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 
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?
You are close – try this link (http://www2.miami-dadeclerk.com/civil/Search.aspx & select the “Local Case” tab) and then fill in the required sections: 2011 24714 CA (Year, Seq, & Code) Hit return and you should be on your way. I don’t see if you can pull up the documents, but I’m not experience with this court system.
DieTrollDie 🙂
Tomorrow I am filing a document entitled “Further Support for Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena” in the case of K-Beech v. John Does 1-19 (11-cv-05786) having originally mailed my initial motion last week. This “Further Support for Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena” is essentially a verbatim recitation of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in yet another K-Beech lawsuit in the United District Court for the Eastern District of New York entitled K-Beech v. Does, 11-cv-3331 (JTB)(ETB). Essentially the argument is that in New York you have to have a copyright to sue for copyright infringement, K-Beech has registered for a copyright but does not have one so its complaint does not state a claim for copyright infringement.
Please can you post a copy of both your motions as have same case.thanks
what address was it sent to ? was it accepted ? did you name yourself or anon?
I am JohnDoe369. I have same problem as JohnDoe88
I have gotten the same letter from patrick collins Inc. How do you (JohnDoe88) write motion to quash letter to your ISP and court? Please I need help because I don’t how to do it.
Geeze, my case still hasn’t been dismissed yet. I’m in the K-Beech vs. Does 1-36 in PA (2:11-cv-05058-RK). The identical case filed against 78 Does in PA (5:11-cv-05060-BMS) was dismissed as noted above. I’m not sure what is taking this judge so long. Can someone assist me in filing an addendum to my original motion that includes the recent order from the court to dismiss Doe’s 2-78? I just don’t know how to format the addendum properly.
Thanks.
i received a letter from my ISP for ‘2011 24714 CA’ as well. if my ISP is not served a motion to quash or motion for a protective order before 5pm on thursday, they will release my information. do i even have time to put something together? any advise on an approach i should take here?
This is ready to go
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/67844003?access_key=key-133ddvl5e8lgtcwhc6rn
fill in the dates, sign, overnight it to court, plaintiffs, ISP.
Read all the postings on this page, they’ll teach you how to mail it.
If you wish to remain anonymous you shouldn’t sign the document — Correct?
Print and/or sign it John Doe. Unless you want to put your real name.
DieTrollDie 🙂
Case: 11-24714-CA-22,
Got a voicelmail from my ISP (cablevision) after faxing in the motion to quash. The guy left a message saying not to fax them the motions paperwork. He didn’t say much, but ask me to call back and that he wants to speak with me. Should I?
I had the same conversation with this guy – he’s going to tell you that they are not accepting faxed documents…
No idea if this is legal or what, but anyway you can say that you are also mailing him the paperwork but it will arrive in a couple of days and the is just to prove that you have filed a motion and so they must not release your data
I don’t think there is any problem speaking with your ISP. They are the ones that can link your name and information with your IP address so I don’t think there is much to be worried about when communicating with your ISP.
Just my 2 cents
Frustrated & John Doe Mow
I also spoke to the cablevision guy. Seems nice and he doesnt want to be passing along all the info to the court. He said the same thing he wont accept faxes but there was a motion filed under 11-24714CA22 and they will NOT be releasing personal info on Oct. 12th. I may still file a motion to quash anyways.
It is nice to finally find other people in this same suit with me and all of this info which lets me sleep a little better at night.
Can I ask did you just use this example of the motion to quash and modify it for Florida?
When I spoke to him late this afternoon the story was different, he was going to withhold only some names, THERE WILL BE DATA SENT (his words “… I can only take some names out of the list that will be sent”). He clearly told me that unless I could prove I had sent a motion he was going to send my data as well, and he asked for the tracking numbers of the mails.
I went to the post office an hour ago and mailed the motion to everybody, including him.
Moreover, the judge has not quashed anything yet, it can still reject the motion, and that’s easier if it is only a couple of them.
I think it is best for everybody if he receives many motions, and gets annoyed by the plaintiffs’ scam and tactics. As somebody said above, our number is our strength.
Very interesting. I will file a John Doe motion tmw and make sure cablevison is aware. Thanks for the heads up.
Understand nothing has been quashed yet and frankly it doesnt seem like cablevision is even in the loop.
tomorrow morning i am overnighting an anonymous motion to quash to MetroCast (an address in Frazer, PA – the return address that was on the “ISP letter”), Miami-Dade County court, and the Trolls.
is there someone i can/should contact at Cablevision to ensure my name is not released?
thanks!
Cablevision contact 516-803-3917
At least your ISP gave you an opportunity to respond. I was notified by email after they had already sent my info. No official looking letter in the mail or courtesy of a few days to contest it. Just as bad as the trolls, in my opinion.
It is incredibly stressful to go about this motion to quash pro se. On the other hand, it would be even more stressful to go pro se without this template and blog/forum with like minded individuals. Thank you!
For the completely overwhelmed, I contacted Nicholas Ranallo anonymously and he seems like a pretty straight shooter. We talked on the phone and I’d recommend contacting him if Pro Se is a plunge you don’t want to take. (I’m the type to fight this to the death… My wife is not, so I needed options and opinions.)
I’m a Doe in Pacific Century International, Ltd. v. Does 1-129 5:11-cv-03681 (N.D. CA) – I’m working on my citations ;). If you see RECAP updated with the latest PACER results, it’s my fault as I compulsively follow the case and there is a lot of other Doe activity in the case as well.
I filed a motion anonymously pro se, faxed it to Comcast using their original notice as a cover sheet, and am waiting for the judge to address the motion and the Plaintiff’s response. The judge, HRL, granted the discovery, but there isn’t a lot of other examples of what he will do next. For Pro Se Doe’s; that’s right, expect a response by the plaintiff, but don’t let it get you down. The judge will decide and then it’s on to next steps. Any opinions are replies to responses here?
This motion needs updating as Hard Drive Productions v. Does 1-188 details BitTorrent vs. other P2P networks, a BitTorrent “single swarm” definition, and judicial impracticality of mass joinder before severing all but one Doe: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/bittorrent-users-dont-act-in-concert-so-judge-slashes-mass-p2p-case.ars
Again, thank you all very, very much!
