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. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
    Civil Action No. 11-cv-02162-REB-MJW
    RAW FILMS, LTD.,
    Plaintiff(s),
    v.
    JOHN DOES 1-24.
    Defendant(s).MINUTE ORDER
    Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
    It is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena and Motion
    to Dismiss [Docket No. 11[, filed with the court October 12, 2011, is DENIED without
    prejudice. The individual filing the motion is not identified and is not a valid party.
    Date: October

    Reply

  3. Just a thought and I may need some help fleshing it out but is it possible to send a list of ALL the doe ip addresses listed in your case with geo location information for each, to the court as a motion to show that a large majority of the does in your case are not under the jurisdiction of the court the subpoena was issued in?

    So for example if there was 1,000 does in your case and you showed that over 900 did not fall under the jurisdiction of the court that the judge may consider throwing out the case on that fact alone? What would you need to show the information to be true? It of course would take a long time to populate the list and it wouldn’t help those who fall under the jurisdiction of the court but it may open the eyes of the judge to the troll and his tactics.

    Thoughts?

    Reply

    • Or would that just help the troll with a nice fancy list of all the does and what major states he can target in smaller cases?

      Reply

        • Well I’ve put together a list of all the does ip #’s and geo locations in my case… now a question of what or if I can do anything with it. is it possible to file a mass lack of jurisdiction motion? Should I send it as supporting evidence for a quash?

          Again, I don’t think the judge would pay too much mind to it as they would most likely prefer to see an individual lack of jurisdiction that shows that you are an individual associated with the case and not just some “helpful outside party”, but its just an idea for creating another line of defense and giving the judge more to think about with the case.

          Reply

  4. I filed a motion to quash by emailing dcd_cmecf@dcd.uscourts.gov with a PDF. I used Sy Ableman’s template with the main argument against joinder. I considered including another argument about improper jurisdiction as I’m a resident of Washington. I ultimately decided to leave the argument singular. From the research I’ve been doing, it appears that some judges won’t accept the argument of improper jurisdiction until the defendants are actually identified properly. If/when Comcast releases names, phone numbers and addresses for this case, I’ll definitely be relying on that defense in subsequent motions.

    Reply

  5. Can you tell me what this means? This is from the court docket text of the case I am involved in Colorado. I received a phone call from a representive in CA today, after looking at the court case docket it appears to me that they dismissed the John Does listed. They were asking for $4800.
    ~confused and lost

    10/25/2011
    36 Civil Case Terminated pursuant to the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed in this case on 10/21/2011. Text Only Entry (erv, ) (Entered: 10/25/2011)
    10/21/2011
    35 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal of Party John Does 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25 and 26 by Plaintiff Patrick Collins, Inc. (Kotzker, Jason) (Entered: 10/21/2011)

    Reply

    • $4,800?

      Really!!?!

      I’m sorry I don’t know what everyone else’s financial status is right now but if I was offered that deal I would be bankrupt to accept that. I’ve hit a hard time myself with work and debt and if I was told I needed to pay that up within 20 days I would default on my bills and be kicked out of my place.

      Stuff like that scares me because I can’t even imagine to have to pay a fee like that. That’s not even admitting guilt, I’m just saying that if that was the “settlement” to make the headache of a legal battle go away then I might as well be charged with a $150,000 settlement. I’m the kind of person that hears “court house” and I get sick to my stomach because I don’t trust that an individual can beat a silver tongued lawyer in court if he doesn’t have the money to back himself up with proper defense. Even innocent with nothing to hide Im afraid they’ll find a way to incriminate me with something.

      I even signed my quash form with a generic email and now I’m afraid they’ll back trace that to me… Paranoia and living on a tight budget do not match up well when someone is serving you legal papers.

      Reply

  6. Any updates on the Florida Collins 2471 CA 22? I thought there was a hearing scheduled for today?

    10/19/2011 – NOTICE OF HEARING- MOTIONS 11/02/2011 09:30 AM

    Reply

    • 120 days – Federal Civil Rules of Procedures – Rule 4(m). Look up the Cornell University Web site for full details.

      This rule states the Troll has 120 days from filing the complaint to serve the named doe. For these cases, it is really more like 120 days from the time the ISP releases the subscriber information to the Troll. If this goes over 120 days, the court or on motion from a Doe, can dismiss the case without prejudice or direct the Troll to make service by a specific date. If you are a Doe that does not reside in the court’s jurisdiction, the Troll isn’t going to name you anyway – improper jurisdiction.

      A motion to dismiss IAW Rule 4(m) is pretty straightforward – Introduction – state when the case was opened and when the ISP released the subscriber information to the Trolls – state how many days the case has been open with no service – request the court to dismiss the case without prejudice. You can file this motion as an individual Doe OR as the remaining Does. Use PACER to find out what John Does are left on the case and not previously dismissed by the Troll.

      Reply

  8. About the New Sensations 1-1,474 case. My dad received a letter from Verizon. I wanted to know what to send to Verizon to prove a motion to quash was sent. Do I include my information name address or just the IP number listed on their document? How does the ISP know to prevent disclosing my information?

    I have read the FAQ and I am not clear about everything and spending the time to make sure I know what to send. As one poster mentioned, I am sick to my stomach worrying about this and I just want to do everything in my power to clear this up. I hope this little community can help me become less anxious as I am also not able to function because of this anxiety.

    Reply

    • Try using Syfert’s template. You will need to identify yourself completely, but also file a Motion for Protecting Order asking the court not to make your personal information public. Free template available here:

      http://www.syfert.com/publicfiles/

      Just read the instructions and plugin your information and print out the forms.

      This line of reasoning (identifying yourself but asking that it not be made public) seems to be working for the DC case. See https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/steele-hansmeier

      Take it easy buddy, we will prevail in the fight against trolls!

      Reply

      • But if you make yourself known to the troll, because you have to send him a copy too, than he’ll have what he wants anyways, right, I guess. Or do you not send this one to the troll too just the court?

        Reply

        • This might work for someone else but I only have 5 more days to file and I doubt it will be processed in that time. Things are going very slow on this new sensations case and there hasn’t been much activity lately. All but resigned to my fate here. One individual filed a motion for lack of jurisdiction with his ip/doe # and that was granted pending the plaintiffs response but I’m fearful of doing that since I live in a state with a good number of offenders so putting myself out there is almost daring him to go after me and everyone else in my state.

          Also on a funny note, I’m sitting here with the tv on in the background on some random movie channel. The movie “A Serious Man” (A Cohen brothes movie) is playing and out of the corner of my ear I hear two men talking about “Sy Ableman”. Gotta thank the character from the movie for creating the quash form above. At least for a brief moment I had a little laugh about all this and what is going on. Now back to sheer fear…

          Reply

    • Yes, Myself and others have done just that. After a while, the Troll gets tired of getting nothing in return for his efforts and moves on to his next potential victim.

      We don’t have complete stats, but one Troll declared that they get 35%-55% early settlement return on their efforts. I would assume that with further effort they can get later-date settlement numbers up – no idea of to what percentage on average. After that, it is risky for the Troll to push too hard. There is a point where they will expend more time and money than these last Does (who refuse to pay), can pay out potentially.

      Couple this sad (but financially successful) business model with weak evidence and it makes it unlikely the Trolls will take most people to actual trial. Take a look at how many civil cases go to actual trial in comparison to settling or dropping. Majority of the cases DO NOT go to trial. A good portion of civil cases are settled out of court and dropped. This is part of the Trolls plan. Settle with as many Does as possible, expend the least amount of time and money, split the profits with the film producers, laugh all the way to the bank. 😦 Just look at the history of the Trolls. They have nothing to back up there claims of “we are moving forward with this case and you will be named.”

