Attorneys who defend troll victims
- Nicholas Ranallo (San Francisco CA)
- Morgan E. Pietz (Los Angeles CA)
- Curtis Edmondson (Hillsboro OR)
- Clay Renick (Carlsbad CA) (619) 322-5695
- David Madden (Tigard OR)
- Danny Simon (Miami FL)
2015+ Malibu Media cases
Relevant posts
- Judge Alsup threatens to bar further Malibu Media cases in his district until the accuracy of the geolocation technology is fully vetted (5/10/2017)
- Malibu Media (X-Art) claims it wants to catch the initial seeder: why this claim sounds shallow (9/19/2016)
- Malpractice insurer alleges that Lipscomb lied on the application, sues to rescind the coverage (8/13/2016)
- Defendant moves for sanctions against Malibu Media and its attorneys (8/12/2016)
- How copyright trolls plunder both US citizens and… rights holders (7/17/2016)
- Malibu Media (X-Art) sues its former counsel Keith Lipscomb and his firm for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty (6/28/2016)
- Judge thwarts copyright troll’s sneaky practice of securing safe retreat from potentially meritless lawsuits (6/22/2016)
- Malibu Media’s geolocation accuracy: more scrutiny (6/21/2016)
- Judge Alsup questions accuracy of Malibu Media’s geolocation technology, stays subpoena (6/20/2016)
- The Ninth Circuit affirms fee award imposed by Judge Wright against Prenda principals three years ago (6/10/2016)
- Malibu Media fails to find a new counsel, judge dismisses the case (5/23/2016)
- Judge Alsup benchslaps Malibu Media’s attorneys, kills 15 cases (4/6/2016)
- Malibu Media well-oiled shakedown machine hits a roadblock: two California judges deny early discovery (3/20/2016)
- Judge Alsup denies defendants’ motions while expressing doubt about the strength of Malibu Media’s lawsuits (3/11/2016)
- Six months after Malibu Media re-infested California: some statistics (3/7/2016)
- Yet another proof that X-Art doesn’t care about reducing piracy as much as about shaking down alleged file-sharers (2/28/2016)
- A model Answer to Malibu Media’s frivolous complaint (2/20/2016)
- Malibu Media case management conference in CAND: notes and thoughts (11/20/2015)
- Copyright trolls re-infest California (9/10/2015)
- ARDC suddenly remembers that there is “D” in its acronym, starts disciplinary proceeds against John Steele (8/20/2015)
- Oral arguments in Prenda’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit: live video feed (5/3/2015)
- X-Art/Malibu Media sues alleged file-sharers over illegally produced videos (2/7/2014)
- Since May, Ventura county is not a friendly place for pornographers (1/7/2014)
- Courthouse Jester: John Steele’s performance in Los Angeles (7/16/2013)
- Morgan Pietz talks about Prenda and copyright trolls on Bloomberg Law (7/16/2013)
- John Steele unsuccessfully attempts to avoid facing Judge Wright (7/10/2013)
- Pietz and Ranallo hire a lawfirm, claim that the latest Steele’s exhibit was forged (7/8/2013)
- Court awards attorney fees against AF Holdings in the amount of $9,425 (5/24/2013)
- Prenda is essentially done (5/6/2013)
- Transcript of the March 11 hearing is now available (4/8/2013)
- Prenda trolls appear in Judge Wright’s courtroom only to plead the Fifth. Furious judge ends the hearing after 12 minutes (4/2/2013)
- Prendacalypse #2: Judge Wright orders a follow-up hearing on April 2; no excuses for not appearing (3/14/2013)
- March 11 hearing: another story by a witness (3/12/2013)
- March 11 hearing: witnesses’ stories (3/11/2013)
- Deposition of Prenda’s Paul Hansemeier regarding AF Holdings: transcript (3/6/2013)
- Judge Otis Wright orders all Prenda’s main players to appear on March 11 (3/5/2013)
- Judge Otis Wright to hapless troll Gibbs: “If you pledge, don’t hedge!” (2/28/2013)
- Sinking ship “Prenda” is breaking with a loud sound. Rats are leaving the vessel (2/20/2013)
- California Judge Moskowitz finds that an IP address, alone, is insufficient evidence to support a copyright infringement complaint (2/18/2013)
- Hard Drive Productions is hit by another lawsuit: this time in Minnesota (2/16/2013)
- Judge Otis Wright is fed up with Brett Gibbs’s and Prenda’s frauds, hints at incarceration (2/8/2013)
- Brett Gibbs runs from justice like a petty thief caught lifting a loaf of bread (1/29/2013)
- Prenda’s motion to disqualify Judge Otis Wright has been denied (1/15/2013)
- Copyright troll Brett Gibbs disobeys judge’s order and affirmatively refuses to post a bond (1/11/2013)
- Attorney for a fake plaintiff questions the existence of a defendant he is suing (1/9/2013)
- The unbearable shrill of desperation. Brett Gibbs moves to disqualify Judge Otis Wright (12/31/2012)
