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. From your experience, after ISP giving up your information,
    1. NO phone call, nothing happen (for a period of time) – fishy?
    2. phone calls follow, from whom? Content owner? Attorney? 3rd party (such as debt company)?

    thanks

    Reply

  2. Has there been any update on 11-cv-02766-MEJ; Patrick Collins vs Does 1-2590?
    I am going to try to put together my motion to quash, but still feel a little lost. Is there a template for this particular case yet?

    Reply

  4. Here is the motion to quash document I put together… any last minute changes I should make before I send it in?
    Thanks,
    Scared Doe

    Reply

  5. Just got a letter in the mail today from Comcast saying I am part of a BOY RACER INC FOREIGN CORP vs DOES, JOHN 1-625 . Looks like Steele Hansmeier, PLLC is behind it. Dade County, FL even though I don’t live in Florida. Anyone happen to have a case with them that sent a motion to Quash? I don’t even know which J. Doe I am, just shows a highlighted IP that is supposedly mine…
    2011-32622-CA-01 was the case file on it.
    Ugh tried reading all this stuff but I am still kinda overwhelmed.

    Reply

    • I’m on that one too. Got my letter(s) a couple weeks back. Haven’t bothered to do a MTQ..still debating whether I care enough about this until they’d name me in a follow-up, since it can’t be tried in state court anyways.
      I just checked the Miami-Dade site for the first time in a week or so and see a strange/interesting entry:
      11/22/2011
      TEXT ANSWER-NO SIGNATURE,NO DEFENDANT NAME??????

      I wonder if a JD anonymously submitted a MTQ and the court isn’t sure what to do with it?

      It’s a pity no one here seems to know enough about the FL state legal system to comment whether this is all the court has to say, or if some additional comments/documents are generated in the background that would explain what’s going on here. I’ll just make my own comment that it seems pretty unprofessional to post a comment like this (with the over abundance of questions marks) on their court website. How hard would it be for them to post something intelligent like “MTQ received w no identifying information…decision forthcoming” but instead we get a comment typed like it was a 15 year old.

      Reply

  6. Im watching the updated Lawsuit Summery of K-Beech vs John Does 1-29. The recent posting was this.

    11/30/2011

    19

    ORDER granting 18 Motion for Extension of Time to Effect Service up to and including 1/2/12. Signed by U.S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 11/30/11. (Talbert, S.) (Entered: 11/30/2011)

    what does this mean? that its getting extended?

    here is the link

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

    Reply

    • See the previous entry where the Troll requested more time to serve summons on Does. I haven’t read it, but it is most likely the Troll stating that due to the ISPs being slow and “negotiations” with Does, they need more time. The judge gave them until 2 Jan 12, to do this. I would suggest having a motion to dismiss IAW Rule 4(m) ready for the court for 3 Jan 12. I wouldn’t bother with your IP address on this one – just the facts that Plaintiff was granted leave to serve subpoenas on 14 Aug 11, and that no Does have been served as of the date you mail it to the court. The 2 Jan 12, date is past the 120 day mark (from the 14 Aug 11 date). The court will then have to decide if they want to grant more time or dismiss the case without prejudice.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      Reply

      • DieTrollDie,

        I think that new sensation vs does 1-1474 must be getting close to that same time line.
        I thought it had to be 120 days from when your ISP turned over your Info. but according to the Judge who sent the plaintiff ( Ira Spiegel) an
        ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE
        DECLARATION RE: CASE STATUS and it sounds like she did it on her own no motions from DOES asking for it.

        As Plaintiff in this case has yet to name a single Doe Defendant, the Court hereby ORDERS
        Plaintiff’s counsel to file a declaration which provides the following information:
        1) Each Doe Defendant listed separately by number and IP address;
        2) The Doe Defendant’s ISP;
        3) The date on which Plaintiff served the order granting discovery on the ISP;
        4) The date on which the ISP served the subpoena on the Doe Defendant;
        5) Whether the ISP has provided the Doe Defendant’s identifying information
        and, if provided, the date on which it was provided to Plaintiff;
        6) If Plaintiff has obtained the Doe Defendant’s identifying information, an
        explanation as to why the defendant has not been named and why no proof of
        service has been filed, as well as why the Court should not dismiss the
        defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m); and
        7) If Plaintiff has obtained the Doe Defendant’s identifying information and the
        location is outside of the Northern District of California, why the Court
        should not dismiss the Doe Defendant for lack of jurisdiction and/or improper
        venue.
        Plaintiff shall file its status report by December 8, 2011.
        IT IS SO ORDERED.
        Dated: December 1, 2011
        _______________________________
        Maria-Elena James
        Chief United States Magistrate Judge

        DieTrollDie
        What does that sound like to you.
        https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/HistDocQry.pl?841657736466716-L_240_0-1

        Doc. 80

        Reply

        • Strictly speaking Rule 4(m) states that a defendant needs to be served by 120 days from case filing. I have stated 120 days from the ISP releasing your information, as it follows the “spirit” of the Rule. Until release of your personal information, the Troll can’t really serve you a summons. Also part of Rule 4(m) is that the Court can decide to dismiss or ask the Plaintiff to explain why the case should remain open. This decision can be based on a motion from a defendant OR the court can do it on its own – appears this judge may have done this. 🙂 It appears the judge may be trying to balance her actions to allow the Troll to actually dismiss or name individuals. She is saying, “Put up or shut up.” Anyone what to bet what will happen now???

          DieTrollDie 🙂

          Reply

        • This is a good sign that the Judge isn’t bending over backwards to entreat the Plaintiff. My wife was convinced she was in league with them. 😉

          Keep up the great work guys!

          Reply

        • CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:11-cv-02766-MEJ
          Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-2590

          Check out Dockets 77, 78, and 82! Judge James has figured it out.

          Reply

  7. motion to dismiss IAW Rule 4(m) ready for the court for 3 Jan 12

    how do I do that? How much does that cost?

    thanks for all your help

    Reply

  8. should i send one, or just keep quiet until they take me to court. Its not liken they are really gonna take us to court? They have no proof.

    Reply

  9. I just received a mass subpoena notification letter in the mail today. I think I’m still in freak out mode at the moment because I haven’t figured out what to do. It’s for the one out of the 11th inMiami-Dade. I am someone who is just barely hanging on by my fingernails in this economy and scared to death this could ruin or change my life for years to come. The lawyer fees let alone a settlement would be financially crushing to me. I’m just learing how to submit my motion to quash but could really use some help. I’m looking for any advice and someone that would be willing to help me with the steps I need to take.

    Reply

    • Don’t freak out and start to read all the blogs. And remember not to talk to the troll. Even if you motion doesn’t work, you don’t have to pay the troll. Make an informed decision.

      DieTrollDie. 🙂

      Reply

    • You’re definitely not alone. I in fact am in the same one, and the exact same boat as you it sounds like :/. Those of us in this should definitely band together and fight it however we can. I have no idea what I’m doing because I haven’t ever deal with anything legal wise my entire life, so I’m also freaking out a bit…

      Reply

      • Same here, my first legal experience other than jury duty. There are a lot of questions that I don’t know the answers to yet. Do I ever have to show up in FL? Does my lawyer have to? Do I need one, local or from FL? What are the usual settlement amounts on these? I am all for getting together somehow and sharing information about it and fighting.

        Reply

        • TrollBait, read over the blog and take the time to get informed over this. I understand how freaky it is when this first shows up, but there’s a lot of information out there that should help allay your fears. Odds are you’ll never have to deal with this in court. The key is to not communicate with the troll lawyers behind these suits. Don’t respond to their letters or e-mails if they start contacting you to settle (usually offering to do so for $3500-$4500 or so). The only letters you need to to lawyer up for and respond to are official court summons that come from the court itself (odds are you will never get one), NOT anything from the trolls.

