General
Updated Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena
A couple of weeks ago I published the Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena template that this blog’s reader, Sy Ableman, created. Yesterday he emailed an updated version with the following explanation:
Hi Jane,
I’ve gotten quite a few emails from people who have used my motion to quash template, and I’ve also read responses from Steele Hansmeier that readers have forwarded me.
Some funny bits in their responses, such as “The list of permissible grounds for quashing or modifying a subpoena does not include ad hominem attacks See Fed. R. Civ. P 45…” in reference to the part in my motion about their abuse of the litigation system, which I didn’t even write. It came from a decision I quoted, that was written by a federal judge who presided over one of their BitTorrent lawsuits.
One thing made me want update my Motion to Quash template. The responses always claim that the BitTorrent protocol behaves in a different way than the other filesharing protocols used in earlier cases which were severed for misjoinder. This simply isn’t true. As I mention in my updated motion to quash:
… the analysis [does not] change because the BitTorrent protocol works by taking small fragments of a work from multiple people in order to assemble a copy. Nearly all of the older protocols in the aforementioned cases work in this fashion. Kazaa, eDonkey and various Gnutella clients (e.g., LimeWire) have incorporated multisource/swarming downloads since 2002.
I’ve also added some more lines to the list of BitTorrent cases severed for misjoinder, and some additional quotes from judges who have denied SH’s discovery.
I would like to encourage your readers, in the comments section of where you post this, to add cases and quotes from judges which I did not include.
Thank you, Sy Ableman!
Click to open or download the updated document: MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA (updated).
(If your word processor does not understand Open Office format, let me know: I’ll convert and upload this document in other formats.)
Also, I think it will be helpful to see trolls’ responses to motions based on this template, so defendants could modify their motions accordingly. Please point me to those responses, and I will fetch them from Pacer, upload to Scribd and post the links here.
Fight © Trolls 
Hi Mow and other 11-24714 CA 22 does,
Do you know any filing fee for this court? I search “Miami dade circuit court motion filing fee” and cannot find a relevant one.
And please keep on! I have spoken to a EFF lawyer, he suggest motion as he has seen more success recently, and more motion in one case also increase the rate of success.
He also suggested file motion and dismiss together.
thanks
As far am I’m aware, filing a motion should be free.
Can somebody guide this John doe how to file motion to Quash for 11-24714 CA 22?
And would I need to file in “Miami Circuit Court” where the case is filed?
Can I do it on my own? I will try to use templates given in the comments here and then make one myself for 11-24714 CA 22, but how to verify if thats good?
Thanks!
The Motion To Quash documents from http://www.syfert.com seems good, we need to change the court to the 11th Judicial Circuit Court, and use this Doe’s IP address for the identity, and leave the address empty, right? How about notarizing, do they accept IP address as name?
The documents from http://www.syfert.com has instruction for mailing to the court.
I have added a new motion to quash / motion to dismiss to my Blog – https://dietrolldie.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/draft-motion-to-quash-motion-to-dismiss-baseprotect-ug-ltd-v-does-1-x-new-jersey-case-no-211-cv-03621-ccc-jad-the-mcdaniel-law-firm/
You can tailor it to many other cases as needed – remove the motion to dismiss, etc.
DieTrollDie 🙂
I would like to ask, to everyone who can answer, Has there been accounts of these plaintiffs actually following up with the case and file a lawsuit towards the identified john doe? If so, how did it go? Thanks all for your efforts. This site has been a tremendous help.
I too had the Case no.: 11-24714 CA 22. and is willing to find out if Motions to Quash has been approved by this judge? Thanks.
There are many ongoing cases against individuals. I did not look into all of them, but I’m pretty aware about the IO Group cases: there were 4 cases against individuals, 2 dismissed, 2 are still going on – see IO Group cases pages. I don’t believe the intent is to bring these cases to actual trial. DTD is right, there was no such a case yet. Most likely those guys either succumb to threats and settle, or the cases will be dismissed once the troll realizes that he wouldn’t get anything from those guys. All these cases were either vindictive or showcases to scare others from fighting and leverage the FUD to increase settlement rate. Thanks for thanks 🙂
I haven’t seen any reports of the Trolls actually fighting someone in court. I did see a report that a Canadian citizen was sued in some court and basically ignored the court summons. If I find the article link, I will post it. The Troll then obtained a default judgment and won. Not that he will get anything out of it. Myself and others who were part of earlier cases have never been named in any proceeding, much less had to show up to court. Many of these older cases have been dismissed by the court or the Troll (without prejudice). The Troll will still say they have until the Statue of limitations runs out (3 years) and they will call you. It is a lie. The first time the troll seriously goes after a defendant, the EFF and others will be there to fight these bozos. The Trolls know this and don’t want to risk their highly profitable operation.
DieTrollDie 🙂
Canadian BitTorrent User Fined $60,000 By U.S. Court – it was easy to find, since I list all troll-related TechDirt and TorrentFreak articles under Resources/Press. Currently I went back as far as 6/1/11, but will compile more links if time permits. Also I plan to add ArsTechnica.
Thanks! 🙂
Here is another motion in MS Word format – http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/k_beech_motion1.doc
DieTrollDie 🙂
What address do you mail Case no.: 11-24714 CA 22 the motion to quash or protective order?