- Big news: Judge Wright has granted a discovery aimed at solving the Alan Cooper mystery (and, potentially, uncovering a fraud of epic proportions) (12/28/2012)
- Another day, another tantrum, but this time Brett Gibbs directs judges to this site (12/17/2012)
- Facing uncomfortable questions, Brett Gibbs throws a temper tantrum (12/11/2012)
- Attorney Morgan Pietz attacks Prenda’s offshore businesses (12/3/2012)
- Copyright troll Prenda Law is accused of using a stolen identity for their offshore plaintiffs (11/30/2012)
- Nick Ranallo to Prenda: “Put your money where your mouth is” (10/25/2012)
- Prenda is hiring! Apply here! Positions fill quickly! (8/9/2012)
- Judge Wright is so right: copyright trolling is “essentially an extortion scheme” (7/4/2012)
- Judge reconsiders his order to allow early discovery, forbids Prenda to harass “co-conspirators” (6/29/2012)
- Video: Brett Langdon Gibbs replies to a motion (6/10/2012)
- “No Agenda” show about copyright trolling: “It’s a complete Mafioso operation!” (5/27/2012)
- Trolls call it technicality – I call it lies (4/11/2012)
- Prenda Law makes the classified number of actually served defendants public (3/1/2012)
- Copyright Enforcement Group distances itself from Terik Hashmi (2/23/2012)
- Defendant strikes back, sues Hard Drive Productions, targets Steele’s extortion outfit (1/31/2012)
- Judge Alsup grants 20K default judgment against two alleged file-sharers (10/7/2011)
- Nicholas Ranallo offers inexpensive legal help to p2p defendants (9/19/2011)
- Judges start to understand the wrongs of “copyright trolling” model (9/7/2011)
- Case “IO Group v. Does 1-50 Inclusive” has been voluntarily dismissed (9/2/2011)
- Ira Siegel replies to judge’s order, helps me to spread the word (9/1/2011)
- Troll Ira Siegel was ordered to disclose how much money he extorted from Does (8/25/2011)
- IO Group v. Does 1-138 case is closed (8/24/2011)
- Motion to quash a subpoena at work (8/22/2011)
- Carlos Somoza: a perfect target for extortion? (8/6/2011)
- IO Group v. Does-244: what to expect (7/22/2011)
- Two more IO Group cases were voluntarily dismissed (7/19/2011)
- Sperlein dismisses defendants, requests to enter default (7/18/2011)
- The case “IO Group v. Anthony Uy” has been voluntarily dismissed (7/16/2011)
- Question about threatening letters (7/15/2011)
- Defendant objects dismissal (7/14/2011)
- Proper way of replying to frivolous claims (7/12/2011)
- No more empty words. Proof requested (6/29/2011)
- Judge Alsup effectively puts IO Group v. Does 1-244 case on hold (6/24/2011)
- A judge in California tells a troll to file a separate case for each Doe (6/23/2011)
- Sperlein volturarily dismisses Mayra Gonzales (6/20/2011)
- Deception in court. Part I: EFF is pro-piracy (6/18/2011)
- Mysterious Doe #151: an honest mistake? (6/17/2011)
- Does 1-244: is the entire complaint bogus? (6/16/2011)
- A few words about Sperlein’s error-prone infringement detection technology (6/14/2011)
- Anatomy of extortion: a typical sad story (6/12/2011)
- More light under the bridge (6/10/2011)
- Myriad of lies. Really? (6/9/2011)
- Today’s developments (6/2/2011)
- An article about our cases (6/1/2011)
- Let’s look for attorneys to represent several defendant categories (5/26/2011)
- Case amended, ransoms paid (5/24/2011)
- To those receiving ransom letters (5/22/2011)
- What to expect: similar case at an advanced stage (5/21/2011)
- Judge strikes my motion to dismiss (5/12/2011)
- 3:10-cv-03647-MEJ Case Dockets (5/1/2011)
Sweet! Thank you! SJD
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:
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.
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.
Great news for the remaining 19 Does in 5:11-cv-03336 in NorCal (AFH v. Does 1-135). Judge Lucy Koh has issued an order dismissing the case for failure to serve pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 4(M).
http://ia600707.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.cand.242877/gov.uscourts.cand.242877.docket.html
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
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/
Hi,
I’m one of the Does in the Case: 2:12-cv-00302-JAM-CKD. Are there any updates on the case?
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.
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.
Links in case they are needed:
http://ia600807.us.archive.org/16/items/gov.uscourts.caed.234735/gov.uscourts.caed.234735.docket.html
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/caedce/2:2012cv00302/234735/
http://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.caed.234735
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.