      A word of warning those who wish to settle. Don’t admit or say anything potentially incriminating until the Troll signs his portion of the settlement/non-disclosure agreement (finalized). Otherwise whatever you say could change his mind and he might take you to trial. Be careful.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      Reply

    • You don’t refuse to pay. You don’t agree to pay. You say NOTHING and hang up: the only reasonable way to handle threatening calls. If you talk to a troll, there is a great likelihood that he will provoke you saying something that you should never say. Be careful.

      Reply

  11. Hi all… Just the same as many of you, I received a letter from my ISP (Comcast) in this case where they have identified what Comcast indicates to be my IP address… This is the case Hard Drive Productions, Inc v. Does 1-1,495 (Federal Lawsuit in the District of Columbia). As most of all who read this I came to this website scared s***less because of lack of information… I have done quite a bit of reading and digging as to what is the best approach for my situation. PLEASE NOTE that even though it is apparently an often used defense I did NOT download the indicated movie (I was not even in town when this was done)

    I have given a call to of the lawyers that appear as defending the “Does” from the firm Lybeck Murphy LLP, and this was his response:

    They will NOT file any MTQ on my behalf… the attorney actually went as far as saying that these trolls, once they have your personal data will establish the settlement amount in a directly proportional manner to the amount of work they have had to do… Seeing as that if you send a MTQ the plaintiff is obligated by the court to respond to it (thus time and money is being wasted on their part), instead of you getting a settlement amount of say, $3,000 they will charge $4,500 instead.

    The lawyer recommended that I should retain their services and from then I have two separate options on how to deal with this:

    a) Have them (the lawyers) call the plaintiff’s attorneys (in this case Steele Hansmeier) and have them negotiate a lower payment amount. The defense lawyer talked about probably being able to get 1/2. After that is done I would get a letter from the plaintiff telling me that I had been “excused” from the lawsuit.

    b) Have them (the lawyers) call the plaintiff’s attorneys and explain that I had NOT downloaded anything to my computer and that 1) I was out of town during the day the ISP indicates the movie was downloaded and 2) my wireless router has been unsecured since I purchased it 2 years ago (dumb I know, but the truth). To this he did not seem very certain to be able to get a positive response from Steele et al. They might “place” my file in a pile and maybe sometime within the next 3 years get back to suing me in Federal Court.

    What to do? What have any of you done?

    The defense lawyer charges a flat fee of $500 for the following: “We can assist you by reviewing and analyzing the materials you received and will contact plaintiff’s counsel regarding the copyright infringement claims plaintiff has threatened against you to request its abandonment of the claims, or otherwise negotiate a resolution of the claims on grounds that are acceptable to you.” BUT they give no guarantees that this matter will be resolved.

    Comments? Recommendations? Courses of action?

    Reply

    • I would wait right now. This case is taking a little bit of a different course than the rest of the cases. I would check this site everyday for updates, because when it’s time to act, you may need to do so quickly.

      Everything is riding on right now how Judge Bates reacts to the proper MTQs. I think anyone who considers settling with the trolls is crazy unless 1) they have proper jurisdiction 2) are suing you individual or in a damn small group 3) they have retained their own attorney to help with the settlement process.

      Reply

    • Not easy sometimes to know what to do. OK, is the settlement amount the attorney guesses they can obtain (50%), include his/her fee? As far as analyzing it, I can do it for free! The IP address collected by the Troll agent is associated to you via the ISP records. The Troll agent has what P2P software was being used, the movie file shared/downloaded (to include MD5/SHA1 hashes), and date/time of the alleged infringement.

      Here is more analysis of Steele Hansmeier and your situation/facts. Steele Hansmeier does not care if you were not physically at the location where the firewall/router (your network) was used by unauthorized parties. Their view is too bad; you own the IP address and are responsible for what happens on it – Read the Steele Hansmeier letter he uses. They also have the same view on the “Open Wifi” statement – your fault & pay up!

      If you are NOT going to file anything or settle, I wouldn’t bother with an attorney – save your money. Ignore all the calls and letters. If it comes to actually getting named in a suit, then hire an attorney. IMO, Steele Hansmeier is not going to drop you just because your attorney tells them they have “got it all wrong.” Too much money is involved. Do the math. If 50% of the Does settle, that is $2,166,300.00 to split with the movie owner!!!!!!

      They may eventually drop the case after a year or so after exploiting as many Does as possible. Take a look at the history of the Trolls – they haven’t taken anyone to trial. Only a smaller number of default settlements against people who do nothing at all.

      Reply

      • Anyone know how they pick people to name in suits likely to default?

        If you ignore all their calls, and have no communication with them, is that what puts you on the possible default list? Or are they looking for something more nefarious like returned mail, hoping you are completely out of the loop on the whole thing?

        Reply

        • Sorry about the last statement. Doing nothing in response to the Troll communication is OK. Simply ignoring them should not make you a greater target. Don’t ignore any official court documents sent to you (being served with a summons).

          I assume the reason some Trolls decided to take a few to court in the past is due to a Doe not being able to be located. I don’t know if the court considers service to the last known address as acceptable. I think now they are now moving onto Does they can get to admit downloading/sharing before the settlement agreement is finalized. That way they can show actual cases they take to trial and win.

          DieTrollDie 🙂

          Reply

        • Ok so quick question then. I looked over the subpoena that was forwarded to me from my ISP. On the cover letter it says that I have until the 10th to respond to them before they release the information. But when I look at the actual subpoena issued to the ISP it says November 30th. So does this mean they will release my info on the 10th or they will release it on the 30th?

          I’m hoping that something could come up in the case in the extra 20 days that could have it thrown out…

          Reply

  12. A question, I live in one state and and work (do not have a “business”) in another state where the lawsuit is being filed with the district court. Does the court have jurisdiction over me? If so, does my likelyhood of being personally sued skyrocket?

    Reply

    • As far as I know (I may be mistaken), yes, having a business relation to a state may mean that this state has jurisdiction over you. But this is irrelevant. “Skyroketing” in your case most likely means multiplying by a factor of 1.02 .

      Reply

      • Regarding Jurisdiction: I am part of the Florida Collins Case 24714 CA 22. However, I do not live in Florida. Will they have any jurisdiction over me? Or, will they, if they get the names, move to trials each of the does home state? Any speculation? How does the 120 days apply in this instance?

        Reply

  13. Sophisticated Jane Doe,

    Thanks for your comments… Seeing that you OBVIOUSLY have more experience at this than me…. and with no obligation… what would you recommend? The lawyer stated that he could possibly reduce the settlement by 1/2 but that amount does NOT include his flat fee… I do not have the liquidity to pay the settlement at this time so I would surely have to go with the option where the lawyer goes the way of saying that I was not responsible and “someone else” downloaded the file – seeing that you indicate that Steele does not care who downloaded but instead sue the location and the person who has his/her name on the IP I don’t think this option with the lawyer will go anywhere.

    Reply

    • Whether or not Steele cares about who downloaded the file is not important. If you did not do it, you have no obligation to offer alternate theories to them. No need to try to convince them that someone else did it.

      Make them prove their case. An IP address harvested along with thousands of others is not enough to prove copyright infringement. Not a single case has been proven based upon an IP alone.

      SB

      Reply

  14. Hi All,

    I am in no way a lawer, and as such my advice does not constitute anything that you should take as legal advice…always consult a lawer before making any legal decisions.

    Having said that I would like to share with you my experience so far, and what I am doing in response.

    I am part of the Patrick Collins case 2011-24714-ca-22. I was named as a Doe and as such my ISP was served a subpoena for my information. Immediatly I contacted my ISP and notified them that I would be appealing the subpoena and requested that they hold off on releasing my information.

    They stated that if i sent them a copy of what I sent the court they would wait for the judges ruling. I used a template from DieTrollDie’s website (thank you very much DieTrollDie). I modified it to suit my purposes, and signed it John Does with a contact email address that I set up for this purpose.

    The email account does not have any links back to me, or any personal information in the account, rendering it untraceable.

