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.

Sy Ableman

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.

wordpress counter
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Published on: Author: SJD
Share:

Discussion

957 responses to ‘Updated Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena’

  1. so are we setting up pages for each case…mine is 11-24714 ca 22 and i wouuld LOVE to follow it here!

    I have sent a motion to quash the subpoena and my ISP (RCN) is working through Neustar who has agreed to not release my information until the court rules on my motion.

    What a rediculous scam this is…I have affadavits showing I was not present at home on these days, I live in a 6 apt building, any of which can see my router, and I won’t be paying a penny to these assholes.

    Reply

    • OK guys, as soon as I have enough time, I’ll set a bunch of pages, either by cases, plaintiffs or trolls – I don’t know yet what is more efficient. Some cases have a lot in common, so fragmenting discussions would be counter-productive, so I’m leaning towards a hybrid solution: mostly by trolls or group of trolls, but some separate specific topics as well (like FL bill of pure discovery cases.)

      Most likely I’ll do it over the weekend. I will be happy to hear your suggestions.

      SJD

      Reply

      • Maybe organizing the pages by State or federal court district would be a good idea?

        Glad to help in any way I can.

        skruuball

        Reply

  3. OK, so I am getting a little annoyed by my fellow New York John Does who have not made a motion to quash despite my above posts regarding the Memorandum and Order in the Eastern District of New York and which can be found here: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/2:2011cv03331/319938/10/0.pdf?1316528006
    I think the Eastern District Virginia hearing regarding sanctions, to be held on October 24th against K-Beech and its local troll will be the first hit but the established case law and application of the Copyright Act in New York will be the TKO against K-Beech IF you New York John Does file a timely motion to quash based upon the above Memorandum and Order which is essentially a motion to quash in its own right. Get on it ASAP.

    Reply

  4. Case 2011-24714-ca-22

    Lots of activity. Why no word from the judge?

    10/18/2011
    MOTION: TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA AND TO DIMISS
    10/18/2011
    LETTER OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM SUSAN PEPITONE, ESQ. DATED 10/11/2011
    10/17/2011
    MOTION TO DISMISS
    10/17/2011
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    10/17/2011
    MOTION: TO QUASH MTN FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ETC..
    10/17/2011
    MEMORANDUM OF LAW
    10/17/2011
    NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ATTORNEY: 88888888 DN01
    10/17/2011
    MOTION TO QUASH
    10/17/2011
    MOTION: TO QUASH OR MODIFY SPRT AND MTN TO DISMISS
    10/17/2011
    MOTION: TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA AND MDIS
    10/17/2011
    MOTION: TO QUASH ORDR MTN TO BE SERVERED FROM CASE ETC…
    10/17/2011
    MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
    10/14/2011
    MOTION TO QUASH
    10/14/2011
    MOTION: CORRECTED TO QUASH SUBPOENA VACATE ORDR ETC..
    10/14/2011
    MOTION: TO QUASH SUBPOENA VACATE ORDR AND SEVER CLAIMS
    10/13/2011
    LETTER OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM:JOHN DOE
    10/13/2011
    OBJECTION: TO DEMAND AND RESPONSE FROM JOHN DOE
    10/13/2011
    MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
    10/13/2011
    MOTION TO QUASH
    10/13/2011
    TEXT PAYMNT $100.00 PRO HAC VICE/RCPTYASHA HEIDARI
    10/13/2011
    MOTION TO DISMISS
    10/13/2011
    AFFIDAVIT OF: INSUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS,MOTI.QUASH & GRAL DEF’S
    10/12/2011
    MOTION: TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE/YASHA HEIDARI
    10/12/2011
    AFFIDAVIT OF: IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS,MOT.TO QUASH & GRAL DEF’
    10/12/2011
    MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
    10/12/2011
    MOTION TO QUASH
    10/12/2011
    MEMORANDUM OF LAW
    10/12/2011
    MOTION TO DISMISS
    10/11/2011
    MOTION TO QUASH
    10/11/2011
    MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT BY JOHN DOE
    10/11/2011
    MOTION TO DISMISS
    10/11/2011
    ENTERED OR DUPLICATED IN ERROR MDIS
    10/11/2011
    MOTION: TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA AND MTN TO DISMISS
    10/11/2011
    MOTION: TO BE SEVERED FROM THE CASE
    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
    OBJECTION: TO PRODUCTION
    10/07/2011
    MOTION TO QUASH
    10/06/2011
    LETTER OF CORRESPONDENCE SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 TO COURT FROM KEITH KING
    10/06/2011
    OBJECTION: TO THE SUBPOENA OF THE INDENTIFYNG INFO FOR DEF
    10/05/2011
    MOTION: FOR INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS TO DISCLOSE IDENTIFYING I
    10/04/2011
    REQUEST: FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING
    10/04/2011
    TEXT PROOF OF SERVICE
    10/04/2011
    NOTICE: OF MTN & MTN TO QUASH &/OR LIMIT SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
    10/03/2011
    LETTER OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM:LINDA

    Reply

    • Thank you so much for posting this, I have been looking for something like this as I am part of that case. Would you be so kind as to tell me where you found this?

      Thanks again!

      Reply

    • Therez further update on this case as follows:
      Does anyone have any further info on what is happening or going to happen?
      Date Book/Page Docket Entry Comments
      10/20/2011
      LETTER OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM LIJUN ZHANG DATED 09/27/2011 RE:OBJECTION
      10/19/2011
      NOTICE OF HEARING- MOTIONS 11/02/2011 09:30 AM
      10/19/2011
      MOTION TO QUASH
      10/19/2011
      MOTION TO DISMISS
      10/18/2011
      MOTION: TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA AND TO DIMISS
      10/18/2011
      MOTION TO QUASH
      10/18/2011
      MOTION: & MEMORANDUM TO QUASH SUBPOENA ETC
      10/18/2011
      MOTION TO DISMISS

      Reply

  5. Saw the same thing tdy. Cant tell if the judge has seen these documents yet or they are just building up. No clue where the case stands.

    Reply

  6. I’m getting worried. The date set by my ISP to release my personal information in this Monday, October 24th. To spite several motions to Quash and Dismiss there has been no judgement by the court on the motions. So I just faxed my ISP a summary of the case from RFC Express and asked that they not release my personal information until the court rules on the motions. What is interesting is a nearly identical case in the same court but presided over by a different judge was dismissed 2 weeks ago. I’m not sure what this judge is waiting for.

    Reply

  7. OK. I was looking at case 3:11-CV-00531-JAG (Patrick Collins v. John Does 1-58) in PACER prior to the Monday hearing (24 Oct 11) and noticed one of the John Does filed a supporting document for his Motion to Quash. I haven’t had a chance to review it yet, but it is from the Computer Science Depart of the University of Washington. It may make a good support document for other Does filing motions. Here is the link – http://dietrolldie.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/support-document-for-motion-to-quash-patrick-collins-v-john-does-1-58-311-cv-00532-jag/
    I also added it to my Motion page.

    Have a good one!

    DieTrollDie 🙂

    Reply

      • The Eastern District of Virginia is becoming increasingly hostile territory for the trolls these days. One can only hope that other District Courts wake up to this scam and become hostile territory as well.

        Can’t wait until the Rule 11 hearing on K-Beech and his troll this upcoming Monday (Eastern District of Virginia in case you were wondering)!

        Reply

  9. It should be noted that in supporting documents from the Plaintiff in my case, in response to my motion to quash, Plaintiff states that they will not seek settlement prior to issuing an actual lawsuit (this is in direct response to the template on this site that opens stating that the trolls seek settlement without ever planning to go to trial) This particular troll has named several individuals in seperate lawsuits after the ISP released the data which supports his claim in the opposition to my motion. So, it is entirley possible that if your ISP relesases your information you will be named in a lawsuit which is unpleasant because that information is available on the Internet forever. I think this new tatic will scare more people into settling. I would really like to see one of the cases go to court and won by a defendent bacause all it would take is a win by the Plaintiff to open the floodgates for more actual successful suits against thousands of Doe’s.

    Reply

      • If it is K-Beech I would file a Rule 12(6)(b) motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action insofar as K-Beech does not have a registered copyright for either “Virgins 4” or “Gang Bang Virgins” as is required be Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act. Additionally I would ask the court to strike from any future complaint a request for statutory damage, attorney fees and/or punitive damages insofar as the alleged copyright infringement occurred PRIOR TO the registration of a copyright and plaintiff is not entitled to plead or receive such damages pursuant to section 412 of the Copyright Act. Accordingly, K-Beech would be entitled to “actual damges” (once it receives a certificate of copyright registration which might occur around February of 2012) which would be the lost retail sale ($20.00) divided by the number of John Does in your particular lawsuit for the one act of infringement alleged in the complaint. In other words, K-Beech would be suing you, once it obtained a certificate of registration, for pocket change if the motion as described above were to be granted. Finally I would ask for Rule 11 sanctions because plaintiff either knew or ought to have known that its complaint was legally insufficient as a matter of law and, therefore, its conduct is frivolous within the meaning of Rule 11.This analysis may also be applicable to the Raw Films lawsuits in which plaintiff alleges a “foreign work” but I am not positive, you would have to do your own research further but I have a hunch that those cases are also premised on bullshit..

        The above is coming from a layperson, not a lawyer, and does NOT constitute legal advice. Moreover, it would only seen to be applicable to those District Courts that adhere to the “registration approach” to 411(a) of the Copyright Act as opposed to the “application approach”.

        Reply

        • Yes, this is a K-Beech case in PA for the Virgins 4 movie. As I mentioned in earlier posts above there were 2 identical lawsuits in PA where only the number of Doe’s varied. Both were filed on the same day but assigned to different judges. Two weeks ago one case was dismissed. I sent an addendum to my motion that included the judges orders from that case but the Palaintiff’s counsil filed an oppostion to that addendum as well. I don’t have a Pacer account so I don’t know the content of the opposition. Just waiting on this Judge’s decision on the motions. However, I will also file another motion to dismiss and detail the information about K-Beech not actually hold the copyright as of this moment.

          Thank you.

          Reply

    • Ok, it would seem that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has adopted the “registration approach”. In Michael Gloster v. Relios, Inc., the court denied plaintiff statutory damages and attorneys fees by reason of section 412 of the Copyright Act because the plaintiff did not register its designs/work in accordance with 411(a) of the Copyright Act until after the alleged copyright infringement occurred (i.e. alleged preregistration infringement which is the same as in all the K-Beech lawsuits). Michael Gloster v. Relios, Inc. (civil action no. 02-7140) can be found here:

      http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/2:2011cv03331/319938/10/0.pdf?1316528006

      Reply

      • Whoops, made a mistake Michael Gloster v. Relios, Inc., can be found here:

        Click to access 06D0794P.pdf

        Good luck with that Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and for striking any claim for statutory damages and attorneys fees.

        Reply

  11. Just got first call from someone regarding notices received from ISP, they didn’t indicate the reason, just they needed to talk before Monday 5 PM, call was from San Fran area…..weird how they are covering all states…file in PA/FL but call from CA….

    Reply

  12. In my case I see on MiamiDade Website—“NOTICE VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF UNKNOWN PARTY JOHN DOES ” What does it mean.

    Reply

  13. I would love to get more information on that Miami Dade case, as I’m also on that boat: 11-24714 CA 22. Voluntary Dismissal, from what I’ve read, is a dismissal by the plaintiff. The last time I’ve spoken to the guy at Cablevision (about a week ago), he told me that the judge has delayed the case, due to unspecified reasons. Are you able to share more info?

    Reply

  14. No one seems to notice so:

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

    Norfolk Division

    HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

    Plaintiff,
    v. ACTION NO. 2:11cv345
    JOHN DOES 1-30,
    Defendants.

