California

Attorneys who defend troll victims

2015+ Malibu Media cases

Relevant posts

wordpress counter

Discussion

210 responses to ‘California’

  2. Beautiful.

    District: CASD Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 3:11-cv-02143
    Troll: Adam M Silverstein (Cavaluzzi & Cavalluzzi)

    DieTrollDie recently wrote about a similar case from the same troll.

    In this case AT&T once again fought for its users (although I’m skeptical that ISPs really care about its customers, I praise a recent tendency of providers moving to quash subpoenas). First, a motion to compel was filed by the troll in January and it was granted, AT&T then asked to reconsider – and it was reconsidered, with a beautiful “SO ORDERED” part:

    1. AT&T’s Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED;

    2. This Court’s Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery from AT&T is VACATED (Doc. No. 24);

    3. Plaintiff and all of its counsel are not to make any use whatsoever of the subscriber information provided by AT&T pursuant to the instant subpoena;

    4. Plaintiff and all of its counsel are to locate and destroy all physical and electronic copies of the subscriber information provided by AT&T pursuant to the instant subpoena;

    5. To the extent that Plaintiff and its counsel have used the subscriber information obtained from AT&T pursuant to the instant subpoena, for example, to send demand letters to identified subscribers, those letters are to be withdrawn;

    6. To the extent that Plaintiff and its counsel have used the subscriber information obtained from AT&T pursuant to the instant subpoena to serve individuals with the complaint in this case, Plaintiff must seek leave from the District Court voluntarily to dismiss the complaint as to those individuals;

    7. To the extent that Plaintiff has taken actions with regard to persons identified by AT&T’s production to the instant subpoena which actions cannot reasonably be undone, Plaintiff is required to identify those actions in a notice of compliance to be filed with the Court as provided below; and,

    8. Plaintiff is required to file with the Court a notice of compliance with the terms of this Order no later than April 6, 2012

    Reply

  3. Excellent! I especially like the part where the court found that the plaintiff violated virtually every provision of Rule 45 regarding the issuance of a subpoena on AT&T.

    Reply

  4. NuImage v. Does 1-3932 Case # 2:11-cv-005450

    I recently received a subpoena regarding this case from my ISP, Charter Communication, and wanted to know if anyone else has received something similar or has any information regarding this case.

    Reply

  6. Today Troll Defense blog about new (to me) copyright trolls representing Camelot Distribution Group. They are shaking down Does over a cheap horror movie (not porno? surprise!) Wreckage.

    Scott M. Hervey
    Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Sproul
    400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    (916) 558-6000 x6065
    Fax: (916) 446-1611
    Email: shervey@weintraub.com
    @thirsty_lawyer

    Scott M. Plamondon
    Weintraub Genshlea Chediak
    400 Capitol Mall
    11th Floor
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    916-558-6000
    Fax: 916.446-1611
    Email: splamondon@weintraub.com
    @LandELaws

    Reply

    • They are also attorneys on a couple of cases (2:12-cv-00301-JAM-CKD, 2:12-cv-00302-JAM-CKD) filed in the California Eastern District for Smash Pictures alleging copyright infingement on “Bridesmaids XXX Porn Parody” between 10/18/11 and 1/19/12. There are 265 Does in the first case and 590 in the second.

      Hervey was apparently the attorney behind Camelot’s “Nude Nuns with Big Guns” lawsuit that targeted 5,865 Does

      http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/bittorrent/

      Reply

        • The California case for the porn company Smash Pictures was filed by the trolling lawyer Scott M. Hervey of Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Sproul.

          A case with 590 Does is a mass copyright troll cases. There must be improper jurisdiction for this case, with most Does outside of the district. Hard to believe that the trolls could devise allegations for 590 Does in California’s eastern district for “Bridesmaids XXX Porn Parody”.

          The EFF office is not far from Sacramento. It would be good if an EFF representative filed an amicus brief for these Smash Picture mass troll cases in California Eastern District, to bring more information to that jurisdiction.

          Reply

        • There is no registration listed for Bridesmaids XXX Porn Parody on the U.S. copyright site. Was there any registration or application claim on the first complaint ?

          Without registration, technically the trolls might only collect real damages from a Doe if a case actually reached a trial (which it would not). This “useful work”(not) was released much more than 120 days ago.

          The statutory damages have the scary sounding possibility of many thousands of dollars in penalty. Real damages might be related to the “value” of the item, maybe 25 dollars at most.

          Trolls have tried in the past to scare Does and collect for works with no copyright registration.