    I then took my next step in anticipation that my Motion to Quash would be denied. I logged onto the account I have with ISP and changed my information. This included removing my phone number from the account, and changing the contact email to a new email account created for that purpose.

    This leaves the troll unable to call me, or email me ANYTHING. The purpose of this was not to avoid detection as the troll will still receive my home address from my ISP. It is simply to make it so that I don’t answer the phone by accident and say anything. In the event that the troll does get my phone number from another source I have removed my personal voicemail greeting, meaning that they can’t prove it is my phone. I also added my number to the no call list, so it is not publicly available.

    All that took a matter of minutes, to secure as much information as I could.

    My motion was in fact denied, I am assuming. The case docket states one “DENYING MTN TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA, ETC”

    That being said I will wait for the troll to mail me letters. I do not plan to respond to these letters in any way shape or form. The only time they will receive a response is if I am officially served with a summons from a court that has jurisdiction over me.

    I will not settle with the troll, I will not communicate with the troll, I will not give the troll anything he can use against me.

    A simple letter demanding money in the form of a settlement with a non-disclosure agreement is NOT a letter that you are required to answer to, you have no legal obligation to do so.

    Just becuase the topic has been brought up here before I would like to add that I did not download any materials that were produced by the Plaintiff. I am an IT professional and work with networking infrastructure on a daily basis.

    Not only are they unable to prove a single IP is a person, they are unable to show any proof of ANYTHING.

    The MAC address shots that are taken lead to a router 99% of the time, not a computer. Trolls claim that they will forensically examine all devices that are capable of downloading there files. After some research it appears that a forensic examination costs around $4000 per device.

    Iphone
    Xbox
    PS3
    2 Droids
    One iMac
    3 PC’s
    3 Laptops

    That’s 12 devices in my home, leading to $48,000 in forensic discovery…upon which they would not find the files they are looking for. I SERIOUSLY doubt this is going to happen. The average settlement request seems to be around $3-4000, forensically examining computers is a threat that has not been made good upon yet.

    DON’T LET THE TROLL SCARE YOU INTO GIVING UP YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY.

    An IP address in most cases is dynamically assigned, which means that each time you power on your device the network will assign it a new IP. This makes it virtually impossible for the troll to prove that you were in fact using the device. The argument that says you are responsible for actions on your internet, even if held up in court, would be irrelevant as the trolls have no proof that you have the file, or that you were involved in it.

    Also do not let the amounts that Trolls post in letters to scare you. Here is why.

    $150,000 – Is for knowingly and purposely downloading AND sharing the file with the malicious intent to harm the owner of the copyrighted material.

    They have not one a single case, EVER, with any form of evidence, let alone the ability to prove the above statement.

    The ONLY cases that have ever been won are “DEFAULT JUDGMENTS” from people who did not show up to court.

    The troll will not get money from me.

    My plan is to wait, ignore, wait and wait. IF the troll names me in a case, AND files a proper suit against me in my jurisdiction (which would require them to hire local counsel, as they are not licensed to practice in my state) I will retain a lawer and go after them like hell.

    I will win.

    We can beat these idiots, please don’t give up or be bullied into parting with what is rightfully yours.

    If anyone has any questions feel free to ask me.
    Good luck to you all.

    Reply

    • Excellent post with very sound advice.

      As Systems Engineer with both network and application debug experience I could not agree more. The trolls’ technical analysis is flawed, and they have never won a single dime by proving infringement based upon an IP address. Given the number of devices in an average household, I would love to see them attempt forensic analysis of every device. I don’t believe the trolls have enough faith in the evidence to take on the expense of forensics.

      Reply

  15. We also received a letter, however there are two courts involved. One paper looks like a subpoena to the ISP provider (District Court of Illinois) and another is the official paperwork (District of Columbia). Do I send the motion to quash to both courts or just the District of Columbia court? I’m muddling through!

    Reply

    • He also twits actively. I maintain a list of twitting trolls. In order to be unlisted, Marc Randazza, a free speech fighter, banned me from following him.

      As for Facebook, Randazza and Sperlein are also active there.

      Reply

  17. So I am curious about something since I am involved in one of these numerous cases (as a JD at this point): I had read somewhere through one of these sites (perhaps even in this thread) that these trolls are less likely to go after people with political power or law enforcement because of the risk they run of bad publicity (although aren’t they already garnering a lot of negative publicity by suing so many JDs?).

    Because in my case the judge has already shown that she is not willing to accept misjoinder as a means for dismissal and has pretty much thrown out all motions to quash (even if they were properly received) should I file a motion to dismiss on lack of jurisdiction?

    I do not fall in the jurisdiction (California), but I no longer reside at the address the ISP has listed (it is a family member’s address and they are aware of this problem, but is not the address the supposed ‘crime’ would have occurred at). The other thing I ought to mention is that I currently live overseas at an FPO/AP address and my spouse is ADM.

    Does anyone have any insight on how likely they would be to pursue me overseas at an address in which registered mail is near impossible to deliver? Will they even bother or does that make me (and my spouse) more of a target?

    I unfortunately have no idea how that affects jurisdiction and sadly, the JAG I have talked to didn’t seem to know for certain, either.

    The only reason I even know that this is going on is that I happened to be visiting relatives in the states and got the certified mail from the former ISP one day while talking to them at their residence.

    Reply

    • I have zero knowledge or info to back this up but I would be careful in your situation. Ignoring trolls seems to be a tactic some can take as long as they know what they are ignoring. if you are however targeted in your state in a list of does or individually, you may be served papers that require you to actually do something. if you are out of the country and not actively staying on top of this, this may lead to a default judgement against you. You may not live in the country now but if you move back it may be a serious matter that can become an issue.

      Again I have no real info to back this statement up with, just piecing together the little that I know about how these cases work. Filing a motion for lack of jurisdiction may very well work, I’m sure someone else here may have better advice to give than me tho.

      Reply

      • That was part of the reason I decided to ask since the people here seem to be pretty knowledgeable on the subject and neither I nor my spouse understand much of what is going on in this instance or how to handle it given our situation.

        I would think that would be really underhanded to do to someone, especially a service member, but the trolls have proven that underhanded is what they do best.

        Thankfully, the relative here can accept mail on my behalf if it comes down to it and can scan anything important so that I can still receive it overseas (and he would). This way, if it is indeed something important like a summons, I can take it to a lawyer on base and see what should be done. Although, I can’t afford a plane ticket back to the states from my location. It is very expensive.

        I am sure a lawyer on base would know what to do about that situation in the event that it happened.

        I also might mention that even if they targeted me in the state the alleged crime was committed in (where they will log the IP address from, I guess), I don’t live in nor have ties to that state (no DL from that state, don’t pay taxes there, etc.). That is why jurisdiction is really a strange animal to us right now as there is no real clear indicator as to where that might be in my case.

        Reply

    • Good luck with the JAG. They are hit or miss with their knowledge. The part you read about the Trolls not going after certain types of people came directly from the mouth of a VA Troll (https://dietrolldie.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/dietrolldie-declaration-is-filed-in-response-to-troll-declaration-311-cv-00469-311-cv-00531-jag-va-cases/) The Troll filed a declaration to try to avoid sanctions). As far as going after you, that is hard to say. If the Troll wants to, he could file against you and leave a summons with your last known address. If it doesn’t get forwarded to you in time, he could go for a default judgment. As you have family members there, that is doubtful. Please tell the family members NOT to say anything to the Trolls about your situation – it will only get used against you. If you have filed a change of address with the post office, he is likely to obtain this if/when he tries to send a settlement letter to that address. I would suggest you look up the Soldiers Sailor Civil Relief Act (http://www.defense.gov/specials/relief_act_revision/) to see if it covers you as a spouse. My best advice at this time is to file any motions you see fit, ignore Troll correspondence, research you options while overseas.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      Reply

      • The JAG officer currently working with us seems fairly knowledgeable and I have been taxing him (probably) with information about these types of cases by utilizing resources on this site as well as others. I think he is finding it most helpful and has decided on some course of action, but I am still unsure of how it all relates to me, just yet.