I fall in the same boat. I’m still trying to figure out if the a filing fee is required but the Clerks office is only open from 9-12. From the initial looks of it it might require the $400+ filing fee since it is in County Court and not in Federal Court like the other cases. As far as I can tell the address is:
Clerk of the Courts
Miami-Dade County Courthouse
73 West Flager St Suite 242
Miami, FL 33130
If someone can find out if the fee is required and respond it would be much appreciated.
I now nothing about county courts, but $400 sounds crazy. Somewhere in the comments a guy from another state (Colorado?) said that it was $33 for his court… but $400 is grossly inproportionate, and probably it’s a misunderstanding. If it happens to be true, I personally wouldn’t file a motion – the probability that it will fail is high, and mot that rich to throw away $400…
Does anybody have a motion to quash & protective order that they have used for
Case no. 11-24714 CA 22 that they could post a link to. So that other 11-24714 CA 22 Does could use and send in. I looked at some others and tried to modify them but am having trouble both with file & info to put in… Any help would be greatly appreciated. I only have a few days left to get mine in.
Would the address be?
73 W. Flagler Street Suite 133
Miami, Florida 33130
Fee Schedule
http://www.miami-dadeclerk.com/service_fee_schedule.asp#district
no info on motions though
Has anybody found more documents on case 11-24714 CA 22 in PACER or somewhere else yet?
If yes, please share
Regarding the fees, if you look at the very first line, it says filing fee is 401$ + 2.5$ for each defendant in excess of 5…
Can it be that those dogs have picked this court to make it very expensive to file motions for all the 1500 does at once??
Anybody has spoken to the clerk or the court yet??
Just emailed the Clerks Office since the phone was taking too long. I was informed that there is no fee for filing a motion on an existing case. File away.
Great news, thanks a lot
http://www.download-defenders.com/
these guys any good?
I’m skeptical. Here is the interview with the owner of that site: he says that ignoring letters is not an option, and proceeds to scare you that you’ll pay more in the end. When I hear an advice based on a worst case scenario, I’m really doubtful. Earlier he states that filing a motion to quash will cost you 5000, and this statement is really a red flag. EFF list lawyers charge at least 10 times less.
It’s understandable, it’s his livelihood, so he tries to actively get clients, but scare tactics when doing it is questionable…
Congratulations to Sy Ableman as it appears his motion was granted on 10-3-2011 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania! See, K-Beech, Inc. v. John Does 1-78, 5:11-cv-05060-BMS. Today I mailed out for filing a nearly identical motion in the Southern District of New York and attached to it a copy of the order granting the motion to quash or modify subpoena. Hopefully the Southern District will do likewise and quash the subpoena in my case. I will keep everyone advised.
Thank you for your post on the PA K-Beech case. I will post the document on my Blog. Here is the cut/paste from the case summary:
ORDER THAT ALL DEFENDANTS EXCEPT JOHN DOE 1 ARE SEVERED FROM THIS ACTION AND DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THE MOTION (DOC. #6) IS GRANTED. ALL SUBPOENAS SEEKING DISCOVERY REGARDING ALL DEFENDANTS EXCEPT JOHN DOE 1 ARE QUASHED. THE OTHER PENDING MOTIONS TO QUASH IN THIS CASE ARE DENIED AS MOOT. BY 10/14/11, PLAINTIFF SHALL SERVE A COPY OF THIS ORDER ON EVERY DEFENDANT FOR WHOM IT HAS OBTAINED AN ADDRESS AND THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS ON WHOM THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS HAVE BEEN SERVED. BY 10/28/11, PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SHALL FILE A DECLARATION ATTESTING THAT PLAINTIFF HAS COMPLIED WITH THIS PROVISION. PLAINTIFF SHALL HAVE UNTIL 10/14/11 TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST JOHN DOE 1, IF IT WISHES TO PROCEED WITH ITS CLAIM AGAINST THIS DEFENDANT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 10/3/11. 10/4/11 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PARTIES, E-MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
DieTrollDie 🙂
OK, this is great news but I’m in the other pending PA suit against 36 Doe’s. It is a different judge. Do you think that my case will be dismissed as well? Is it possible 2 different judges would behave differently on nearly identical cases? Should I file another mtion to dismiss and reference the case that was just dismissed?
The judge ought to grant your motion to quash pursuant to the legal doctrine of stare decisis. You may wish to mail a copy of the order to the court and plaintiff’s counsel as an addendum to your original motion.
Thanks. I’ll wait a week to see if my case if dismissed and if not mail an addendum to my original motion.
Case no.: 11-24714 CA 22
Has anyone seen what file it is accusing the Does in downloading. It just states it wants to find the IDs of all 1544 people with the intent if then filing for DCMA.
Southern district of ny case is that the patrick collins vs doe 1-21?
As a Doe in Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-51 I filed a motion to quash using this template as a guideline, (big thank you here) I’ve been following the case here: http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/79262/patrick-collins-inc-v-john-does-1-51/summary/
and today I see that I’m listed as a voluntary dismissal, as are other Does that filed a similar motion. Does this imply that they’re just dropping those who try to fight and going for the low hanging fruit? I’m not certain what to make of it. It’s without prejudice so theoretically they could start over, but what would be the point in that?