Case 1:11-cv-02940 Patrick Collins, Inc. v Does 1-35
Would a good template to use (after modifying the dates, courts, and appropriate information) be
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/67844003?access_key=key-133ddvl5e8lgtcwhc6rn
This is for case 11-24714 CA 22 which I am a part of too. Is it ok if I use this as is?
For 11-24714 CA 22, here is the court info:
http://www.jud11.flcourts.org/judgeinfo.aspx?jid=727&pid=108&ppid=108
After reading through every post, I was able to feel a lot more confident about the situation, and sent our via fax and mail, my motions to quash for the case 11-24714 CA 22, last night. Did the whole mailing from a different state, and listed my IP address on the motion sent to my ISP, RCN. Just waiting to hear back from them. If I don’t hear from them before getting home from work, I’ll be sure to call and verify with them and to let them know a physical copy is coming as well. Thank you all for your help and guidance.
Thanks for that JohnDoe1544// we are RCN also.. does your motion apply to everybody or just yourself? How I know what JohnDoe # I am?
I also sent in my motion tdy. I am cablevision and after looking thru the supporting documents I realized they only sent a portion to cablevison, guessing the rest were sent to RCN and other isp’s etc. My motion covered everyone I did not want to give out anyway to be identified.
I sent it in regarding all John Does, since the letter from RCN does not specify me as any certain Doe number. Just called too and they verified that they received my motions via fax last night and should be withholding my info.
JohnDoe1544: What was the Fax number, and what form did you use? Did you fax to the Fla Courthouse?
I used the fax number that was on the bottom of the letter RCN sent. Same fax number can be found if you call the company that was also named in the mail, Neustar. There was also a post a few days back that had a link to a site where you could look up contact info for whatever ISP you want.
JohnDoe1544 – Let me clarify, you submitted your Motions, the the court in Florida, sent a copy to attorney listed on complaint AND the ISP (RCN) or did you just send to RCN? (with your IP address)
You sent Fax and via mail?
Thanks
I submitted the motion via mail to court in FL, copy via mail to troll attorney in FL, faxed copy to Neustar with cover page containing Neustar case reference and my IP. Called Neustar and verified receipt of fax and confirmed my info would not be sent until motion was ruled on.
Regarding 2011-24714-ca-22
I have been watching to see what documents are showing up at the court, It looks like Keith King sent in some sort of letter of correspondence. Is Keith King one of the lawyers?
If everyone is sending in their Motions to Quash I wonder they why aren’t showing up?
Hopefully the judge dismisses the entire thing.
How long after being delivered should a motion show in PACER? Delivery confirmation shows that it was delivered yesterday afternoon.
i, too, filed a motion to quash. i did it anonymously though. i think it made it to my isp just in time so they won’t release my personal info. i don’t know…
Just received a letter today myself and I didn’t see the case number listed here. The case (11-cv-2770-MEJ) is in regards to apparent torrent downloads made from my IP. I, along with another 1473 john doe’s are named in the case. I have until Nov, 10, 2011 to respond before my IP releases the info.
After reading the wealth of posts on similar issues in this thread and just dealing with the shock of receiving something like this in the mail I’ll admit I am a little confused as to what to do next. The court in question is out of state and the IP in question is no longer in my possession as I’ve changed service providers. The apparent date of the incident was however while the IP was mine.
If I send a motion to quash, do I send it to my local jurisdiction court or the jurisdiction court of the state of the law office? Also if I understand it correctly, quashing isn’t a slam dunk thing. Sending in the motion to quash is essentially you saying “please don’t sue me” in writing? Your motion may just be ignored and it will all be for naught when the plaintiff gets my information.
Again my head is swimming from all this information and trying to take it all in so very plainly I have to ask, is quashing a viable tactic to prevent this from moving further or is it just a road bump for a lawyer? With 1,474 people listed in the case does that mean that once the prosecuting lawyer gets all their information from the providers they will bring up 1,474 individual cases against each defendant?
I find it unsettling that I can’t find any information on this case online and I’m looking to anonymously touch base with others and see what the best course of action would be. I’m not even sure if I should be posting here anonymously as I’m not sure if this is traceable or damaging in anyway… as you can see this is all over my head.
First off – Welcome to the family. Or should I say the “lifeboat?” Plenty of good information and people here for you to bounce your thoughts off of. I will try to answer your questions.
1. Doesn’t matter if you are not with that ISP now. During the period the Troll has identified, you were.
2. File any motions with the court that the Troll opened the case with. I have only seen one Doe try to file a motion to quash in his jurisdiction and ask his local court to quash it. It was denied as “moot” when the case was dismissed in the originating court.
3. The motion is not a plea no to sue you. The motion to quash tells the court that for the following reason (in the motion) the Troll should NOT be allowed to get your personal information. The motion to dismiss tells the court that the Troll doesn’t have jurisdiction over you and others and all but Doe#1 should be dismissed. This is you fighting back. Don’t discount your ability because you are not a lawyer. If it isn’t accepted or gets dismissed by the court, don’t worry. The worst thing that will happen is the Troll will send you letters telling you to pay him a couple thousand dollars or he will name you in a Federal law suit. You will also get a few telephone calls from their Troll minions. Don’t speak or write to the Troll – they will only use what you say against you. Ignore the Troll but don’t ignore any official court paperwork. If you do your research, you will find that the Trolls don’t actually take anyone to court. They threaten it a lot, but never follow through. It would cost them too much and the possibility of damaging this money-making operation isn’t worth it.
4. Get yourself a PACER account and review your case documents.
5. Use one of the motion templates and ask for help along the way.
DieTrollDie 🙂
Thanks for the reply. So let me get this straight, if I submit my motion to quash and its accepted then the troll won’t get my info and thats that? I’ve heard something about sealing the motion or something like that so your info doesn’t get out but that confuses me a little. Also I should be mailing any motions from out of state or far away from my residence as it may help the troll determine who I am? Is there any legal issue with doing this? trying to mislead, etc, etc?
I don’t think that sending a mailing from a location far from your residence is illegal. What you want to avoid is using a fake return address, that would be a fraud, but no return address is perfectly legit.
DieTrollDie nicely addressed your questions. I want to clarify your last concern. Yes, I see the IP address you post from, but no one else has the access to it, and I would never ever share it with anyone. The likelihood that someone obtains subpoena to force WordPress to disclose its logs, is near zero: we do not do anything illegal, and WordPress is pro-privacy, it has a history of fighting fishing requests.