        I do know that they can help us contact a copyright defense attorney if it is needed at a later time as their resources for outreach are fairly good overseas (being that that is our only contact).

        My relatives are well informed of this situation and have agreed not to give out anything, but only insist that the troll stops calling the forwarding address (if it even goes to that) and only tell them that I do not live at the address anymore and that because it is considered harassment and they are on numerous ‘no call’ lists, that they (the relatives) will take it up with the DAG of our state if the calls continue.

        I also informed my relative to save any and *all* mail correspondence he may get from these people and to scan it so that I can contact our resources overseas about the matter in the event that they try to harass him for info on me.

        I must say, this site and a few others (DieTrollDie) have been immensely helpful in sorting all of this out. I just wish the judge on my particular case were willing to accept orders to dismiss the case on lack of sufficient evidence (IE: IP address =/= person) as well as improper joinder (which she is allowing at this point because she contests that the plaintiff gave her reasonable doubt to consider it).

        I don’t want to just help myself, I want to help all who are involved in this case because many people are more than likely innocent and even if they aren’t, well.. I don’t believe this is how the justice system should be used to track down those individuals.

        The “hunt the many to find the one” mentality never did sit well with me.

        Reply

  18. DieTrollDie & all involved,

    I have certified mailed out my motion to quash to the District court of my state and the Troll Lawyer, as well as Faxed off all copies to our ISP with a comment respectfully requesting that the ISP not release our subscriber information until the courts have ruled on our motion. This is regarding Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-33, Docket no,: 1:11-cv-02163. So folks, it’s out of our hands now and I can only say “Thank You” for this site and to all of you for your wisdom regarding this matter. A very big personal THANK YOU, to DieTrollDie for his hands on personal help. Guys I wish us all the very best of luck. I will keep you all posted on the outcome of our motion to quash. Thanks so very much for everything!

    Reply

  19. I’ve been doing a lot of research on these “copyright trolls” cases and feel like I have a grasp of what’s happening now.
    I go from being more to less freaked out depending on what I read from one minute to the next.
    I really appreciate the motion to quash template here and intend to modify it to my case and use it.
    I have set up a new “burnable” email account as John Doe for when I do send in my motion to quash.
    I do have a few specific questions.

    • Is filing a motion to quash as an individual John Doe better or worse than filing that motion as a mass of Does?
    • Under the word “Defendants” do I need to sign it as “J. Doe?”
    • Should I include my IP address in the motion to quash?
    • Do I need to mail the motion to quash (to the court, the Troll Lawyer and to my ISP provider) from out of state, or is mailing it from another county good enough?
    • What are my chances of having a judge in the Northern District of California agree to quash the subpoena?

    Thank you very much.

    Reply

    • It honestly depends on who the judge is, really. I know for the court case New Sensations v. Does 1-1474 judge Maria Elena James does not appear to be accepting motions to quash regardless of whether they are received anonymously or not (which most of them have been.. and it has been brought up that the does are doing this for fear of retaliation and persecution by the plaintiff). It appears however, that she will accept a motion for dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction (one is currently in the waiting process), but I believe that person disclosed their information at least in part to the court and not the plaintiff (although I haven’t updated on this case in about a week or so since it seems it is just sitting there).

      I personally wouldn’t include my IP number because the plaintiff can still look up the location of that individual’s number and file against you (or numerous others) in your state of home residence (assuming you still are within jurisdiction of that state) once the IPs are linked to actual ‘people’. However, this is merely my opinion. Based on a lot of what I have read, it seems to indicate that when you give the troll information he or she can use to single you out, they will try in every seedy little way possible to go after you.

      But then again, the system is twisted since most judges won’t accept a motion to quash (or any motion) anonymously. I have heard about courts allowing for sealed documents (filing an order to protect), but I am not sure if that applies to all cases or if the judge calls that into question and based upon requests he/she gets, states that any documents they receive from defendants will be protected until such time that they are needed.

      The laws can be very confusing.

      Reply

  20. Has anyone been able to successfully change contact information through Comcast? For example changing my contact phone number to a google voice number. I’ve been trying to figure out how to do this through comcast’s website

    Reply

    • yes you can change your information on your comcast account at comcast.com under account settings.

      BUT you also need to call the comcast legal response group listed on your comcast subpoena notice and make sure they update your case file with the new information as well. BECAUSE as soon as they got the subpoena they took a screen shot of your account information and that initial information is what they are going to give the troll unless you make sure they update it to what you have updated it too.

      I initially just tried to change my contact info on comcast.com and then about a week later I had a funny suspicion that i should call the comcast legal response group. They were very nice and helpful. I asked my case file handler what info they would be giving to the trolls if it ended up going that route. She quoted to me the old information that was on my account before i changed it at comcast.com. She said they took a screen shot of the account info and that is what they were going to use. So i asked her if she could update it because they had the wrong phone number. She was more than helpful and updated it to the number i gave her right there on the spot.

      Hope this helps you out.

      Reply

  21. Some very interesting motion practice is going on in the Southern District of New York in the case entitled K-Beech v. John Does 1-21 (1:11-cv-04777 (GBD)). Check it out http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/new-york-southern-district-court/77865/k-beech-inc-v-john-does-1-21/summary/

    For example:

    1. One of the parties being represented by an attorney is filing as Anonymous for a protective order and to quash as he is the son of a listed John Doe. One of the arguments is that Anonymous downloaded the movie but he is not the computer /router owner so his frail/infirm father is being improperly named as a John Doe on the subpoena.

    2. Another argument is that New York is a state that requires a certificate of copyright registration as a condition precedent to bringing a lawsuit for copyright infringement and K-Beech does not have a certificate of copyright for the movie “Virgins 4″ but has only APPLIED of one which is not good enough for the Southern District of New York to make out a claim for copyright imfringement. See, http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/2:2011cv03331/319938/10/0.pdf?1316528006

    3. Apparently realizing that its copyright infringement claim is premature and, accordingly, dismissable sua sponte the plaintiff is rolling out claims for violations of the Lanham Act Section 43(a) which deals with unregistered trademarks (?!). The attorney representing Anonymous quickly disposes of this desperate argument with aplomb.

    Reply

  22. Likewise the fur is flying in the Eastern District of New York in the case entitled K-Beech, Inc. v. John Does 1-37 with what looks like 7 motions to quash currently pending. Check it out here http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/new-york-eastern-district-court/79821/k-beech-inc-v-john-does-1-37/summary/

    I would note that it is the same troll representing K-Beech in this case and in the above one (local troll that is because we all know who is calling the shots in Illinois).

    Reply

  23. Now that the judge denied motions to quash in 11-24714 CA 22, what happens next and when? Does anyone know?

    Reply

  27. I need information on how to go about filing a motion to quash. I’m referring to the following case: Patrick Collins v Does 1-2,590 No CV-11-2766-MEJ. I do not live in the state where it was filed. I know that I need to send a copy to the plaintiffs attorney – Ira Siegel but how do I file the actual motion? Do I file it with a court in New York where I live? The order is filed in Northern California. Thanks

    Reply

  28. On an unrelated note, book publisher John Wiley, who’s “for dummies” books have been on bittorent has jumped into the mass lawsuit game by filing a suit in NY against a few dozen doe’s.