          Reply

        • I have the letter that I got from them. I could post a link of the file here if that would help clarify the case.

          Reply

        • Looks like some good news in the two Smash Pictures cases: On 6/14/12, Judge Delaney vacated her previous discovery order to the ISPs and granted several motions to quash. She also recommended (to Judge Mendez, who seems to be another Judge involved in one or both cases?) that Does 2-265 and 2-590 be dismissed without prejudice.

          She agreed with Doe defendents that joinder is unwarranted and sounded annoyed that there were motions to quash from Does in Oregon and N. California, outside the E. California district.

          Click to access gov.uscourts.caed.234735.21.0.pdf

          Incidentally, there were questions about whether the movie (Bridesmaids XXX) was correctly copyrighted: it was, but it took about 6 months or so to show up on the US Copyright website, so I guess that can take a while…

          Reply

  8. What is happening in California’s Eastern District ?
    Troll attorney Marc J. Randazza of Randazza Legal Group is filing for Liberty Media Holdings, LLC. On 4/4/12 six cases were filed, naming individuals, usually with one other (or more ?) listed as John Doe.

    It look like Randazza for Liberty Media LLC had summons served for more than half a dozen inviduals in the California Souther district, most in late March 2012.

    Liberty Media had no troll cases for Doe groups in the California Eastern district. Discovery of Doe information must have been in a different district or state.

    Reply

  9. Are the trolls taking advantage of the Eastern district’s smaller experience with troll misdeeds ?

    Since August 1, 2011, 26 of 27 total copyright cases there are from the porn video business trolls.
    The breakdown of copyright troll attorneys filing for adult video studios is

    Scott M. Hervey of Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Sproul-6 cases
    Brett Langdon Gibbs of Prenda Law Inc.-12 cases
    Marc J. Randazza of Randazza Legal Group-6 cases

    Reply

  10. Troll Randazza has filed 6 Liberty Media Holdings lawsuits in the Eastern District on April 4. Three are sealed. The other three involve the alleged infringement of “Down on the Farm” by a named single defendant and a John Doe which have been rounded up and assigned to Magistrate Judge Edmund Brennan as of April, 11 http://ia601200.us.archive.org/10/items/gov.uscourts.caed.237199/gov.uscourts.caed.237199.6.0.pdf The validity of the copyright has been questioned by a pro se plaintiff in a MA lawsuit http://ia700701.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.mad.139544/gov.uscourts.mad.139544.19.0.pdf

    Reply

  12. Got a bridesmaids civil action in the mail. Kind of lost as to what to do. They don’t have a copyright filed from what I could see.

    Reply

    • Not quite.

      http://ia601202.us.archive.org/4/items/gov.uscourts.caed.238043/gov.uscourts.caed.238043.docket.html

      There’s the docket and complaint for one of them. Still John Does, apparently completely unidentified unlike the last batch of single-Doe suits in CA that identified the account holder in the complaint. The “summons issued” is filled with John Doe and the IP address, so it looks like it won’t be served any time soon; the complaint says John Doe is to be identified through discovery. Infringement was logged December 23, 2011, so probably not IPs from previous cases as there likely hasn’t been enough time to have slogged through the filing + discovery + subpoena + gather responses process. Also I assume if the IP holder had been identified and Prenda misrepresented that fact to the court they could get in trouble.

      Looks like this is more of the same tactic that got Hard Drive Productions served with two lawsuits in California already. If this is John’s big surprise it sounds like this is another round of pretending they are going to finally try one of these cases.

      Reply

      • Actually… This is a brand new strategy for Prenda. Instead of filing AF Holding vs. Does 1-11, Gibbs filed 11 individual cases. This is just further evidence how bad things are going for these guys in Cali. Gibbs has finally been forced not to join defendants and file each case separately. This is unsustainable in the long run if thy are unable to get these cases settled quickly if discovery is approved.

        Reply

        • Trust me the Prenda dickhead is going to try to weasel the discovery of John Doe’s co-downloaders at some stage by hook or crook. Probably by crook.

          Reply

      • An assigned copyright and a cause of action sounding in negligence for a nonresident alien corporation! Really? Yuen could have fun with this one.

