Guardaley | Voltage

Copyright troll Keith Vogt cuts and runs, Judge Hughes essentially kills Bittorent lawsuits in his district

You’re nothing but a pack of cards!

Lewis Carroll. Alice in Wonderland.
Lynn HughesCopyright bully
Keith A. Vogt

We have been eagerly waiting for today’s hearing in Judge Hughes’s chambers (Dallas Buyers Club v. Does 1-25, TXSD 14-cv-02218), after the judge curtly denied copyright troll Keith Vogt‘s (ostensibly via his local counsel Daniel R. Kirshbaum) attempt to postpone inevitable “prolonged tirades by the court.”

Alas, our anticipated Schadenfreude turned into disappointment: Vogt dismissed the lawsuit at the last moment. Not really a surprise: this type of behavior is a hallmark of a bully who is only capable of harassing those much weaker: when he encounters anyone who is stronger, it’s usually time for an emergency laundry.

Now, as you can imagine, Judge Hughes was not amused and issued a short order in his distinguished style. I’m sure you’ll enjoy it as I did:

 

Effectively, this judge just killed Bittorent lawsuits in the Southern District of Texas. You may say I’m a dreamer, but… is it really too much to hope that other judges ask a couple of simple questions before rubberstamping ex-parte discovery requests based on fraudulent declarations? This episode shows that trolls’ “litigation” is just a house of cards ready to be blown away with a slightest wind.

Related

wordpress counter

Discussion

18 responses to ‘Copyright troll Keith Vogt cuts and runs, Judge Hughes essentially kills Bittorent lawsuits in his district

  1. LMFAO!!!! Troll Vogt, Voltage pictures, German BT monitoring firm, and APMC can kiss my @$$! I hope some of the Does in IL and CO see and take note what is going on. The Troll has no stomach to fight this on the merits of the case. All of these Dallas Buyers Club case depended on testimony of a representative of the Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC), an established SD shelf-Company. More to come on these DBC cases.

    DTD 🙂

  2. Greetings from the Campaign Trail. Just letting you know that I am still following http://www.fightcopyrighttrolls.com and I applaud you for doing a stellar job at continuing to publish case alerts, timely court rulings, and relevant conversation.
    Bill

    Bill Wohlsifer for Attorney General
    Florida’s First Libertarian Candidate for Attorney General
    1100 East Park Ave Ste B ★ Tallahassee FL 32301
    Tel: (850) 219-8888 ★ Fax: (866) 829-8174
    campaign@Wohlsifer4AG.comhttp://www.Wohlsifer4AG.com
    Skype Name: william.wohlsifer
    Find me on:
    Mention on Twitter @wohlsifer

  3. It seems like they don’t have a real lawyer to appear in person in court except represent in name only for paper works, while getting pay from the weak Does! I wonder if all the Malibu cases are the same if some one decide to fight back; there are so many individual cases. All Does should CAREFULLY submit a motion even it will fail. It worked!

  4. FYI, Judge Hughes’ order hasn’t stopped Mr. Vogt. in the Southern District. He’s representing Cobbler Nevada LLC in 4:15-cv-01332. June 10, 2015, Magistrate Judge Frances H. Stacy allowed a third-party subpoena to get the names of 25 “Does.” I understand that he is asking for $2,500 to settle before getting the defendant’s name. That’s $625,000 for filing a complaint and getting a discovery prior to the 26(f) conference if he can convince the 25 Does to pay.

    • Whoops. $625,000 should be $62,500. Really, the economics make no sense for the plaintiffs to pursue the claims, except that the plaintiff knows it also makes no financial sense to fight.

      • Vogt is an interesting fish. If I had time I would prove my strong suspicion (based on numerous observations): he 100% drops those who resist even slightly. Filed a MTQ? Dismissed.

        • Well, in the Southern District, he need not dismiss because the judges other than Hughes, deny the motion. See, e.g., Dallas Buyers Club, LLC (“DBC”) v. Does 1-19, No. 4:15-cv-00050 (S.D. Tex. June 12, 2015) (Doc. 11) (Gilmore, M.J.) (containing zero discussion); DBC v. Does 1-19, No. 4:14-cv-03393 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2015) (Doc. 12) (Rosenthal, J.) (finding no burden on Doe for subpoena directed to third-party ISP). And there is some indication that Vogt may actually add a real name to a complaint. Amended Complaint, DBC, No. 4:14-cv-03393 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2015) (Doc. 9) (amending complaint when girlfriend’s motion to quash “gave up” her boyfriend). Of course, this is the only example I could find where DBC attorneys added a real named party to a case. Unless every one of the hundreds of Does paid him (unlikely), it is logical to conclude that it is at least rare that he’ll pursue a Doe who does not respond or resists.

          One thing is clear though: a Doe attacking the subpoena is a loser.

          My thought is that–again to my knowledge–no one has let any of the judges know what is really going on. I have the time, a client, and have agreed to inform the court of the reality of the BitTorrent troll litigation for free. However, it takes a very strong client to do this (rather than pay the demand or wait it out) in light the plaintiff-attorney’s chest pounding, threat of paying attorney’s fees (however unlikely), and the above circumstantial evidence that he’ll probably drop the case eventually.

        • PS: You have my email my contact information is at the URL to the right of the “@.” I’d like to talk with you about potentially making a resource available on your blog. If you’re interested, please give me a call at your convenience.

          • Please note that this “IP Attorney,” Joshua Wyde, was recently recruited by Carl Crowell to work for the German criminal organization Guardaley. Thus, “IP attorney” is a gross overstatement. Wyde is an irrelevant starving lawyer, who is incapable of finding real clients, thus resorting to extorting his compatriots on behalf of foreign con artists.

  5. This Creep is trying to drag our family own business
    through the mud….never telling me about a court date….had to find out on my own……..wth

  6. Well wish my Family Luck. Since we are a corporation. We were told we need an Attorney for our Court Date. I was told a corporation can not get free counsel….there fore I have been calling around, Lawyers want anywhere from $5,000.00 retainer fee and up. I spoke to the upcoming Judge Secretary our situation, she stated to just show up and talk to the judge. I plan on doing just that, hopefully seeing that my mom is elderly will help.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s