If you are on a paranoid side, consider using VPN (not free), proxies or TOR (free)
Hi all,
this morning there’s a new line entry for 2011-24714-CA-22
“10/06/2011 OBJECTION: TO THE SUBPOENA OF THE INDENTIFYNG INFO FOR DEF ”
Any idea what this means?
Thanks
No idea what it means but I did call up the clerks office and the only way to see documents in a case is to request in writing or maybe online and its $1/page. They do not post online it seems.
I think that’s record for motion to quash.
has anyone checked pacer for this case or are the florida docs not on there? I was about to make and acct but just thought I would ask.
Only federal court documents are available trough Pacer. If anyone figures how to obtain docs from the Florida court, please let me know – I’m even willing to pay a reasonable fee for it.
So there is no confusion – 2011-24714-CA-22 Collins v. Does 1-1544 will not be in Pacer. Pacer is Federal only. 2011-24714-CA-22 was filed in a Florida State court to take advantage of a Florida law allowing a complaint to be filed for discovery only. Going this route, the trolls are able to subpoena for your identity without actually filing suit in Federal court (where jurisdiction is proper) for copyright infringement.
It remains to be seen if Florida courts will tolerate this or if judges will start tossing them once they realize what is actually happening. Improper joinder has been proven over and over across the country but to my knowledge those were all in Federal court. In this case, we are dealing with a Florida court and Florida law.
I am not in Florida. My ISP is headquarted in a state adjacent to mine but it is also not Florida. Most of the Plaintiffs are headquartered in California. The underlying possible cause of action can only be pursued in Federal court – but somehow Florida has jurisdiction to issue subpoenas and expose me to litigation based on an allegation about an IP address?
A good article regarding the Complaint for Pure Discovery can be found here:
https://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNJournal01.nsf/Articles/CD48D82DEB84C04885256E43004F37C7
The Complaint for Pure Discovery is a different animal than the Federal suits that were filed against Does all over the country and in my opinion represents an even more egregious violation of individual rights and due process. I am hoping that this issue gets more attention than it has from organizations that have the means to expose it.
I am planning on filing a motion to quash this weekend. I was able to send my intent to file to my ISP and get an extension on the deadline to Monday. You said something that I think might be valuable to include in the motion to quash:
“The Complaint for Pure Discovery is a different animal than the Federal suits that were filed against Does all over the country and in my opinion represents an even more egregious violation of individual rights and due process. ”
Should I include this in my motion to quash to help bring it to the judges attention possibly?
I read the article you added and it seems like they are on a fishing expedition which is exactly what was dismissed in the prior case.
“The Fourth District vacated the order of the trial court because the petitioner simply wanted to preserve the forklift to determine if he had a cause of action and ordered that the petition be dismissed. Id. In doing so, the court stated that a pure bill of discovery is not to be used as a fishing expedition to see if causes of action exist.”
I’m no lawyer, but technically they have not even explained what the john does are being accused of, nor do they have any actual evidence that any john doe actually violated a copyright law. They are fishing for information on the John Doe’s and that is it.
I hope a judge in Florida would realize what is being done here. In addition, they have chosen a court that makes it very difficult to obtain information. They have no online downloading possibilities and no way to actually know what is happening in the case.
ahhhh
Doe 369
Please anyone help me, while sending motion to quash do I put my doe # or just Does 1-2590.
I’d like to know this as well
Hi,
I am planning to file but not sure if I should do motion to quash or both motion to quash plus motion to dismiss. Will it make a difference? Will the Judge grant one and not the other? Also, I was wondering how long does it normally take to get a response back from the Court on the motion? The case court is in DC. Has anyone filed a motion there before? Any insights on the Judges?
How does one know how many john does are named in your case?
Just received a letter and a copy of the subpoena in 11-24714 CA 22 (Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-1544). Didn’t include any of the attachments, just an IP and date/time stamp.
RCN received notice of the subpoena on 8/29/2011. The subpoena requires production by 10/13/2011. I received notice… today. According to Neustar, which apparently is an ediscovery firm working for RCN, I have until Monday to respond. Neustar hasn’t been taking my call (shocker).
A couple of questions:
1. Does anyone have experience with ediscovery firms like Neustar? Do they tend to be more or less responsive than ISPs?
2. Is anyone working on a challenge to the validity of the Bill of Discovery? My best candidate argument goes like this: The Bill is designed to use courts of equity to help litigants get information so they can get into courts of law. The Bill is an inappropriate means where standard discovery would suffice. Copyright claims are matters of Federal jurisdiction. Federal rules governing discovery have sufficed to allow similarly situated litigants to get into federal court and request precisely this sort of information.
I’m basing that on the article at floridabar.org (“A review of the foregoing cases indicate that the following defects may warrant dismissal of a complaint for a pure bill of discovery: 1) facts which indicate that the cause of action or defense alleged by the plaintiff is merely speculative; 2) a companion case is already pending where the plaintiff filing for the bill of discovery already has adequate means at his or her disposal to obtain discovery; 3) seeking to merely obtain a preview of discovery which would be available once an action at law is filed; 4) suing after expiration of the statute of limitations; 5) suing a mere third party witness; and 6) failing to allege satisfaction of conditions precedent to the underlying cause of action before suing for a pure bill of discovery.”). Thoughts?
I am in the exact same boat. On RCN. Just got the letter today, and I have until 10/15 to send them documents or they release my PII. Fortunately I was in town this week and opened it.
I am using the motion to quash that others used for lack of time. At least it will delay Neustar handing over my info.
Hi all,
on case a bunch of things seem to be going on:
10/13/2011 TEXT PAYMNT $100.00 PRO HAC VICE/RCPTYASHA HEIDARI
10/12/2011 MOTION: TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE/YASHA HEIDARI
10/11/2011 MOTION TO QUASH
10/11/2011 MOTION: TO BE SEVERED FROM THE CASE
10/11/2011 ENTERED OR DUPLICATED IN ERROR MDIS
10/11/2011 ENTERED OR DUPLICATED IN ERROR MQUA
10/11/2011 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
10/11/2011 ENTERED OR DUPLICATED IN ERROR MFPO
10/11/2011 MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT BY JOHN DOE
10/07/2011 MOTION TO QUASH
Any idea what thi means??