    OPINION AND ORDER

    The Motion to Sever (ECF No. 12) is brought before the undersigned by pro se
    Defendant John Doe IP Address 69.143.57.188 (“John Doe”) requesting that John Doe be
    severed from the rest of the Doe Defendants (“Doe Defendants”).
    1
    The Motion to File Under
    Seal (ECF No. 9) is brought before the undersigned by John Doe to proceed anonymously in the
    case.
    I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    Plaintiff Hard Drive Productions, Inc., (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint on June 17, 2011,
    for copyright infringement against John Does 1-30. ECF No. 1. In the Complaint, Plaintiff
    alleges that Doe Defendants used BitTorrent based peer-to-peer networks to unlawfully
    distribute Plaintiff’s copyrighted materials, an adult video titled “Amateur Allure- Zoe,” in
    violation of the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 3, and 5. To
    establish personal jurisdiction in this district, Plaintiff used geolocation technology to trace the IP

    1
    While only one Defendant, John Doe, has filed a Motion to Sever, in the interest of justice, the
    Court, sua sponte, determined that this Opinion and Order was necessary to conform to the
    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
    Case 2:11-cv-00345-HCM -TEM Document 19 Filed 10/17/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 3352
    addresses of each Doe Defendant to a point of origin within Virginia. Compl. ¶ 6.
    On the same day the Complaint was filed, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion for Leave to
    take Discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) Conference (ECF No. 3) in order to issue Rule 45
    subpoenas to the ISPs providing IP addresses for Defendants. Mot. for Expedited Disc. 1. This
    motion was filed in an effort to gain immediate access to the names, addresses, telephone
    numbers, and email addresses of the Doe Defendants, which the Internet Service Providers
    (“ISPs”) maintain for only a short period of time. Id. On July 1, 2011, the Court granted
    Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite Discovery (ECF No. 5), allowing for immediate service of the
    subpoenas, finding a great likelihood that such evidence would disappear without expedited
    discovery. Op. and Order 4, ECF No. 5.
    On August 24, 2011, John Doe filed a Motion to File Under Seal (ECF No. 9), asking to
    proceed anonymously to avoid any “harassment, injury, ridicule, or personal embarrassment”
    that may result from his identity being publicly revealed. Mot. to File Under Seal 4, ECF No. 9
    (citing Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067-68 (9
    th
    Cir. 2000)).
    On August 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to File Under Seal
    (ECF No. 10), arguing that John Doe provided no evidence to suggest that any such harassment
    or ridicule will occur, or has occurred in other copyright infringement cases, but only that such
    injury is possible.
    John Doe then filed a Motion to Sever (ECF No. 12) on September 8, 2011, alleging that
    Plaintiff has produced no evidence of concerted action amongst Defendants to warrant joinder,
    prejudicing the improperly joined Doe Defendants. Mot. to Sever 21. On September 26, 2011,
    Plaintiff responded to the Motion to Sever (ECF No. 14), arguing that all Defendants were
    properly joined because of their common scheme in using the BitTorrrent protocol to reproduce
    Case 2:11-cv-00345-HCM -TEM Document 19 Filed 10/17/11 Page 2 of 7 PageID# 3363
    and distribute Plaintiff’s copyrighted materials amongst themselves. Opp’n to Mot. to Sever 4.
    On October 13, 2011, another anonymous Doe Defendant (“Doe Defendant X”) filed a
    letter under seal with the Court. Letter, ECF No. 16. In this letter, Doe Defendant X stated that
    he had been contacted by John Steele, Esq.
    2
    regarding this matter. During the phone call, Mr.
    Steele offered Anonymous the ‘opportunity’ to settle for $3,400 by October 18
    th
    . Mr. Steele
    informed Doe Defendant X that Doe Defendant X would be named as a defendant in the case
    should this settlement offer be rejected.
    Though the Court did previously grant Plaintiff’s request for leave to take discovery prior
    to the Rule 26(f) conference, the Court finds, upon due consideration, that Doe Defendants 2-30,
    including John Doe, have been improperly joined in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
    20(a)(2) and must be severed.
    II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 provides that “[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on
    just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party.” Fed. R. Civ.
    P. 21. A district court possesses broad discretion in ruling on a requested severance under Rule
    21. Hanna v. Gravett, 262 F. Supp. 2d 643, 647 (E.D. Va. 2003) (citing Saval v. BL, Ltd., 71
    F.2d 1027, 1031-32 (4
    th
    Cir. 1983)).
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) states that permissive joinder of defendants is proper if: “(A) any
    right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or
    arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transaction or occurrences; and (B)

    2
    John Steele, Esq., is an Illinois-based attorney, who has represented numerous other adult
    entertainment producers in cases now, or recently pending in the Northern and Southern Districts
    of Illinois. See VPR Internationale v. Does 1-1017, No. 11-2068, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64656,
    at *6 n. 1 (C.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2011). District judges have begun recognizing Steele’s
    representation of these companies against multiple Doe Defendants, named without sufficient
    evidence as to their involvement, as “effort[s] to shoot first and identify his targets later.” Mem.
    Order, Boy Racer, Inc. v. Does 1-22, No. 11-C-2984 ( C.D. Ill. May 5, 2011).
    Case 2:11-cv-00345-HCM -TEM Document 19 Filed 10/17/11 Page 3 of 7 PageID# 3374
    any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P
    20(a)(2). Courts have routinely held that parties are misjoined when either of the preconditions
    set forth in Rule 20(a) have not been satisfied. Hanna, 262 F. Supp. 2d at 647.
    III. ANALYSIS
    The BitTorrent protocol at issue is a type of peer-to-peer network. In such peer-to-peer
    networks, each individual internet user is called a “peer,” and an entire group of users is
    identified as a “swarm.” Compl. ¶ 12. While traditional file transfer protocols utilize a central
    server, which distributes data directly to individual users, the BitTorrent protocol is a
    decentralized method of distributing data. Compl. ¶¶ 10-11. That is, by using this protocol, each
    peer can download and upload a transferred file and distribute data to other members of the
    swarm. Compl. ¶ 11. The names of the peers in the swarm are unknown, lending to great
    anonymity; the users distribute and download materials under the cover of their IP address.
    Compl. ¶ 14. These IP addresses are distributed to individuals by ISPs, who keep the logs of
    these addresses for only a short period of time. Mot. to Expedite Disc. Ex. A ¶ 16. As the swarm
    continues to expand, the distribution of copyrighted material quickens, further making this
    protocol an extremely popular method of transferring files. Compl. ¶ 15.
    Plaintiff relies on this “swarm” theory to claim that the Doe Defendants acted in concert
    through a series of transactions to commit the infringement, giving rise to proper joinder.
    Compl. ¶ 33. The Court, however, disagrees with this conception of proper joinder under the
    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet the
    preconditions set forth in Rule 20(a), the Doe Defendants have been misjoined and must be
    severed. Hanna v. Gravett, 262 F. Supp. 2d 643, 647 (E.D. Va. 2003).
    Plaintiff has failed to show any right to relief against Doe Defendants arising out of the
    Case 2:11-cv-00345-HCM -TEM Document 19 Filed 10/17/11 Page 4 of 7 PageID# 3385
    same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as required under Rule
    20(a). See Mem. Order, K-Beech, Inc. v. John Does 1-85, Civ. A. No. 3:11cv469 (E.D. Va. Oct.
    5, 2011) (granting a motion to sever in an almost identical case). Simply committing the “same
    type of violation in the same way does not link defendants together for the purposes of joinder.”
    Laface Records, LLC v. Does 1-38, No. 5:07-cv-298, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14544, at *7
    (E.D.N.C. Feb.27, 2008). The Court agrees with Judge Spero’s analysis in a recent decision from
    the United States District Court for the Northern District of California:
    Under the BitTorrent Protocol, it is not necessary that each of the
    Does 1-188 participated in or contributed to the downloading of
    each other’s copies of the work at issue- or even participated in or
    contributed to the downloading by any of the Does 1-188. Any
    ‘pieces’ of the work copied or uploaded by any individual Doe
    may have gone to any other Doe or to any of the potentially
    thousands who participated in a given swarm. The bare fact that a
    Doe clicked on a command to participate in the BitTorrent
    Protocol does not mean that they were part of the downloading by
    unknown hundreds or thousands of individuals across the country
    or across the world. . . Indeed, Plaintiff concedes that while the
    Doe Defendants may have participated in the same swarm, they
    may not have been physically present in the swarm on the exact
    same day and time.
    Hard Drive Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-188, No. C-11-01566, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94319, at *39-40
    (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    Further, in this District, several nearly identical cases are currently pending involving the
    alleged use of BitTorrent protocols to engage in copyright infringement. See Mem. Orders, KBeech, Inc. v. John Does 1-85, Civ. A. No. 3:11cv469 (E.D. Va. Oct. 5, 2011), Patrick Collins,
    Inc. v. John Does 1-58, Civ. A. No. 3:11cv531 (E.D. Va. 2011 Oct. 5, 2011), Raw Films, Ltd. v.
    John Does 1-32, Civ. A. No. 2:11cv532 (E.D. Va. 2011 Oct. 5, 2011). In these aforementioned
    cases, as in the one before this Court, Plaintiffs sought, and the Court granted, expedited
    Case 2:11-cv-00345-HCM -TEM Document 19 Filed 10/17/11 Page 5 of 7 PageID# 3396
    discovery allowing Plaintiffs to issue Rule 45 subpoenas to Doe Defendants. Mem. Order 4, KBeech, Inc., Civ. A. No. 3:11cv469. Further, Doe Defendants in those cases indicated that
    Plaintiffs have contacted them directly, demanding compensation to end the litigation. Id. This
    threatening behavior on behalf of Plaintiffs in the cases listed above is identical in nature to the
    threatening phone call made to Anonymous by John Steele on October 13, 2011 in the instant
    case before this Court. Letter. Notably, when any Doe Defendant in the cases above has filed a
    motion to sever, Plaintiffs have hastily and voluntarily dismissed that Doe Defendant as a party
    in the matter to avoid the issue being presented to the Court for a resolution. Mem. Order 4, KBeech, Inc., Civ. A. No. 3:11cv469.
    As opined in these cases, the Court agrees that mere allegations that Doe Defendants
    have used the same peer-to-peer network to copy and reproduce their videos is insufficient to
    meet the standards of joinder. Millenium TGA, Inc. v. Does 1-21, No. 11-2258, 2011 U.S. Dist.
    LEXIS, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2011). Therefore, the Court concludes that joinder of the Doe
    Defendants in this action does not meet the threshold requirements of Rule 20(a). In the interest
    of fairness, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its discretion under Rule 21 to sever all Doe
    Defendants, John Doe included, except Doe Defendant 1.
    IV. ORDER
    For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met its burden, as stated
    in Fed. R. Civ. P. 20, to establish proper joinder of John Doe and the other Doe Defendants.
    Further, the Court ORDERS Doe Defendants 2-30 severed from this matter.
    Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause by November 15, 2011 as to why all the materials
    gained by the Rule 45 subpoenas previously issued, in accordance with the Order of July 1, 2011
    (ECF No. 5), should not be suppressed. Additionally, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause as to
    Case 2:11-cv-00345-HCM -TEM Document 19 Filed 10/17/11 Page 6 of 7 PageID# 3407
    why the severed Doe Defendants 2-30 should not be fully dismissed from the matter. Further,
    Timothy Andersen, Esq., attorney for Plaintiffs, is ORDERED, within 5 days of the entry of this
    Order, to advise the Court as to whether he is associated with John Steele, Esq. in any way in this
    case.
    The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to all counsel on record and to all
    interested parties in the matter, and to electronically send a copy of this Order to John Doe at the
    e-mail address John Doe has provided.
    It is so ORDERED.
    ________________/s__________________
    Tommy E. Miller
    UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
    Norfolk, Virginia
    October 17, 2011

    Reply

  15. Yes, it’s a Patrick Collin’s case. The post above me mentioned that the following note: NOTICE VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF UNKNOWN PARTY JOHN DOES for MiamiDade. If this is the case, then that’s nothing but good news. However, I was not able to find anything posted about it.