I have noticed this also in some of the cases I monitor. In a couple cases I have seen the Troll then file a case with the one Doe as a defendant. Other cases like this the Trolls has done nothing to date. I hope some of our lawyers friends who read this might chime in with their thoughts. IMO, I believe there are two reasons/benefits for the Troll. 1st – I think (correct me if I’m wrong) it then removes the motion from the case, as it was ties to a specific Doe. That is why it is nice if some Does files as a single IP address and others file completely anonymous (for all the Does in general). 2nd – It acts as a scare tactic against the Does. The Troll wants you to think he is now going after you for daring this action. Filing a new case for $350.00 to scare other Does into not filing motions is a cheap price to ensure the larger number of Does’ pay up.
DieTrollDie 🙂
Thanks, that’s interesting.
In the event they do refile singly, I assume that restarts the process and I’ll have another 30 days to come up with a new tactic?
Yes – restart a new. Adjust any new motions to reflect you were previously joined to the old case and that Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed you and filed against you alone because you filed a motion in the previous case. Point this out to the court to show the prosecution is vindictive and only because you are not paying them the thousands they want. Also tell us so we can adjust the templates with this information. One problem I think the Trolls may have in going after they do this is they previously stated all of the Does were correctly joined (Jointly & Severally) because they downloaded/shared the file via P2P. I would point this out and ask the judge to ask Plaintiff what has changes to warrant the single prosecution. Without a really good answer, it looks to be vindictive in nature. And don’t forget to set the “120 Day Date” – File a motion to dismiss if the Troll doesn’t serve you by the 120 day mark in the case.
DieTrollDie 🙂
Just got the letter from my ISP today. Patrick Collins v. John Does 1-26 in the Western District of North Carolina. James C. White is the troll attorney.
Skruuball,
I’m working on a motion for this case. I should have it ready in a few days.
DieTrollDie 🙂
Sounds good. I am working on a draft motion based upon the arguments in made in virtually identical suits. Case history appears to show that this troll will dismiss Doe defendants filing motion to sever without much of a fight…probably to avoid judicial review.
Funny, one of the Plaintiff’s own exhibits (Doc. 4-2) contains an order to sever for improper joinder.
I didn’t know about the 120 day thing, damn I’m glad I found this site, thanks again 🙂
I’ll post any developments in the case, I want to give like I’ve gotten. I just got an EFF membership yesterday.
Hi All,
My dad received a letter this week from our ISP regarding the same issue that everyone of you is having. He doesn’t know much English so I am helping him out on this. I am scared and am a bit panicking as I am not good at responding to legal related issues. I am a blind bat to the law but I have learned quite a bit from all of you. Glad to know that I am not in this type of situation alone.
My letter does not state the name of the movie that the troll (as you call) is claiming that my dad download. I called my ISP and they don’t know either. How do I find out? Do I have to call the troll’s lawyer but do not want to as that as it is a definitely no no to do. The IP address that was on the legal notice is the ISP’s login page which I find it extremely fishy. I have pretty much no info on this. Is so it is hard to fight what you don’t know. Does anyone know how to find out without calling their lawyer?
I have contacted a lawyer to see what they have to saw about this. I am not good at writing so they might have to write the motion to quash. Does anyone know how much it costs for them to do that? I am hoping that the motion will end this.
Hello Anonymous,
First thing to do is take a breath and realize it isn’t as bad as the Troll makes it out to be. Please read the various post on this Blog and others. Some really good information to help you and your father. I will give you some advice, but please talk to others and make an informed decision.
1. Do not call the Troll. They will take anything you say and use it against you. They only have an IP addresses that allegedly downloaded/shared copyright protected material (most likely a porn film). That alone will not make a case they can win. Anything you say to them will only help them.
2. Please post the case number and any other details from the Troll letter and/or ISP paperwork. If possible, email me a copy of the Troll letter (doerayme2011@hotmail.com). I will redact your personal information before posting any details from it. Depending on the case, I may have a Motion template ready for you or soon to be ready. As the the Troll alreasdy has your information, your best bet is a motion to dismiss.
3. I don’t have too much information on the cost of a lawyer, but I would guess a couple hundred dollars to start. Doesn’t hurt to call and talk to a few.
4. Remeber that there are many John Does out there and none of us have been taken to court over these allegations. The goal of the Troll is to take your money and move onto the next scared person. If they take you to court, they lose more of their profit margin. More and more cases are being dismissed because the courts are starting to understand what these clowns are up to.
Take care and hope to hear from you soon.
DieTrollDie 🙂
On 10-5-2001 the Hon. John A. Gibney, Jr., issued a memorandum order in the case of K-Beech v. John Does 1-85 (3:11-cv-469) in which the court, on its own accord severed Does 2-85 from the lawsuit, quashed the subpoenas AND directed plaintiff’s counsel to show cause as why he should not be hit with Rule 11 sanctions for frivolous conduct.
Huge news, I heard about it yesterday, and despite being very busy at work lately, I’ll find time to write an article about it today.
Thank you DieTrollDie (I absolutely love the name). You are very comforting and knowledgeable. Are you a lawyer? If so, can I hire you LOL? I have been following these post and another one. I will definitely look into more postings. Such a pain in the you know where. I can;t believe people would do such a thing. Makes me sick !!!
