So, while I think that this law is a travesty, à la guerre comme à la guerre, and what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. Why not to use this law to obtain information that is relevant to Lipscomb’s Bittorent cases? Namely, the most guarded secret: ransom money distribution that would connect many dots in the Lipscomb-XArt-Guardaley relationship, including 1) allegedly contingent cut received by the Germans (or, more precisely, a confirmation that the Germans steer the lawsuits) and 2) allegedly low percentage of the settlement proceeds that the nominal plaintiff X-Art receives.
I already conjectured that SunTrust bank holds these secrets so eagerly sought by the Doe defendants. Give it a try, guys: jurisdiction is just right, and if Lipscomb attempts to protest, the judicial estoppel doctrine comes to play. One more time, in chorus: What’s good for the goose…
On June 11, 2014, Paul Overhouser wrote:
I wonder if a defense attorney could use this tactic on an offensive basis on behalf of a prospective defendant, to serve a subpoena on SunTrust Bank to get the bank records of Lipscomb’s Copyright Trust Fund account. They would certainly be relevant to infringement litigation as the settlement amounts would be relevant to a “reasonable royalty” for a copyright infringement claim. If an attorney wants to do this, email me: I can forward such a Subpoena I served on SunTrust. I never got the requested documents from SunTrust because the Plaintiff quickly agreed to settle.