    Reply

  16. Does anyone have any indie on the case “New Sensations v 1-1474″
    I posted earlier on the 20 th but I don’t know if anyone read back that far.
    I’m kinda worried about this. The same group sent a latter about a different movie done around the same date according to the letter they sent me threw my ISP but I ignored it cause I didn’t do it
    An this new case they didn’t even bother with a letter to stop and pay up on website.
    They went straight for supena. I’ve looked on justia.com and new sensations has another case open up in Ohio but no judge yet I guess, cause there’s non listed but it’s wiered because its labeled differently it says New Sensations vs Does but there’s no number of people. Has anyone’s heard of this?

    Reply

      • I’m one of the 1474 for the CV-11-2770-MEJ case and I’m still trying to put together my quash letter. I’m running into problems because I don’t have word on my computer to edit documents, not a lot of money to seek legal advice, and afraid that if I do something wrong with my motion to quash that I’ll just make things worse for myself.

        If I understand things correctly, I need to:

        – find a template
        – edit it to make it pertinent to my case/plaintiff/troll
        – fax it to my IP and mail it to the court/plaintiff without a return address

        Things I’m confused on:
        – law offices and where the complaint was filed is out of my state so I’m not sure how that applies to me
        – how long from when the IP/court/plaintiff receive my motion will I know if it was successful or not
        – how will I know if its successful if I don’t have any return info included with the motion in an effort to remain anonymous
        – how do I address myself? My doe number? IP address? how do I ensure it doesn’t get back to the plaintiff and they go after me knowing my info?

        I know it seems to be that there are a lot of other cases going on with this site and the focus seems to be somewhere else but this is the only place I can find that even has others mentioning the case. Everytime I start to try to figure it out myself I just get lost and scared that I’m making things worse….

        Reply

        • You can follow your case summary here –> http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/california-northern-district-court/76427/new-sensations-inc-v-does-1-1474/summary/

          If you want to read the actual documents then you would need to register for a PACER account and pay a small fee per page to see the complaint and any motions. I found I did not need a PACER account in my case, I simply followed the summary on RFC Express.

          You do not need to identify yourself in your Motions to Dismiss and or Quash to the Plaintiff or court. However, I have seen the courts request that an anonymous Doe identify himself by Doe #. It varies from state to state. You DO need to identify yourself to your ISP by IP address or Doe number. Setup a Yahoo email just for this case and refer to that address in your letter or fax to your ISP so that they may contact you if needed. I faxed my motions to the ISP but did not identify myself so they sent me an email to the new Yahoo account I created requesting my Doe #. Your ISP will know who you are but they aren’t the bad guy here, so it;s OK. Actually, the ISP should be the one filing the motions to Quash, not the Doe’s, so it shows you they don’t care about protecting your identity.

          When you find your template, then read it thoroughly making changes to the case number, number of Doe’s and the IP addresses referenced in the template. You will need to have the documentation showing your Doe number as well as the other Doe’s to edit that part of the template correctly. My ISP provided me with a copy of that information, others do not.

          Since you are out of the juristiction of the complaint I don’t see why this case wouldn’t get dismissed for improper joinder, but you want to be proactive and send in your motions. Good luck.

          Reply

        • Thanks for the openoffice heads up and thanks for some of the follow up items. I’m going to attempt using the template above for my motion but wonder if there is additional items or a better template that someone may wish to suggest that has more relevance for a case of so many doe’s (1,474).

          Additionally at the end of the linked template at the top of the page (updated), I notice on the last page it has a certificate of service with a persons name and address, what is this? The person I’m sending it to or my info?

          Also I plan to sign my motion anonymously or by doe number. Any word on the track record with these types of submissions? If I put my specific doe number does that increase my chances of having the quash accepted and/or more likely for the troll to single me out?

          Reply

        • The certificate of service page is used to show the court that you sent a copy of your motion to the Troll (Plaintiff). The address is for the Troll. You can find the address on the complaint and/or via PACER.

          As far as putting your Doe # or Just Does 1-XX, it is hard to say which one is better. It really depends of the judge. I would suggest to see if your case has accepted motions to quash and/or dismiss via PACER. See which one the court accepted and adjust as needed. The idea thing for each case is to have both types – Doe # and completely anonomous. The Troll will often dismiss the Doe who files a motion singualrily, as it removes the motion from the case and he doesn’t have to address it. The Troll cannot doe this for the Doe 1-XX, unless he dismisses the case entirely.

          Will the Troll go after you if you file? It is a possibility. One Troll from VA filed a declaration to the court recently that stated he does that to prevent others from doing the same – “Scare Tactic.” He is facing possible sanctions and was told by the judge to hire an attorney 😉

          I think any of the current templates will work, you just need to tailor it.

          DieTrollDie 🙂

          Reply

        • I have the same case number – just got letter from isp today of subpoena – what do i do now..? It seems the plaintiff filed in Missouri – thos hes from CA, Trolls name is Siegel – any info is appreciated Im scared..

          Reply

  17. QUESTION: Is there any legal recourse against an ISP who releases your personal information prior to a cout’s decision on several motions to quash and dismiss if you have notified the ISP and have a paper trail, including email correspondence, proving you filed the motion? Just curious.

    Reply

  18. YES!!!!! My case has been dismissed! I’m in the smaller K-Beech PA case with 36 Does. Thank you to everyone who helped create the template for the motions to quah and dismiss. Now I realize this may not be over. This particulat troll has already filed 11 individual lawsuits in the state of PA naming real people as the defendents. How he got thier personal information I do not know. I will watch these indicdual cases. If this ever went to triial I honestly don’t think the trolls could win.

    ORDER THAT ALL DEFTS EXCEPT JOHN DOE 1 ARE SEVERED FROM THIS ACTION & DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THE MOTION (DOC #12) IS GRANTED. ALL OHTER PENDING MOTIONS TO QUASH IN THIS CASE (DOC #12, 13 AND 15) ARE DENIED AS MOOT. K-BEECH’S MOTION FOR AN ENTRY OF AN ORDER REQUIRING MOVANTS TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES (DOC #18) IS DENIED AS MOOT. K-BEECH SHALL SERVE A COPY OF THIS ORDER ON EVERY DEFT FOR WHOM IT HAS OBTAINED AN ADDRESS, ETC. K-BEECH SHALL HAVE UNTIL 11/4/11 TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFT JOHN DOE 1, IF IT WISHES TO PROCEED WITH ITS CLAIMS AGAINST THIS DEFT. ( SIGNED BY HONORABLE ROBERT F. KELLY ON 10/21/11. )10/21/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED(gn, ) (Entered: 10/21/2011)

    Reply

    • Congrat!

      I think it’s normal that the trolls take next step to name doe in the state the trolls are in. I assume that’s a strategic to scare doe in other states.

      Reply

      • If you search Google for “K-beech lawsuit pa” you will see some of the indivuals named in the lawsuit. There is nothing going on yet, they were just filed.

        Reply

      • My question on these individual cases is: if these individuals filed a motion to quash and it was accepted, how does the plaintiff still get the info of the individuals? Do they already know who they are and just need the ISP info to verify it? If my ISP releases info, what info are they exactly releasing?

        I’m working on my motion right now and I’m cautious about its value and potential for success, especially if the motion does nothing even if successful

        Reply

        • All I can assume is that the ISP released the information prior to the motion judgement. Which would be wrong and hence my earlier question about whether there is legal recourse against an ISP for doing that. As long as you send a copy of your motion to the ISP with your IP address they should not release your infomation.

          Reply

  19. Does anyone have any information regarding Docket No.: 1:11-cv-02163 ? I received a letter via UPS and she is named in the suit, Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-33 They highlighted an IP address in pink and listed as Doe #N. We are in Colorado and this came from Comcast in Moorestown, NJ. Upon reading everything here Can the template be modified to fit the criteria of this case? The Kotzker Law Group in Highlands Ranch, CO. is representing the Plaintiff and Michael J. Wantanabe is the judge. We have until November 17th to file a motion to quash or vacate the subpoena…I could certainly use some help here. Thanks all!

    Reply

  20. I just got one of these things today. Is it even worth submitting a motion to squash since 1) The judge probably ignores anonymous ones 2) Do I even had standing at this point since

    Reply

  21. I just got one of these today. Is it even worth it to send in a motion to squash because:

    1) The judge probably ignores anonymous ones
    2) Since the subpoena is to Comcast, not me. Do I even have standing at this point?

    Reply

    • YES it is worth it!!!!!
      Will the Judge just ignore it? Maybe OR Maybe Not. I think if you ask some of the John Does who filed anonymous motions in VA and PA cases recently – they will say YES! Does have been severed and subpoenas quashed. On my case I filed a Motion and it was ignored. Oh well, even it the judge doesn’t agree with you, they get to hear from John Does on what the Trolls are actually doing. After enough Does do this, the Judges tend to get fed up worth the Trolls wasting their time. Especially as they are not taking anyone to trial and closing cases out only when Does make some noise about being open for 120+ days and no one is being served. As far as Comcast, if you don’t file a motion (yes you have standing if your IP address is on the list), they will give up your personal information in a heart beat. Comcast just wants to stay out of this.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      Reply

      • Dietrolldie.

        The 120 days is that from when they filed the docket with court because
        New sensations Inc. vs does 1-1474 was filled on June 7 with California court and have you heard of Judge Maria-Ellen James
        Thanks

        Reply

        • Yes, as far as I know, it is 120 days from the day the complaint was filed. Any of the John Does can request a dismissal OR the Judge (on his/her own) can dismiss the case “without prejudice.” For some reason many of the courts seem to allow the Trolls to float these cases way past the 120 days. If/When dismissed, the Troll can refile, but it costs them another filing fee. As the Troll is involved in a “For Profit” operation, this is one way to fight back. 🙂 The Troll can claim that due to how long the ISP took to get then the subscriber information, they should be given more time. If the Troll has your information and has yet to name/serve you (even after repeated calls/letters/threats, etc.), this is a good point to bring up in your Motion to Dismiss for failing to server defedant IAW Federal Rules for Civil Procedure, Rule 4 (m).

          From the Cornell Law School Web site – http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule4.htm

          (m) Time Limit for Service.

          If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court — on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff — must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f) or 4(j)(1).

          DieTrollDie 🙂

          Reply

      • DieTrollDie:
        What is the difference between the below two cases. Does #2 stem from #1 at some later point in time? I know one is Patrick Collins and the other is K-Beech, but I’m talking in general terms. Does the Plantiff get the names from a multi-doe case, and then proceed individually?
        If so, how are the individuals chosen?

        1. Many Does..

        http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/79262/patrick-collins-inc-v-john-does-1-51/summary/

        2. Individual Case.
        http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/83372/k-beech-inc-v-derek-law/summary/

        Reply

  22. My ISP (Charter) contacted me about the AF holdings v. 1140 case. Does anyone have any information about this case? Should I file a quash pro se? I talked to a local lawyer and he’s trying to get me to settle before the isp releases my info. I know he’s also looking out for the fees I’d be paying him, but I’m not exactly innocent either. Is that the best approach or should I file the quash and let time take its course??

    Reply

    • I mailed in my motion to quash for this case yesterday since my ISP was set to release my info soon. The only activity in the case over the last month has been 15 people settling. I suspect that the judge may not be allowing any anonymous motions to even be entered onto the docket which is why there have been no other apparent attempts to quash in this period of time. Or it may be that everyone is planning on the “not do anything” approach. In terms of info on the case, this is a John Steele using Timothy Anderson as a puppet case. This tandem has not been doing all that great in Virginia, but it will all depend on the judge. If I were you, I would go ahead and send in an anonymous motion to quash since it is pretty easy based on the template on this site. It may help/work. Or, if you already are paying a lawyer, you can remain anonymous and have them file it on your behalf. Even if guilty I would try the motion first and wait for the info to be released before considering settling.