Thank you for the kind words. No, I’m no lawyer or para-legal. In my previous career I had a good exposure to some of the legal system, lawyers, investigators, and its documents. I do this because I can and as SJD will tell you, It is good for your Karma. Yes, what the Trolls are doing is sickening. Have a great day.
DieTrollDie 🙂
Hi Jane and DTD,
Thank you both for all the information.
I talked to a lawyer in FL about the case 11-24714 CA 22 today. His suggestion, however is not to file motion, if the doe is not living in FL, instead, the doe can just sit and ignore. I have seen some people take this option in this forum. What’s your take on that?
Thanks!
I agree: solve the problems as they arise. Risk of being sued by a proxy troll in your state does exist, but the probability of it is very-very low. Don’t spend nerves and money prematurely: most likely they will just leave you alone after collecting ransoms from those who scared beyond the rational thinking point.
Hi DieTrollDie,
Do you think you can make a Motion to Quash template for Case No: 11-24714 CA 22 for the many of us victims. I was going through many of the templates including yours without a good fit. The highlights of this case is that there are 9 plaintiffs versus 1-1544 JOHN DOES. Your template motion refers to many previous cases what was dismissed (versus K-Beech), I was wondering if that is applicable for this particular case, since we are against multiple plaintiffs. Another problem is that we don’t know what the violation is for. File sharing? (no program mentioned, and no file mentioned.). So I really don’t know where to start! Advices please.
We have 1 more week left.
Thanks and many appreciations from JOHN DOES 1-1544.
Do I have to find a lawyer that is from the state where the court order comes from to file the motion to quash or can I file the motion with a lawyer in my state? I am confused. Advices quick. I’ve been looking for lawyers in my town to do the motion but if I can’t file it with them then I would have to start my lawyer search again.
I am confused as to where to while the motion to quash. Does it have to be file with a lawyer in the state where the court order is from or can it be file in the state where you live in? I’ve been looking at lawyers in my town and if I have to file it in the state of the court notice, then I have to start my search again. Please anyone advice.
You do not need a lawyer to file your motion; it can be filed “Pro Se.” You have to file the motion with the specific court the case is being handled by. See the initial complaint and/or PACER for the address. You also need to send a copy of your motion to Plaintiff’s attorney (Troll). The “Certificate of Service” (attached to your motion) show the court that you sent a copy of it to the Troll on a specific date. Then you want to fax the motion to your ISP and inform them of your filed motion and not to release your personnal information until the court rules on your motion.
DieTrollDie 🙂
Hi DieTrollDie,
It is me from above regarding my dad. I can’t write a professional document like you can so I have decided to have an Associate or Lawyer write the motion for us. I guess my question on the above was more of “can I have a lawyer in the state that I reside write the motion or does it have to be written by an attorney/associate who practice law in the state where the civil action was filed to write the motion”? Also, I can mail the letter from another country? I have a friend who is currently in India, I might have her mail it to the Trolls and the Court. Will that make things bit confusing?
Hi DieTrollDie,
I think I found out the answer to my own questions. After reading more into what a motion to quash is, I start to have a way better understanding of it. I guess I am just stressed out and every little thing panics me. I do have one question: I have read on your quash document that there is a section call the “certificate of service”, what is that? Sorry for the numerous replies but I need ALOT of help in this. It has been one awfully long week.
Thank you….
im in the Patrick Collins v John Does 1-21 in Southern District of NY. CAse 11-cv-05784. I am creating a Motion to Quash using this template combined with some others i’ve found online. Where am i supposed to mail it to though. To the judge directly or the courthouse? Only form i found on the southern district of NY website was the cover sheet form which has a checkbox for Motion to Quash.
Thanks!
I mailed mine directly to the Judge with a certificate of mailing to plaintiff’s troll (Southern District, different case though). Next week I will phone the Judge’s clerk to make sure the motion to quash or modify (mailed yesterday) was received along with Attachment No.2 to the motion which I just mailed out today which is the Memorandum Order of the Hon. John A. Gibney, Jr., which I pointed out 10 posts above (it is kryptonite to a troll lawsuit because it involves the same plaintiff, same complaint, same “expert”, etc.).
Due to the fact that we are Pro Se I think that the court will forgive us any lapses in their local filing rules. Plaintiff’s counsel in the lawsuit I am involved on has three times screwed up on a court procedure basis, if I am reading the docket correctly, which makes me think that this guy is inexperienced in federal courts.
Indeed I read that courts have a tradition of being forgiving to pro se filings, at the same time being very strict to licensed lawyers.
Did you submit your motion to quash yet? I have been reading that those who publish one, are at some risk of being specifically targeted by the Plaintiff, as they eventually get to find out everyone’s names anyway. They may then harass perhaps a bit more to settle. Any truth to this? Also – has the deadline to submit motion to quash passed yet? Reading the last update from 9/22 it seems like the Plaintiff is being granted access to all names, unless I read this wrong:
ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE THIRD PARTY SUBPOENAS PRIOR TO A RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE granting 4 Motion for Leave to File Subpoenas. Plaintiff established that “good cause” exists for it to serve third party subpoenas on the Internet Service Providers listed on Exhibit A to the Motion (the “ISPs”). Plaintiff may serve each of the ISPs with a Rule 45 subpoena commanding each ISP to provide Plaintiff with the true name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and Media Access Control (“MAC”) address of the Defendant to whom the ISP assigned an IP address as set forth on Exhibit A to the Motion. Plaintiff shall attach to any such subpoena a copy of this Order; as further set forth in this Order. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 9/22/2011) (mro) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
Sorry I clicked the post comment twice.