          Reply

    • Not sure if you had a chance to read this, but it is worth your time – https://dietrolldie.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/taken-from-the-files-of-%E2%80%9Cdon%E2%80%99t-panic%E2%80%9D-or-%E2%80%9Cwhat-can-i-expect%E2%80%9D/

      As far as your financial situation goes, you are not the ideal personnel go after a settlement. John Steele and another Troll working for K-Beech and Patrick Collins have stated that they are looking for people with assets. Why? Because these people have the cash to settle or in the unlikely chance of losing in court, they can collect payment. What good is a $20K judgment (plus legal fees) against some 23 year old guy working minimum wage. Wow, they could garner his wages for what…. the next 50 years! The Trolls don’t want to wait that long for the cash. They are fronting all the costs up front and then split the profits with the copyright owner when the settlement start to roll in. GREED! Understand the motivation and you have the advantage.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      Reply

    • You don’t happen to have a specific address to mail your MTQ to do you? I’m trying to figure that out, so I can send this all out tomorrow :/

      Reply

  10. Just received a notification from “neustar” an agent for brighthouse networks. It doesnt seem to be a “mass subpoena notification” like I read here. No mention of “does”. Just mentions:

    My name & address

    Target Details: IP Address xx.xx.xx.xx on xx/xx/xx xx:xx:xx

    BrightHouse Networks will comply with this subpoena on I2/I3/2011 unless we receive legal
    documents that delay or terminate the process on or before l2/12/2011. etc.

    This only allows 6 working days to submit a quash. Took neustar over 30 days to send the letter.
    This is scary. I am assuming there is not enough time for me to submit a “quash” without sending it directly or faxing it from near my location. Should the “quash” go to my ISP, the courthouse and to John Steele’s office ? There is no mention of what court needs to receive this. I am assuming its on the “quash template” so I will check this.

    Maybe an attorney could help me if I could somehow get one on Monday and hes not too busy to do this even though I am broke and would have to borrow money just to do this. I am screwed here I believe.

    Reply

    • Looks like Neustar/Brighthouse are trying to screw over the little guy. Most judges include in their order that a copy of it and the subpoena should be sent by the Plaintiff (in this case John Steele) to the ISPs being subpoenaed for subscriber identities. Further the ISPs have to send a copy of the court order and subpoena to the subscribers within 5 days of their receiving it.

      I woul suggest call Neustar or this Trevor guy and DEMAND that they send you a copy of the subpoena. At the very least they need to give you the civil case number (not the ISP’s internal file number) so that you can file a legal challenge in the proper court. How can you “delay or terminate the process” if they don’t tell you which case it is that you’re supposed to fight?

      In fact, if they seem unhelpful on the phone, you could even threaten to sue Neustar for giving you such late notice about this whole situation. If they turn over your information because you weren’t able to file a MTQ (motion to Quash) in time, it’s their fault and they know it. Once you get the case# (something like 1:11-cv-NNNNN) and which court it has been filed in, post it here so we can help you with next steps. The MTQ goes to the court that issued the order asking ISPs turn over your info (and most likely that of other Does) to Steele.

      In the worst case, if you don’t do anything, DO NOT contact Steele’s office. Just lay low and hope this just goes away. You don’t have to actually lawyer up until you hear from the *Court* directly, not from Steele or his goons on the phone. It is very unlikely that the former will ever happen. You might just have to ignore some harassing phone calls/letters from Steele and that will be the end of it.

      I believe TrollTrasher got most everything in his posts. You will find this community very helpful, every one of us was “freaked” when we first got a letter. Then you slowly realize that this is part of Steele’s campaign of extortion, targeting hundreds of thousands of people, exploiting our country’s legal system. Only the weak /uninformed fall into his trap and pay up. Other than filing an MTQ, I would just ignore this annoying gadfly for all practical purposes and carry on with life.

      Reply

  11. Ok Here is the full letter.

    My Address Here Date:11/29/2011
    Target Details: IP Address xx.xx.xx.xx on xx /xx /xx xx:xx:xx

    Dear BrightHouse Networks Customer: Neustar is the designated agent of BrightHouse Networks authorized to respond to subpoenas, search warrants, and court orders for the production of subscriber records. It is the policy of BrightHouse Networks to notify a subscriber that a subpoena has been received for the subscriber’s records.Accordingly, please be advised that on 10/25/2011 a Civil Proceeding Subpoena Request was received from John steele, Attomey for Plaintiff Phone # (312)-880-9160.

    BrightHouse Networks will comply with this subpoena on I2/I3/2011 unless we receive legal documents that delay or terminate the process on or before l2/12/2011.BrightHouse Networks is not aparty to this lawsuit and has no information about the basis for the subpoena. Any questions you may have about the subpoena itself should be referred to John Steele, Attorney for Plaintiff, Phone # (312)-830-9160.

    If you have a need to contact Neustar about this letter or our procedure, please contact Trevor Gray at (571)-434-3439.To better enable us to provide prompt assistance, please refer to case # xxxxxx when calling. Sincerely, Trevor Gray Authorized Agent for Custodian of Records BrightHouse Networks If you would like to authorize the release of your records immediately, please sign in the space provided below and fax this page to us at (571) 434-3401.

    Customer Signature Date

    I do not have a copy of a court order or subpoena, just this letter. Can someone please help me with some info on what I should do as I sure my time is very limited to take action.

    Reply

    • freaked!!!:

      Don’t freak! The letter you received is nothing unusual and it was what hundreds of thousands of people have faced around this country, regardless of their guilt or innocence. Yes, thsi doesn’t leave with much time to try a MtQ, and as such Steele will likely get your personal info from your ISP. Again, do not freak! Trolls like Steele want your info so they can contact you via phone calls and letters trying to intimidate you into settling with them directly over this issue or to get you to incriminate yourself. The key is to not panic and to not give them any ammo. Again, they don’t care if you’re innocent or guilty; they just want your money. If you start receiving calls and letters from Steele and his associates, DO NOT RESPOND TO THEM. Save the letters. Save the phone messages if you wish. They may try to bother you for several weeks before moving on. The key is to not incriminate yourself and to not settle with them.

      The only document or letter you would need to respond to is an official court summons coming directly from the state court and NOT from someone like Steele. Odds are you will never receive such a document. Just hang tight and don’t panic. Read over this entire site and get informed. If the trolls start contacting you do not respond to them or talk to them and play it safe.

      Reply

    • Oh, and hopefully this goes without saying, BUT NEVER CONTACT THE COPYRIGHT TROLLS OR THEIR ASSOCIATES. Don’t try to reason with them or argue your case; they don’t care about the truth and just want you to pay them. If for some reason you ever needed to deal with them then only ever do it through an attorney. Here is a list of lawyers specializing in cases that deal with the trolls:

      https://www.eff.org/issues/file-sharing/subpoena-defense

      Just hang in there and read up and be informed and do not engage the trolls.

      Reply

      • Thanks TrollTrasher
        I will heed your advice. I can find no way of getting a case # on this subpoena. Neustar wont give me anything nor will Brighthouse. You would think if there was a subpoena issued they would have to at least give me enough info to see it or to respond to it. They do not even mention in the letter why the subpoena is issued.

        Reply

        • That’s an interesting letter, very different form the ones that usually come from, say, Comcast, and have the info as to what studio is supposedly behind the suit, the name of the production, and at least the case name. Your letter expressly says that even though BrightHouse is obligated to comply with the subpoena the company has “has no information about the basis for the subpoena,” which seems very contradictory and, well, lazy and stupid on their part. Then that they actually direct you to contact Steele(!!!!) is horrifying, because who knows how many other Does (and you are a Doe right now) have received similar notices and then unfortunately did just that and end up getting trapped because they broke the cardinal rule of never talking to a troll. I recommend you e-mail the very helpful and generous authors of this blog and this one ( https://dietrolldie.wordpress.com/ ) with the letter you got from BrightStar and see if they can figure out which case you’re involved in, and maybe they’ll post a warning so that anyone else who receives a letter from them/Neustar knows not to panic and doesn’t actually contact Steele and co..

          Reply

  12. Hello, need some advice…

    Received a letter from ISP stating the’ve been subpoenaed by (Mike Meier) Third degree productions, to release my info. Not sure how to proceed. Does it matter if I’m not in the same district that the subpoena was filed?

    Reply

    • I also got that letter. I would file a motion to quash and sit tight.