      Reply

  23. Great. Just looked up the Judge (Bates) doing the District of Columbia suit (1:11-cv-01741-JDB). He’s a Bush Nazi that won’t let people dance at the Jefferson Memorial, won’t make Chaney tell who was on his energy panel and granted a subponea to Verizon to get subscriber info.

    I’ll file the motion but I have zero faith he’ll even read it, let alone dismiss the case.

    Reply

  24. So what is the best case scenario for a motion to quash? Judge grants it, the IP holds back your info and the troll doesn’t bother you? Or am I not understanding it correctly?

    What about different degrees of success:
    – IP doesn’t release info but the judge doesn’t dismiss you, is that possible?
    – IP does release your info but the troll never does anything more with it than send you letters/call you
    – and of course the big bad one where you are named individually in a case and the quash did nothing.

    Additionally what can a troll hold you accountable for over the phone? I live in a home with a special needs individual and a minor. If they answer the phone can they say something that may lead to the troll gaining ground on me?

    Reply

  25. DieTrollDie.

    Which ones of your motions do you think best for New Sensations Inc vs Does 1-1474,
    Lawyer is ira Siegel. You have several.
    A little History for my case

    1. They never contacted me before the subpoena to the ISP.
    2. Its Ira Siegel, which has been in several cases that, I think have been turned down like with Judge Zimmermen.
    3. Filed on June 8th and ISP received it on Oct. 12, according to there cover letter and I got it on Oct. 17th..
    If I added correctly Oct 6th is 120 days from filing.

    Im not that Quick with the wording in the motions but I know that i have to change several things but not sure which extra stuff to put in there like past cases of joinder, and 120 days.

    Thanks

    Reply

    • I was going to try to edit a motion tonight but I’m not hopeful I’ll do it correctly. Especially when it comes to signing, doe #, not giving out too much information but giving just enough, etc.

      As for the case, I just looked it up on Pacer and I didn’t notice any actions since the judge granted the troll to subpoena the isp’s. No quashes, motions, etc. I’ll admit the pacer site doesn’t seem very easy to navigate to me but I’m a little concerned that its been two weeks since the letters went out and there is no advancement in the case full of 1,500 people.

      Also I’m interested in this 120 thing as well…

      Reply

      • Scratch editing my own motion for the time being… I’m going through the motion listed above and its full of info regarding Steele and I’m not sure how properly and effectively change this to reflect on Siegel. This isn’t as easy as “mad libs” where I can just remove a name and add another. Not complaining about that, just saying that I’m in over my head here.

        Reply

        • Going through another case against Siegel on pacer and I’m finding a number of motions to quash being rejected because not enough identifying information was given by the doe. Doe# and IP number are denied because they are lacking proper identification… so essentially this tells me that an anonymous motion to quash may just be mute?

          Furthermore it went on to say that claiming lack of jurisdiction, improper joinder, motion to remove, and of course the subpoena to quash were all denied by an individual that identified himself:

          Click to access gov.uscourts.cand.235572.38.0.pdf

          Additional motions/rulings from this older case:

          http://archive.recapthelaw.org/cand/235572/

          It appears to me that everyone that filed for a motion to quash was denied in this case… suddenly I’m not very confident in what I’m doing here :-/

          Reply

    • I have a template for that one, just need to post it to my Motions page. I first want to update it with some wording I added to a Motion for a Colorado case. Can you give me a little background/update & clarification on that case? When you say they never contacted you before the ISP was subpeoned, do you mean you receiving nothing from the ISP? No notification letter or such? Or are you talking about the Troll? As the ISP didn’t receive the subpeona until 12 Oct 11, the Judge is likely to allow them to go past the 120 day point since filing. I will get back to you.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      Reply

      • dietroll die
        Oct 17 is when I received the subpoena that insight got from Ira Siegel in mail. On the cover letter my ISP has a date of oct 12. Explaining what was going on and how long I had to quash. The docket at the court house says it was filed on June 8.
        Down deep in the subpoena papers it said they tried to settle early on, but I never received one of those emails forwarded from ISP from CEG telling me I needed to go to there web-site to settle out of court. Like alot of others do. I guess the ISP COULD HAVE SET ON it for awhile. Only the cover letter is dated on oct 12, they may have had a for several days I guess. But IRa is the one that judges are starting to realize that it’s all just to scare people. Especialy after the judge Zimmerman told help to show him how much money he’s been making without ever suing anyone. Then he dismissed all does so he didn’t have to show him.

        Reply

      • dietrolldie
        What is the (Support for Plaintiff motion Exhibit) listed beside the
        New Sensations Vs Does 1-1474
        motion you have on your motions page?

        Reply

        • Read the Motion and in the introduction you will see I quoted a part of the this declaration and then listed it as an Exhibit for the motion. Nothing like using the Trolls own work to our advantage! 😉

          DieTrollDie 🙂

          Reply

      • DieTrollDie

        Thanks for all the work you did on motions.
        So the last thing I need to do to the New Sensations ve does 1-1474
        is change date and put my doe number in where it says Doe pro Se on two copies going to court and plantiff and one copy with my I.P. address to mp ISP. and mail from as far away as possible from my home.
        And I should go to a fed Ex to send it out under I guess, a different name and address and have a singnature of reciet .
        I think thats it.

        Reply

        • If you are going to list your John Doe #, change the signature block. Add an anonymous email address to the signature block if you wish (I think it is a good idea). As you are listing your John Doe # on the motion, I wouldn’t worry about mailing it too far away from home, as they Trolls do know how to Geo-locate IP addresses when they want to. Just make sure there is no name/return address on the letters. You can use US Postal or FedEx. If US Postal, it is probably a good idea to go certified ONLY to the court. Your certificate of service is good enough for the court to see that you mailed a copy to the Troll. Also make sure to change the certificate of service to reflect what mail carrier you used – the template states US Mail – change to FedEx, etc.

          Reply

        • “Can they get your name from an anonymous email set up and put on the motions that I send them?”

          If you set up the anonymous email account correctly, then NO. Make sure you put NO personal data in during account creation. Do not make the email profile public. DO NOT put any other email addresses in – sometimes they ask for this in case you forget your password. Pick a good password – minimum 8 characters (a mixture of upper & lower case characters, numbers and special characters – such as “3Johnny#@Luv” Do not auto-forward messages from the anonymous acount to your “named” email account. Be very cautious of any email you receive in this account. Clicking on links or openeing documents from untrusted sources can cause you trouble and/or malware infections. NOTE: There are Web sites that allow anyone to send emails with an image that will try to report back what IP address opened/accessed it. It is unlikely the Trolls will do this, but better to be safe.

          If you are trully concerned with the establishment and access of the anonymous email, set it up and ONLY access it via “TOR” (previously The Onion Router). https://www.torproject.org/

          There is a great Firefox Plug-in for TOR.

          DieTrollDie 🙂

          Reply

        • Do you think it would be best to file as Doe 1-1474 or just my specific doe number?
          Looks like the judge already shot down one motion and they had all does listed.

          Reply

  26. First off check out the complaint’s allegation regarding a copyright. A lot of these Bozos are so eager to get on the money train and they forget that, unlike California, a lot of states require a copyright certificate as a precondition to bringing a lawsuit for copyright infringement according to Section 411 of the Copyright Act (an application for a copyright certificate is not good enough; see here:
    http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/2:2011cv03331/319938/10/0.pdf?1316528006). Likewise, any allegation that the plaintiff does not need a registered copyright is suspect; so any so called “foreign work” or work covered by some foreign treaty is highly suspect and means the plaintiff has a shaky case at best.

    Second, check out when the alleged copyright infringement occurred. If it occurred before the plaintiff had a copyright certificate the chances are that plaintiff’s claim for statutory damages (up to $150,000) and attorneys fees are barred by Section 412 of the Copyright Act which reads as follows:

    In any action under this title, other than an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a), an action for infringement of the copyright of a work that has been preregistered under section 408(f) before the commencement of the infringement and that has an effective date of registration not later than the earlier of 3 months after the first publication of the work or 1 month after the copyright owner has learned of the infringement, or an action instituted under section 411(c), no award of statutory damages or of attorney’s fees, as provided by sections 504 and 505, shall be made for —

    (1) any infringement of copyright in an unpublished work commenced before the effective date of its registration; or

    (2) any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration, unless such registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work.

    Finally get yourself a PACER account and follow your case and other lawsuit brought by the plaintiff to keep abreast of all developments and to begin to develop your own strategy to beat these trolls at their own game.

    Reply

  27. Can someone help me figure this out?

    2011-CA-3237 is the Florida case #, Duval County, where the judge granted a subpoena for my IP address.

    Patrick Collins has called me twice, and I have not answered. They said I am a “Doe-defendant” in a pending lawsuit. How do I find out the case # without talking to them on the phone? I am in CA.

    Reply

    • Maybe I should clarify, 2011-CA-3237 is the case number in which my ISP was the defendant in regards to the subpoena of IP addresses. I’m wondering how to find the DOE case in which I’m involved.

      Reply

      • Is 2011-CA-3237 the case where your IP address is listed? Is this one of the Florida “Bill of Discovery” filings? I would suggest calling the court clerk and ask them where online to go to obtain copies of the supporting documents Plaintiff would have had to submit to justify their request.

        DieTrollDie 🙂

        Reply

        • Thanks for the reply. This case was listed as Patrick Collins/K. Beech vs. Cox Communications that resulted in a subpoena duces tecum, in which my IP was given by Cox, to Patrick Collins.

          I have received three voicemails from Patrick Collins, since my IP was given to them, courtesy of a Duval County Florida Court.

          Other people know the exact “Doe” case, in which they are named, but how can I find that out without answering the phone and asking the Patrick Collins people what they want? (which I wouldn’t do anyway)

          I would like to follow the case, but without a letter from Collins or talking to them on the phone, I’m not sure how to find out which case is mine.

          Reply

  28. I just don’t understand how the Copyright Enforcement Group LLC can upload the movies to their system and monitor the net for infringers track them and send out the threat letters and if you ignore them send it to thier I house lawyers ( Ira SIegel ) And what ever they get they split with New Sensation Inc. all of the Righthhaven case have been getting thrown out because they don’t have exclusive ownership of the copyrighted materia,l so there not allowed to sue.But this might be different because the do subpoena says new sensations vs does not CEG. Ocne again I’m sure I’m missing something. Lol

    Reply

  29. How are motions processed from your IP? If I send them a motion and one to the court (since I understand i dont need to send one to the plaintiff?), can the court deny it but the IP accept it?

    Is it as simple as the IP receives the quash and doesn’t send anything or do they have to see that its accepted by the court AND THEN they accept it and hold back your info? If the court accepts it then do I need to go back to the IP and send them proof of that?

    Reply

    • 1. Send a copy of the Motion to: Court, Plaintiff (Troll), and Internet Service Provider (ISP).
      2. I just heard from one of the John Does that Comcast wanted proof that the Motion was filed with the court. As he sent his via certified mail, he sent them the confirmation it was received. If you send it normal mail. You can obtain a copy via PACER showing the date the court filed it. The court can deny your motion (case-by-case basis) and the Troll will evenyually get your information.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      Reply

    • You have to send your motion to the Plaintiff’s counsil, Court, and the ISP. Your fax or letter to your ISP must contain your IP address so they know not to send YOUR information. In my letter to my ISP I requested they withhold ALL of the Doe’s personal information as the Motion to Dismiss included all Does’, except #1. Once the motion is entered by the court the Plaintiff can file opposition to the motion. In many cases they have not even opposed, however, in my case they did. Then, the Court must rule on the motion to quash or dismiss and if they do dismiss the Plaintiff’s lawyer is usually directed to send a copy of the judge’s order to the ISP. I went the extra step and faxed my ISP the order as a precaustion because the order to dismiss my case came the day my ISP was supposed to release my information. So I think everyone involved in any of these suits named as a Doe must not sit around and hope it goes away. Send in your motions and watch the case summary on RFC Express. Every motion creates work for the troll which is billed back to the Plaintiff. So far, many of these cases have been dismissed but keep in mind that some Does’ have been named in individual law suits once the trolls obtained their personal information.

