For those who have just received a letter from their ISP
Note that a new version of the motion was uploaded on August 5. Please read this post first and then follow the link at the bottom of this page.
To the best of my knowledge, this is not applicable to currently open IO cases. However, I hope it can help the blog visitors looking for help with other troll cases (there are quite a few according to the blog’s search statistics.)
I have received a letter with a draft of a motion similar in spirit to the motion that I filed for my case. Unlike my motion, which was a motion to dismiss multiple Does because of improper joinder, this one is called “MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA”. The author suggests to file this motion on behalf of John Doe, i.e. without signing your real name. This is exactly what I did (I also listed my e-mail instead of an address, and the court is still sending new filings to me). Consequently, I believe that this kind of a motion will likely be filed. I don’t know, however, whether the judges will read these motions: I don’t think that the judge on my case read my motion before striking it as improperly filed (i.e. without a real name and address). On the other hand, similar motions worked in IL, and because each judge makes his own decisions, who knows, maybe this motion will work in some courts. I think it is worth trying: I did and I don’t regret that I spent time on this. The more motions are filed, the more likely it is that the judges will pay attention.
One piece of advice: don’t mail the motion from a location close to your home. I asked my friend in a remote state to re-mail my filings. If your case is filed exclusively for a Californian IP addresses, you could drive a couple of counties away from your home and mail it from there. Remember that your envelope will likely be filed as well, so consider writing down your Doe e-mail address instead of any postal address there: this way you will not look like trying to mislead the court.
And don’t forget to correct the number of Does on the case, which is mentioned not only in the header, but also, e.g., on p.p. 2 and 5.
Also fax a copy of your motion to your ISP: in my experience, they love these faxes since they don’t have to work on compiling Doe lists until the judge rules on the motion.
Hi Jane Doe,
For the 20,000+ cases in California, Steele Hansmeier and others are going after California residents only, so the personal jurisdiction argument won’t do.
Many of these cases are being severed for misjoinder. I’ve attached a sample Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena which includes this argument. I think that it would help John Does to go after this procedural issue at this early stage, as it will make the Plaintiff reconsider whether it’s worth it to shake down every John Doe if it costs them $350 apiece. Also, every other type of argument gets answered with “OK, you can bring that up later.”
The attachment is in OpenOffice format. I hope that your readers would find it useful. It’s important that every defendant take this, change it to reflect their current case, maybe adding or removing what they see fit, and filing this when they receive their subpoena notice.
Remember to send a copy to the plaintiff’s counsel, and of course, your name is John Doe.
Pro Se Attorney and Serious Man
Click to open or download:
MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
Updated version: MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA (see the new post).
(If your word processor does not understand Open Office format, let me know: I’ll convert and upload this document in other formats.)
9 responses to ‘For those who have just received a letter from their ISP’
My processor does not understand Open Office format. Can you please convert the document?
First of all, as you are commenting to this (outdated) post, not to the updated motion’s one, I’m afraid you did not read it yet. Did you?
Try this – a MS Word format. If you still have problems, let me know. In that case I will have to ask you what word processor (and which version) do you use.
I’ll make sure to put the link to MS Word version links to the posts.
I noticed that you had used what looks like a certificate of service, possibly in pdf file, where you were able to fill in certain fields? Would you happen to have a link to that? I am going to try and file a motion to quash but don’t know if that little bit at the end of the word doc will suffice of if we need a more formal form similar to the one you used?
The one I used is from the web site of The United States District Court for the Northern District of California: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/civillitpackets (it is in the Motion packet). Other courts may have different rules for motions.
Wow Perfect!!! Thank you SO MUCH (and for all your other work)!!! The court I’m dealing with is also for Northern District of California. Another Steele case with Hard Drive Productions. Not sure which number I am in Doe 1-53… but I’m going to try and file my own motion to quash as well.
It says that the template was made for fighting Steele in the CA cases where jurisdication may not be an issue. Is there a better/more arguments to put into it if jurisdiction is an issue. I know someone that is a part of the AF Holdings vs 1-1140 and would love to be able to advise them to use this template (with mods as needed) rather than worry about getting a lawyer. They have until the end of October before the ISP is being forced to supply the personal info.
This process in involves filling out a “certificate of service” with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. I have seen that some people are putting an anonymous email address for the address.
In some cases, this has been accepted, but it seems to be an easy thing for the plaintiff to claim that the certificate of service is improperly filed.
Does anyone have any more experience with this?
Couple of Questions: Why do I need to mail it from a different county? Does it need to be a certified mail?
Does anyone know of a motion to quash that does not involve joinder?