      If you do not live in D.C., that court still has power to enforce the subpoena, but if they actually try to sue you, they will file a separate lawsuit against you in the Virginia district court or wherever you actually live.

      Reply

  14. So, Trying to figure this out to, but would one normally mail the Motion to Quash to Clerk of the Courts, as with the Miami-Dade County Cases, that seems to be where the trolls sent their stuff to?
    Or try to specify the Circuit Court Judge that signed the order?
    Thanks a lot for all of the help!

    Reply

  16. This guy Mike Thornton keeps calling me, and I keep ignoring his call. He has called me 3x and left a voicemail today saying I have to call him by friday the 16 of December. Its like some kind of deadline. I have not downloaded any P2P Movie and I just want this asshole to leave me alone.

    What should I do? I have not contacted a lawyer, or had any consultations. I am innocent

    Reply

    • The “deadline” is arranged by the troll plaintiff/representative. Their goal is make cash quickly. Keep any demand letters or emails, and maybe keep recordings of the phone calls. The pattern has been trolls decide to make higher money demands after their “deadlines”.

      If Thorton makes contact directly, you can tell him “do not call again”, but e. ay no more. With more discussion than that, they will try to get words to use against you, despite the innocence. The trolls wish to wear you down and make cash through demands, inconvenience, and worse.

      The troll representatives must legally avoid harassment by phone:

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000223—-000-.html

      Review the Resources and FAQ’s on this and other sites:

      Taken from the files of “Don’t Panic!” OR “What Can I Expect?”

      The trolls try to scare/wear targets down. A few scary phones is not much work for them, when they settle for thousands.

      Get more information to make an informed decision. If you do hire a lawyer, then the troll has to make contact only through them.

      Reply

  17. Have these trolls and K-Beech actually taken anyone to court, or for a hearing? I read in the Lawsuit summery that they request a trial by jury.

    Reply

    • In Pennsylvania the K-Beech troll has named a handful of defendants by name and issued summons to those people. Reviewing the cases on-line using RFC Express shows that many have settled once named as an individual. If you want to further research this look at this case first: http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/79281/k-beech-inc-v-john-does-1-78/summary/

      Look at item #22, which shows the names of individuals. Then, search Google for that name and you will see PDF files out there showing the full complaint with summons. For example, the name K-BEECH, INC. V. VANDERHORST reveals this on Google: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/5:2011cv06432/443712/1/

      Here is what the trolls have done to change tactics. Some trolls no longer try and extort money from you first using threatening phone calls and certified mail, they now pass Go and proceed directly to naming you in a suit. This tactic may yield higher settlements because you are now forced to answer a summons. At this point you have to start paying money to a lawyer to answer the summons, although you could answer it yourself. Now, once you answer the summons and state your innocence (although at this point a lawyer representing you would suggest you settle) the ball would be in the troll’s court to actually bring this to trial. He is my personal thought, they wouldn’t win in trial. You offer to hand over all of your computers for forensic inspection, say you have no idea what they are talking about and they have to prove you downloaded the file. It is easy to put doubt into a jury’s mind that the Plaintiff’s case isn’t solid. But, the problem is who has the balls to take the risk and let a jury decide their fate? I would love to see one of these cases go to trial and the Plaintiff lose. Then, that would most certainly put an end to this type of extortion.

      Reply

      • I don’t know if it is relevant, but I’ve looked at several of these complaints and they are all Verizon customers. The initial complaint shows over half of the Does are Comcast subscribers.

        Reply

        • I am one of the John Does being sued after being split from the original PA John Doe 1-78 case. I am filing a Motion to Dismiss based on the extremely helpful info here and on dietrolldie.wordpress.com
          We’ll see how it goes…

          Reply

        • Interesting find skruuball. When these PA cases first started I watched them closely as I was named as a Doe and found it interesting that at the time of the dismissal the troll named a handful of people by name. I wonder if it was Verizon that turned over the names while motions to quash were filed which would lead the troll to believe that obtaining the personal information from Verizon is easier than Comcast. Shame on Verizon.

          @PAJohnDoe: I am curious as to what grounds you will file your motion as you are named as an individual Doe now. In PA, there were 2 cases, 1 against 78 Doe’s and 1 against 36 Doe’s. Both were dismissed but the troll has filed about 17 individual suits against single Doe’s and I am expecting to get another letter from my ISP any day now.
          As someone earlier pointed out you can file a motion to dismiss based on the fact that K-Beech doesn’t actually hold the copyright at this time and in the state of PA the application for copyright is not enough to sue for infringement, supposedly. So, once you file let me know what you stated in your motion so I can prepare my motion. Thanks.

          Also, I read somewhere in this blog that 1 ISP said they cannot fulfill the thousands of requests for personal information based on an IP address and a judge ruled that the ISP only had to turn over a handful a month. I would hope other ISP’s complain as well and essentially severely impact the trolls ability to launch these fishing expeditions.

          Reply

        • My MTQ was entered, based on K-Beech not being the registered copyright holder, among other things. The NY court stuff was pretty much copy & pasted from links supplied here and dietrolldie.wordpress.com

          I also pulled some of the original case vs Does 1-78 filings, notably K-Beech’s response to the judge about using a mediator to resolve the issue. In this they state the reason for lumping everyone together is that the alleged infringement is due to the actions of everyone involved, and in fact could only happen with everyone involved. So, I pointed out that if any of these alleged infringers are dismissed because they weren’t infringing, then by their own admission, no one else would be. I probably didn’t explain it very well, and so I didn’t try to hang my hat on it. But maybe someone wiser can do something with it.

          One more interesting thing I noticed in this case: Tobias Fieser, the tech from the German company who did all the IP number lookups filed an affidavit, which looks very generic. This is in the request to subpoena Verizon for subscriber info. What’s interesting is that in the beginning of this motion, the declaration is specifically directed to Patrick Collins (“Plaintiff”), where this case was brought by K-Beech. Maybe an oversight, with all the mass lawsuits going on. And maybe more evidence that Chris Fiore is just a puppet in this foolishness. Again, I didn’t push this issue very hard, but maybe someone else could.

          Here’s the rfcexpress link to my case:
          http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/85054/k-beech-inc-v-john-doe/summary/

          I don’t have any of the docs posted anywhere, but I could email them…let me know PAJohnDoe178 at yahoo

          We’ll see how this response works out…best of luck to everyone else

          Reply

        • Best of luck to you PAJohnDoe. Not the kind of crap we need around the holidays. I am not a Verizon customer and I assume you are based on what you stated, so hopefully I’m in the clear for now. Just curious as to why Fiore only targeted Verizon customers at this time. Again, I suspect that he has had more sucess with obtaining the personal information from them. You should switch ISPs. Happy Holidays!

          Reply

        • PA JohnDoe:
          Looks like the troll filed motions in opposition to your motion to quash. I’d love to see what he had to say. If you can get those documents post them here.

          Reply

        • Not good news:
          ORDER THAT THE DEFT JOHN DOE’S MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA (DOC. #5) IS DENIED.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 1/10/2012.1/11/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(tomg, ) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

          Reply

        • Among other things, in their response the Plaintiff cited a bunch of cases where filing was enough for prima facie copyright infringement.
          However, Judge Davis in one of the other Eastern PA mass John Doe cases decided that merely filing for copyright was not enough to allow a blanket subpoena.

          That decision is posted and discussed here: http://dietrolldie.com/2012/01/10/pa-judge-denies-troll-motion-to-serve-a-subpoena-on-isps-211-cv-07247-patrick-collins-v-john-does-1-26/

          I filed a motion to ask the Judge in my case to reconsider his decision based on Judge Davis’s ruling.
          I filed it 16Jan so it should be in the docket shortly.
          I had meant to file right after the Plaintiff filed their response, but it happened too quickly.
          I also faxed it to my ISP asking them to hold off releasing my personal info until the Judge in my case rules on the 16Jan motion.

          In my case, K-Beech filed for copyright on 22April2011 and according to http://cocatalog.loc.gov/ searching for Virgins #4 was registered 01Dec2011.
          The date they allege infringement is 26May2011.