    Reply

  29. I must be an early bird for my specific case as I haven’t seen anyone else post regarding it here yet.
    I received notice from my ISP a couple days ago on the whole “you’ve been named….we’re going to provide your info if you don’t MTQ etc….:”

    Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County Florida

    Boy Racer, Inc. v John Does 1-615

    Case Number: 11-29024 CA 05

    Date: 10/17/2011

    Confirmed Copy Signed By: Honorable Marc Schumacher, Circuit Court Judge (OCT 13 2011)

    As I believe this site (fightcopyrighttrolls) is trying to create some structure and not have everything dumped onto one page, I will post details/updates in the Florida section of this site (https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/florida-cases/) as I get them.
    I hope those involved in this case (or related FL) ones will be courteous and post in that section as well.

    Reply

  31. Hi all, here is a piece of bad news — what if the judge is approaching the case on the side of the trolls?

    I just got a letter from Comcast saying I’m one of more than 100 Does, and I learn that the judge approving the subpoena is Beryl Howell, who was a former RIAA lobbyist and also worked on laws that created tougher penalties for online copyright crimes, and a law making it illegal to bypass DRM even to back up a DVD you own.

    Judge Howell earlier this year ruled in favor of the trolls, overturning the 3 big arguments to quash/dismiss that I have seen in in all these sample form letters (i.e. improper joining, lack of jurisdiction, and insufficient cause to violate privacy).

    So if I send a motion to dismiss or quash, it looks like 100% chance Judge Howell will reject it. It seems she will probably allow the trolls to take whoever they want to court.

    It looks like the trolls will still be limited by the cost of trial, and the cost of actually doing discovery on a dozen or more devices in every Doe’s home, and the risk of being wrong and being liable for Does’ court fees.

    So I still feel decent about my chances of being served.

    One final point — I happen to be a landlord, and the wireless is all in my name since I am the landlord. While I live in the house, I did not download any copyrighted material, and I cannot prove my tenants did, either. It is a revolving door of people who rent from me, and their friends, who have access to my wifi, and could’ve downloaded the file.

    So it seems if they take me to court, they have no way to prove a case, short of forensically analyzing the computers of dozes of people or more, since all prior tenants had wifi access even though they were no longer tenants at time of download.

    Any advice on whether I should still file, and my take on this situation?

    Links to the stories on Judge Howell:

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/riaa-lobbyist-becomes-federal-judge-rules-on-file-sharing-cases.ars

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/p2p-lawyers-score-a-victory-mass-subpoenas-can-proceed.ars

    Reply

  33. I’m amazed no one has commented on this quote from the K-BEECH, INC., v JOHN DOES 1-39, “DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA” by the plaitiff Oct 11th:

    “26. A movant seeking severance self-identifies himself or herself as likely being a person worth suing individually. Therefore, Plaintiff is willing to proceed against these movants in individual suits as part of the strategy set forth in this declaration.”

    Could be in the 600+ comments on this page that I missed the conversation, but I’d think this would be waving bright red flags….why isn’t this quote being added into MTQs templates as something of a terroristic threat? Right there in black and white the plaintiff(s) say their plan is to single troublemakers out and treat them differently….not because of any alleged criminal action, but because they’re willing to fight back.

    http://torrentfreak.com/undercover-cops-and-politicians-escape-bittorrent-lawsuit-111013/

    Am I reading the implication of this wrong as I’m stating it above, or did this get overlooked? Actually, this entire opposition document gives some interesting views as to the counters the plaintiff might throw back for a MTQ after the judge gets it etc.

    Reply

    • I commented on that same paragraph when the same declaration was used in a separate case (Patrick Collins v. Does 1 – 26, Western District of NC), although it may have been in a different thread.

      It is is incredibly arrogant to believe that only guilty parties would attempt to keep their information private.

      Reply

      • i’m in a very similar position to some of the folks here. i just got my first settlement demand call, asking for $3,500 for a single infringement.

        now i ignored it per the advice here, and listened to the voice mail.

        my question is, i did not download the work and in fact i am the owner of a rental property and pay for utilities in the house, i do live on premise and thus my name is attached to the IP address.

        i suspect one of the renters downloaded the file, but i can’t prove it was any of them, or any of their friends who also had my wifi password, or for that matter somebody hacking my WEP.

        Next time they call, should i answer and give them this information? don’t see how i could self-incriminate, and if they knew that for my case they will have to depose like 4 other people, and search like 10 devices, will they just drop it?? they are welcome to come search my stuff and the computers of my renters if that is the only alternative, but of course i don’t want my name in court with a porn download case.

        to say nothing of which, by the time they do that, my renters who were renting at time of offense will probably have moved out to god knows where. i can prove everything i said with copies of signed rental agreements, tax returns that show i report rental income, etc

        point is, if the trolls KNEW this was one of the tougher nuts to crack technically, wouldn’t they just drop it and move on to the low-hanging fruit?

        Reply

        • I personally wouldn’t provide the Troll the information. My reason is that you state you are the owner of the rental property. Unless you misspoke, that means you are either you rent out rooms in your residence or have a property exclusive to rental (a business investment). That tell the Trolls you are in a favorite category of theirs – You Have ASSETS. The Troll will just say you are responsible due to your negligence in not monitoring/filtering the WiFi connection you provided. As you are talking to them (if you decide to do so), you just told them you want to take care of this – keep your name out of the court case. More advantageous information the Troll can use to tailor his pressure. If the Troll has no information about you (you don’t talk to them), then he is less likely to begin any public records search on or about you. I would just collect all the information concerning your network configuration/set-up, as well as all the people who had access to it. File it away just-in-case you need it in the future.

          DieTrollDie 🙂

          Reply

        • i am renting rooms in my residence, but i am not aware of any federal or state laws that require a landlord to monitor wifi usage of her tenants — to say nothing of implying that landlord is legally liable for acts of infringement by tenants.

          in fact, i read on stewart kellar’s blog that a troll lawyer named Brett Gibbs states “they voluntarily release Does that have multiple people in the household” and also that Gibbs says he “is NOT taking the position that people are liable for what other people do on their wireless connection.”

          that seems to make most sense for the Trolls. Why bother with Does who can prove they are in multi-member households, and even worse homes where household members change every 3-6 months, and have guests all of whom get wifi password access?

          Is a Troll going to try to invest cash to go after a landlord who would be happy to welcome their forensics team inside and search a dozen devices, then track down any renters who moved and go after their devices?

          if they want to search my computer i would welcome them to, i didnt download any material.

          Reply

        • My point is I think it is better to collect your evidence and wait to see what comes over time. The evidence isn’t going to change. I don’t know what Troll you are dealing with, but not all of them subscribe to the view of Gibbs. Some (like John Steele) clearly state that if you are the IP owner, you are responsible in their view. If you think you can persuade the Troll to drop you, good luck. I believe you will only get more attention.

          DieTrollDie 🙂

          Reply

        • “Next time they call, should i answer and give them this information? don’t see how i could self-incriminate, and if they knew that for my case they will have to depose like 4 other people, and search like 10 devices, will they just drop it?? they are welcome to come search my stuff and the computers of my renters … ”

          Ok, first off don’t give them ANY information. These guys are vultures, any response you give will be twisted around and used against you in some insidious way. If they need to search your stuff, they’d best get a court order first that authorizes a search. DO NOT VOLUNTEER to do anything. Your best bet is to just play dead and hope they go away. Do not make yourself a target by engaging them on the phone.

          “… i can prove everything i said with copies of signed rental agreements, tax returns that show i report rental income, etc…”

          You don’t have to prove anything until the *COURT* asks you to. For the court to provide any such order, the troll will have to sue you personally, which costs them a lot of time/money/effort and is not part of their business model.

          “…if the trolls KNEW this was one of the tougher nuts to crack technically, wouldn’t they just drop it and move on to the low-hanging fruit?…”

          That’s a rational argument, but these guys are irrational. The trolls are waiting for someone to engage them individually, so they can scare you into submission. They don’t care whether you are innocent or not, they just want your money. Best strategy for now is to lie low. If you get sued individually, then you can pull out all your defenses and provide them to the court. Always remember, you should only engage the court (if it comes to that), never engage the trolls.