I have already mailed my motion for case 11-24714 CA 22.
I worry that the plaintiffs will divide the list of names between them and then take a state to milk each or something like that. They are many and once they have your name they can take it easy and start harassing people systematically and a that points no motion will help, it’s 1:1, that’s all they want.
I think our best defense is to swamp the court with motions. I say f*** the lawyers that suggest not to fight back at this stage – between plaintiffs and defendants it’s 50/50 chances, but guess who always brings home the big $$?? It’s in the lawyers interest to let them have your name, once it gets on the one-to-one you must hire a lawyer.
All the peculiarities of this case like the lack of details of the accusation and the number of plaintiffs and defendants seem actually its weaknesses, it should be easier to throw it down but the judge has to notice what is going on and the only way to do that is by submerging him with motions.
I am willing to share mine but I’m not a lawyer, not a paralegal nor anything related in any way to the law business and this is the first ever time I’m involved in legal issues so take mine as a template, modify it how you prefer and mail it fast!!
How do I post things here?
Send it to DieTrollDie – he is the Keeper Of The Motions now 🙂
Please email it if you want. I can add it to the motions I have. Thanks
DieTrollDie 🙂
Here is my motion for 11-24714 CA 22.
As above, not perfect, not by a pro, more like a copy/paste/adapt of others’ work. If you see big faults please let all know.
I see the formatting was a bit screwed up by the converter, just copy it to word or whatever and format it as you like.
This is anonymous, from no Doe in particular, but freeing all Does. If you feel you have more chances as a Joe nr.xxxx then change it accordingly. Fill in the dates at the end.
As recommended mail it from far away, best to get a friend mail it by certified mail from an automatic post office from another state (you don’t want to get him harassed). Remember to mail one to the plaintiffs as well.
Swamp the court of motions!!
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/67844003?access_key=key-133ddvl5e8lgtcwhc6rn
Good luck everybody
P.S. Does anyone have a motion or something to send to the ISP for saying that the motion has been sent and he must not release the data until further notice??
Great job with the motion! As far as faxing it to the ISPs, I haven’t seen a specific form. I would suggest a simple letter/memorandum tell the ISP of your filing with the court and for them not to release your personal information. Depending on the ISP, they may ask you to put you IP address on the letter/memo to them.
As many of the ISPs don’t want to be dragged into court for any reason, they will likely release the majority of subscriber information.
DieTrollDie 🙂
Thanks for creating the motion (11-24714 CA 22) template.
As far contacting my ISP, how would they know not to release my person information unless I supplied my IP?
Can some explain why it’s recommended that the motion letters should be mailed from another state using a mailing service?
Thanks again for everything!
Without putting your IP address on the motion you fax to the ISP, they will not know which personal info to hold back. As I stated, most ISPs will NOT hold back all the subscriber info just because your Motion didn’t have it listed on it. The goal of the ISPs in these matters is to do as little as possible and stay out of the court room.
The reason for mailing the motions from a different State or County is to make it harder for the Troll to figure out who sent it. The Troll will see the post mark on the letter you send and the court will likely keep the envelope (now it is a public record). If you mail it from your city and you are the only one from that location, you just told even the stupidest Troll who you are. Even if they do not have your subscriber information yet, they can easily Geo-locat the IP addresses to figure it out. If your case has Does from different States, use a remailing service – they only charge a dollar or two per letter. Do a Google search. If your case is for a single State, you can get away with mailing it from a different county. Make sure to state what you are doing in the motion, as it shows your fear of retaliation and prevents the Troll from claiming the motion was filed by someone other than one of the true John Does.
DieTrollDie 🙂
DieTrollDie. I’m hoping to get my mailing off tomorrow, can’t thank everyone here enough for all the help they’ve given. Should I be putting an actual signature of John Doe on the motion? I mean in ink or is the typed signature enough?
Also for the remailing service – I send it to an out-of-state address they provide with a fee and they forward it on? Do I then account for the lag time in the postmark on that when putting the certification of service or do I just date that as the day I sent the original mail.
Thanks again.
I have seen both (Typed & Ink signature). Do what ever you think is best. I personally like the Ink route.
Remailing service – figure a day or two extra for the date on the certificate of service. Have your letters addressed (no return address) and put them in the larger envelope (addressed to the remailer) with the fee the remailer charges. Seal up and mail to the remailer.
DieTrollDie 🙂
Hello all,
I’ve been also contacted warned by ISP in case 11-24714 CA 22, Patrick Collins etc. My ISP did not include a list of IPs or Doe #s. How do I know which one I am? How can I see the list of IP addrs, I have no idea how many of them are from my town/state. This is making the anonymity part of the Motion to Quash (have not decided whether or not to do it) seem more difficult.
I was able to look up the case at
http://www2.miami-dadeclerk.com/civil/Search.aspx
but don’t know how to interpret what I see in the 9 matches (1 per Plaintiff?) when I click on “Docket”. Is there some way I can better follow what’s going on?
Case Number (LOCAL): 2011-24714-CA-01
10/03/2011 LETTER OF CORRESPONDENCE
Looks like someones letter made it to the court
Mailed my letter off today, hope the court issues a quash/dismissal, but most important to the ISP before the October 14 deadline
How do you know it made it to the court already?
