Plaintiffs’ proposal — i.e., that the Court permits the Plaintiffs to subpoena the names of the subscribers and that the Court then leave it to the Plaintiffs to figure out the rest pursuant to informal communications — is unacceptable.

The Plaintiffs’ lack of interest in actually litigating these cases as demonstrated by the history of this litigation also weighs against permitting ex parte discovery.

The course of action the Plaintiff has stated it intends to pursue also suggests an improper effort to engage in judge shopping and evidences a disregard for the Court’s limited public resources.

…a bad faith effort to harass the third-party subscriber…

…the Plaintiffs have repeatedly said one thing and done another.

The Plaintiffs’ counsel has also repeatedly said to the undersigned, and to other judicial officers of this Court, that he intends to litigate the claims he has brought. Yet to date, counsel has sued well in excess of one thousand Doe Defendants in this District, and as far as the Court is aware, he has never served a Complaint upon a single individual defendant.

 

So, essentially, Sorokin calls out Marvin Cable on his lies in virtually every paragraph of this 8-page document with a nearly 3-D hint sticking out of a flat document surface: GTFO of Massachusetts’ courts with your ill-conceived mass cases!

No matter how unbelievable it sounds, some people are so obtuse they can miss such a hint, and I have a bad feeling that our hapless troll may put on his John Adams costume once again — to entertain us and to anger judges. And it won’t end well.

Raul adds:

A great Order that will, hopefully, resonate across the country. As Booth & Sweet pointed out in their tweet earlier today, “Judge Sorokin gave Cable just enough rope to hang himself.” The Order reads like an indictment of Cable’s overreaching, lying and overall craven behavior before the court (this indictment applies to most if not all copyright trolls). The second act of this comedy will be if and when Prenda gets rolling now that the audience has been warmed up.

Media coverage
Update

12/18/2012

Judge Sorokin finally brought the hammer down on Marvin Cable today and recommended dismissing the above-mentioned cases without prejudice for failure to serve the defendants.

On 11/16 Marvin Cable replied to the Order to show cause featured in this post trying to keep these cases on life support.

Judge Sorokin was not impressed:

The Plaintiffs advance several reasons in support of a finding of good cause. None have merit. [...] The Plaintiffs have no one but themselves to blame for their inability to utilize information gleaned from the quashed subpoenas. The Plaintiffs engaged in the violations necessitating the Court’s remedy by telling third parties to whom Congress has accorded some measure of statutory privacy protection (i.e., the subscribers) that the Plaintiffs had sued them (the subscribers) for copyright infringement when the Plaintiffs had plainly not sued them. Moreover, the Court did not apply the 120-day rule at that time, but rather the Court gave the Plaintiffs another opportunity to propose a discovery plan tailored, as required under the law, toward identifying the identity of the persons the Plaintiffs chose to sue. As already explained, the Plaintiffs failed to advance this type of proposal.

…the difficulties, delays and rulings in this case all result from the Plaintiffs’ actions or inaction. The Court has repeatedly given the Plaintiffs ample opportunity to proceed properly with their cases. Since the Plaintiffs filed these cases, they have repeatedly failed to advance a plan compliant with the straightforward rules of procedure for limited ex parte discovery in order to learn the identities of the persons they have sued. In light of the opportunities they have had to make such a proposal, my previous rulings on these proposals and the Plaintiffs’ conduct of this litigation, I RECOMMEND that the Court find that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish good cause to extend the deadline, and that no other reason exists to exercise its discretion to permit an extension of the deadline. Accordingly, I RECOMMEND that the Court dismiss these cases pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure to effect timely service.

 


¹ In Colorado, Malibu Media v. Fantalis et al docket is overwhelmed with new extremely interesting activity;    In Illinois, John Steele reached new lows in the turd of a lawsuit Guava (Lightspeed) v. Skyler Case: the hearing that took place this past Monday, and recently filed fraudulent federal cases deserve detailed attention.

Attorney Samuel Perkins is understandably angry. In his motion to dismiss Discount Video Center v. Does 1-29 case (12-cv-10805) on behalf of one of the Does, he explains why. This time I don’t want to summarize the motion for an unusual reason: I think of the summary as a spoiler — and I want everyone to read this document from the first to the last paragraph. Most of court filings are logical yet boring. Sometimes we see anger that hopelessly buries arguments: such motions are usually easily rebutted and not taken seriously by judges. It’s a fine art to balance on the edge between anger and clarity of a logical mind.

I hope that this motion will result in equally harsh, truthful and precise order by the judge who is already unhappy with Marvin Cable (to put it mildly), and Massachusetts will join the list of states that recovered from the judicial plague of copyright extortion.

Exhibits (Marvin Cable’s extortion letters) 1, 2, 3.

Update

9/1/2012

On 8/27/2012 Samuel Perkins filed another, even more harsher, motion to dismiss in the Celestial v. Does 1-28 (12-cv-10948) case. Enjoy:

I would like to bring a new addition to my page “Counter actions against trolls” to your attention. You remember a recently widely covered event, when a pro se defendant Jeff Fantalis fought back in a powerful way, while answering to Malibu Media’s complaint. Likewise, the defendant in Discount Video Center, Inc v. Does 1-29, (Massachusetts District, 12-cv-10805) has also combined his answer to complaint with a set of counterclaims against a few parties: a porn purveyor Discount Video Center, a “forensic” expert Jon Nicolini, and a Mafioso-like troll clan Copyright Enforcement Group.

Although it has been almost three weeks since this document was filed, I somehow overlooked it. DieTrollDie covered this case in detail:

Even Marc Randazza crashed the party with his amicus curiae brief defending the copyrightability of pornography¹. Yet no one has pointed out to the following beautiful Answer and Counterclaims prepared by attorney Samuel Perkins (and his colleagues from his firm Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten) on behalf of Doe 22:

 

The best part is beyond this document: it is in the knowledge that this offensive is just a beginning. Samuel Perkins, Jason Sweet, and other “troll slayers” are very serious in their intention to end the copyright trolling plague (at least in Massachusetts), and are looking for brave Does, who are willing to serve as plaintiffs in impending lawsuits against Copyright Enforcement Group, its clients and attorneys. You can secure your place in history and improve your Karma if you come forward, and (do I really need to say this?) you will have our infinite support.

 

 


¹ I don’t want to look like a tinfoil hat connoisseur, but… did anyone else notice that there are only two trolling cases where defendants fight back by means of counterclaims, and these are exactly the two cases where Marc Randazza intervened with his briefs? There are more than two cases where the copyrightablity of pornography was questioned, but others were ignored so far… Coincidence?