      Reply

        • I sent in 2 different anonymous motions. The first motion was to Quash, the second to Dismiss. Dietrolldie created a template for a case almost identical to mine and I simply adjusted it to my particulars. It wasn’t very difficult to do, but you need the details of the IP addresses to update the section of the motion that identifies the first and last hit dates by IP.

          Reply

  30. Has anyone heard of or used Au, LLC (www.torrentlitigation.com)? Based purely on their website, they seem to specialize specifically in these torrent litigation cases. Seem to be up to date on cases as well. I found a copy of the plaintiff’s filing for the particular case I’m affected by – Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-1495, Case No. 11-cv-1741 (DC) under the “cases” section. Others might find it useful as well.

    Reply

  31. a little news/update on the New Sensations vs 1-1474 case. An anon doe filed a motion to quash from a template that looked very similar to the one found here. The motion was denied and joinder was said to be acceptable.

    The ruling: (Please remove if this information is not supposed to be shared here, or if its just too long for this forum. also the formatting is a little off sorry if this is hard to read). The amount of does seems to be off (2,590) so i don’t know if this is a copy and paste job or a mix up.

    “NEW SENSATIONS, INC.,
    Plaintiff,
    v.
    DOES 1-1,474,
    Defendants.
    _____________________________________/
    No. C 11-2770 MEJ
    ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
    PREJUDICE MOTION TO QUASH
    Docket No. 5
    On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff New Sensations, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit against 1,474
    Doe Defendants, alleging that Defendants illegally reproduced and distributed a work subject to
    Plaintiff’s exclusive license, (“Big Bang Theory: A XXX Parody”), using an internet peer-to-peer file
    sharing network known as BitTorrent, thereby violating the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101-1322.
    Compl. ¶¶ 6-15, Dkt. No. 1. On September 22, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application for
    Leave to Take Limited Expedited Discovery. Dkt. No. 13. The Court permitted Plaintiff to serve
    subpoenas on Does 1-2,590’s Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) by serving a Federal Rule of Civil
    Procedure 45 subpoena that seeks information sufficient to identify the Doe Defendants, including
    the name, address, telephone number, and email address of Does 1-2,590. Id. at 11. Once the ISPs
    provided Does 1-2,590 with a copy of the subpoena, the Court permitted Does 1-2,590 30 days from
    the date of service to file any motions contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or
    Case3:11-cv-02770-MEJ Document15 Filed10/26/11 Page1 of 3UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    For the Northern District of California

    Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a magistrate judge has jurisdiction to hear and decide
    nondispositive matters without the consent of the parties. A motion to quash is normally considered
    a non-dispositive matter, Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 2010), and
    therefore, the undersigned has jurisdiction to rule on the Defendant’s motion(s) to the extent they
    seek to quash Plaintiff’s subpoena. In addition, a magistrate judge has jurisdiction to consider the
    question of whether joinder of unserved defendants is proper, including whether unserved
    defendants should be severed and dismissed from the action, because defendants who have not been
    served are not considered “parties” under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532
    (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that magistrate judge had jurisdiction to dismiss prison inmate’s action
    under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous without consent of defendants because defendants had not been
    served yet and therefore were not parties); see also United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1212,
    1217 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that magistrate judge had jurisdiction to enter default judgment in an
    in rem forfeiture action even though property owner had not consented to it because 28 U.S.C. §
    636(c)(1) only requires the consent of the parties and the property owner, having failed to comply
    with the applicable filing requirements, was not a party). Here, Plaintiff has consented to magistrate
    jurisdiction and the Doe Defendants have not yet been served. Therefore, the Court finds that it has
    jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to decide the issues raised in the instant motion(s).
    2
    modify the subpoena). Id.
    Now before the Court is a Motion to Quash, filed by an individual Doe Defendant requesting
    that he be allowed to contest the subpoena without revealing his personal identifying information.
    1
    Dkt. No. 14. In his motion, the Doe Defendant argues generally that joinder is improper in this case.
    However, the Court considered the issue of joinder at length in its previous order and found that
    Plaintiff presented a reasonable basis to argue that the Doe Defendants’ actions in this case may fall
    within the definition of “same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” for
    purposes of joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a). Dkt. No. 12 at 6-11. As the
    present motion presents the same generalized arguments addressed in its previous order, the Court
    finds it is without merit. Further, the Doe Defendant does not present any information which might
    allow the Court to make a determination as to whether joinder is improper as to him specifically, or
    whether any other grounds for quashing the subpoena exist against him specifically. Accordingly,
    the present motion is DENIED.
    While the Doe Defendant has failed to show that the subpoena should be quashed based on
    generalized joinder arguments, he may be meritorious if he presents arguments specific to himself.
    Thus, denial of the present motion is WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendant may file a revised motion
    Case3:11-cv-02770-MEJ Document15 Filed10/26/11 Page2 of 3UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    For the Northern District of California

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    For the Northern District of California
    to quash that presents arguments specific to himself. In so doing, Defendant should be mindful that
    a general denial of engaging in copyright infringement is not a valid basis for a motion to quash.
    MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-18, 2011 WL 2181620, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 02, 2011) (citation omitted).
    Defendant should also be mindful that, while the Court is sympathetic to valid privacy arguments
    that may be raised, it is difficult to say that any Doe Defendant “had a strong expectation of privacy
    because he or she either opened his or her computer to others through file sharing or allowed another
    person to do so.” Id. (citation omitted).
    Because the Court does not have contact information to notify the Doe Defendant of the
    denial or his motion, the Court orders Plaintiff to provide a copy of this order to the relevant ISP(s),
    with the instruction that the ISP should in turn provide a copy of the order to the Doe Defendants
    named in this action. Because there is no way to identify the Doe Defendants that filed the present
    motion, the ISP should provide the order to all 2,590 Defendants. If any ISP that receives a
    subpoena elects to charge for the costs of providing the order, it shall provide a billing summary and
    cost reports that serve as a basis for such billing summary and any costs claimed by the ISP.”

    Reply

  33. From what I know about bittorrent and the internet, the only way I can see that these guys are getting their list of ip addresses is to actually participate in the swarm. I would suspect that they might be the ones actually doing the uploading themselves and marking down who connects.

    Not a lawyer but this sounds kind of dodgy to me.

    Reply

  34. 5. Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and/or 28 U.S.C.
    §1400(a). Although the true identity of each Defendant is unknown to Plaintiff at this time, on information and belief, each Defendant may be found in this District and/or a substantial part of the acts of infringement complained of herein occurred in this District.

    Yeah, like if I look at the ISP’s in his list of IP addresses, it’s obvious that BellSouth, Boston College, Cincinnatti Bell are in the District of Columbia. Unfortunately for me, Comcast is indeed in DC.

    Reply

  35. I’ve a question:
    let say that the ISP releases the data while knowing that there are pending motions to quash/dismiss etc (has received copies from one or more does), then the troll starts sending letters/phone calls/threatening people and then the motion is accepted and data should not have been released.
    Can the ISP be sued for any damage/consequence of undue data release?

    I would really love to go this way, because at this point the message to the ISPs is that they have to fight back against clearly improper subpenas (like those coming out of state) and not just drop their pants.
    In the end, they are custodians of customers’ personal information and they have obligations in that respect.
    I imagine it being like if a bank was giving out your ssn and account numbers to the first dude that files a complaint against thousands users because somebody allegedly did not pay him on ebay or something stupid like that…

    Can we organize and sue the ISPs? Is there ground for that?

    Reply

  36. I’m afraid of what will come of my involvement in my case (new sensations 1-1474). The alleged incident happened on my computer but the name on the IP account is my fathers. He has his own business which is performing poorly but I fear that the troll will see he is a business owner and attack him expecting that he has money to settle, he doesnt, neither do I. Additionally he won’t sit back and let them harass him for settlement money and will want to settle which will cause a financial burden on him and myself. I’m currently in the stages of getting married and trying to scrape together enough money to live on my own and afford a modest wedding and frankly I fear that settling at the average amount $2,000-3,000 will all but flunk those plans.

    Not to sound like a child but this entire issue has me losing sleep, battling depression, and afraid that my future is all but in shambles if the case progresses further and I’m(we) are named individually. I see the template for a motion to quash in this case has been posted but with similar motions being dismissed I fear its just a matter of spinning the wheels before the trolls come calling and I’m left with nothing to do. Also I’m concerned that only ONE motion to dismiss has been filed yet 1,474 people are involved in the case and the IP will be releasing info in two weeks. Everyone throwing in the towel?

    Just ignoring it sounds great and all but the troll has offices in my state and there are a number of others from my state in the list of doe’s so I imagine he will file a case in this state once he receives all the information, thus increasing the amount of a settlement. I don’t know what to do…

    Reply

    • If it is bothering you that much, call a lawyer and speak to them about it. Use the list from the EFF. I spoke to two of them yesterday for about 15 minutes and (surprise, surprise), they were both very nice and helpful (and it didn’t cost anything)..

      One of them said, if I get a “settlement” letter, to bring it to him and he would look at it, also at no charge.Not totally sure about this, but my plan is if I am harassed, to retain one of these guys for a couple of hundred bucks and have him inform this scumbag that I am represented by council and to deal with him and leave me alone. As long as he doesn’t actually file a suit against me personally, that should take care of it. I’m annoyed I might have to spend something but I look at it like something broke on my car and I need to shell out (a small amount of) money I wasn’t expecting to.

      Reply

    • OK – My first recommendation is read/reread “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy,” by Douglas Adams. If you know this book, then you can probably guess I’m going to tell you to “Don’t Panic!”

      The Trolls base the success of their business model on “Fear.” Please tell me of all the people who have actually been sued by the Trolls. I’m not talking about the limited number of “default” judgments against defendants (one was a Canadian citizen!). There may be some future suits were the Troll actually brings a defendant to trial, but it will only be those people who make the grievous mistake of talking to the Troll and admit they are guilty. The Trolls need to have some cases they can cite and show they are not on a “Fishing Expedition.” with these cases. If you don’t do this, I don’t believe you will be taken to trial. Will you get harassed? A Big YES! Deal with it and ride out the statute of limitation like the rest of us.
      I would do what the other poster suggested and talk to a lawyer on the EFF list. I did that at first and it was great to hear from a professional that these bozos are “silver tongue devils” and not to give in. I didn’t give in and I’m still around.

      If it ever comes to it (I doubt it), I will formally tell the Trolls the following:
      1. I didn’t download/share the file in question. The file is not on my system(s).
      2. I have proof that unauthorized personnel used my network.
      3. If you take me to trial, I will fight you.
      4. If by some chance you win, I will file bankruptcy. Have fun in bankruptcy court trying to get your money.

      Remember the Trolls are in this to make money, not actually protect the rights of the copyright holder. That is the reason they are back to filing larger mass John Doe cases again. It only costs them $350 to file a complaint and ask a court to grant the subpoena. They have found some “friendly” courts/jurisdictions and will milk these to obtain subpoenas. According to one Troll, they get a 35-55% early settlement rate from most cases. 50% of 1474 is 737. $2,500 X 737 is $1,842,500! Hell of a return isn’t it! Even if the Troll has to split it with the film maker, that is nothing to laugh at.

      As the goal of the Troll is to make money, our goal in fighting them has to be to make every move they make more costly. The way we do that is by filing motions, even if you think the judge may rule against it. Yes many people give in and do nothing. That is no reason you should also. If you can’t handle listing your Doe # on the motion, list all the Doe #s (1-1474) and tell the court of your fear based on the history of the Trolls. The exhibit I have for this motion is great to show the court in the Trolls’ own words how they use fear to try and stop people from defending themselves.