If your case is federal, check RFC express – there is a link at the bottom of the docket list that says “refresh”. Mail filings are being scanned filed electronically upon reception.
Sent three copies of the motion one to court, one to the trolls, & one to the ISP
So let me get this straight…
1) Copy of the motion sent to the TROLLS office from another state. The only portion of the motion that is personalized is a “XYZ” email address from gmail.
2) Copy of the motion sent to the court. Can be sent from any address but it will not include any personal contact information whatsoever.
3) A letter to Verizon stating that I have filed a motion to quash. Include personal contact information such as IP address or name so they no not to release my information to the TROLL after 30 days.
Cheers all~
Mail both Troll and Court copies of motion from other State.
For the ISP, fax a copy of the motion to them at the Fax number provided on the paperwork they sent you. Don’t mail it to the generic ISP address, it is bound to get lost and never make it to the ISP’s legal department. I would recommend using an Internet Fax service and only put your IP address on this one. The ISP will know who you are from the IP address; this is just incase your fax to the ISP was ever released (yes I’m a little paranoid). You can make a cover letter to the ISP if you want to.
DieTrollDie 🙂
Thanks DTD.
Are the motion docs that I send supposed to be generic? Which documents/ Who gets my xyz email address?
I would tailor you motion documents to specific to your situations. Just take one of the templates and edit it to work for you. Put the new (never used before) email address on your John Doe signature block of the motion and certificate of service.
DieTrollDie 🙂
no fax number on the ISP letter they sent me & the address on the webpage does not match the address that is on the envelope the ISP sent
I’m one of the 1544 being sued by Patrick Collins.
A lawyer in Jacksonville Told me to just let them get my info. Don’t try to quash it.
I don’t know.
11-24714 CA 22 (Collins v. 1544) is not a copyright lawsuit. It is a complaint for pure bill of discovery, filed in a Florida State court for the sole purpose of obtaining subpoenas and gaining subscriber information. A state court cannot hear a copyright infringement suit, but apparently they can be used as a tool (in Florinda) to gather information. It appears this is a new tactic that the trolls are employing. It smacks of impropriety. Shame on that judge for rubber-stamping her name on the order for subpoenas for something that court clearly has no authority over. Expect to be seeing this again and again, as Florida becomes the new hub of copyright trolls. Even Steele is moving there.
I believe that once subscriber information is obtained through the state court, collection efforts will commence. Those who do not settle will be threatened with or named in a federal suit in their home state. There are hundreds of smaller suits filed all over the country by these same Plaintiffs using local attorneys.
It’s interesting to note that I also found some new lawsuits filed in Arizona that name the defendants as participants in a particular swarm on particular date and time and sharing the same file with the same hash tag. They are getting more specific in their targeting and refining their method. Looks like they are changing their game.
OK. I posted something a little while ago that talked about John Steele filing a change of address to FL. On of our lawyer friends said it could be because FL has a “Bill of Discovery.” Allows them to get the subscriber information and then they start the settlement letters. https://dietrolldie.wordpress.com/?s=bill+of+discovery
DieTrollDie 🙂
It is very disturbing that the troll complaint was filed with 8 different Plaintiffs. This means that ALL EIGHT will now have the Defendant’s contact information even if only one Plaintiff has a possible cause of action.
This can’t be legal and surely goes against the intent of a Bill of Discovery. It is a fishing expedition pure and simple when eight Plaintiffs go after subpoenas on 1544 Defendants based on IP addresses.
Not to mention, it’s not a lawsuit. There is really no way to fight it. It makes the privacy argument regarding IP addresses moot. I don’t see how this can be done.
What is the legal principal behind joining plaintiffs? Is the alleged copyright infringement against a single work that each of the plaintiffs have a copyright interest in? Or, do the plaintiffs each own a separate work accessed by each the Doe defendants? This is interesting.
How dis you know how many people are being sued? Did you call the ISP?
it usually lists the # of Does in the ISP letter
I noticed that you suggest mailing from out of state. I saw previous quashes from lawyers that state which Doe # their client was. I think the benefit to this is they might dismiss this specific Doe. I am planning on going that route at this time. is this a bad idea? My motion is 22 pages long similar to the one here http://www.scribd.com/doc/65212239/Motion-Patrick-Collins-Inc-vs-John-Does-1-26
Yes it seems most of the motions from attorney list the Doe #. Many of the Pro See Does do it also. There are different reasons for both. If you are comfortable listing your #, go ahead. It may get dismissed (without prejudice), but the Troll can still refile against you later (up to the 3 year mark).
DieTrollDie 🙂
thanks, hopefully i dont plan to be at this location in 3 years so good luck to them trying to track me down across the country
This forum is great. Lots of good information. I was wondering about a case that I received a subpoena for that I haven’t heard much about and am trying to see if anyone else has the same case or helpful info. It’s the AF Holdings,LLC v. John Does 1-1140
Docket No.# 11-cv-01274-RBW
The judge is Reggie B Walton and ind the District of Columbia and I haven’t heard or read too many cases that he’s done with this kind of stuff and what the results have been. I’m like everyone else and don’t want to settle but scared that I’ll be financially crushed if I end up being the very unlucky ones they go after.