This is unbeliveable, it couldn’t be more obscure. How are people supposed to understand what is happening??
I wonder if they are calling all John Doe motions to quash duplicate or at least the ones that some people shared because they don’t differentiate between people and for good reason. But agree this all seems very obscure. I would say keep in touch with your ISP as they might have more info.
My thinking is that moving to quash, dismiss, or sever anonymously (and without stating a John Doe #) should be treated as a motion by each defendant. Does anyone know if that’s actually how the courts respond?
Regarding 2011-24714-ca-22
Information I received from the Clerk of the Court in Florida below.
Our online docket for case information is available at
http://www.miami-dadeclerk.com/home.asp & click on Civil/Probate Records
At this time we do not accept case filings via email.
Copies of documents in the file can be obtained:
in person – at our office in the Dade County Courthouse – 73 W. Flagler Street – Room 133 – Monday thru Friday 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.
by mail – our correspondence section handles all copy orders by mail. We do not take copy requests via e-mail. Fees are $1.00 per page and $2.00 to certify a document. You can contact the Correspondence unit at 305-349-7464 for information on the number of pages. The mailing address is Clerk of Courts – Correspondence Unit – 73 W. Flagler St., Room 137, Miami, Fl 33130. Please send a self addressed stamped envelope along with your request.
My motion to quash or dismiss is going in the mail as soon as I can get to the next state over. FYI I added a fairly cursory argument about Complaints for Pure Discovery (a true oddity of Florida’s system). I wasn’t able to do a hell of a lot of research, but there are a couple of cases from the last few years that make it sound like appellate courts in FL really disapprove of the practice as a general matter.
MOTION: TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE/YASHA HEIDARI
A Lawyer wants in who is not licensed to practice in Florida
——————
Pro hac vice (pronounced “pro hack vee-chay”), Latin: “for this occasion” or “for this event”, (literally, “for this turn”[1]) is a legal term usually referring to a lawyer who has not been admitted to practice in a certain jurisdiction but has been allowed to participate in a particular case in that jurisdiction.
The right to appear pro hac vice is not guaranteed. Rather, the attorney wanting to practice in a jurisdiction within which he or she is not licensed must specifically request permission from the court to be able to appear as an attorney of record. This is accomplished with a motion to appear pro hac vice, in which an attorney who is licensed in the jurisdiction requests that the non‐licensed attorney be admitted to practice in a particular case.
In addition to the motion, the non‐licensed attorney is typically required to provide the court with a statement from his local bar association indicating that he is a member in good standing and also pay a small fee to the local bar association.
Is there a way to mail from another state without physically doing so? Any rerouting service or anything?
Yes, I link to one such service from the FAQ : “What should I send with my motion, and where should I send this?”
FYI if you are involved in a K-Beech lawsuit its President if a fellow by the name of Kevin Beechum who has a very colorful history of violence, ratting out former friends to the FBI and hanging around with known members of the LA underworld which can be found here: http://www.lukeford.net/archives/updates/030509.htm
This information would certainly be relevant to any John Doe who wishes to protect his anonimity. You should also check out http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/49/1275/550883/ which outlines Kevin Beechum’s conection to Reuben Sturman and how he assisted in an extortion scheme which utilized violent vandalism and bombs.
Well, in my case it looks like the trolls have responded to the motions to quash, something I haven’t seen in any other cases.
Date # Docket Text
10/13/2011 23 RESPONSE in Opposition re 10 Amended MOTION to Sever to include previously omitted Memorandum of Law Plaintiff’s Memoramdum In Support of Joinder and in Opposition to Motions to Sever filed by K-BEECH, INC.. (FIORE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 10/13/2011)
10/13/2011 22 RESPONSE in Opposition re 11 MOTION to Quash Subpoena, 12 MOTION to Quash, 13 First MOTION to Quash Subpoena By Plaintiff K-Beech, Inc. upon Non-Party Comcast, 15 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION to Modify MOTION to Quash Declaration In Opposition to Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena filed by K-BEECH, INC.. (FIORE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 10/13/2011)
10/13/2011 21 NOTICE by K-BEECH, INC. of FIling Declaration of Christopher P. Fiore (FIORE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 10/13/2011)
10/13/2011 20 Memorandum re 11 MOTION to Quash Subpoena, 12 MOTION to Quash, 13 First MOTION to Quash Subpoena By Plaintiff K-Beech, Inc. upon Non-Party Comcast, 15 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION to Modify MOTION to Quash Memo Explaining That Copyright Violations Are Not Protected By The First Amendment filed by K-BEECH, INC.. (FIORE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 10/13/2011)
10/13/2011 19 Memorandum In Support of re 11 MOTION to Quash Subpoena, 12 MOTION to Quash, 13 First MOTION to Quash Subpoena By Plaintiff K-Beech, Inc. upon Non-Party Comcast, 15 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION to Modify MOTION to Quash Plaitiff’s Memorandum Explaining Why Discovery is Proper Even When a Subscriber Claims He or She was not There at the Time of a Recorded Infringement filed by K-BEECH, INC.. (FIORE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 10/13/2011)
10/13/2011 18 First MOTION Motion for the Entry of an Order Requireing Movants to Identify Themselves filed by K-BEECH, INC..Proposed Order and Certificate of Service.(FIORE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 10/13/2011)
Its looks like they are saying we can not file a motion to quash anonymously because copyright cases are not protected by the 1st amendment? They are asking all anonymous movants to identify themselves.
You may wish to check out the colorful history of Kevin Beechum, President of K-Beech, Inc., which can be found here: http://www.lukeford.net/archives/updates/030509.htm
James C. White filed the same “Memorandum Explaining Why Discovery is Proper Even When a Subscriber Claims He or She was not There at the Time of a Recorded Infringement” in North Carolin (Patrick Collins v Does).
Looks like the trolls are all using the same playbook.
This is all very helpful information.
I’m apparently a Doe Defendant in Case No. 11-24714 CA 22 (Patrick Collins, Inc., et al. v. John Does 1-1554, Miami-Dad County, FL).
Unfortunately for me, the deadline for filing a motion to quash has already passed. The mass subpoena notification I received from my ISP says I need to provide my service provider with legal documents (e.g., a motion to quash) by 10/13, or else they’ll comply with the subpoena on 10/14. I didn’t open the letter until today,10/15.