        Reply

  16. Interesting… All these new named and unnamed Cali cases are Af holdings.. Did Millenium TGa, Hd productions, boy racer, and pink lotus dump Prenda? Or is af holdings the only client with a legitimate copyright on their movie? I really want to see if Gibbs has the balls to file any case related to Hd productions. Considering the two pending counter suits and Yuen’s ongoing investigation and class action plans…. I highly doubt it

    Reply

  17. I have heard the Lutz isn’t even harassing people from dismissed HD production cases… Seems like they see the forest(class action suit) through the trees(Wong,Abraham’s )

    Reply

  18. New Troll on the Block. Leemore Kushner files 8 Malibu Media lawsuits in the California Central District Court:

    12-cv-3614
    12-cv-3615
    12-cv-3617
    12-cv-3619
    12-cv-3620
    12-cv-3621
    12-cv-3622
    12-cv-3623

    Wishing her the worst of luck with her new enterprise.

    Reply

      • Noticed that and thought she has just started on her own and is doing this out of starvation. Not that it is justified but prostitutes also have to make hard choices.

        Reply

    • There’s another 10 cases filed by Kushner today in California Eastern District (plus others previously in California Southern District) — mostly Malibu Media.

      From RFC express (not sure how accurate the figures are) Malibu Media has filed 119 copyright cases since it started on 2/2/2012 to 5/10/2012. That troll alone accounts for over 14% of the total of 829 copyright cases filed in the US in that period, and I’m “guessing” that not a single John Doe has actually been brought to trial in any of them…

      Reply

      • Where can I get that info? I’m a doe in one of those eastern cases (over some stupid sh*t called “Lunchtime Fantasy”) she is in. I’m a little lost on all this motion to quash and joinder stuff.

        Reply

  19. I have to say the new document is pretty hilarious reading. I had never heard of “judicial estoppel” before reading that, and apparently neither had the trolls lol!

    Reply

    • This is good news, especially because this is a recent case and is in the California Eastern District civil court.

      Gibbs/Prenda/Steele-Hansmeier had tried forum shopping in the Eastern district court, since the California Northern and Southern district had increasing unfavorable rulings.

      This suggests Federal judges in other jurisdictions are getting the word about trolling and are moving more quickly against the scheme.

      Reply

      • Ouch, this was the Gibbs/Prenda “innovation” of only suing John Doe and then discussing co-conspirators in the complaint. This appeared to be an attempt to superficially fool the judges by not having a conspicuous list of Plaintiff v. John Doe 1 – Large Number cases show up on the docket right after they got slaughtered for joinder problems in the Northern District.

        Really puts them in a pickle because the judge basically faults them for NOT making the co-conspirators defendants, but the tide in California would have been firmly against them if they had.

        This must be the fruit of Buffy’s master plan he alluded to over at DTD, jetting around the country giving tips to Trolls and unleashing secret torrents of lawsuits that we will never be able to find any evidence actually happened. I’m sure Judge Brown’s order in New York and McIntyre’s smackdown were all part of his strategy too.

        Reply

        • Given the self serving track record, best guess is Prenda jet is only traveling to locations of Prenda local servants.

          Reply

    • What was not on the status sheet –

      – We will first attempt to extort money from the ISP subscriber (once provided by the ISP) knowing full well that this person may not be the actual person who downloaded/shared the movie. We don’t really care.
      – Only after we have been unsuccessful in threatening Doe defendants into paying the settlement, will we even consider dismissing a Doe that does not reside within the court’s jurisdiction. In fact we will drag this out for a year or so and then dismiss it altogether claiming we are doing the court a favor. Even then we will continue to call and write letters to the Does, claiming “They will be named in a federal copyright infringement law suit in THEIR jurisdiction.”
      I still think it is pretty disgusting all the BS filings the Trolls make. The worst part is that so many courts just seem to take it. It looks like the court has the view that it is all just part of the “game” in Federal civil suits.

      DTD 🙂

      Reply

  23. please help i got this one in the mail today i dont know what to do about it……i read all of your posts guys but still im a little rattled should i just ignore it or file an MTQ? i dont have a lawyer and i cant afford one so how do i do it without breaking my anonymous status? its from sunlust ill post a link http://torrentlitigation.com/cases/Sunlust%20Pictures,%20LLC%20v.%20Doe,%20Case%20No.%2012-cv-0656%20%28DCO%29.pdf

    is this legit or a troll?

    Reply

    • Ira Siegel is a history (hopefully) – he did not file anything since the beating by M.E. James in December. His extortion enterprise is alive and well though: Mike Meier and Marvin Cable terrorize the population.

      Reply

  28. just wondering, who is malibu media, llc? can’t seem to find any info on them other than case records.