          Reply

        • As an update, in Eastern PA K-Beech has dismissed with prejudice 9 cases against individual John Does (including me). This is in addition to the few cases dismissed with prejudice last month.

          From the dismissal: “Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) Defendant has neither answered Plaintiff’s complaint nor filed a motion for summary judgement.”

          There are a couple cases still active, including one solo John Doe who filed a MTQ that was denied earlier this month.

          Reply

  18. Help. This guy wont stop calling me. Hes call me 4x demaning I call him back by tommorrow. He said tommorrow is the deadline because he has to report in. I dont know what that means.

    Can I send a Motion to Quash? What is it? Where do I send it to. Can someone please help me. I am fucking going crazy because he is demanding money and I have no clue what the hell he is talking about. I didnt download any porno movie.

    Here is the Lawsuit Summery.

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

    Reply

    • Anonymous Person:

      DO NOT CALL OR ENGAGE THE TROLL. They are trying to intimidate you into settling or implicating yourself. Just tell them to stop calling you the next time they call and you find yourself on the phone with them. They’ll still call, but that’s all they should get out of you. Keep any settlement letters they send you.

      A motion to quash is a tactic designed to prevent the trolls from getting personal info from your ISP. It’s too late for that, but don’t worry; tens of thousands of other people are in your situation. As I said, the trolls are looking for easy money and are trying to intimidate you into settling. Don’t panic, lay low and read this site from top to bottom. Educate yourself.

      Reply

  19. As Cashman notes in his December 13th entry, the dates and settlement amount demands are “arbitrary”. The deadline is invented by them, to keep pressuring people. The trolls choose what is convenient to make money quickly.

    Do not engage with the trolls. You can say “Do not call again”, but don’t say more.

    Motions to quash have usually been used to fight subpoenas to get the name and contact information from ISP’s when the trolls only have IP addresses. The troll already got contact information through discovery subpoena process and made contact.

    Look at the resources section of this site.

    Resources

    Also look at the brother-in-arms blog listed under “Blogs and sites dedicated to fighting copyright trolls” here.

    Contact your ISP legal department and ask if they released your name and information. If so, when did they reveal it? Why did your ISP not contact you before they revealed the information ? ?

    Look at TrollTrasher’s December 15, 2011 at 7:07 pm comment under Florida Cases at this site. The main Troll tactic has been to keep threatening and collecting money when they can.

    Reply

    • Good news Judge Maria Elena James has finally seen the light and thrown Ira M Siegel and Patrick Collins out on there ass. On Dec. 15 , The judge, based on a previous order to show cause dismissed my case that included 2590 does. I will copy the order here and you can look up the rest if you want to for free if you have a recap plugin installed.

      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
      Northern District of California
      PATRICK COLLINS, INC.,
      Plaintiff,
      v.
      DOES 1-2,590,
      Defendants.
      _____________________________________/
      No. C 11-2766 MEJ
      ORDER DISMISSING CASE
      WITHOUT PREJUDICE
      On December 7, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff Patrick Collins, Inc. to conduct a search to
      obtain geographic information about the IP Addresses listed in its Complaint and thereafter provide
      the Court with the location for each IP Address. Dkt. No. 77. In addition, for all IP Addresses
      outside this District, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either: (a) file a voluntary dismissal without
      prejudice as to those Doe Defendants; or (b) show good cause as to why it has a good faith belief
      that jurisdiction exists and venue is proper as to each individual Doe Defendant. Id.
      In response, Plaintiff has now filed a request that the Court (i) allow the ISPs to comply
      with the subpoenas, (ii) allow Plaintiff and those potential Doe defendants who desire to settle
      their claims to reach settlements, and (iii) postpone any requirements that Plaintiff name and/or
      dismiss any potential Doe defendants until February 20, 2012. Dkt. No. 93. Plaintiff’s response
      alleviates none of the Court’s concerns. Although the Court initially granted leave for expedited
      discovery, in the ensuing months, multiple defendants filed motions to quash those subpoenas
      raising issues such as innocence, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper joinder, and improper
      venue. At the same time, a check of the Court’s docket disclosed that no defendant had appeared and no proofs of service had been filed. At the same time, the Court became aware of an outbreak of similar litigation in this District and around the country, and the concerns raised by some of the judges presiding over these cases. Plaintiff’s most recent filing does nothing to show why his matter should not be dismissed for misjoinder and improper venue. Therefore, for the reasons stated in its December 7, 2011 Order, and having reviewed Plaintiff’s response to the Order, the Court finds that the Doe Defendants named in this case are improperly joined. Accordingly, this case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, it must do so in compliance with the Court’s December 7, 2011 Order. Specifically, the Court finds that it is fundamentally unfair to require a defendant from outside this District to incur the substantial costs necessary to file a motion to quash in this District when Plaintiff has the ability to discern in advance which IP addresses are at least likely to be from this District. Accordingly, if it chooses to amend its complaint, Plaintiff must make at least a prima facie showing that the Court has personal jurisdiction over each defendant for
      whom Plaintiff seeks early discovery and that venue is proper. See OpenMind Solutions, Inc., 2011 WL 4715200 at *2 (granting motion for expedited discovery where, among other things, the plaintiff had alleged sufficient information to show that each defendant was subject to the jurisdiction of the court). General arguments such as those discussed in the Court’s December 7 Order will not suffice. Plaintiff must make a specific showing, including geographic information about the IP Addresses in the amended complaint, as to each Doe Defendant. Any such request must include a declaration under penalty of perjury that Plaintiff has taken all reasonable steps to determine that jurisdiction and venue are proper. Said declaration shall include an explanation of all methods it utilized. Plaintiff shall serve this Order upon all subpoenaed ISPs by December 20, 2011. This Order has no effect on any settlements reached with any Doe Defendant prior to December 7, 2011. However, if Plaintiff receives or has received any settlement amount on or after December 7, Plaintiff shall immediately return the settlement funds. Any motions to quash and/or dismiss that are pending or will be filed based on the issued subpoenas are moot and shall be automatically terminated by the Clerk of Court pursuant to this Order.
      IT IS SO ORDERED.
      Dated: December 15, 2011

      THis is amazing new but it is also sad as about 40 does settled before this could be dismissed.

      hope this gives you all more hope and allows you to rest a little easier over the holidays.

      Reply

  20. This is a topic that could be added to the FAQ.

    Dismissal without prejudice means that the troll could file again for the same case.

    Dismissal without prejudice has been done for individual does who are bad targets or raise a legal point that threatens the entire troll case. The troll dismisses an individual doe to keep the case going and avoids the issue that could block their scheme. (It is possible that a defendant could make a bad agreement with the troll and leave themselves open to the troll filing again.)

    Dismissal with prejudice means the same case cannot be pursued. Probably, the defendant has paid the troll and settled with a protective agreement.

    Reply

  21. have these trolls or K-BEECH actually taken anyone personally to court? IF so, are they just targeting people with money to take to court?

    I am unemployed, dont have any money, so what could they take from me?

    Reply

    • Although this is an extremely long thread the answers to all your questions are above. They have named individuals in lawsuits by name once they obtained your information. Not one case has gone to trial. Many people have turned over the $3400 they seek. Best advice is to do nothing unless you get an official summons. Then you need to answer that summons yourself or obtain a lawyer. Do not ignore actual documents form the court; if you do a default judgement could be ruled against you.

      Go through the posts above, there is a lot of good advice.

      Reply

  23. It seems that I’m a “John Doe” in case 11-24714 CA, a case in Florida, yet I live in Maryland. This seems like improper joinder and also seems like they shouldn’t have any right to sue me, unless they do it in my home state, which I believe means they would need to file a new case in a Maryland court. Is that correct?

    I started receiving calls from these trolls on October 21, now a bit over two months later, they are still leaving messages on my answering machine. I’m up to 10 messages now. Just the same old threats, but nothing official yet. I’m starting to believe these are empty threats and they never actually intend to come after me. First it was three calls from Jill Jacobs, then three from Max Turner, and now two from Glen Powers. I’m sure I will get one more from him, and then it will be one to the next troll. They also have never mailed me a settlement letter either. I have read about others receiving these, but it’s been over two months now without me getting one. They obviously have my information though, which my ISP was kind enough to give them without ever notifying me via email or phone. How very nice of them.