Although I’m a lawyer, I’m a relatively new one and not an IP lawyer. So, I was hoping to get people’s thoughts on this:
For those of us who have already missed the deadline for filing a motion to quash, has anyone had any luck extending the motion to quash deadline after it has passed or otherwise in preventing an ISP from turning over information?
I, like probably everyone else here, do not plan on paying these clowns even if they somehow get my contact information. I just hope it’s not too late to stop them from getting my contact info and pestering me.
Thanks,
The first step might be to contact the ISP legal department and see if the ISP has conveyed the information yet. Due to the large volume of requests to ISP’s, there might be some time lag.
It’s always worth getting in touch with your ISP (or with their ediscovery firm, in my case). I’m a defendant in the same case you are, and my ISP’s agents said they would hold the release to give me time to file a motion. Once the motion’s filed, they won’t turn it over until there’s an order on the motion, obviously.
Great, thanks for the responses.
Does anyone know where to find a template for a motion to quash in the Miami-Dade County, FL case?
There appears to be one here, but it doesn’t seem right because it quotes the Federal Rules, whereas the case is in FL state court: http://www.scribd.com/doc/67844003/Motion-to-Quash-or-Modify-Subpoena-and-Motion-to-Dismiss-11-24714-CA-22
Thanks,
btw, if anyone involved in this case wants to join in on a motion to quash, that might be an option (not sure how that would work yet).
Hopefully someone can help. Apparently I’m wrapped up in one the Patrick Collins suits in Virginia. The thing is that I don’t even know which one. My former ISP must have complied with a subpoena because I received the infamous extortion phone call. There has been no type of paperwork sent to me. I can’t even find a suit in Virginia with the allegedly infringed work. I found a few cases but none that matched the work they’re claiming. The second call came today and I didn’t answer. I recognized the number. I don’t know what to do. I certainly can’t afford an attorney. Any advice would be appreciated. It seems like some of you guys have an idea of what’s going on.
Thanks
I know that Patrick Collins vs John Does 1-58 has been severed for improper joinder and the plaintiff ordered to show cause for violating civil procedure. The cases in Virginia were all brought by the same attorney. I don’t understand what any of it means though.
Thanks
Interesting. You never received notice from your ISP? And you never received notice of the complaint against you?
Without knowing more details, it sounds like your only options are:
1. Do nothing, don’t respond to their harassment, and keep trying to figure out more. From what I understand, if you refuse to pay up and refuse to make their case against you easier, they’ll probably eventually give up.
2. Hire a lawyer. You say you can’t afford one, but legal services can be affordable, and they’ll definitely help you avoid the worst-case scenario – default judgment, which basically gives them whatever they ask for in terms of money damages.
3. Pay up. I assume you can’t afford this either.
I worry about default judgment because you haven’t been in contact with the court. It’s possible that the plaintiffs have done enough that you have ‘notice’ even if you have no idea what’s going on. If that happens, and you fail to show up in court, you’ll lose big. You don’t mention what they’ve demanded, but paying up will probably be a lot cheaper than default judgment. And, though nothing in life is certain, paying a lawyer will probably cost you less still. Plus, whatever you spend on a lawyer, you’re paying someone who’s spending their time defending people against trolls rather than the trolls and their clients.
I know nothing of civil court, but am familiar with the criminal justice system. If I was summoned to be in court undoubtedly the proper documentation would have been sent to me via process server or registered mail. After doing some reading I believe that I may have already been severed due to Gibney’s rulings on 10/5. It seems like a last ditch effort for them to get as much money in settlements before Judge Gibney makes his rulings on sanctions in the Virginia cases. At least that’s what I’m praying for. As far as the settlement goes they’re so called representatives (two guys jerking each other off in a room with a laptop and a cell phone) want the typical 3K. As far as a judgement goes, they can get get one if they like but it’s not going to do them any good – Retired, Social Security, Rented Apt. , 15 year old car – No assets to seize. It does appall me that no notification was given. It appears everyone else was notified and had time to make motions. It’s hard to know anything when you don’t even know what damn case you’re allegedly involved in. Hopefully some the does from around the country have money and get some real lawyers to put an end to this frivolous nonsense. Thanks for the kind words and advice.
The number of problems trolls have with their cases is what makes this all so galling. They know (or should know) from my IP that no Florida court is likely to have jurisdiction over me. Even when (if) they get my name, they have to know that a large portion of their cases are going to be impossible and/or remarkably expensive to prove (forensic analysis of every hard drive of yours they can find, which may or may not actually get them proof), and that a court is really unlikely to give them the judgment they ask for (because there’s almost no way that anyone other than an eyepatch-wearing inveterate wanker could do more than a grand’s worth of damages) targets are judgment-proof (adj., legalese, “broke”).
We call these people “trolls” rather than “aggressive advocates for their clients intellectual property rights” because they’re not seeking to vindicate those rights. They’re trying to exact what amounts to a fine from people who they can credibly accuse of some civil liability. I have no problem with people pursuing justice, even when it results in a settlement (as it almost always does). But there’s a word for a complaint that one brings knowing it cannot be sustained by a judgment: frivolous. And bringing a frivolous suit against a phonebook’s-worth of people, in the certainty that enough of them will settle to make the venture profitable is insulting.
Please anyone help me for a good template to file motion to quash Patrick Collins vs does 1-2590.
Thank you,
I am writing to correct my earlier post regarding the Do Denim post above. The Supreme Court in Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick overruled those cases holding that a party cannot bring an infringement claim for an unregistered work due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. However Reed Elsevier did not affect the holdings that a work with a pending copyright registration is not a pending application with in the meaning of Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act. Section 411(a) makes the registration of a work a precondition to bringing a copyright infringement action. On September 19, 2011 in K-Beech v. Does 1-29 (CV 11-3331) Judge Swain of the United States District for the Eastern District of New York found that K-Beech’s failure to have a certificate of registration for “Virgins 4″ means that it has not pleaded a prima facie claim of copyright infringement and denied K-Beech’s motion fo serve third party subpoenas on various ISPs.