          Reply

    • No, you are right about the importance of the Troll Declaration. I filed a declaration to refute this one and the judge allowed it to be filed with two cases in VA. This Declaration was used in K-Beech and Patrick Collins cases, but it is still a good one for any other Troll fighter to use in their efforts. https://dietrolldie.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/dietrolldie-declaration-is-filed-in-response-to-troll-declaration-311-cv-00469-311-cv-00531-jag-va-cases/

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      Reply

  34. I have a question on the affidavit sample form from Graham Syfert’s website (link below).

    He includes an affidavit where the defendant can check off any mitigating circumstance that absolves him/her of guilt in copyright infringement, such as “my wifi was unsecured at time of infringement,” or “my household has 6 roommates who share wifi,” or “my computer was infected with malicious software at the time”.

    If one of these applies to me and I use this affidavit, do I sign it with my real name or as a Doe? And this affidavit says at the top that it’s intent is to be used to dispute jurisdiction to support a motion to quash, but if the motion is denied and the defendant gets served with papers, its intent switches to being a defense.

    Is it a good idea to include this affidavit, notarized, as Syfert suggests? How can the notary notarize a John/Jane Doe?

    Click to access defensev1.2.pdf

    Reply

  35. So at what point do I need to do something beside ignoring the troll? My ISP released my info last week and I haven’t heard from him yet (expect to soon though). What happens with the case now that my info is released? Does the case change from “does 1-xxxx” to a mass suit against all of us or does the troll now need to take that info and go after us individually? Im not in the jurisdiction of the court that issued the subpoena or the court the case was originally filed in. Do I need to do something or just wait for the judge to dismiss me since I’m not from the same state?

    I don’t mind ignoring the troll but I don’t want to mess with the court and do something wrong if it will cause problems for me.

    Reply

    • The troll will know collect the subscriber information from the ISPs and start their settlement/collection efforts. If the Troll wishes to start naming people in the case, they have this option. As they are only interested in the money, this is not a likely option. They can name all the Does in their jurisdiction and go after them as a group (jointly & severally liable). As you do not live in the jurisdiction of the court, it is unlikely the Troll will name you – improper jurisdiction. The only option they have is for an attorney licensed in your States, to file a case against you. If there are other Does in your jurisdiction, you can all be lumped together. I would set a remind on you calendar for 120 since the ISPs released the information to the Troll. At that time, I would file an anonymous motion to dismiss IAW Rule 4(m) for all the Does – failure to serve by 120 days. The court can dismiss it without prejudice or has to set a date that the Troll will serve all Does. The Troll will likely then just dismiss the case outright – still has the option to file later.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      Reply

      • DIETROLLDIE

        That would be to the Judge who you sent the motion to quash right, and you don’t need to send anything this time to the plaintiff ( IRA Siegel ), I would guess?

        Reply

  37. Hi all, apparently 58 Does just got a notification letter from Comcast, mostly in Maryland, D.C. and Virginia tri-state area.

    The case number is 11-cv-01833-BAH.

    I discovered a very original quash-and-dismiss letter just uploaded for this case. Unlike many other forms, it focuses on the whole scheme as basis for dismissal, rather than just the improperly joined argument — seems the judge in D.C., Bery Howell, has made clear she rejects this argument.

    what do you guys think of this letter?

    Reply

      • Also got the ISP letter with Meier’s name on it.

        is he one of the hardcore trolls who will actually take people to court? i have read everything i can and don’t see even ONE actual court case, let alone ONE case where they sent experts to forensically take apart people’s hard drives.

        instead the only court cases end in default judgments, like they know which Does will not show up and which would actually bring a lawyer and allow them to search drives for movies that won’t be found.

        Reply

  38. OK, so what should be the strategy if you are a single Doe or actually named in a lawsuit. My case was dismissed for improper joinder, however, I’ve been watching all the cases filed by the troll in my area and he is naming 3 or 4 individual Doe’s each week, as well as naming actual people, in which I see some have settled.
    So, if I receive another letter from my ISP in which I am the sole Doe named what is the stategy to attempt to quash the subpeona. Many of the arguments in the templates wouldn’t be valid as there is no joinder.
    Thanks.

    Reply

  39. HELP!

    Ok… I have been named in the Hard Drive Productions vs. Does 1 – 1,495… I have been getting a great deal of information from this page but now it is crunch time and I still have done nothing… The deadline is looming so I’s just going to throw my questions out there and hope that they are answered properly. I have modified the MTQ with all relevant information but still have doubts about certain things…

    1.- Since this is being signed anonymously, do I have to identify myself in any specific way on the MTQ? Some people spoke about putting a Doe number on the MTQ… Where do I find this? Must I put this information within the MTQ? – My concern here is how will the ISP know that this motion was filed by me? How will the court know that this motion was filed by me?

    2.- To whom do I send this MTQ? The judge is John Bates and from what I understand this is a “robe-wearing Nazi” that will probably not even read the motion… Do I send it to him directly? Do I send a copy to Steele? I would also imagine sending a copy to Comcast…

    3.- Apart from the Certificate of Service and the Proposed Order what else should I send to the Court? What else should I send to Steele?

    Any comments or recommendations you might have before I send this?

    Reply

    • You must not have read much when you throw out the Nazi comment. Judge Bates has been very fair so far, going out of his way to keep the MtQ’s under seal and proving directions on how to do them. In fact, he is newsworthy because he’s the only one to really do this so far.

      If you want to call someone names, perhaps you stick to the trolls. Not the judge, this is a legal proceeding and it doesn’t really help our cause to attack judges.

      Reply

    • John Doe Comcast,
      most of us in the Hard Drive case under Judge John Bates are discussing case specific info here: https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/steele-hansmeier/

      0. Get a PACER account. It’s free and helps you track the case yourself.
      1. Do NOT send an anonymous MTQ.
      2. Send 1 original + 1 copy of all motions you file to the court clerk’s office. FIle the motions “under seal”.
      3. The consensus seems to be that you don’t need to send Steele or Duffy anything.

      More details on the above are under the steele-hansmeier discussion page. And don’t call Judge Bates names, he is being EXTREMELY reasonable and doe-friendly.

      Reply

      • Is this MTQ something that has to be done by an attny..? if so does the attny have to be barred in the filing state..? In sending 1 orig. & 1 Copy to the courts clerks office, would this be in one registered letter/ envelope or two seperate ones..? The Big question is how do you file this under seal to remain anonymous..? Can you elaborate on how this works.. ( so i would put my name in it but file it under seal..? ) So would a copy of MTQ also have to be sent to attny.. ? ( i believe this would reveal our id.. – Please respond soon.. I need to do this like today or contact attny.. – Im afraid in contacting and attny it would make us look like a big fish.. – also what points can i use effectively in this motion to be considered & accepted.. I know this is alot but i really need advice on this.. Thanks in advance..

        Reply

        • Mohegan,
          You can file an MTQ pro se, i.e. for self by yourself.
          1 Orig + 1 Copy in the same envelope.
          Write on the envelope “Document Under Seal”. Write this on the top right corner of the first page of every motion as well, just to be safe.
          Even if you don’t write under seal, the judge has promised to treat every motion filed by us as under seal.
          Don’t need to send a copy to the attorney (AFAIK) since it is being filed under seal.

          Send in your motion with your full info (name, address, telephone), the judge has issued an order that he will shield our identity from the trolls. He has also said he won’t entertain anonymous motions.

          A good template being used by many of us is posted here:
          http://www.syfert.com/publicfiles/

          Just plugin in your information in the fields on the first page, check the appropriate boxes in the affidavit, print, sign, get the affidavit notarized and mail in everything.