      Again, “Don’t Panic” if you need to, have a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. 😉 http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bartending/Cocktails/Pan_Galactic_Gargle_Blaster

      Reply

      • I am in one of the cases as well in a different state being discussed usually on this forum. NY. Any idea if plaintiffs have more or less firepower in NY vs other states? Filing a quash motion seems to make sense, but not if you are attracting attention from the trolls and they go after you individually. Also makes little sense if they are going to get the names anyway? If one does not want to have any record whatsoever in a civil lawsuit, what is the best ‘silver bullet’ option with highest chance of success?

        Reply

        • I’m not sure off-hand if the NY courts are more or less Troll friendly. If you believe they will likely get your personal info, then file as John Doe 1-474 and mail it from outside your State. No silver bullets out there and we have to adjust as the Trolls adapt their tactics. I recently saw where a Doe in Texas filed a Motion to Quash with a Texas court (where he resides) for a case filed in another State (might have been PA or VA). The judge was considering the motion when the all but Doe #1 were dismiss by the distant court. The TX court then dismissed the motion as moot because of the dismissal by the other court. This may be a new way Does in other States can file motions and get a better chance. Hopefully more to come on this.

          DieTrollDie 🙂

          Reply

        • Is the plaintiff in your case K-Beech? If so I can help with some advice that has been already posted above but which I can repeat again in a nutshell.

          Reply

      • I agree with the “Don’t Panic” sentiment completely. One thing I disagree with you on is telling the Troll that you have proof that your network was accessed by unauthorized personnel. You may have to provide them with the proof, and the question appears to be open regarding liability for an unsecured network device. I don’t think it should be an issue given that consumer routers (Linksys, Netgear, D-Link, etc..) all ship their routers without any security enabled and a well-known default password that many people do not bother to change. Also, the typical method of securing a router (WEP encryption) is very easy to crack using free utilities. Also, Torrent traffic is unencrypted. What this means is that it is easy to intercept, read, and modify. This is why they use an “investigator” in Germany…because their flawed technical analysis would not hold up for one second.

        A very important item to remember is that not a single one of these cases has ever gone to trial and been proven using an IP address as evidence. I asked a couple of attorneys, one of whom has litigated more than one copyright cases, and they both confirmed this for me. Not to say that they couldn’t take them to trial, but the likelihood of success with only an IP address is so remote that the trolls want to avoid this at all costs. These douchebags are coin-operated, they only want to settle, period. It’s easy money. They have no interest in having to prove their cases — because they can’t.

        One last reason for them to avoid a jury is also the nature of the work. I live in a very conservative part of the country. Any jury here would be 80% Evangelical Christian. Good luck trying to get a monetary award for a porn producer in this neck of the woods.

        An interesting exercise would be to offer to make your computers available to the troll for
        inspection (this would only work if you are 100% sure that the copyrighted work has not been downloaded to your device ). Given the cost of digital forensics, I wonder if they would take you up on the offer. If the troll does not accept the offer, it may be grounds for a motion for sanctions.

        I’m no lawyer, so this is just my .02

        SB

        Reply

        • I have no problem stating that I have proof, because I do. I have records and screenshots showing this. The Trolls are welcome to try and dispute it, but if all they have is my IP address from a questionable/untested firm, I feel strong about how my evidence stacks up against theirs. As the file in question is not on my system, the threat of a forensic exam does not scare me. This is really a moot point, as the Trolls isn’t going to come after me. The Troll is working on new cases and getting new unsuspecting people to pay him a couple thousand dollars to go away.

          DieTrollDie 🙂

          Reply

    • Not a particularly good one in my opinion. The Trolls are not bringing anyone actually to trial. Yes they talk big and repeatedly threaten this, but as the 80s Wendys’ commercial goes, “Where’s the Beef!” Please, if you have that much money around and want donate it to a good cause (not a low-down dirty one), try the EFF.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      Reply

    • 2 weeks from today is when my ip releases my info, what’s the typical progress after that? Does the judge start dismissing people once they see they are outside the jurisdiction? Do you need to send in a quash after that point and say ” doe #xyz from the other side of the country” and then you’re dismissed?

      Additionally the court that ordered my subpoena is outside my state (neighboring one) while the ruling court is in California (also not my state) any actions I can take because of that?

      If the troll is going to get my info either way in two weeks since it looks like anon motions are being dismissed, should I identify my doe #, ip addy, and geo location in a motion in hopes that it does something?

      I don’t want to paint a big target on my back and have the troll single me out after…

      Reply

    • It’s an option if you want to become their personal ATM.

      After you settle the first time, you will be forced into settling in any subsequent similar case – assuming they got you once they can get you twice, and they’ll know you gave up…
      At that point you have implicitly admitted guilt – good luck proving the contrary for the next accusation, true or false.

      Reply

      • How does settling imply you are guilty? People settle for many reasons, one would be to because they do not want to deal with the hassle and costs of actual litigation. Another is they are just plain scared by the trolls. Either way, I’m not sure I see how settling implies any form of guilt.
        Also, how can they get you again? Would they got after the same IP address in a different suit? I thought the whole point of a settlement would be so they don’t go after you again for the same thing? They must have to factor that eventually it may be more cost effective for you to fight it and deal with the litigation costs.

        Reply

        • The reason it implies that you are guilty is that why would you really pay a couple thousand dollars if you didn’t do anything wrong. I understand that it may be cheaper to settle than fight – a point the Trolls love to highlight & it is because they designed it that way. Unless the settlement agreement is written to protect the payee (prevent any/all use of the agreement against them), the Troll could possibly use it againt them in any future case. It may seem unlikely you could be targeted a second time by any of the Trolls out there, but stranger things have happened. Please also note that the settlement is ONLY for one movie. It doesn’t cover any other movie out there. As their data collection efforts/software has never been tested or examined in a forensic lab, the error rate is not known. All the major software developer are constanly finding vulnerabilities and bugs in their software. I sure the Troll’s software is in the same boat.

          DieTrollDie 🙂

          Reply

        • How do you avoid defaulting on a case? If you’re going for the “no settling no matter what” method, at what point do you have to do something so you don’t default? I don’t want to settle and I certainly don’t want to default but I want to figure out how “easy” it is to navigate doing that.

          Also, how long do they go after you? After you’ve been called and sent letters a few times, how long do these things continue? With all the new cases and thousands upon thousands of does being targeted, how can they constantly call and keep on top of these people harassing them?

          Reply

      • I settled. Its all a mater of economics for me. I’m a teacher and I know that parents wouldn’t look too kindly if they found out about their kids teacher stealing POrn (Gasp) so I got a lawyer and decided that the couple thousand was better than loosing a salary… Its all up to you, though I did it before the isp released my info, so I guess I still would have the ability to deny if another case came up. I’ve stopped downloading torrents though so hopefully that doesn’t happen….

        Reply

        • If another case came up, with your same IP, I think they would be able to identify you again by IP and perhaps eventually by name and perhaps ask for more ransom. I’m not sure what the chances of that are though. Also, how did you settle before they released your info? Did your lawyer just settle for you anonymously using your DOE# ? Did the ISP release your info anyway and if not how did you avoid that?

          Reply

        • I guess another suit is possible, but I’ve looked at all of the ones posted in that massive xml file and I’m not in any of them. So I’m hoping I’m safe, there is the possibility that if I was named in another one that it would be with a different firm or from another IP since its dynamic. As to how the settlement logistics worked. I called a lawyer from the eff list and they dealt with the troll. If you are going to settle I’d definitely recommend doing it through your own counsel. I said I only had $X to settle plus their fee and they worked it out. I’m sure it was “less” than if I waited, though not less than never responding.

          Reply

        • If you think that was the best way to go for you then you did right.

          But in my opinion setting a precedent is very very risky with this people, we’re not dealing with honest organizations trying to restore law and justice – these trolls are blood thirsty animals, if they have the slightest idea that you are “weak”, for any reason – including just trying to avoid the hassle, you can rest assure they’ll come after you and they won’t let you go.
          What if the next time they’ll just deliberately put the same IP and hit time in another list of 1000s IPs and say that it was for another movie, or even sell it to one of their buddies (in the FL case there are 9 of these nice people all together)?
          For all the evidence they have to provide they can just edit the list in notepad and it would suffice for obtaining another subpoena…
          If that happens and you’ve settled, are you going to say that you downloaded the first but not the second?? what about a third, and a forth….
          It might never happen, but my idea is that it does not make any sense to go belly up with these people, there’s no warranty of peace. It looks like one of those mafia movies – you pay for “protection”, but if you don’t they burn down your store.
          If I had all that pocket money, I would spend it all in copies of motions to quash, dismiss, etc etc, and post stamps, to drawn those dogs in paperwork and annoy the court for all the extra burden they have caused

          Reply

        • It is your choice to settle, but what strikes me as odd is the apparent “oh well” attitude you have. I don’t condone copyright infringement, but the methods of the Trolls are slimy to say the least. There is also the larger question of appropriate fines. Thousands of dollars for a $40 movie?? Even if the Trolls could show accurate financial losses based on single infringement, it would be way under the amounts they are seeking. Make no mistake – let’s call this what it is – a money making enterprise, not a protective effort. If the Trolls were really trying to protect the rights of the copyright holder, they would also be issuing “Take Down Notices” to the ISPs. Repeated identified activity would lead to a user having his service terminated. The Trolls don’t do this because they want the activity to continue – why would you stop something that is making so much money??? The copyright laws were written for the large scale infringement, not small time infringement cases. This is a flaw that the Trolls are exploiting. The Trolls like to blame ALL the Does and there is no exception – you are guilty. Wrong! Myself and others are not guilty and the Trolls know it. One thing they do know is that they cannot prove anything unless they get some other evidence to corroborate the IP address they have collected. Your statement of the settlement amount would have been more if I waited or never responded is incorrect. Review all the cases (active and closed) out there and you will see the Trolls dismiss their cases that stop being productive and move onto new ones. This is even in the jurisdictions where the courts are friendly to them. Yes I’m one of the Does that didn’t settle and I have paid them $0.

          Reply

        • I suppose those are all possibilities. Though at least I have time to “get my house in order” now. Also, my IP lease was up pretty quickly after the incident in question, so hopefully it would be impossible to add it to a new case….

          Reply

        • If you settled for your particular IP address for a particular movie, then how can they come after you? Sure they could use your IP address in another suit (i.e. for another movie this time), but when they go to your ISP with a subpoena and ask for that IP address at that particular time, then since IP addresses are dynamic, there would be a good chance that the IP address this time around is attached to another user. If coincidentally happens to be that you are attached with the IP again, then perhaps it would have been better to settle with your name attached to the settlement, as opposed to your IP?

          Reply

        • If you settle with them for your IP address/DOE# only – is there still probably a chance that they get your name from the ISP anyway? What happens then?

          Reply

        • Settling seems to be a very unpopular option on this site. However for those that in fact have used torrents and perhaps specifically for the movie they are being sued about, like the teacher or anyone with a job or assets, it makes sense. There is an obvious risk (although small) of being targeted individually (specially in the new smaller cases with less does) and taken to the litigation stage at which point one could be financially ruined. Top that up with the ethics – they have copied something unlawfully and should be liable for their action. Yes the trolls and porn companies are asking way too much in settlement, ruining peoples lives, using dirty methods and abusing the justice system but nobody said life is fair every single time. It would be interesting to know how many people on this site or in these lawsuits are actually completely innocent vs. those who have either directly download or shared porn in question, have a family relative that may have, or an employee, roommate, unsecured wifi user, etc. Perhaps a poll is in order.