What is also interesting about this decision is that Section 412 of the Copyright Act prohibits the awarding of statutory damages and attorneys fees unless a work has been registered which Judge Swain found “Virgins 4″ was not because K-Beech does not have a certificate of registration for that movie. In other words it would seem that, in New York, K-Beech cannot recover statutory damages of attorney’s fees. See, e.g., Lewinson v. Henry Holt& Co., 629 F. Supp. 2d 547, 553, 559 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (holding that a work for which a registration application had been sent was not registered within the meaning of § 411(a)). Therefore, K-Beech would only be entitled to sue for “actual damages” which for all practical purposes would be the retail cost of “Virgin 4″ or “Gang Bang Virgins” which I believe is $19.99. In the event that K-Beech does eventually obtain a certificate of registration for those DVDs it would still not be able to recover statutory damages or attorneys fees for any infringement that occurred prior to the issuance of the certificate of registration. See, Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC (06 CV 5936 (KMW) (barring statutory damages for preregistration copyright infringement).
Accordingly, if you are one of the John Does in New York and you receive a “settlement letter” from K-Beech’s attorney and it threatens statutory damages and attorneys fees, you may wish to have your attorney write a letter to K-Beech’s counsel pointing that such damages are not recoverable by K-Beech under the circumstances and that K-Beech’s assertion that they are in its complaint and settlement letter may very well constitute “frivolous conduct” within the meaning of Rule 11 of the FRCP.
This analysis is that of a layperson and does not constitute legal advice.
369,
I am also on your subpoena as one of the Doe’s. A good start for a motion template is the link at the top of this forum.
If you also read through all of these posts there is one post regarding a very similar case in PA where there particular motion was granted. If you then get a PACER account you can login and go the district court for that PA case and then see the actual motion and download it as a .pdf for .08 page.
Once you download that motion you can copy it and change all the case specific information to the info for our case.
This is what i am doing and adding some more precedence that i have found through reading this forum and other internet searches.
Good Luck,
Doe.
K-Beech v. Does 1-29 (CV 11-3331) Memorandum Opinion and Order can be found here: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/2:2011cv03331/319938/10/0.pdf?1316528006
My analysis above regarding K-Beech having to have a certificate of copyright registration for its DVDs prior to being able to make out a prima facie copyright infringement claim and not being entitled to statutory damages and attorneys fees by virtue of sections 411(a) and 412 of the Copyright Act is applicable to other states that follow the “registration approach” as opposed to the “application approach”. Aside from New York, it appears that Colorado, Georgia and Maryland have adopted the “registration approach” (there may be other states (Circuits) that have likewise adopted the “registration approach”).
This analysis is that of a layperson and does not constitute legal advice.
It’s a very good and deep analysis. It would be great if you put it together so it would be a guest post: the information is valuable and may benefit many. If it’s OK, send the article to sophisticatedjanedoe@yahoo.com.
What about PA?
Hi all,
I filed a motion to Quash on 9/29 anonymously and mailed to the court, ISP and the plaintiff , and looks like the court requires me to identify myself, should I just wrote a letter to the court with my Doe number? Do I need to also send the letter to the plaintiff and ISP?
case:
http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/maryland-district-court/78838/k-beech-inc-v-john-does-1-22/summary/
Thanks!
JohnDoeProSe
10/7/2011
17
ORDER Granting 16 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice of Does 8 and 12 Only by K-Beech, Inc, 15 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal of Doe 8 with Prejudice by K-Beech, Inc. AND the John Doe who filed the Motion to Quash on September 29, 2011, Doc. No. 14, must identify itself by number within 14 (fourteen) days, and the Court will not consider this Partys Motion to Quash unless and until it identifies itself by number. Signed by Judge Alexander Williams, Jr on 10/7/2011. (rss, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
A cursory internet search of K-Beech’s “Gang Bang Virgins” indicates that it may have been originally made in 2006 under the title “Grand Slam” by a company called Combat Zone and yet K-Beech did not file for copyright registration until April 22, 2011. This may be an unscrupulous attempt to establish a valid copyright within the meaning of Section 410(c) of the copyright act.
Needless to say, regarding the K-Beech New York complaint, I am already preparing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss which I am using this as a VERY rough template regarding the striking of statutory damages and attorneys fees: http://jmri.org/k/docket/192.pdf
Additionally I will be making the argument set forth in Judge Swain’s Memorandum Opinion and Order that K-Beech’s complaint fails to state a cause of action in New York:because it has not yet registered its “Gang Bang Virgins” for copyright protection : http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/2:2011cv03331/319938/10/0.pdf?1316528006
Hi All:
Thanks so much for this website. I wanted to add myself to the list those who will be giving real-time accounts of what is going on.
Here’s a quick rundown. Neustar alerted me that my ISP, COX, would provide my information to Patrick Collins and K-Beech. I am in CA. This case # (which I assume is just the case filed to subpoena IPS, is 2011-CA-3237). There is an IP address along with a time and date of the alleged incident.
I did not have time to file the motion to quash. Today I received my first voicemail. It was from a man who identified himself as working directly for Patrick Collins, Inc. Not from a law firm, but from Patrick Collins themselves.
My reasons for ignoring it at this point are as follows:
1. I have requested official attendance reports from my employer that state I was in the office during the time of the alleged offense.
2. I have a MSAcc, and from what I can ascertain, while I respect the State of Florida, I can find no evidence that they have jurisdiction over an action that would have occurred in California. While Internet copyright infringement may be a grey area at this time, the IP is connected to the service at my residence. Hence, the alleged download necessarily occurred at this physical address.
3. Bullying tactics, as humiliating as they might be to some, are not as apt to work in this situation, as I have no family, nor children to protect. I have only a girlfriend who finds the situation laughable.
I am considering using one of my Internet domains to “blog” the play-by-play.
If there is interest in that, I would be open to starting a WordPress. If not, I will continue to update you guys, here, on the status of my case.
Please feel free to respond, reply, and let me know your input. In addition, if there are others who believe they are part of this case (I have no idea what the actual case is – I was only told I am a “Doe Defendant”), we should chat.
Thanks so much for this website, as it is a valuable resource. First thing to do, is relax and educate. Second is to take action, which in my case, is inaction at this point.
Regards.
Sorry you have joined the “Club.” Welcome and thank you for providing any information on your case and the activities of the Trolls. If they send you any settlement letter, please post a redacted copy to SCRIB.
DieTrollDie 🙂
Is it insulting that I don’t know SCRIB? I appreciate the quick response. I’m sure the settlement letter will come.