          Reply

  40. 17 new cases filed against indivdual Doe’s by the troll in my area today. So, they lost the joinder battle but will now file indivdually. They are also not calling anymore, rather, naming indivduals, by name, in a lawsuit. So it appears that this method will get many settlements.
    What they did was show the court that the arguments in the motions to quash are not valid, that is, the threat of settling is pulled off the table until after you are named and the joinder is mute because they will file indivdually.
    So, if I get named personally I will fight this Pro Se in court. There will be no settlement from an innocent party nor will I spend money hiring a lawyer to defend me.

    Reply

    • The troll for you, is it Mike Meier in the Maryland/Virginia/DC area?

      he is switching tactics as well, using IPligence to narrow IPs down to a rough area so he can avoid the joinder attack on any motions.

      Reply

      • It also looks like Ira siegel in the Does vs 1-1474 sent a response back to judge Maria-elena james saying that motions on joinder should not work because we might be lying AND he puts in there also, I guess this is for later, that he should be able to file in any state because its consider that everyone down loading is in a forum Jurisdiction. Something new I guess, maybe has something todo with Pro Hac

        Reply

    • This will be something to watch – what will the Troll do after filing a named complaint???? Untill the court summons comes to a Doe, it is the same as before – Hot air from the Troll. It may make some people want to settle faster (seeing their name in the complaint), but the overall facts have not changed. The Trolls still have the same piss poor evidence (IP address only). After any naming, the Troll will likely then start up the calls and letters with a vengence. But until they have the court issue a summons to you, there is NO COURT DATE. By naming a Doe, they have just started the 120 day clock ticking. The Trolls are changing and adapting their tactics. We have to do the same thing.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      Reply

      • If you are named as a doe (isp releases your info) does your name start showing up in internet searches associated with the case? What about if you are given a court summons IF they re-file within your jurisdiction after finding out your identity and location?

        Reply

        • When your name is released by the ISP, that only means the Troll has your information. Unless the Troll goes and names you in the original John Doe case or opens a new one, your name does not come out to the public. If you are given a courts summons the Troll has named you and asked the court to issue a summons. This is a time where getting a lawyer is a good idea. As the history of the Troll does not support this activity (on average), I don’t see this happening. As I stated, it is more likely a Trolls will name a person in a complaint (but not have the court issue a summons). This gives them some time and pressure to try and get you to settle. They are still under the 120 rule (4m) to have your served. Even if they miss this, they can still refile – just cost them more money. Still more to come on this.

          DieTrollDie 🙂

          Reply

    • Dietrolldie: please review this case, was not a summons issued?

      http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/83371/k-beech-inc-v-robert-foster/summary/

      Or

      http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/83402/k-beech-inc-v-hanna-blazko/summary/

      Also, any idea what this means?:
      Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by K-BEECH, INC..(jwl, ) (Entered: 11/15/2011)

      Reply

      • It does appear that summons for the two individuals were issued by the court. The reason the Troll went after these two is not known. It is possible the Troll has talked to the individuals and they provided incriminating statements. That or they are getting nothing back from these two and are going for a default judgement. I still stand by my view that it is really risky for the Troll to take a case to trial without having some information/evidence (besides the IP address) to plead their case. If the Troll loses a case, they can be ordered to pay the legal fees of the deffendant. Right now these two individuals should be getting a lawyer and filing answers to the allegations.

        DieTrollDie 🙂

        Reply

        • But what will cost more money? Settling or hiring a lawyer to represent you?
          Also, there are about 8 cases in my state where an individual was named, 2 of the cases summary specifcally state that a settlement was reached.

          Reply

        • As far as will hiring a lawyer to defend you cost more than settling. It depends. A simple answer is – Yes up front. But if you fight and win, Plaintiff can be directed to pay your legal bills. Then in the end, it didn’t cost you more. Also, depending on you finances, you may find a lawyer to do it at a reduced rate or for free. I didn’t do it and I have proof unknown people were on my network without my authorization.

          As far as naming an individual in a case, this is most likely the Troll putting more direct pressure on a specific Doe. Even if named, the evidence remains the same. The thing that may leading the Troll to name a Doe is a desire to settle (by the Doe), but the amount can’t be agreed on between the parties. The problem with naming is the 120 days clock is running. If the Troll picks the wrong one to go after, they may have to drop the case for fear of losing and having to pay legal fees. Each instance is specific and I can only guess at the answer. The thing you can see in the history of these cases is that they don’t really take people to trial. Too much of a risk of losing that all important profit margin. Remeber the Troll foots all the cost up front and then splits the settlement with the copyright owner (60% copyright owner / 40% Troll). Sweet business model, even if it is sleazy.

          DieTrollDie 🙂

          Reply

  41. When they say you have “7” days to respond, do they mean 7 business days? because if not, I only have 2 days to file a motion to quash, and I’m still not 100% sure who/where to send my motion.

    The case is

    3:11-cv-04203-PGS-TGB

    I found this summary of the case online, but I’m not 100% sure it’s my case (I found the page by google searching my case#:

    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/new-jersey-district-court/73418/patrick-collins-inc-v-john-does-1-13/docket-text/

    The notes on the court proceedings SEEM to indicate that the plaintiffs have withdrawn from the case:

    “…11/11/2011 21 NOTICE by PATRICK COLLINS, INC. of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice for All John Doe Defendants (LUTZER, SAMANTHA) (Entered: 11/11/2011)…”

    Can I trust that this IS in fact correct? that I don’t have to worry about this case anymore? (and is this even my case?)

    Otherwise, does anyone know where and how to file a motion to quash in New Jersey?

    Reply

    • I went to PACER and did a search on my case # (3:11-cv-04203-PGS-TGB) and it returned this result:

      Olympic Developments AG, LLC v. Sony Electronics, Inc. candce 3:2011-cv-04203 830 08/23/2011

      The number 830 was under the column heading “NOS” That isn’t the Number of pages is it? I don’t think this is my case at all, though it has what appears to be the same number. I did NOT click to open anything, but I vaguely remember in the PACER terms and conditions, they say that you will be charged PER PAGE whether you download it or not. Is this the case here?

      Help! I’m supposed to have only 2 days to file MTQ, and I can’t even find my case in PACER. What’s going on? Can I ignore it, if it doesn’t show up in PACER?

      Reply

      • Update: sorry, I’m a noobie. Just checked my PACER account, I was only charged for the 3 search requests I made; not for the actual results (I think), I “owe” $0.24.

        so I can’t find my case # on PACER where do I file my motion?

        The subpoena heading reads as follows:

        >United States District Court
        >for the Northern District of Texas

        >Patrick Collins, Inc. Plaintiff
        >v.
        >John Does 1-43. Defendants

        >Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-04203-PGS-TGB

        >UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

        So is my case in Texas or New Jersey?
        The law firm is based in New York City

        Reply

  44. I think that what is going on in PA is the Judge is requesting that K-Beech pay for a mediator to negotiate a settlement with all the John Does which is why K-Beech is trying to lasso as many John Does in as they can to keep returns high and expenses low. BUT REMEMBER K-BEECH DOES NOT HAVE A REGISTERED COPYRIGHT FOR EITHER “GANG BANG VIRGINS” OR “VIRGINS 4” which means that K-Beech has a flawed copyright infringement claim and is not entitled to statutory damages or attorneys fees (only “actual damages” which is the retail cost of the DVD ($20.00)) by virtue of Article 4 (Sections 411(a) and 412) of the Copyright Act, in my non-lawyer opinion. But you could start defending yourself by perusing or referring your attorney to this:

    Click to access 20041108.pdf

    Click to access motown_kovalcik_090203DeftsMotJudgPleadings.pdf

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

    Reply

  47. I just recieved a troll phone call today about downloading the Porno movie “GANGBANG VIRGINS” He said that the ISP gave him my information and that they have me downloading it using BITTORRENT. I told him that all my friends and neighbors use my wireless and I know for a fact I have not downloaded this movie. He then said I could settle with him for $2900, or he would send it over to North Carolina and I would have to go to court. I have not receieved anything in mail from my ISP, and I am not sure what to do. This guy was very rude, and disrespectful.