          Reply

          • My estimation of the collateral damage in this cases is 10-15%, which is unacceptably high. Collateral damage can be a part of fair game if those whose guilt is not proven receive compensation for their troubles, not just legal fees reimbursed. It shouldn’t be a crazy amount in the range of so called statutory damages, but something reasonable, 2-3 times the settlement amount maybe. But we don’t see any attempts to play fairly here. Some innocent people like myself prefer to fight, spending a lot of personal time without any compensation, but some (like a teacher in your example) settle regardless of the circumstances.

            Now about ethical questions and 85-90% of defendants. First of all, I’m not a judge to them, it’s between them and their understanding of right and wrong. Although I don’t condone piracy, I personally think about it as a minor vice, something in the company of traffic violations. Does anyone pay parking or speeding tickets out of guilt? For me all the defendants are victims of a scam, period. I don’t have a right to tell them not to settle, but in my opinion settling is wrong regardless of anything: a) it feeds this immoral “business model”, so more innocents will be targeted in the future; b) who gets the money? According to leaked documents in UK cases, studios receive just a tiny fraction (and the artists – nothing.) I have no reason to believe US troll conspiracies have different structure. Whatever guilt I feel, why should I pay to scam artists? I would praise judgements like… obligation to buy 20 DVDs of a studio in question. It would be a much less abuse-prone decision. If I downloaded anything, I would humbly abide with such an order. But it is wishful thinking – trolls are not interested in recovering hypothetical “damages”. Even more, they inflict tremendous harm to their clients’ reputations (assuming that “porn producer reputation” is not an oxymoron). A bit of shaming and explaining would secure new lawful clients for those studios. Yes, it requires some work. Enforcement seems to be easier and more rewarding in the short run, but it is not a wise strategy for those who invest in the future.

            So far no one was financially ruined yet, except those named who (out of stupidity) did not bother to reply to complaints and was struck with default judgements. The quality of the evidence (even if the most of IPs are indeed were involved in sharing) is unacceptable. So the risk is far from being “obvious”.

    • So what if you know the file was downloaded? What course of action should you take? Deny it and settle or still try to ride it out?

      Reply

  38. One thing that all of us should do to turn up the heat on these trolls is complain to their state bar. When they get a few thousand complaints about the same lawyer, they can make things very unpleasant for these scumbags to continue their scam. For our beloved John Lawrence Steele, please write to the Illinois State Bar Association here :

    http://www.isba.org/contact

    Reply

  39. Below is actual text from the motion to take expedited discovery of information. My case is norther CA 11-2766 patrick collins inc v does 1-2590. Troll lawyer Ira m Siegel has found a way to not get quashed.

    Judge Maria Elena James has granted there motion and found proper joinder based on all of us being included in the supposed same swarm OVER 1YEAR PERIOD because of a supposed identifying hash number assigned to the specific file that was alleged to be downloaded illegally

    Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff has provided enough specificity to make a preliminary
    determination that the 2,590 Doe Defendants here were part of the same swarm. Reviewing Exhibit
    A to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendants’ alleged infringing activity occurred over a period of over
    one year, from May 19, 2010 through June 2, 2011. See Compl, Ex. A. While this period might
    seem protracted, with respect to any particular swarm, the hash (an alphanumeric representation of a
    digital file) associated with the copied file’s torrent file remains the same within that swarm.
    Nicolini Decl. ¶ 6. For each of the 2,590 Doe Defendants, Plaintiff has provided an identical hash.
    Compl, Ex. A. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff’s claims against the Doe Defendants appear
    logically related. Each putative Defendant is a possible source for Plaintiff’s copyrighted work, and
    may be responsible for distributing the work to the other putative Defendants, who are also using the
    same file-sharing protocol to copy the identical copyrighted material. See Disparte v. Corporate
    Executive Bd.,
    223 F.R.D. 7, 10 (D.D.C. 2004) (to satisfy Rule 20(a)(2)(A) claims must be “logically related” and
    this test is “flexible.”). While the Doe Defendants may be able to rebut these allegations later, the
    plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that their claims against the defendants potentially stem from the
    same transaction or occurrence, and are logically related. See Arista Records LLC v. Does 1–19,
    551 F. Supp.2d 1, 11 (D.D.C.) (“While the Court notes that the remedy for improper joinder is
    severance and not dismissal, . . . the Court also finds that this inquiry is premature without first
    knowing Defendants’ identities and the actual facts and circumstances associated with Defendants’
    conduct.”). Plaintiff has made a preliminary showing that these Defendants were present in the
    same Real Female Orgasms 10 swarm on BitTorrent and shared pieces of the same seed file
    containing Real Female Orgasms 10.

    We need to find a way to disprove this grouping us all together based upon the identifying hash number.

    Can anyone site legal standing to do so?

    Reply

    • I just received a copy of the subpoena to Charter from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (a state that I don’t even live in). The Attachment states that it’s 11-2766 MEJ from USDC for the Northern District of California. To whom do I send the Motions to Quash and Dismiss? Missouri or California?

      Fortunately, I have friends who are lawyers and professional forensic scientists that will be able to support me, but how much is this nonsense going to cost if I have to fly to California to defend myself when the Judge appears to be dismissing our rights out of hand?

      Reply

      • Charter Communications is based out of St. Louis, MO (which is why you got the subpoena from that address). Their legal department is located there (and they can expect a nasty-gram from me in the next couple of weeks regarding this nonsense.

        You send your motions to the court in California and send a copy of said motions to Charter (as per their request) to the legal department based in MO.

        The judge on this case (assuming it is New Sensations v. Does 1 -1474 is accepting motions, but not anonymously. I have yet to hear word on whether someone has filed an order to protect, thus granting does the ability to quash or be dismissed by *only* allowing their information to be known to the judge and not to the plaintiff.

        One person has already filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction and last I saw, it was still waiting for the plaintiff to respond since she admitted that the state of California had no jurisdiction over said doe,

        Reply

        • Excellent – thank you for your rapid reply! I also read that the Judge in 11-2766 (which is what I received) allowed the person to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. That person provided an IP address (versus “John/Jane Doe”) so do you think that is what the Judge used to determine that the defendant was outside her jurisdiction? Or, do you think that more information was provided? Wish there was a way to see the actually submitted motion…

          I’m guessing I’ll submit a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction as well as the University of Washington paper that shows that IP addresses are not isolated entities…

          Reply

        • I found the Motion for Dismissal that was granted. It’s perfect. Anyone know how strict plagiarism rules are? I’m not a lawyer and what has already been produced is pretty much what I’m looking for…

          Reply

        • The plaintiff responded to the motion to dismiss. He insists on being allowed to access the user’s information so he can harass the Doe.

          Reply

        • Judge MEJ has now denied the Motion to Dismiss based on the Troll’s argument in 11-2766. Looks like everyone’s information is now going to be made available to the troll and he’s going to start harassing everyone.

          Reply

          • Im a little concerned how I’m seeing MEJ handle this case. She seems to have it out to see that no one gets off here. Not only has she shown that she is using a generic form to reply to motions (with inaccurate information), but she also looks to be ignoring joinder and jurisdiction issues. I wasn’t too mindful of this case after first reflection but now I feel it’s going down a bad path.

  40. Doing more research,

    My case Patrick Collins v does 1-2590 Case No,. 11-2766 judge MEJ appears to be one of many that judge MEJ is presiding over. She apparently has so many of these cases that she is just blanket denying the motions to quash without even reading them.

    Note the quoted text below from one of her orders denying a motion to quash

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    Northern District of California
    NEW SENSATIONS, INC.,
    Plaintiff,
    v.
    DOES 1-1,474,
    Defendants.
    _____________________________________/
    No. C 11-2770 MEJ
    ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
    PREJUDICE MOTION TO QUASH
    Docket No. 5
    On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff New Sensations, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit against 1,474
    Doe Defendants, alleging that Defendants illegally reproduced and distributed a work subject to
    Plaintiff’s exclusive license, (“Big Bang Theory: A XXX Parody”), using an internet peer-to-peer file
    sharing network known as BitTorrent, thereby violating the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101-1322.
    Compl. ¶¶ 6-15, Dkt. No. 1. On September 22, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application for
    Leave to Take Limited Expedited Discovery. Dkt. No. 13. The Court permitted Plaintiff to serve
    subpoenas on Does 1-2,590’s Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) by serving a Federal Rule of Civil
    Procedure 45 subpoena that seeks information sufficient to identify the Doe Defendants, including
    the name, address, telephone number, and email address of Does 1-2,590. Id. at 11. Once the ISPs
    provided Does 1-2,590 with a copy of the subpoena, the Court permitted Does 1-2,590 30 days from
    the date of service to file any motions contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or…..

    The case noted above is different than my case but as you can see in the text above she just blanket copied the exact same deny order from my case.

    She didn’t even bother to change the case specific information. i.e. she is still referencing my case with 2590 does instead of the case she is supposedly issuing an order of denial over.

    Is this even legal? Can we have grounds for dismisal based on her not even reading our motions and just blanket denying them?

    Reply

    • The provided text is actually the same as what I posted a little further up this page but it was for the actual case. I questioned why she listed 2,590 there as well as it was not the same amount as my case. She must just have a pre written denial form that is plugged in whenever she dismisses a motion. The only thing is that her or the clerks are too lazy to change it to be specific to each case.

      Really lowers my hope that a motion would do anything. Maybe it holds up my IP a day or two but thats the best I could hope for if she is denying everything…

      Reply

    • It seems to me that all 1,474 Does need to arrange on the internet to meet at MEJ’s chambers and ask her where she can schedule a hearing to address their grievances. This lawsuit is just impossibly huge and the Judge has to know that she and her staff cannot handle it but, for whatever reason, she is siding with los scumbags (so far).

      Reply

  41. OK, I cant get Pacer.com to work with my case #, I’v Copied and pasted the case numbers here and I’v copied the one on the subloena and it tells me invalid case number format .
    New Sensations Inc vs Does 1-1474.
    can anyone help?

    Reply

  42. Hello New York!

    There are 2 pending K-Beech cases that should be on your radar because they are seeking to quash plaintiff’s subpoenas on the ground that K-Beech does not have a meritorious claim for copyright infringement because it does not have a certificate of copyright registration! These 2 motions are important because they have ramifications in other States that follow New York’s “registration approach”like Maryland, Colorado and Pennsylvania ( I think?). The cases can be found here:

    1.http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/new-york-eastern-district-court/79821/k-beech-inc-v-john-does-1-37/summary/

    2. http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/new-york-southern-district-court/81296/k-beech-inc-v-john-does-1-19/summary/

    Both motions hinge on the holding that can be found here:http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/2:2011cv03331/319938/10/0.pdf?1316528006

    Have fun and keep the trolls outta site and outta mind.

    Reply

    • Are these cases related to the Patrick Collins cases in Southern District NY? Does not seem to be much activity on those cases.

      Reply

  43. Recently, I received package from my ISP Comcast on case 1:11-CV-01741-JDB (Does 1 – 1495, District of Columbia). The package includes a list of IPs (~60 of them). However, there is no mention of my Doe number. How do I find my Doe number?

    Since I don’t have my assigned Doe number, is it sufficient to just put my IP address in the Motion to Quash?

    Reply

    • This thread is becoming too big to be manageable. Folks affected by the case in DC, can you please post your messages here:
      https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/steele-hansmeier
      That way we can all band together and share our knowledge specific to this case

      Btw, I think you have to call Comcast to find out your Doe#.
      And don’t put your IP address in the Motion To Quash, unless you are comfortable with the trolls finding out who filed the motion. Just use Does 2-1495 (exclude Doe#1)
      Can somebody verify the above 2 points? Thanks!

      Reply

  44. I wonder if EFF knows why this Judge is letting joinder work in these cases, yet all other Jugdes are dismissing all Doe’s but one in dozens of other cases.