Any info or insight is greatly appreciated.
I know someone in a similar boat. From what I have dug up for them, it looks like this is a standard Steele production suit across multiple states and multiple ISPs.
My friends currently plan to take no action and deal with the harrassment until it goes away. After digging here I think I will convince my friends to at least file a motion to squash before their info becomes public at the end of October. I suggest you do the same per the posted guidelines for anonymity. Probably won’t help, but it might.
I second the solicitation for advice or info on this case.
Thank you for the help,
Can you file a motion to quash via email?
How do we get information about this case to send to our respective ISP’s?
Will sending an anonymous email to the clerk of the court help in any way?
Anyone here found a fax number for case no. 11-24714 CA 22 (Collins v. 1544) for ISP (CABLEVISION). I just finished a motion to quash using the above template.
There is no fax on the notification from cablevision and the guy there would not tell you, but looking here
http://www.search.org/programs/hightech/isp/
you can find this
Cablevision
Contact Name: Subpoena Compliance Department
Online Service: Cablevision Corporate-Legal Online
Online Service Address: 1111 Stewart Avenue
Bethpage, New York 11714
USA
Phone Number: 516-803-5800
Fax Number: 516-803-2990
Note(s): Cablevision, Subpoena Compliance Group Fax: 516-803-2990.
Last Updated: August, 2011
I’d recommend sending the motion by fax AND mail, they can also claim the fax was not received, accepted, etc…
thank you for the info, just filed away.
Any good free internet fax service? Thanks
Faxzero.net is reliable, though it allows only 3 pages and 2 faxes a day.
ditto here is there a fax number for Metrocast? Mailed a letter already just want to cover all the bases
I got a certified mailed from comcast notify me about Patrick Collins Inc. filed law suit a downloading a porn ” real female orgasm 10″ which I don’t know anything about it. Comcast gave until October 31, 2011 to file a motion to squash. If not the would give my identities to Patrick Collins Inc. Please, help what should I do?
Please read the Blogs here and get smart on the issue. Down & Dirty of it – The Troll is accusing you of illegal downloading/sharing of copyright protected material (the porn movie). If he gets you personal information from the ISP, he will send you letters and call you – telling you to pay him approx. $3,000 or you will be named in a federal law suit.
https://www.eff.org/issues/copyright-trolls
Please learn about your options and help us fight these Bozos – file motions and don’t pay them anything!
DieTrollDie 🙂
I have gotten the same letter from patrick collins.
I am currently writing a motion to quash letter to my ISP and court (should i send one to Ira M siegel also?)
I’m pretty freak out right now, and any advice, help or comforting will be very much appreciated.
are there any rules or things to do or NOT to do right now?
Should i contact an attorney or wait until after October 31, i really don’t know what to do.
Thank you guys in advance as i know you guys are very knowledgeable and wise about this type of lawsuit and situation .
This may be of interest to all John Does in the Southern District of New York, in the case entitled Do Denim v. Fried Denim, Judge Swain granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the copyright infringement claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Section 411 of the Copyright Act. Do Denim had filed its deposit, application, and fee prior to filing suit, but had yet to receive a grant or a refusal. At least two other Southern District decisions have followed Do Denim in support of dismissal of the claim of infringement of an unregistered copyright. DMBJ Productions v. TMZ TV, and Lewinson v. Henry Holt and Company, LLC.
K-Beech has only registered for the copyright to “Gang Bang Virgins” but has yet to receive the copyright ( see, Exhibit B to K-Beech’s complaint for copyright infringement). In other words, K-Beech is identical to the situation in Do Denim. Accordingly, under the Southern District’s case law the Southern District does not have subject matter jurisdiction over these lawsuits and they may be ripe for a motion to dismiss.
Have fun with the info kiddies but be cautious as I am not an attorney and this blog post does in no way constitute legal advice.
Me again:
That would be a (FRCP) Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted) and a Rule 12(b)(1) motion (for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction).
Have fun with the info kiddies but be cautious as I am not an attorney and this blog post does in no way constitute legal advice.
Do I add the John Doe number assigned in the subpeona by the John Doe in the signature line or do I put somewhere else in the motion?
If you wish to add your John Doe # (and IP address)to the motion, I would suggest adding to the introduction portion of the motion and at your signature block.
DieTrollDie 🙂
I got a certified mailed from comcast notify me about Patrick Collins Inc. filed law suit a downloading a porn ” real female orgasm 10″ which I don’t know anything about it. Comcast gave until October 31, 2011 to file a motion to squash. If not the would give my identities to Patrick Collins Inc. Please, help what should I do?
lease learn about your options and help us fight these Bozos – file motions and don’t pay them anything!
PLEASE, HOW DO I FILE MOTIONS?
I plan on adding a basic guide to filing under my “Motions” section of my Blog. Until then, do a search for filing motions here and at other Blogs/Web sites. Here is the basics:
1. Use a draft motion (motion to quash and/or motion to dismiss) that has already been used and change the information to reflect your case (Case #, Court Location/Judge, Plaintiff’s Name (Troll), your John Doe # /IP address, and case details).
2. Ask the readers here to review – post it to SCRIB. Make changes/edit.
3. Make three copies – one for the court, on for the Troll, and one to fax to the ISP. Mail the ones to the court and Troll from a different State or county then were you live – don’t put your return address on it. Fax a copy to the ISP – put your IP address on that one (so they will not release your personal information.