Should I have to reveal anything, I’ll log on with Twitter. I have quite a following.
scribd.com – there are many pdf (and other document type) hostings, but scribd is by far is the best. It’s genuinely free, intuitive and full-featured. Also it’s easy to embed scribd documents to WordPress postings – most of my posts have documents embedded.
Please be careful while publishing personalized documents (like ransom letters) – redact all the identifying info. If you (or anyone else) are uncomfortable. just send the document to me – I’ll make sure it is redacted properly and all the metadata is stripped.
Trolls are dangerous creatures and may bite those who are vocal.
I removed the date and time from your post: though is not likely, you should always assume trolls read this blog. Any identifying information may put you in trouble: trolls don’t like those who fight (or those educated in general).
As for your own blog, it is up to you, I don’t have any opinion either way. If you decide to run your own blog, we will make sure that we stick together and promote each other.
Alternatively I can create a couple of pages for each case, so you can comment under your case.
I’m actually not sure about this idea and wanted to ask everyone’s opinion. This particular thread has 300+ comments and it becomes unmanageable, so having case-by case discussions may be beneficial. The only drawback is that there is a lot in common, and I’m afraid that some information will be lost as readers will be forced to read many threads instead of one.
i think having a page for each case would really help to tidy things up a bit. i can’t keep up w/ the comments on this page…
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in a case entitled K-Beech, Inc. v. John Does 1-37 (2:11-cv-03995) the law firm of Wong Wong & Associates, P.C., has filed a motion to quash subpoena as to John Doe #32. The essence of the motion is that plaintiff’s complaint does not allege a registered copyright for the film “Gang Bang Virgins” and plaintiff, therefore, has not pleaded a prima facie case for copyright infringement.
No insult. SCRIB allows you to post Docs and then we can all access them via a link. Have a great day.
DieTrollDie.:)
In the K-Beech case in PA vs. Doe’s 1-78 that was dismissed but an emergency motion filed by the Plaintiff after the order to dimiss; can someone interpret this entry on RFC:
10/17/2011 22 RULE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER. PLAINTIFF K-BEECH, INC. SHALL SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE IS RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING CASES: K-BEECH, INC. V. PERIDIER, 11-CV-6435; K-BEECH, INC. V. LAW, 11-CV-6431; K-BEECH, INC. V. DOE, 11-CV-6427; K-BEECH, INC. V. VANDERHORST, 11-CV-6432; K-BEECH, INC. V. STASTNY, 11-CV-6437; K-BEECH, INC. V. FITZPATRICK, 11-CV-6429; K-BEECH, INC. V. FOSTER, 11-CV-6430; K-BEECH, INC. V. BLAZKO, 11-CV-6436; K-BEECH, INC. V. DOE, 11-CV-6426; K-BEECH, INC. V. FRANCESCHINI, 11-CV-6434; K-BEECH, INC. V. DOE, 11-CV-6425; AND K-BEECH, INC. V. GRISAFI, 11-CV-6433. PLAINTIFF SHALL FURTHER SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT APPOINT A MEDIATOR, PAID FOR BY PLAINTIFF, FOR CONFERENCE AND SETTLEMENT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED CASES PRIOR TO TRIAL. COUNSEL SHALL FILE APPROPRIATE PAPERS NO LATER THAN 10/28/11. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 10/17/11. 10/17/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
It appears the cases listed are against individuals and a search of RFC shows the named individuals have received a court summons. This is getting serious. The trolls are not giving up easily.
Whoops, there was no emergency motion filed on this case, I confused the VA case with the PA case. Either way, my question still remains: what does the judge mean above?
It looks like Does 1-8 have already settled in the AF Holdings vs 1140 which sucks. My ISP isn’t even releasing info until 10/30. Anyway, I have modified the motion to quash template slightly for this case which was pretty easy since it is still John Steele once you dig through his varius covers. I see it recomended to sign the motion using an anonymous email address but not the IP address, is that correct?
And just to walk myself through this step by step: Once the template is ready, I need to mail (can it be filed electronically or faxed?) one copy of the motion to John Steele, one to Nuestar (on behalf of COX), and one to the court (Judge Walton in DC). And does it make sense to call the clerk of the court (which appears to be Mrs. Mattie Powell-Taylor) to verify the process/addresses/protocol?
I am also a Doe in this case and was wondering if you could share this template? I have been traveling and have not had a chance to dig into the whole scheme. I do know that it is John Steele using a puppet troll. Judge Walton is Troll friendly, so we will see how far the motions will get.
I do have a question…we were contacted out of the blue by a ‘law firm’ in FL about the Patrick Collins, Inc., et. al. v. John Does 1-1,544, Case No. 11-24714 CA on the phone. They said our ISP has given our info etc. because they were forced to in court. My question is, we were never served anything official, this was first I heard of this. We were not contacted by our ISP either. Literally the first I had heard of this was from this gal at this law firm stressing we could settle out of court. I told her I don’t know her from Adam and for all I knew she was phishing or scamming. They wouldn’t send anything via snail mail but would via email. This sounded odd to me. She said if they sent anything via snail mail it would mean they were serving us and then attorney fees would be incurred etc. and let me know they generally do not talk to someone directly, usually via their council but they were not aware of my council’s name. I said why would I have council for something I knew nothing about. Because they did not serve us in any fashion, or our ISP didn’t let us know anything, do we have anything to worry about? Nothing certified sent, or even w/out certification etc.
“She said if they sent anything via snail mail it would mean they were serving us and then attorney fees would be incurred etc.”
Now they are avoiding the US Mail? Interesting.
“Now they are avoiding the US Mail? Interesting”, yes VERY interesting. Perhaps they are trying to avoid a possible RICO civil claim like one of many that is being asserted in DMITRIY SHIROKOV V. DUNLAP, GRUBB & WEAVER, PLLC, ET AL in which former victims of a shake down scheme involving the movie “Far Cry” have instituted a class action lawsuit against the plaintiffs and their lawyers involved in the scheme. The class action lawsuit complaint can be found here http://boothsweet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Second-Amended-Complaint.pdf
What is interesting is that this lawsuit involves an allegedly unregistered copyright as is the case in the K-Beech lawsuits! Maybe we should be consulting with class action attorneys who might take on our defense for free in exchange for us giving them the right to sue K-Beech and their attorneys in a massive, nationwide class action lawsuit?