    Reply

  29. Guys, I need a copy of a demand letter in any “one Doe – many co-conspirators” case. Needless to say, your privacy is my utmost priority: I encourage you to remove personal information, or, alternatively, let me do it: I do it thoroughly and never forget about details, such as file metadata.

    Reply

  30. Thanks TAC! Here is an interesting development in case 2:12-cv-03425, LIBERTY MEDIA HOLDINGS, LLC, v. JOHN DOE and DAVID MASTRON, Central district of CA.

    The judge removes herself from the case. WHY???

    “the fact that Judge Morrow owns common stock in plaintiff Liberty Media Holdings, LLC”

    – http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/judge_stockinpornco_03425ca.pdf

    MARGARET M. MORROW – How did you get involved in Liberty Media Holdings LLC?

    Reply

  31. got one of those notices from dale on behalf of digital playground through my isp for the first and only time. I know you guys encourage people to ignore them until they develop into something, but I’m not a good gambler and can’t handle the stress. For me the cost of doing the BS presettlement is worth not having to worry about it escalating to something else. Haven’t plugged in the code and case number or whatever so I don’t know what the extortion is gonna cost (though I may have gone to the site through a google search, not through clicking the email). I think I have a couple of weeks left to cave in…what should I do?

    Reply

    • Dale Spislander from CEG?

      Your ISP has not given them any of your information, they simply passed the DMCA or infringement notice on to you. The only way they will know who you are, is if you call, email, or click on the settlement link and enter your info.

      I assume this claim by CEG is a recent infringement? They have been doing this since early 2010 and to my knowledge they never followed up after the settlement due date.

      If you decide to settle, have an attorney review the release that they provide.

      Reply

      • Almost forgot. Digital Playground is owned by Manwin, one of the largest Tube Site owners in the industry.

        Reply

      • that’s the guy. When they send out subpoenas to the isp, do they send these notices out first or do they go straight to subpoenas? Anyone know?

        Reply

        • couldn’t reply to the post below (maybe above, don’t know where this will end up), but yeah, I was just wondering what happens with subpoenas though. Do they usually send dmca notices out before a subpoena is issued or do they usually just send the subpoena out without a notice first. Just curious.

          Reply

  32. Hey anonymous,
    I have lawyers in your area also and I am about to sue you as well. You can send me the $3,000 when ever you get around to it. Thanks!

    Reply

  33. As of today, 21 NEW cases are listed for 5/29/12 in California, divided between the eastern & central districts. All California filings done by Leemore Lilly Kushner of the Kushner Law Group. The plaintiffs are Malibu Media (14 cases), Patrick Collins (4 cases), and Third Degree Films (3 cases). The grouping of these plaintiffs under one attorney is consistent with the pattern in other states. As of today, 21 new cases are listed for 5/29/12 in California, divided between the eastern & central districts.

    Reply

      • 51 cases in 7 weeks.
        Ms. Leemore L. Kushner of the Kushner Law Group also filed an additional 10 cases for porn purveyor plaintiffs (Malibu Media, Patrick Collins, Third Degree Films) in California Eastern District on 5/10/12. She an additional 13 cases for Malibu Media in California Central District on 4/26/12. She an additional 8 cases for Malibu Media in California Southern District on 4/10/12. In 35 working days, Leemore Lilly Kushner has filed a combined 52 cases for her porn purveyor clients.

        Adam M. Silverstein of Cavalluzzi & Cavalluzzi was filing new cases for these plaintiffs until 2/10/12.

        Reply

        • Clarification to SJD’s tweet. The 52 California cases filed by Ms. Leemore L. Kushner of the Kushner Law Group for porn purveyor plaintiffs (Malibu Media, Patrick Collins, Third Degree Films) is divided AMONG the California Southern, Central & Eastern districts. It’ll be interesting to check the IP lists. Trolls cases have sunk in California Northern District.

          Reply

  34. Am I missing something here?

    Click to access gov.uscourts.cacd.514600.1.0.pdf

    Lists a Hash ID: UOUXFRBA3KUQZTX5ZUWO2ZT6ZMJ6DXDF for “Big Dick Glory Holes, vol. 6”

    But UOUXFRBA3KUQZTX5ZUWO2ZT6ZMJ6DXDF is NOT a VALID HASH (it only has 32 charaters). A valid Hash must have 40 characters.

    The google search …
    https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=UOUXFRBA3KUQZTX5ZUWO2ZT6ZMJ6DXDF&oq=UOUXFRBA3KUQZTX5ZUWO2ZT6ZMJ6DXDF&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.12…122834.122834.6.123764.1.1.0.0.0.0.782.782.6-1.1.0…0.0.RBsjgvwtp7c&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=8f53a2b8ced72225&biw=1120&bih=575

    DOES NOT POINT to the video in question (just the silly legal docs).