    But after all the research I have done on these copyright trolls, I decided to go with the tactic to just ignore them and continue on with my life until they do something official, like serve me a summons, or sue me.

    Reply

  24. So on the Miami-Dade 2011 32622 CA 05, it says “12/27/2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE”. Does that mean the court actually ordered the ISPs to give info over??

    Reply

  25. Need Help!…can I file a motion to quash so my ISP doesnt send my information and if so how do i send a motion to quash…I feel like it would be better to get a lawyer but I dont have money to pay for one….I want to do one myself but I just dont know where to start…Im in Florida and they filed the lawsuit in Baltimore, Maryland…

    Reply

    • You don’t mention what case, nor what documentation you received telling you that you’re a named Doe….so the below is based upon the assumption that you have received a letter from your ISP telling you that you can file a MTQ:
      —–

      Realizing there’s a lot of posts on this page, I know it seems to be a lot to take in to read everything here, so for starters, try reading these two FAQ pages first:

      https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/faq/faq-from-tac/

      https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/faq/

      Once you read the above, you should be able to go to some of the links built into them for some templates for doing MTQ etc.

      Also, unless in your case you literally have until tomorrow to file a MTQ, take some time and read through the posts on this page as well. You’ll find other examples and ideas that you can use. There are also folks who have posted pretty much “So I do 1, 2, 3” steps for filing MTQ’s. Take notes and bookmark the interesting links for reference.

      Again, it sounds like a lot to go through, but if you want to help yourself the best way is to be as informed as possible. Doing so isn’t always exciting or quick, so the mundane work of self education can sometimes be humdrum or confusing, but it’s something you really need to do to fully understand what’s happened in the past and what options you have.

      The added bonus of reading through everything here is, by the time you’ve finished, you’ll have calmed down and no longer be in panic mode. 😉

      Reply

  26. so for case 24714 out of Florida, I have yet to receive any communication from the trolls…no emails, no calls, no summons etc yet i see people being dismissed without prejudice which implies that they have settled?

    anyone else involved in this case been contacted? Just wondering why I havent lol

    Reply

    • Being dismissed without prejudice does not mean the Does dismissed have settled; “without prejudice” means that the Does technically can be sued again during the 3-year statute of limitation over this claimed infringement. Does who have settled are dismissed with prejudice by the trolls.

      Reply

  27. I just got a subpeona today and for the last 2 hours I’ve been reading up on all this stuff.

    The request for subpeona was received by my ISP from one of those Florida firms. I have about a week until the date when my ISP will comply with the subpeona, so I only have a few days to file a motion. Who do I send the motion to?

    I signed up for PACER, but I won’t hear back from them about my account for a week. I need the case number though to file a motion, right?

    Also, the letter invites me to call the attorney with any questions I may have. Screw that, obviously.
    The letter also says I can contact Neustar with any questions and it gives a case number. Is there any downside to calling Neustar? And is this the actual case number, or just some reference number assigned by Neustar?

    Reply

    • I also just received a letter from Neustar. It looks like the subpoena was filed by Lipscomb, Eisenberg, and Baker in Miami. I think that case number is internal to Neustar. I don’t know how to file a motion yet though.

      Reply

      • What really bothers me is that there is no copy of the subpoena or case number in the letter. Only to call the paralegal (thanks, internet) who sent the subpoena. Did Neustar provide you with a case number to file a MTQ?

        Reply

        • Neustar provided me with a case number on the letter, but it must just be for their internal use (it is two letters followed by 5 numbers, no spaces). An actual case number I believe would look something like this example: IO Group, Inc. v. Does 1-244, case 3:10-cv-03647-MEJ. Hopefully, when I finally get hold of Neustar (I tried today, no luck), they will give me the case number and from there, I just cut and paste together a MTQ, send it to the troll lawyer, the court (In Dade County probably), and then send a copy of it to my ISP.

          I don’t know yet if I’m going to file a MTQ. I keep reading about how they are usually ignored, especially by Florida judges. Also, the whole process seems daunting- Don’t file as yourself, file as a single John Doe, or file for the group, don’t include a return address!, mail it from another county or state. My God! Also, I just got the thing in the mail and the deadline to file a motion is much shorter 30 days, which I have read is the typical timeline. (I don’t want to give out my exact dates).

          Perhaps many people will file an MTQ who are involved in my case. Maybe this will cause the judge to throw it out. I doubt it.

          If I send in an MTQ, and it files in time, and proof of this filing is given to my ISP before the deadline, will my ISP then not release my personal info to the troll? In other words, for the ISP to protect my personal info, does the MTQ merely have to be filed, or does it also have to be successful?

          Reply

        • Yes, I received the same letter as you. I looked at the cases in Miami and the only open case from this law firm is 2011-24714-CA-01 mentioned above, which was voluntarily dismissed in December. If this is the case, then I certainly don’t want my information divulged. It seems that they brought the case just to get the John Does and then dismissed the case to pursue individually (or not).

          My question is, if there’s a subpoena should the case also show up in the court system, or is it possible that this is a new case by the same firm and it hasn’t showed up yet?

          Reply

        • Update, I did some more digging and it looks like the case number is likely 2011-37823-CA-01 judging by the attorneys and the dates, though I won’t know until talking to the ISP.

          Reply

  28. Always file MTQ!
    I did mine and Judge Maria-Elena James was denying all of them and just because I filed a MTQ my cable company’s lawyers ( which I sent a copy of the MTQ ) told me that they would not send my info after my time ran out, even if it gets denied until the final ruling from Judge. Because sooner or later the judges are throwing these cases out. She told me that they’re finally on to what they are doing. Lucky so was the Judge, because later on down the road she made him, (Kinda) throw the case out. So in the long run info was safe. For now anyways.

    Besides, if more Does’s send MTQ’s in, the more the different Judges realize whats going on with the TROLL’S low life methods of business.

    Reply

  29. Alright, I guess I’ll file the MTQ. Too bad I have less than a week to do so, and I only got my notice of subpoena yesterday.

    I’m sure you have all already seen this page of this website:

    Received a message that suggests contacting Steele? Read this first!

    It discusses how the new types of subpoena notice letters (this is the type I got) are at least unethical, and perhaps illegal. Neustar sucks. The reason this type of letter is so bad is because it arrives in the mail a very short time before the date in which the ISP is to comply with the subpoena, it does not include a case number (which is necessary to file and MTQ), and it encourages you to call the lawyer who is suing you.

    Thank you anonymous for digging and perhaps finding the case number. As you your question: “if there’s a subpoena should the case also show up in the court system, or is it possible that this is a new case by the same firm and it hasn’t showed up yet?” Sorry, I’m not sure about the timing on this. I guess the case could be showing up now, or maybe it won’t show up until after the ISPs release the subscriber info.

    I just called Neustar again today. No luck, it’s Saturday. Looks like I will not be able to find out the case number from them until Monday, by which time I will have only a few days to meet my ISPs deadline to file an MTQ.

    Reply

    • anonymous you can go to torrentlitigation.com and find the cases for the S.FL district. Look through those cases and find your IP listed. Your IP at the time of infringement should be listed on the Neustar notice

      Thats how I found my case #. Send that MTQ.

      Reply

      • anonymous
        I meant to say ” if you think your case is in FL look in S. FL or N. FL district etc., depending on where you are located”

        Reply

  30. Hello all,
    I received a subpoena from Paul Duffy, Prenda Law plaint. OpenMind Solutions v Does 1-565. The subpoena was not for myself, but for a tenant in my house on a college campus which has 4 tenants, none of whom admit any knowledge of torrent sharing. I downloaded the motion to quash template above (which is great that Sy Ableman posted that), only, the template names of Steele Hansmeier, while Paul Duffy is the guy mentioned on the Subpoena. Has anyone heard anything about this case? Any advice? I have read a lot of amazing advice and information here, thanks
    J. Dough.