4. Get a PACER account and monitor your case. If accepted by the court, you will see it added to the court documents as a motion filed by John Doe.
Sorry if this is very basic, but it gives you a good start.
DieTrollDie 🙂
More for my fellow Southern District of New York John Does:
It appears that K-Beech does not have the capacity to sue in New York Federal Court because it has not yet filed a certificate of doing business in New York pursuant to New York General Business Law, Section 130(9) which makes its complaint facially deficient (see, DMBJ Productions v. TMZ TV, 08-civ-6160 (DAB)). K-Beech needs to plead compliance with Section 130 of the New York General Business Law for its complaint to be facially viable.
This argument when paired with the lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a viable cause of action, referenced above, may make for a compelling argument that Plaintiff’s counsel should be sanctioned in accordance with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for engaging in glaringly sloppy/frivolous conduct. (see, K-Beech v. John Does 1-85, 3:11-civ-469 (JAG)).
Have fun with the info kiddies but be cautious as I am not an attorney and this blog post does in no way constitute legal advice.
Me again:
If and when K-Beech does file a certificate of doing business in New York in accordance with Section 130 of the New York General Business Law, that would be a good time to contact the Manhattan branch of the FBI or the United States Department of Justice for the Southern District of New York to report that K-Beech and its attorneys are seeming engaging in a RICO enterprise to extort money:
1. K-Beech through its agents uploads a pornographic film (not positive about this but it needs to be investigated by the DOJ because it seems to be the only way that K-Beech’s agent would know when and where to monitor ISP traffic).
2.K-Beech monitors the ISP traffic to its uploaded pornographic film.
3. K-Beech and its attorneys use the U.S. postal service to demand settlement/extortion monies.
Have fun with the info kiddies but be cautious as I am not an attorney and this blog post does in no way constitute legal advice.
Just getting going on this idea:
Of the countless lawsuits filed across the country by K-Beech involving hundreds if not thousands of John Does it is remarkable that if has not once sued the up loader of its allegedly copyright protected work (e.g. “Gang Bang Virgins”). This act alone makes it reasonable to think that K-Beech or its agent(s) uploaded the pornographic film for the sole purpose of creating a honeypot to lure unsuspecting ISP users with intent to later extort settlement monies from them. Such conduct might be criminal and, at the very least, triggers the affirmative defense of equitable estoppal in a civil copyright suit (see for example, Legislator 1357 Ltd v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., 2006 WL 2709783).
Have fun with the info kiddies but be cautious as I am not an attorney and this blog post does in no way constitute legal advice.
If the trolls get your information what can they legally do with it?
Contact employer and tell them?
Make it public knowledge?
Wouldn’t they be subject to a slander lawsuit?
Concerned
11-24714-ca-22
Spoke to my ISP representative they claim I can send a letter of intent to file a motion to quash and that will get me a few more days extension.
Does anyone have any way to get information about this case. This is not on PACER or RFCExpress so I am not sure how I would know anything about the case.
Any ideas?
Hi Concerned,
You can find the case here: http://www2.miami-dadeclerk.com/civil/Search.aspx
It is not a Federal case. It is a Complaint for Discovery filed in Florida State Court.
A little more info re this case –
The complaint was filed for subpoenas to determine identities behind IP addresses. Because copyright law is Federal, a separate suit would have to be filed later in Federal Court once Does are identified. 11-24714-ca-22 is for discovery only.
If you search the above link by defendant name and put in DOES, JOHN, you can see the other cases they have filed in this circuit and look at their docket sheets to see what has been done in them.
In 11-24714-ca-22, a second motion for subpoenas was filed last week, one day after a Motion to Quash was recorded on the docket. Not sure what that means, and documents cannot be viewed online.
I don’t know how this new tactic is not getting more attention. They are using an antiquated law peculiar to the state of Florida to obtain personal information for a Federal case, leaving little opportunity for people to fight. Florida Courts are exercising power over Defendants spread across the country. The Florida court system is already flat broke and this is a waste of their resources when any case that might arise from this will be in a Federal Court anyway, and the Plaintiffs are well aware of that fact.
Thank you anonymous
So does it still help to file a motion to quash related to copyright law if this is related to discovery?
Assuming this is not dismissed, what can they do with your name and address besides threatening to take you to court?
Can they publicize this in any way?
I think someone asked this already but I haven’t seen an answer:
Can they contact employers or anything along those lines?
I’m not an attorney, so I really can’t say. They do have one Motion to Quash recorded on the docket with a request for a telephonic hearing, but that is followed by another motion for subpoenas. I have no idea what that may mean.
I assume that they are using this as a vehicle to gain identifying info, and then the letters and calls will commence.
Please file you motion to quash the subpoena/bill of discovery. It keep the troll busy and the court informed on this matter. Florida and the other states that have bills of discovery are bound to get swamped by the Trolls if this is successful. If they do get subscriber information, the settlement letters and telephone call will soon follow. The threat will of course be being named in a Federal law suit in your jurisdiction.
DieTrollDie 🙂
Can I simply take the template provided on this site change the date and send it? I have read the blog so I am aware that I shouldn’t sign the document nor send it from my physical area.
Thank you for all the help.
4 more days until Oct. 14th deadline for my ISP 😛