    THERE IS NO SUCH TORRENT WITH HASH ID: UOUXFRBA3KUQZTX5ZUWO2ZT6ZMJ6DXDF

    Reply

  35. With Troll Kushner filing 8 new troll lawsuits this week I thought it would be productive to check out the CASD for pro-Doe rulings.

    In 808 Holdings v. Collective (case no. 12-cv-191) Judge Brooks denied expedited discovery on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue and misjoinder. Nice! http://ia600206.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.casd.374691/gov.uscourts.casd.374691.5.0.pdf

    Ditto for 808 Holdings v. Collective (case no. 12-cv-532) http://ia700804.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.casd.377909/gov.uscourts.casd.377909.docket.html

    Reply

    • Working with the barest of essentials, but in Malibu Media v. Does 1-10 (CACD
      12-cv-3623) Judge Walsh joins Judge Tucker in sua sponte severing all Does but Doe 1 in Troll Kushner’s heinous mountain of lawsuits. Time to zero in on this troll as she is quickly filing way too many lawsuits, like a Kotzker but with a skirt. Neither possesses a soul only an emptiness which is difficult for most humans to fathom.

      Reply

  44. Ms. Deborah Bari Baker of Lipscomb Eisenberg and Baker filed 5 cases for porn purveyor Malibu Media LLC on 6/27/12 in California Central District court. I believe these are the first troll cases where she has been the attorney of record. The other lawyers of Lipscomb Eisenberg and Baker do not appear to be admitted to practice in California.

    With the recent request for sanctions against Malibu Media in other California Central District cases, she may have an interest in responding.

    If Ms. Baker is based in Miami, as are the Lipscomb Eisenberg and Baker main offices, it would probably involve extra time and expense if she had to make multiple appearances in California Central District court.

    http://dietrolldie.com/2012/07/02/fly-low-and-avoid-the-radar-malibu-media-llc-and-the-28-related-cases-in-the-central-district-of-ca/

    Reply

  46. Two interesting developments hinted at over at rfcexpress.com in the CACD but am limitted with the iPad to follow up on Pacer (without wasting $):

    1. Judge Segal has rounded up Troll Baker ‘s lawsuits (at least 6 Malibu Media, probably a lot more) and is about to issue a mass severance. See for starters 12-cv-1642 and 5592.
    2. Judge Klausner is doing likewise with Troll Kushner’s Malibu Media lawsuits and the troll is folding. See for starters, 12-cv-3614.

    Reply

      • Ah, I did not see that post but I think Cashman’s pessimism is somewhat premature as Kushner appears to be folding in the face of the OTSCs. Without PACER it is a tough call but my money is that she will fold all her lawsuits as she did 12-cv-3614. Her exposure to an adverse ruling is too high and why not just institute new proceedings in another CA district with the same Doe list (not that it hasn’t happened before)?

        Reply

      • I was just writing about the same point as SJD. The good things are that trolling is obviously on the CACD judges’ radar. How could it not be ? Dozens of porn purveyor copyright troll cases have been filed in the California Central District this year. Also, Judge Klausner has, for the time being, put a brake on everything until proper jurisdiction is determined.

        The potentially bad thing, as Mr. Cashman points out, is that per RFC listings the judge asks the plaintiff to show cause about the personal jurisdiction issue. As we know, trolls have made their suits smaller in the past year to usually account for jurisdiction. So trolls are being asked to defend a strong part of their claim. Joinder, misuse of judicial process, and other issues are weaker points for most troll cases. Let’s hope that joinder is only the first issue being reviewed by CACD in these frequent porn purveyor findings.

        I am very cautiously hopeful. It’s also possible that by entertaining jurisdiction issues, the court will have to consider the accuracy of geolocation tools, and, much worse for the trolls, the validity of technology they have never even partly revealed, let along justified. It’s hard to imagine overworked courts want to be flooded with porn purveyor filings used later for shakedowns outside the courts. (There are a lot of real intellectual property disputes in this district, in addition to other matters.) Porn purveyor copyright troll cases have been filed in CACD since a Patrick Collins case of 3/18/2011. There have been approximately zero CACD individual cases where the porn purveyor plaintiff has had to present the merits of an individual complaint with full discussion.

        http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/california-central-district-court/99799/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does/summary/

        “Any order allowing for the issuance of a Rule 45 subpoena prior to a Rule 26(f) scheduling conference is hereby vacated until the Court addresses jurisdictional concerns associated with these cases. Further all hearing dates issued by other Courts are also vacated. All pending motions and ex parte applications are moot.”