    Reply

  31. Does anyone have any info on Lawsuit Ingenuity 13 LLC v. SBC Internet Services Inc. et al case#
    2:11-mc-00084-JAM -DAD? I received an letter from Verizon regarding subpoena to disclose my info if I don’t file a motion to quash within 20 days from the date of the letter. It leaves me about week for this. I read from several places that filing a motion to quash has been unsuccessful. Should I just wait for a settlement letter and negotiate with the Plantiff or should I consult a lawyer?

    Reply

  32. I got mine today. Patrick Collins Inc v Does1-915. Contacted an attorney in FL ( I live in different sate). Fee is flat $2,000. Can not afford attorney. I’m divorced and live on disability. If they get my name and phone #, I’ll just get a new number. What can they do to me? I can not work, so there is no income to take…Should I be worried.

    Reply

    • Thanks, forgot ts say welcome to the club and sorry you’re drawn into it, lots of good advice here. read read read and dont freak out. ?What movie did they accuse you of downloading ?

      Reply

    • I was right there with you yesterday! I recieved the same letter for Patrick Collins Inc v Does 1-915. I only contacted my ISP paralegal on first letter! She didnt have much to say to make me feel better! My feeling is technically they have to prove their allegations, and I know they cant! IPs are hacked EVERYDAY!! And then let me just add in,” You cant take blood from a turnip”! I have absolutely no money, no job, nothing of value in my name and 3 kids to take care of. I was worried until I started reading all of this info here and I felt less alone and more confident!!
      So, I am seeing that alot of people are emailing the motion to quash? How is that done with the courts? I have downloaded the template from here but ours are due by Feb3rd which is only next friday, I just recieved paperwork yesterday! I am worried that it would not be recieved in time If I had to snail mail it!

      Reply

  34. Received a letter from Prenda law for AF Holdings v Does 1-1,1140 regarding sexual obsession. ISP(Cox) released info to them. Letter is full of errors specifically section stating that on “July 13, 2011 we filed a lawsuit in the United States Federal Court in the Northern District of California…” it does not even gie the correct state which the action was filed. I was looking all over for the California case. It also contains a conditi9onal release and settlement agreement which states the venue is “the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois”.
    So to sum it up I have a Florida lawyer who says they filed in California but actually Filed in DC with a venue in Illinois and the defendant in Arizona.
    My first thought is to file a motion about the jurisdiction but where would I file it? Is this a goo dfirst step. Also do I respond to the attorney before the motion to let them know my plan. They already have my name and address. I did not download the move and have had problems with our wireless getting hackedin the past(identity theft and bank account used. The computer I had at the time they are saying I did this(9 months ago) was infected by a virus and was tossed in September when we moved so that ius going to present a problem too I am sure.
    Any ideas or suggestions on this would be helpful. Again, I am thinking of filign a motion regarding the jurisdiction but not sure where.
    Thank you

    Reply

  35. Have been looking for a copy of a “motion to dismiss lack of jurisdiction” but I am unablke to find one. I need one to see how they are written so i can file a motion mysedlf. Does anyone have a template or example of a “Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction”?

    Reply

  36. Filing a motion for case 11-CV-07564-JGK. http://www.copyright-complaints.com/11-CV-07564-JGK.pdf anyone else in my situation?

    The letter I received actually shows United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, however it also says “(If the action is pending in another district, state where: Southern District of New York). Should I be sending it to VA or the Southern District of New York. Can anyone help me locate the proper mailing address? The website is very confusing.

    You guys rock!

    Reply

    • Here’s what I’ve found:

      There are documents about the case, some free for downloading, at:

      http://archive.recapthelaw.org/nysd/386729/

      This case was filed in the Southern District of New York.

      The troll lawyer Mike Meier, based in Virginia, and admitted in VA, DC, MD, and NY is filing the documents. Ira Siegal has been the troll lawyer for some early Third Degree Films cases.

      It seems that responses should go to the Southern District of New York court. Call your ISP’s legal department this week and see if they have released your information, or if notification to you was sent out recently.

      Looks like discovery was granted on 11/16/2011.

      In looking up I.P. addresses listed, many are outside of New York state (not only the southern district of NY), including some outside the U.S. For these, JURISDICTION IS IMPROPER without a link to New York state.

      Item 3 in the original complaint (10/23/2011) states: “On information and belief, personal jurisdiction in this District is proper”. Mr. Meier’s statement is misleading. Instead, this is a “limited’ mass copyright case, involving many outside of New York state.

      It is UNFORTUNATE that discovery was granted. It has been rejected in many mass copyright cases. Mike Meier’s 11/01/2011 memorandum conveniently leaves out cases thrown out for wrong jurisdiction.

      gov.uscourts.nysd.386729.1.0.pdf

      It looks like one person who settled this month, based on geo-locating the I.P., was in a different state, and therefore jurisdiction was wrong:

      gov.uscourts.nysd.386729.13.0.pdf

      More judges are catching on to reject these wrong jurisdiction cases. Maybe that will include Judge Koeltl next time.

      If your information has not been released, you have a good argument on jurisdiction to be dismissed. If your information was released, Mr. Meier (or whoever he works for) would have to file in your state, which would cost extra time and money.

      Let’s all check some of the IP geo-locations in these “smaller” cases, since wrong jurisdiction is still being used by the trolls.

      Hopefully, someone can post sections for cases of separate states for easier exchange of information.

      Reply

      • This may belong in a different forum, but I did see this on the case referenced above, so…

        An MTQ filed Jan 6 2012 in the above noted case,
        Third Degree Films, Inc. v. Does 1-217 (NY Southern District) 11-cv-07564-JGK , Filed 2011-10-25

        Click to access gov.uscourts.nysd.386729.11.0.pdf

        states that the Doe 2: “…does not know how to use a computer, and therefore, has been a victim of mistaken identity” & “…was born in 1939, 73-year-old, and has never learned to use a computer. He is extremely limited in his command of the English language.” & “…resides in a building comprised of six condominiums in close proximity to each other. He received internet access as one part of a media package from Verizon that also included phone and cable services. He does not know how to use a computer and therefore has not accessed the internet through one. He also did not “protect” his internet service from usage outside of his own home by using a password or code. Any resident within service range of the building had open access to his internet service and ample opportunity to use his IP address, without detection. The likelihood that an individual other than DOE No. 2 infringed Plaintiff’s copyrights is too great to support any correlation between DOE No. 2 and the alleged violation that Plaintiff seeks to prove, especially in light of DOE No. 2’s inability to use a computer.

        On 2012-02-10,
        http://ia600704.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.386729/gov.uscourts.nysd.386729.docket.html
        Has an entry stating “NOTICE of Settlement with specified John Does (2, 7, 10, 16, 24, 28, 58, 148, 185, 206, 207) and their Dismissal.” Can’t see the document so don’t know the terms.
        Then on 2012-02-14, Doe 2 withdrew the original MTQ and the Judge approved. Curious to say the least.

        Now, in a final bit of nausea,
        On 2012-02-24 “…the time for Plaintiff to serve defendants with summons and the amended complaint is extended by an additional 120 days after the Court’s ruling on the Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Take Discovery…”, …Plaintiff must serve defendants by July 13, 2012…” On 2011-11-16 troll was granted leave to take discovery from the ISPs. Now, the troll gets 4 more months to work the extortion scheme!!?!? Anybody want to guess how many of the Does actually get SERVED & NAMED IN A LAWSUIT by July 13?

        Bottom line. Accusing people who don’t even know how to use a computer = shameless shakedown.

        Key words & phrases: Mike Meier, The Copyright Law Group, Third Degree Films, 11-cv-07564-JGK, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein, Judge John G. Koeltl, Copyright Troll, Extortion, IP Address is Not a Person, Shakedown, Jon Nicolini, Don’t feed the trolls.