    His name is Mike Thornton. His number is (818) 292-8194.

    Here is the link with the Lawsuit Summery. Could anyone tell me what it means? or the updates? I am very scared, and do not know what to do.

    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/north-carolina-eastern-district-court/78246/k-beech-inc-v-john-doe-1/summary/

    Reply

    • As mentioned in the FAQ on this site, it is best to avoid any more communicating with this “Mike Thorton” or any Troll representative. They will try to get information to use against you and get money, regardless of the details. They may try to rude, scary, and intimidating to get their way, and “easy” money from you.

      From the FAQ:
      “So what should I say/write?
      Just hang up / ignore his emails. If for any reason you want to communicate with plaintiff’s lawyer, consult with an attorney first, and not just any attorney, but one with experience in copyright litigation field and have a good reputation.”

      Call your ISP legal department, to see if (and if so, when) they released your information. An order granting the motion to expedite discovery is not listed in the summary you linked to. Decisions about motions to quash may of other Doe defendants may still be unresolved. Your ISP may even tell you if some release of information is on hold.

      Other readers may know more. Through PACER, you can get the court documents.

      The trolls have an IP address, a name and a “threat” at this point. The Troll’s “case” may be weak. A completed copyright registration for the movie is not listed on the web, which may (also) work in your favor:

      http://www.copyright.gov/records/

      It may help to review the FAQ here, together with other perspectives.

      Reply

    • Lots of good information for you to digest on this subject. As already stated, don’t talk to the Troll. He doesn’t care if you didn’t do it, he just wants the money. Their unspoken view is that if you didn’t do it, you will not pay them or engage them in conversation.

      This Troll activity can be likened to fishing. The bait is different as it isn’t something you want, but something that scares you into paying up or trying to explain how you didn’t do it. If you pay up, they win. If you talk to them, they string along more bait – threats of being named in a Federal lawsuit and losing everything. The Troll doesn’t care if your firewall/router was run “open” or unknown/known (neighbors, guests, Unk) used your access and you didn’t authorize them to download/share the movie in question. They will say since you are the registered IP owner, you are responsible – no ifs, ands, or buts!

      I will see what I can find on this case. I see some declarations were filed – if they are from the Troll, I may be able to tailor a response to them. I can’t guarentee it will change the opinoin of the judge, but it doesn’t hurt. The K-Beech cases are some of the weaker and poorly written ones out there.

      Don’t talk to them and document every instance they call or mail letters to you. Also start writing down all the details on your network, configuration, people who have used it (including Unk people). Get screennshots of your firewall/router that show unk systems that have connected (used) you network. Keep these on hold in case the Troll does file in your State – this is UNLIKELY. Good luck

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      Reply

      • Hi All,

        Just wanted to let you know that I have prepared an email to sendto various people concerning the ethics of these cases.

        I am involved in the 24714 case being prosecuted by Keith Lipscomb. I am sending the following email to the heads of the 3 Bar Associations he is affiliated with, the District Attorney for the county he is licensed to practice in, and the Florida Law Board of Ethics. I urge you all to file complaints, even if they are annonymous. The system can not ignore a thousand complains against a lawer.

        To Whom it May Concern,

        I am writing this email to you to make you aware of a situation going on that involves attorney Keith Lipscomb of “Miami Center – 17th Floor, 201 South Biscayne Boulevard
        Miami, FL 33131”

        You have been included in this email as people who I believe should be made aware of the tactics Mr Lipscomb is using to obtain settlements from people in a way that not only removes the ability for a defendant to realistically defend themselves, but disrespects the use of the court system, and trys to extort money from people through means of harassment, threats, and scare tactics.

        What Mr Lipscomb is doing is filing mass lawsuits/complaints, in my case against 1,544 John Does. He claims that these 1,544 people acted together in an act of file sharing a copyrighted file from a Bittorent Client. He uses software that has never been tested in court, is paid for by himself (major conflict of interest) and is located in Germany, making it unavailable for contact. This software “catches” an IP (Internet protocol) address based on a hash tag through the Bittorent client. Unfortunately this software has never been seen, tested, or confimed as working. Numerous similar cases have been fought by other attorneys and dismissed all over the country, including an elderly woman without a computer. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/grandmother-sued-downloading-porn_n_900484.html)

        Going back to the joining of 1,544 Does to one complaint, this is misjoinder as there is no proof that the 1,544 Does were working together. This is simply a sham to avoid paying the $350 per Doe filling fee. This costs the court, and our tax dollars, money and is well known by Mr Lipscomb. After filing this complaint for expedited discovery of our information through our ISP (Internet Service Provider) the court has no reason to believe that Mr Lipscomb has anything but a legitimate complaint against his John Does, and grants discovery.

        This is where everything goes wrong, in a disgusting manner that I find appalling.

        Mr Lipscomb receives the contact information of the person who pays for the Internet service (not necessarily the person he claims downloaded a copyrighted file) and attempts to scare a pre-trial settlement out of them. This is done through harassing phone calls, often multiple times a day, letters sent threatening prosecution and being named publicly in a lawsuit that involve pornography if a prompt payment is not made. If one decides to ignore this letter they will receive more letters with increased settlement demands.

        What Mr Lipscomb is doing is filing mass complaints, using misjoinder to avoid paying court costs, and essentially using the court to obtain the contact information of innocent people to harass a settlement out of them through fear. This is completely unethical, and i find it horrendous that this is acceptable.

        As such I am filing this complaint with you, in hopes that you will see the serious breach on ethical conduct on Mr Lipscombs part. These type of frivolous, money making business models make a mockery of our justice system, and cause serious reputation and trust issues for the majority of hard working honest lawyers.

        Please see attached a copy of one of Mr Lipscombs letters that I received yesterday.

        Sincerely,

        John Doe

        Reply

      • James C. White from Durham/Chapel Hill is the attorney in these cases. He has multiple open cases representing K-Beech and Patrick Collins in each of the districts in NC. His office has filed multiple declarations that are virtually identical to those filed by other trolls around the country.

        Reply

  48. in the North Carolina case with 1-39 John Does, what does the 120 day rule mean? This case was filed on July, 31, 2011. I see in the Lawsuit Summary, 11/18/2011

    18

    First MOTION for Extension of Time for Service of Summons and Complaint on Doe Defendants by K-Beech, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order) (White, James) (Entered: 11/18/2011)

    What does this mean?

    Reply

    • 1. Strictly speaking, the Troll has 120 days from the initial case filing to serve the Does with a summons. For these types of cases it is really 120 days since they obtain subscriber infoirmation from the ISPs. If after 120 days, the Doe(s) can request dismissal or the Court can dismiss the case without prejudice, the Troll just has to refile the case – another $350.00. The court can grant an extention if the Troll shows good cause for it.
      2. I haven’t looked at the motion for more time, but it is likely the Troll claimining the ISPs are slow to release the subscriber information AND the settlement negociations are slow going.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      Reply

  49. Thanks man. Youve been a great help. How will I know when everything is said and done? When is it all over? When am I or anyone else in this situation, clear?

    Reply

    • By keeping an eye on the case in PACER to see what the Troll is up to. You will most likely see motions be filed, refuted, and the court ruling on them. Does will be released by the Troll as settlements are reached and if they are refiling against single Does. Eventually you will see the Troll dismiss the case entirely. Note: Just because the Troll dismisses the mass case, you can still be sued (in YOUR jurisdiction) untill the statue of limitation runs out – 3 years from the alleged date of infringement. That is when you are clear.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      Reply

  50. Great job everyone,

    I have a question?, I would like to send out what Annony24714 wrote to Florida, California and New Jersey, does anyone have the addresses we should send to?

    Reply

Leave a reply to Doe Cancel reply