I am also in the FL K-Beech suit and also had the same thing happen. I luckily got the heads up from my ISP but after the suit went thru and the received my info they also only contacted me thru phone. I have received nothing via mail. I had an attorney friend call them back and just look into what they wanted. Of course they wanted to settle and I have not had him call them back and nothing has happened yet. Class action sounds interesting to me. My attorney said it could be a good idea especially since they skipped so many steps in their way to get our info. For instance serving a florida supeona to a New York based company in my case.
from the class action suit:
Paragraph 218 “Defendants threatened to seek statutory damages of up to $150,000, and attorney’s fees,from 3,644 individuals…”
Paragraph 221. “Upon information and belief, the list price of a new DVD of Far Cry is $26.99.”
Paragraph 226 “$26.99 is a far cry from $150,000.”
Brilliant!
no letter, no proof of extortion!
Florida has no jurisdiction over any other state.
This is extortion based on humility. Had I downloaded “Cars 2,” the plaintiff, Disney, would have my name attached to a benign movie title. However, given the nature of adult films, my name will be forever attached to a pornographic movie.
It’s easy to see when a film is being downloaded by numerous users. However, it is bad business practice to purchase the rights to such films, given that they are “leaked” to the public. Why would anyone buy the right to works that are essentially put in the public domain?
Unless the film industry can see the number of downloads, buy the rights to a lower-level production, and proceed with cries of copyright infringement.
I think we can all agree that copyright infringement is a serious offense, but to buy the rights to a production, solely in an effort to extort money, is not what an ethical lawyer would endorse.
This needs to be put to a halt. Collins buys films in which they are keenly aware of the download ratio. Once they have the rights, they can bully people into paying a “hush” fee.
Is there any data to support that Collins buys the rights to movies they did not produce, and then proceed to sue? Has Collins filed suits against users who have downloaded movies that they have “owned” from first production?
Also, is there any precedent to show that downloading in one state, is relevant to a lawsuit in another?
Finally, entrapment applies here because lawyers are wards of the court. It’s important to prove here that Collins is purchasing films solely for the purpose of settlement.
Statistics are all that is needed to show that this is not a matter of protecting content, but rather purchasing protected content for the sheer purpose of filing suits.
Hi All,
If my subpoena is DOES 1-22, how do I find out my actual “DOE” number?
thanks!
John
This is a frequently asked question, but I don’t have it in my FAQ because… I don’t know – I was able to figure it out my own way (I cannot talk about it as I don’t want to give my troll any info; I only can say that if you ask this question, you won’t be able to use my method 😉 ) I presume you can call the ISP and they should be able to answer. Am I right? IF so, I’ll add this answer to the FAQ.
I found mu number 🙂
Another John Doe motion to quash has been filed in the United District Court for the Southern District of New York in the case entitled K-Beech, Inc. v. John Does 1-19 (11-cv-05786 (GBD)) in which the John Doe, among other things, argues that plaintiff’s complaint does not plead a prima facie case of copyright infringement because plaintiff does not have certificate of copyright registration for “Gang Bang Virgins” and, therefore, is not entitled to serve third part subpoenas on ISPs.
There is a couple ways to check what your IP address is. Do a Google search for whatismyip address. These Web sites will show what you IP address is. Note: this can be different than what the Trolls have if the IP address changed. Then you need to contact your ISP and ask them what it was for the time period in question.
DieTrollDie.:)
Looking for a motion to quash form to use in the Ira Siegel case “New Sensations v 1-1474”. Everything I see here seems to be for K Beech/Patrick Collins. The court is out of state and thus I believe it falls under lack of jurisdiction.
Since this forum seems to be focused on a different set of Doe cases, does anyone have any idea where I can find a place to discuss or look into Ira Siegel cases and other forms people have used to quash?
Take a look at the motions that are out there are adapt one to your case/situation. It may seem hard at first, but what you will learn is great. If you want to send it to some of us or post it to SCRIB, we can review and suggest edits. Besides being different films and Trolls, many of the methods are almost exactely the same – Some “agent” of the Troll collects IP address sharing/downloading a porn movie – The Troll files a case v. Doe Defendants and tries to get subscriber info from the ISP. My suggestion is to pick one of the more current motions and edit it. Might also be benificial to wait until the VA case meeting is over on 24 Oct 11. If it goes bad for the Troll, this will be a great cite to put in the motion.
DieTrollDie 🙂
I was just thinking that, but how quickly can a motion to squash be submitted. My ISP is set to release my information on 10/31 so I need to file the motion by 10/30 for it to matter. Assuming it takes 3-4 days in the mail that might be cutting it close. Can it be faxed in?
Fax it to your ISP and mail it to the court and the troll. While you are at it fax it to all the ISPs mentioned in the subpoena so that the troll cannot narrow you down and you can be a hero to your fellow John Does (that’s what I did as I filed as “John Doe”, no #, no nothing). It is very easy to find the ISP’s subpoena compliance department on the web. Good Luck!
If you find a good Quash form please post. Im on the same New sensations vs Does 1-1474.
Its funny I just got this from my ISP and looking at JUSTIA.com it looks like it was filed on june 7.
wonder why it took so long for them to send it out to my ISP. my Isp says I have tell Nov, 12 to quash.
I have a Question if I may, how is it legal for Copyright Enforcement Group, who ira Siegel works with, according to there web-site, take a movie from, say New Sensations Inc. and put it up on there tracing programs and watch all the people grab the file, take there I.P. address to the Isp and try to sue you. Even if they are the ones who put this freely on the web themselves and did’nt ask for a fee or a monthly subscription or anything. The main problem I have is that, when my nephews come over they like to look up episodes of different shows they missed and I remember them asking to look up Big Bang theory and that seems to be what movie there trying to get my name for but its porn not the series.i dont know if they did it on purpose or they downloaded the wrong movie.
To me thats Distrbution of Pornagraphic material to a Minor. That’s illegal. but the courts are allowing it so I guess im just not understanding all of this. does anyone know.
Thanks in advance.
Still looking for a motion myself. So many of them have so much info that either doesn’t pertain to this case, this lawyer, this company or the state in question. I’m not very good at “lawyer speak” so editing myself is all but lost on me.