        Reply

  37. This has been a very scary day for me. I get a letter from my ISP with a copy of a subpoena regarding downloading a pornographic movie I know for a fact I did not download. I have since secured my wireless but the damage is done. I suppose it’s the panic but I’m not fully understanding what my options are here. I keep reading “do nothing” as a first response but I also read “file a motion to quash.” I contacted a few attorneys and they were all quoting me a flat fee of $2000 up front. I simply don’t have this kind of money lying around. To make matters worse my ISP delayed sending the letter so I only have until 5pmEST Feb 3 to file something or else they will release my information. If i download the motion template, am I sending a copy to the court and a copy to the plaintiff’s attorney only or do I send one to the ISP as well? If I don’t send anything, then that guarantees the ISP turns over my information to the attorneys right? So how does doing nothing at this stage help? I’m going to read through more of the comments and articles (there are alot) but I would appreciate it if anyone could streamline some answers for me, at least to the questions I asked above. Thank you.

    Reply

  38. Hi,
    One of my friends that downloads A LOT of movies and programs has told me that I should use this program so that this never happens to me again.
    http://www.easy-hide-ip.com/
    My question is: if I can use this program to download whatever I want and make everyone think I’m somebody else, is it possible that someone else downloads illegal movies and programs and have my IP showing as his?
    Anyway, I think I will install this program. Not that I want to download movies, but to cover myself. I have already made my wireless internet password protected and now I’ll be using this.
    It just shows you that you can never be too careful.
    Has anyone else been using this program? Does it work?

    Reply

    • @BrokeAndWorried

      You should never download movies and programs that you haven’t paid for. It is illegal, and denies those who shed blood, sweat, tears (and other bodily fluids) the payment they are entitled to for their hard work.

      Please turn your friend in immediately. It is the only moral course of action.

      SB

      Reply

      • I agree about downloading movies for free. When it comes to turning him in – his actions don’t hurt me, some rich folks in $2M homes – maybe. So they’ll be able to afford only 3 Ferrari’s instead of 4. I’m not sure how they will be able to go on…
        Unlike you and your friends that are perfect (walking angels), mine are like me, a bit imperfect. I’m not going to turn mine in for this. I have my own conscious to deal with.
        I have seen my wife jaywalking yesterday. Do you want me to turn her in as well?!
        What a dumb-ass..

        Reply

    • Yes. The information the ISP receives from the subpoena will have the time, date, MAC address, and IP address. The ISP will use that information to determine the name of the subscriber that had the IP address.

      Reply

  41. Anyone in this case?

    Nu Image, Inc. v. Does 1-3,932
    Plaintiff: Nu Image, Inc.
    Court case number: 2:11-cv-00545-JES-SPC
    Court: Florida Middle District Court

    It is for the movie The Mechanic.

    Reply

    • Was cruising through all this info and came across your post.
      I also am a Doe involved in the same case: 00545, Florida, etc. The Mechanic.
      Received a notice in the mail today with a copy of a subpoena to my ISP to produce documents, info…. and so forth. Also I have until March 23, 2012 to contest the release of my info.

      Been reading about motion to quash(MTQ). Sounds like it doesn’t do much except notify how we feel to the judge. Not sure?

      Not really sure what action to take. I’ve read a lot about MTQ and what to say if they call but haven’t found much about the outcome of most of these cases. Hopefully I won’t have to change my career and become a self taught lawyer because I definitely can’t afford any legal fees.

      Just signing up on PACER to see if I can find the case.

      Any helpful experience?

      Reply

  42. Has anyone received a call from someone in California about Case 2011-24714 out of Florida? I have two messages from someone asking for my info from my attorney. I have no attorney and filed a motion to quash which my ISP told me they would not send my info. I have not gotten anything again in the mail so just wondering what might be going on.

    Reply

    • Check with the legal department of your ISP to see if your information was released, even by “accident”. This could be a new troll was of fishing, or just the troll script to everyone, to scare those who have not retained an attorney (and find out they are not represented) and to speed their targeting of the people who do have attorneys.

      It seems from the comment on November 3, 2011 at 9:14 am above that discovery was granted for this case.

      Reply

    • I too have recieved a call from someone in CA about the same case. But I did not answer the calls nor have I filed a motion to quash, I would love to know anything more about this case if known and if it has moved forward at all.
      If it is allowed I will leave the name of the Troll that is calling me, just not sure what the site policy is on that.

      Reply

      • 24714 here too. I think it’s OK to leave it here. What was the CA phone number? Anyone have the names or phone #s stored for calls from this troll’s team?

        Reply

      • The main policy here is “don’t be a jerk”. Outing trolls is fine, even encouraged. Yet, for example, targeting their families is not. I’m sure most of us clearly see this fine line. As one Eastern European writer put it, “if you are fighting against crooks using their methods, you are not fighting against them, yo are fighting for a place among them”.

        Reply

        • Anthony Palmer (818) 292-8918 is the name and number of the Troll that is calling me, it has been a few days now since I have heard from him. I have never answered when he has called and have not called him back.
          Should I just sit back and ignore this guy or if he calls again go through the 4 steps as stated on other pages?

          Reply

        • Mr. Palmer has called me as well. Called and hung up at my home number but had the nerve to leave a message on my work voicemail. I sent a MTQ a few months ago but I doubt it did any good. My first notice from my ISP referenced an AZ case, which is where I sent my MTQ… Then a couple weeks ago got another notice from my ISP this time referencing the Florida case (24714) saying they were releasing names two days from when I got the letter.

          Reply

  43. A worry day for me. Got a Subpoena… Did 6 hours research already. I lived in a big house. I am 100% sure it was not me downloading the movie, if the the plaintiff’s claim was true. But the ISP was under my name. The case was filed in Eastern District of Pennslyvania. I don’t know what is the best option for me…

    Reply

    • Are you in one of the cases with multiple John Doe Defendants?
      Or are you one of the cases as an individual John Doe Defendant?

      My experience: as a multiple John Doe, motions to quash and disjoin were enough to end the case. Then a bunch of individual John Does (including me) have been “named” in separate suits. Motions were less successful there.

      Reply

      • At now, there are more than 10 people on the case. I heard the motion to quash is not very successful? Is that true for PA? I was sorry and supprised to hear that they go after individual john does. I was told that they rarely to do because of the cost.

        Reply

  44. If a Doe’s IP address were to be “named” in multiple cases, will the ISP receive 1 subpoena per case requesting IP owner information and will the Doe receive a notification from their ISP for each subpoena?

    Reply

    • Check with the legal department of your ISP. You can also ask them if there are any other pending notifications. Hopefully, the ISP would be give notification for each allegation.

      The trolls in the first round are going for discovery. Generally, there would be one plaintiff (porn studio and their troll lawyers) and one “work” (porn film, supposedly with copyright filed) for each discovery motion.

      Many Miami-Dade county motions in Florida, submitted by Keith Lipscomb, of Lipscomb, Eisenberg, and Baker, lump different porn troll “studios” and different “films” into one motion.

      This is a different mass copyright scam, where joinder of defendants is wrongful by combining plaintiffs and single “films”.

      Reply

      • Thanks. Interesting info.

        To clarify my question, would think the ISP would be legally obligated to inform their subscriber of each individual subpoena or unique case number filed in which their IP was allegedly linked to the violation and for which they were requested to identify the subscriber. Assumes the subscriber IP and identity of the subscriber linked to the IP address on the date / time on which the alleged violation took place, was specific to that date and time.

        In other words if the trolls had identified an IP address as allegedly connected to downloading a particular title, even if it were for one of several titles / studios in one of the cases where several studios were lumped together into one case, I don’t think they could use the same subscriber information provided by the ISP for the first case in subsequent, separate cases alleging other violations that occurred at different dates / times from the first case.

        Am I making sense?

        Reply

        • ISPs are not bound by any laws which require them to notify. It all depends on their own policy.
          Some people never get notified. Some people get notified days before the information is about to be released.

          Unless its stated in the subpoena or an order by a judge its up to them. Read your ISPs policy to see what to expect from them.