        Reply

      • Wish I could express some surprise about this but after a year into this sewer nothing really surprises anymore, still what a fucking sleazoid!

        Reply

        • Actually, minor correction, the shit Prenda is pulling lately floors me as does the fact that the authorities haven’t shut it down yet.

          Reply

      • A few bits of info:

        This is, of course, a mass infringement case, with improper joinder. It’s unlikely that 306 persons in the California Eastern District shared one “New Sensations” work ever, let alone in a limited time period.

        Both Matlocks were admitted to the California Bar in 2006. There firm lists 10 layers in their office. What drove this firm’s growth, in 6 years or less. Why would a partner of a sizable firm need to take on this case? It appears to be the usual demand scheme for the Copyright Enforcement Group, based on other lawyers for the same plaintiff. I can’t think offhand where a partner of a moderate sized firm was the attorney of record for this sh#z.

        Ms. Leith-Matlock got a degree and license as an occupational therapist, prior to her legal training. Is the regard for individuals similar in troll lawyering and health care work?

        In the various New Sensations, Inc. complaints that I’ve looked through, none of them list a business address for the plaintiff, saying only that it is a California corporation. The address listed by the California Secretary of State is:

        Scott E Taylor, 21345 Lassen St, Chatsworth, CA 91311

        Neither the plaintiff nor the attorneys are in the California Eastern District. Probably neither are the large majority of Does. More evidence for forum shopping.

        Reply

        • Nice! I took it upon myself to email a follow up of your earlier email toTroll Dumas over in Indiana yesterday inquiring about the esteemed troll status he now shares with that paragon of virtue, Paul Nicoletti

          Reply

        • I took a look at the complaint on PACER. It does indeed claim that all 306 Does are located in CAED, with the alleged infringement occurring on the same hash # over a 2 month period in Apr-Jun/2012.

          Reply

  48. Ha, Ha, Troll Kushner, keep knocking them out of the park!

    All CAED, all anti-troll determinations!

    Click to access gov.uscourts.caed.240012.5.0.pdf

    Click to access gov.uscourts.caed.240007.5.0.pdf

    http://ia600405.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.caed.239789/gov.uscourts.caed.239789.5.0.pdf “The court has additional concerns regarding plaintiff’s request for expedited discovery. A torrent of similar cases have been filed in the past several months, many of which appear to be simply using the federal courts as an avenue to collect money.”

    Click to access gov.uscourts.caed.238918.8.0.pdf

    Click to access gov.uscourts.caed.239781.5.0.pdf

    http://ia600808.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.caed.238920/gov.uscourts.caed.238920.5.0.pdf Footnote 3 “The declaration of plaintiff’s investigator, Tobias Fieser, states: “Many ISPs only retain
    the information sufficient to correlate an IP address to a person at a given time for a very limited
    amount of time.” Fieser Decl. ¶ 10. Fieser’s statement is unexplained, unsupported by any
    documentation, and so general as to be of little to no value.”

    Judge Wright is frequently cited 🙂

    Reply

  50. I couldn’t believe my eyes but it looks like the Matlocks are trolling in CAND now!

    I looked at the histories of several of their Plaintiffs, Third Degree, Patrick Collins, New Sensations and Media Products, Inc. and the last cases from each Plaintiff were filed by Ira Siegel… Looks like the troll has crawled out from under his bridge and found some attorneys scummy enough to do his dirty work.

    I’m guessing he didn’t tell them how his last round of cases turned out; several of the new cases have been assigned to Maria-Elena James, a judge who previously got tired of IRA’s crap, used geolocation tools on her own initiative to dismiss out of state Does, and forbid Ira from settling with any more Does. A couple more were assigned to Grewal who has severed all but Doe 1 from Ira’s cases in the past.

    This is going to be fun to watch. Maybe one or two cases slipped through the cracks, but according to my search of RFC Express there have been no mass-Doe cases filed in CAND since September 2011. That was when it had become clear that Trolls were not welcome there, I believe Ira just gave up while Prenda moved on to CAED (without much success) and tried a handful of single-Doe cases in CAND and CAED, two of which provoked the Liuxia Wong and Seth Abrahams v. Hard Drive Productions, Inc. suits.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Gravatar
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 )

Cancel

Connecting to %s