    Very curious

    Reply

  45. Looks live via Neustar that Cox Communications has just been issued a Subpoena for DOES 1-2590 for case cv-11-2766-mej. Interesting is they received them 9/14 and is giving till 11/27 to notify them of a Motion to Quash. Cox is really dragging there feet on this one. From the activity from this case http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/california-northern-district-court/76399/patrick-collins-inc-v-does-1-2590/summary/ there is little being done on it.

    Reply

  46. I recently got a letter myself.
    Case no: CV2011-017876 (Arizona)
    ISP: CableOne, Inc.
    Patrick Collins, et al. v. John Does 1-1544

    Any specific information on this case? I have until 11/15 before my “name and address” are released. Planning on submitting a motion to quash but thought I’d check in first.

    BTW – excellent site. Thank you for putting this together!

    Reply

  47. Still waiting to see the ruling on a recent quash for my case. It was submitted two days ago and the court didn’t rule on it yet. I was going to download it from Pacer but the pages are so long that i’m not going to spend a few dollars on it if its just going to be quashed. interested to see if the judge is thinking it over, could be something good in there…

    Still only 2 motions in a case of 1,500 people, just doesn’t seem right. Just 2 weeks till my ISP releases the info, this is just the calm before the storm. What typically happens when the info is gathered by the troll? Do they drop the case and go off against individuals/smaller groups in certain states? Are there some states that are more or less prone to being sued in? I’m on the east coast here and I can’t find any evidence of individual/smaller cases being brought up in my state.

    Reply

    • I was wondering, according to my the subpoena sent to Isp the first page says in big bold print in the top center of page United States District Court for the southern District of New York.
      On the left it has new Sensations inc. (plaintif) v. Does 1-1474 (defendant) and on the right it has civil Action No. CV-11-2770-MEJ and under that but still on right side its says
      (If the action is pending in another district, state where: NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA )
      Its the cali Judge Maria-Elena James. So does this mean its a new york case or California case.
      My ISP legal department is Based in New York, maybe thats why the Heading says
      UNINTED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern district of new York. becuose I dont want to send motion to wrong district.
      All other pages in the Subpoena all state california, nothing else about new York.
      Does anyone understand this.

      Reply

      • I’m in the same boat as you (subpoena issued from NY court). As far as I understand we need to send it to California but i have nothing to back that up with so don’t take my word for it. According to the template for this quash it shows the court address being in California so that is where we need to send it I think.

        Reply

        • A motion to quash for does number 2-1474 was already dismissed. The judge stated that they couldn’t determine if it was an individual in the case or not so they could not quash unless the doe identified themselves and gave good cause why their info should be withheld. This judge, Maria Elena James, doesn’t seem to care about quashes and it feels that unless you’re an undercover police officer or a woman hiding from a disgruntled abusive ex husband, all motions will be ignored.

          i’m still up in the air about putting my doe number as I don’t know what the precedent is for other does who have done so and if they have been targeted afterward

          Reply

        • Quiet on here the last day and a half…

          Another handful of quashes were dismissed for New Sensations 1-1474 today. Again with the same generic reply and the incorrect doe number mentioned in the document (http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2011cv02770/241553/15/)

          On a whim I went back over the other New Sensations/Ira cases and noticed that Doe #1 in each case each had a similar ip and location. Not that a judge would care but surely it does seem to be a bit interesting that the same cases are linked in similar areas which also happens to be in the area of the New Sensations offices. Any grounds that the court should determine the identity of john doe# 1 first before they go after the rest of the does?

          And just for some assistance. If all the quashes are being tossed out of the case, will sending one in help me at all? Will my IP hold back the info just because I filed the motion or if they see it is dismissed will they still release the info? I only have 10 days left and I hate to go through the motions if it will have no result on what will happen next. The judge has NO patience for any anon motions so all are being dismissed as quick as they are received.

          Reply

  48. Im still kinda scared to list my doe number but I think Im going to anyways, I know I didnt do it, Im 99.9 % sure my wife and young child didnt do it either, so Im just going to risk him suing me, and hopefully let justice provail.

    Reply

  49. My ISP released my info to patrick collins inc on the 14th of oct. I still have not heard anything from the company. I am sure they will call at some point. I will just ignore it all. To be very honest I am not worried about this one bit. Seems there are hundreds upon hundreds of these cases and none to trial yet. To hell with them. I see people settling early and i just don’t understand that. I guess if you are a teacher or something maybe. I really could care less if they throw my name around in the public forum. Scare tactics will just simply not work.

    Reply

  50. Well, guess what. Even though my case was dismissed the troll won’t DIE! A search of RFC shows that this particular troll has now filed about 15 individual suits naming a single John Doe in each case. I guess if they can scare some into settling they can use that money to fund more individual lawsuits. I’ll post back if I get another letter from my ISP.

    Reply

    • Who’s the troll and what states are the individual cases coming up in? Are they in the same state of the original doe case?

      I go back and forth every day trying to decide how I feel about the “just ignore” approach, and the “lawyer up and settle for as low as possible” approach. Any word from people who’s info has been released by their IP months or even up to a year ago? How have things been going? Have the letters and calls died down? Did you eventually decide to settle?

      Reply

      • I don’t have a list of Trolls handy, but Anons of Liberty does – http://anonsofliberty.wordpress.com/copyright-troll-lawyers/ I’m sure there are new ones popping up as the bigger one try to subcontract cases out to the various States. One thing to note about recent Troll activity, it appears they are going back to the large number cases (1-1000 Does etc,). They are doing this in the jurisdictions (Washington DC, IL, and parts of CA) that appear to be more friendly to their “Fishing Expedition” methods. Even FL with its Bill of Discovery is a newer area for them. An idea I have been toying with (and hope someone will try) is for a Doe residing say in Nevada, and is part of a DC case, to use their local court to file a motion to quash. I’m not sure how each court (in the Does jurisdiction) would view this, but it is worth a try.

        Myself and others have had their personal information released and after a period of letters and calls; the Troll moves onto other cases/Does who are more likely to pay up. My period has been over a year. I recently had an email from a Doe that was over six months since the information was released. If you live in the jurisdiction the mass case was filed in, you have a bigger chance of being filed against individually. That being said, we have not seen the Trolls actually go to trial against someone who is actively fighting it. The Troll risks exposing all his “dirty laundry” in an open court. If and when they do this, it will expose their operation, to include the various weaknesses and flaws in the evidence and their collection methods. This will be a turning point if it ever comes.

        What I see in the future is the Trolls taking a select few Does to trial in cases they believe they have a great chance of success in. I don’t think it will be an “Open Wifi” case, more likely someone who decides to settle and the Troll agent gets them to admit (in as much detail as possible) that they or a member of their family (John Steele calls refer to them as “loser son in the basement”) downloaded/shared the movie. They now have one of their agents who can in open court state that the Doe freely admitted their wrongdoing. They then could get a court to grant a search order for the systems in the residence, as well as depose the members of the residence. The evidence they get would just be more corroboration for them to bolster their case.

        Right now is a really dangerous time for any Does who wishes to settle. If you tell the Troll any incriminating evidence before he signs the settlement agreement, he can use it against you. He can then decide not to sign it and take you to trial. Remember, the Troll doesn’t have to sign the settlement agreement either. If for whatever reason you decide to settle, be VERY careful. The Trolls feel threatened and they will attack. This was made extremely clear on a recent post by John Steele, as well as the VA Troll who is facing sanction – they go after people who fight them.

        DieTrolldie 🙂

        Reply

        • The motions page new Sensations v DOES1-1474.
          HAS THE ADDRESS YOU PROVIDED TO PLAINTIFF AND THE UNITED STATES dISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Who ever opens it, will they know which judge to send it to or should I put a cover letter in side, with the right judge and case number or do they get that off the first page of the document.
          And I with some of the motions being dismissed saying Doe 2-1474 should i just put MY Doe number.

          Reply

          • Putting an individual doe # on this case feels risky to me (and why in wondering if I should file at all. This judge appears to have zero patience for quashed and says that unless you have good reason to keep your info hidden all motions will be denied. Simply filing the same template here with your doe# seems like all it will do us put a target on your back after the troll gets the info because the judge still denies your motion. I’m still questioning what to do here myself and I’m clueless so only take my words as opinion and not fact/advice.

            I saw a few more motions get entered yesterday so we’ll see what the ruling is on them today. Joinder arguments appear to have no foot hold as the judge feels joinder is valid as they have discussed the matter “at great length”. Still educating myself here but it feels like the troll is learning from his past mistakes and devising better strategies to bust through any of these motions.

          • Latest update on the New Sensations 1-1,474 case. Someone filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as an individual (listed doe # and ip address). The judge apparently allowed the action but the plaintiff has two weeks to respond to the order. Not sure what this will mean for the individual as now the troll knows they fought back and with a quick ip lookup knows what region to file the case in but it could be a way out for many if they follow in his footsteps. My only concern is that my isp is releasing my info on the 10th so if the troll can just twiddle his thumbs on any rulings and get the info by then anyway, whats the point?

            Judges ruling below… poorly copied and pasted from a pdf file:

            On June 7, 2011, Plaintiff New Sensations, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit against 1,474
            Doe Defendants, alleging that Defendants illegally reproduced and distributed a work subject to
            Plaintiff’s exclusive license, (“Big Bang Theory: A XXX Parody”), using an internet peer-to-peer file
            sharing network known as BitTorrent, thereby violating the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101-1322.
            Compl. ¶¶ 6-15, Dkt. No. 1. On September 22, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application for
            Leave to Take Limited Expedited Discovery. Dkt. No. 13. The Court permitted Plaintiff to serve
            subpoenas on Does 1-1,474’s Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) by serving a Federal Rule of Civil
            Procedure 45 subpoena that seeks information sufficient to identify the Doe Defendants, including
            the name, address, telephone number, and email address of Does 1-2,590. Id. at 11. Once the ISPs
            provided Does 1-1,474 with a copy of the subpoena, the Court permitted Does 1-1,474 30 days from
            the date of service to file any motions contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or
            Case3:11-cv-02770-MEJ Document25 Filed11/01/11 Page1 of 2UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
            For the Northern District of California
            2
            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
            For the Northern District of California
            modify the subpoena). Id.
            Now before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss, filed by Doe Defendant #37 (I.P. Address
            108.34.138.72). Dkt. No. 22. In his motion, Doe #37 requests that the subpoena be quashed as to
            him and the case against him dismissed because he does not reside, work, or conduct business in
            California; has not contracted to supply services in California; the IP address that is identified as
            assigned to him is not within the jurisdiction of this Court; he has no real property in California; he
            does not consent to personal jurisdiction in California; he has no business or personal contacts in
            California; and he has no significant relationship with California. Id. at 3.
            Based on this information, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Doe Defendant
            #37. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to either: (1) file a voluntary dismissal of
            Doe Defendant #37, without prejudice to filing a complaint against him in the proper jurisdiction; or
            (2) show cause why the Court should not grant Doe Defendant #37’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff
            shall file its response by November 14, 2011.
            IT IS SO ORDERED.
            Dated: November 1, 2011
            _______________________________
            Maria-Elena James
            Chief United States Magistrate Judge

          • Can anyone attest to the documents avaialble over at http://www.syfert.com/ ?

            Not saying that the info here isn’t AMAZING, just wondering if others have heard well about this site and the forms available there.

            Also would it be a good idea to file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction for all the does in my area? I got the ip list from my ISP and it had a good 100 people in my area (more than one state). That way I’m not saying “Hey look at JUST me” and telling the judge that large portions of the does aren’t in their jurisdiction.

          • That’s a bit encouraging. Maria-Elena James signed a lot of subpoenas and denied many anonymous motions to quash, but when a motion was filed with identifying information (but still in violation of court rules as many judges may think), she actually ruled reasonably. Judges are getting tired of trolls, I expect big changes. Where was Righthaven a year ago? How much money it was extorting from bloggers?  And what do we see today? US Marshals are authorized to seize its asserts.   

Leave a reply to John Doe # Cancel reply