          Reply

      • I actually recieved the notice a couple days before my info was released. This is Patrick Collins, Inc vs John Does 1-915, Case No. 11-37821-CA 22 This is from Lipscomb, Eisenberg & Baker, PL and yes it includes Patrick Collins, Third Degree Films, K-Beech, Raw Films, Nucorp LTD, Sero Tolerance Entertainment INC. There was never any actual supposed film that was downloaded listed and the IP Address’s listed on the paperwork I got are Doe 254-311.
        My info was released by Metrocast on Feb 3rd, recieved my first phone call on Feb 9th or 10th and 2nd call on the 15th. The man’s name was Mike Thornton, phone #818-292-8194! I know that it is a mobile # out of Los Angelos, CA.
        I know for a fact that nothing has been downloaded in my house and am choosing not to speak to this person! I have also considered changing service providers and phone #s. I read somewhere that there are ISP’s that refuse to give their customer’s info out, not sure how that works with court order but I would surely rather be with one of them!
        I am figuring right now I have only recieved two calls, so I am going to wait and see how bad it gets before I decide how I want to handle this! I was VERY upset when I first recieved the paperwork then did alot of reading and felt better, plus helps my mom works for a large law firm out of DC. But each time I get a phone call I get a little stressed until I start reading again! Its a shame that sooooo very many people have to be put through all of this!

        Reply

        • Mike Thornton is not a lawyer, but hired by the scumbags. He is most likely a debt collector, no surprise he is good at inducing fear. Nevertheless, he is a liar: once he has threatened a Doe with criminal prosecution, which is not only impossible, but can be interpreted as racket, so can be reported to an AG for prosecution. So I suggest recording those calls in a case we will be on offensive one day. Stay strong and do not feed the trolls, you’ll be just fine, no doubt.

          Reply

        • Thank you…..@sophisticatedjanedoe 🙂 I am saving Voicemails from Mike Thornton and figure I will just continue to not answer calls! I have also considered blocking the phone #s they call from! Haha Not sure if that will help or be more of a nuisance to me! This site has been a great comfort to me, I hate that anyone has to go through this but I’m glad im not alone!

          Reply

        • tiredof thenonsense,

          I am also one of them and getting same calls from This Mike Thronton, 3X so far.
          How are you holding up?

          Reply

        • Anonymous,
          I have thankfully only recieved 2 calls from Mike Thornton and havent heard anything since like Feb 15th Thankfully! I hope that’s a good thing at least 🙂 I only get my nerves rattled when he calls then I come here and start reading again to feel better about everything!
          How are you holding up with all of this?? I feel like after reading everything I have on sooo many different sites, it feels good not to be alone in this even though it sucks that any of us have to go through this non-sense! Have you actually talked to Mike Thornton? I havent spoken to him personally, just recieved voice mail and message!

          Reply

        • A debt collector receive a percentage of cut from the money they collected. I don’t think talk to them make will make any better of the situation, they are not the one decide who to be named. Instead, if you do talk to them, i,e. Mike Thornton, and refused to pay, I would think in his report that make you look even like a target, Just my opinion, if I am a debt collector. SO IMO, don’t talk to them at all, even if you want to settle, settle thru a lawyer to their lawyer, so people like MIke Thornton will be not use your money to pay for his daughter’s Xmas gift.

          Reply

          • The debt collectors are going to keep logs of who they attempted to talk to, as well as what was said (possible incriminating statesment). If you don’t come off as good target, they are more likely to go after easier prey.

            DTD 🙂

        • Also that, you shall not show you are easy to be bite down. IF you do have conversation with the troll’s Rottweiler (I love this dog myself, they are very cute), remember you shall record the conversation, and, you CAN mention if you wish from beginning of the conversation – for legal purpose, this conversation is being recorded. (Remember as evidence, you may want to let another party know it’s under recording anyway), after that, the Rottweiler will state his name and your case number, now you can interrupt it by asking if he can prove the authorization from his client, since there are so many scam out there, it’s a logical request. If he is pissed and start to threaten you at this point, great, you have it all on the recorder. If not, ask him to fax or email (create a temporary email address) the proof of authorization to you, once you receive it, you will call back to resume the conversation. Of course, to call back or not, it’s completely up to you, you already make the point to the Rottweiler. Remember no other discussion on your case during the conversation.
          People here have experience with the Rottweiler can you also share your experience with us? and what you think can prepare everyone here better.

          Reply

        • Read this link for the regulation that a debt collector shall follow http://www.mgvlawfirm.com/index.php/how-do-debt-collectors-have-to-identify-themselves

          especially – Did the debt collector send the consumer a written validation notice within five days of the initial written or oral communication?

          I think some of them will try to avoid your request and tell you he is just inform you on behave of his client (bingo, need proof of autho), or even completely skip that, you can simply tell him that there will be no more conversation until he can properly identify himself then hang up.

          Reply

  45. Hello everyone. I have peeked at this forum a few times over the last few months because i am involved in a lawsuit AF Holdings LLC vs Does 1-1140. I got the subpoena back in October and i did lawyer up. I admit like most I was and still am scared. I have yet to hear at all by phone or letter. While it’s nice to hear the pick-me ups, you still never know. I did not contact my ISP after getting the subpoena per my lawyer. Since then, I have received emails from my ISP informing me of infringement notices. I didn’t receive one for the lawsuit. I have received 5 total emails. What I would like to know is, are these just reminders not to download, or do i expect to receive more subpoenas? It seems like a lot of this stuff is scare tactics to extort money to make the rich people more richer (i.e. lawyers and movie makers). I understand not every company sues and they just want people reminded. I hope one day that the judges, lawyers, and movie makers come to realize that this stuff will not go away. People will find a way to share files. It’s a never-ending battle. Can anyone answer my questions about the emails? Would be appreciated. Thank you

    Reply

  46. what does this mean? john doe 9 and john doe 14?

    2/10/2012 33 ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 9 Motion to Quash and 14 Motion to Quash. Plainitff’s Counsel is directed to serve a copy of this Order on all remaining defendants and file proof of service, under seal, to the Court. Signed by U.S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 2/8/12. (Talbert, S.) (Entered: 02/10/2012)

    here is the link for north carolina eastern.

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

    Reply

  48. If you are named in a case will I receive a seperate letter (hopefully from the court), not the ISP release info, stating that there is a trial going forward and a court date?

    I don’t want to get a lawyer unless I absolutely have to, I can’t afford one. If I am named in a case that is the point of no return and I will have to get one right?

    Reply

    • This page gives an outline of the steps:

      http://dietrolldie.com/2011/11/07/taken-from-the-files-of-“don’t-panic”-or-“what-can-i-expect”/

      Notice to you is required from the plaintiff. After being named, a summons is “sent”. Regulations about receiving a summons reportedly differ depending on the area. The plaintiff is responsible for at least making a reasonable effort to serve the defendant.

      If you were named in a suit, it is possible to respond yourself (“pro se”) but a lawyer would be better able to handle a complicated process.

      If things were to get to that point, you might check the state bar or law schools in your area to see if there is some pro bono (free) clinic for the public.

      The pattern has been repeated rounds of phone calls or letters making demands, before a point where there would be a possibility of being named individually. It does cost a troll or troll servant some money and time to file against one individual. The troll prefers a quick settlement so that the scam can move on to another cycle.

      A troll wants to collect easily, so a person with no assets and no cash is not a good target. DO NOT SPEAK TO THE TROLLS. An explanation about being poor in the demand stages may not make them even slow down. A troll will look for words to trap a defendant. They don’t care about innocence or justice. The troll will still use fear to try to take what money they can get.

      Read the FAQ here and the steps at DTD or other sites.

      Reply

  49. Hi all,

    Just received my own special mail from my ISP and had a question.
    The complaint itself lists only “John Doe” and does not explicitly state “John Does 1-X”. Does this mean that I was the only one targetted in this subpeona?
    The complaint actually says “there are approximately 127 IP addresses to be identified” but I can’t tell if I can use the “joinder” argument in alot of these Motion’s to Quash that I find online.

    I did notice that I am not in the jurisdiction of the complaint. Is there a specific motion to quash out there for such a case? If anyone could point me to that, it would help me out alot.

    Thanks

    Reply

  50. I have a question, how do I respond to the subpoena anonymously? Do I use the ip address listed or do I say I am number 25 out of 105? I want to file to quash the subpoena

    Thanks

    Reply

Leave a reply to annony24714 Cancel reply