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.
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…
Do you know about the ruling by Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on March 2, 2012 ? She granted discovery with 30 days from the time of service for ISP’s or Doe defendants to respond. Nothing recent on RFC for this case. With 590 Does, some action by defendants would be expected.
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.
I just saw that 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
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
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
an experiment trolls are assholes ◊ who cause pain
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.
I think you’re right. If you look this site, http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/california-eastern-district-court/89315/smash-pictures-v-unknown/summary/, on 2/6/12 the record says, copyright “pending.” Though I’m not 100% sure whether the plaintiff can file a complaint with that.
New troll tactics? It looks like Gibbs/Prenda have filed 9-11 cases in the California Eastern District against individual does (with summons issued).
Just from RFC Express, they appear to be for the movie “Popular Demand”, maybe from a previous case?
http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=143392
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.
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.
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.
An assigned copyright and a cause of action sounding in negligence for a nonresident alien corporation! Really? Yuen could have fun with this one.
gosh…what a speedy case…
Prenda activity against a single defendant – http://dietrolldie.com/2012/04/26/who-is-afraid-of-the-big-bad-wolf-prenda-law-and-the-phamtom-john-doe-case-312-cv-02049-ca/
DTD 🙂
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
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 )
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.
Her AVVO profile – she lists Willenken, Wilson, Loh & Lieb LLP as her employer while her name cannot be found on the firm’s website.
And she is yet another alumni of Loyola school who tries to enrich Jesuit values with unethical conduct and pornography.
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.
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…
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.
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!
In case there is any interest. Some good new in CA as the FTV v Unknown and lots of co-conspirators is shut down. Judge only allows Gibbs to subpoena the IP info for one John Doe and not all the “co-conspirators”.
http://ia700801.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.caed.236124/gov.uscourts.caed.236124.docket.html
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.
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.
Given the self serving track record, best guess is Prenda jet is only traveling to locations of Prenda local servants.
Looks like Wong v HDP. is settled at the settlement conference yesterday. Confidentially, unfortunately…
Copyright trolls Scott Plamondon and Scott Hervey shamelessly lie to the court that they will name every CA resident individually. Crooks.
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 🙂
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?
Feel free to drop me a line and we can set up a time to chat, if you’d like…
hi nick! do you have the same case as i have?
Nick is an attorney that deals with p2p copyright defense. I spoke with him regarding my case and he was very clear and helped me out a ton. If anything progresses in my case he is definitely the person I’m going to be calling. His prices are very reasonable, you would be surprised.
forgot the link!
http://www.ranallolawoffice.com/
He is excellent and can represent Does outside of CA.
Just California and New York…
oh its this one http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2012cv00656/132021/10/0.pdf?ts=1332497558
please help it only states john doe here without a number am i the only one getting subpoenad? please help
if anyone who has the similar case as me please email me here johndoe6432@gmail.com.
This one escaped my radar, Digital Sin v. Does 1-5698 (case no. 11-cv-04397) CAND. Judge Beeler eviscerates Troll Siegal’s massive lawsuit finding joinder improper and questioning http://ia600704.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.cand.245070/gov.uscourts.cand.245070.11.0.pdf personal jurisdiction
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.
Like the Lernaean Hydra, one goes down and two replacements arise.
CA court issues a summons for Defendant Josh Hatfield, case 3:12-cv-02049
http://dietrolldie.com/2012/05/16/prenda-sloppy-seconds-the-phantom-doe-part-2-case-312-cv-02049-af-holdings-llc-v-john-doe-and-josh-hatfield/
just wondering, who is malibu media, llc? can’t seem to find any info on them other than case records.
Malibu Media LLC is the business name for x-art.com. The owner is Brigham Field, a “beauty and fashion” photographer.
http://www.brighamfield.com/about.html
http://www.xbiz.com/news/146182
mentioned in other comments
https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/discussions-by-state/colorado/comment-page-1/#comment-7137
https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/discussions/steele-hansmeier/comment-page-6/#comment-5616
Someone posted this in the general issues section. It is a good listen!
Anonymous says:
May 19, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Copyright trolling briefly referenced on May 17th episode of Adam Curry & John Dvorak’s ‘No Agenda’ podcast! News is getting out there. Around minute 7.
http://www.noagendashow.com/
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.
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?
She is probably owns stock in Liberty Media Corp, a different company all together. My guess is that she saw the name Liberty Media and assumed it was the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Media
Liberty Media Holdings, LLC and Liberty Media Corporation are two very different companies.
Good catch. Maybe being extra safe on her part – CYA.
DTD 🙂
This document should be attached to the first motion filed in a Beryl Howell’s case. To teach her the obvious.
Docket on the case. http://ia701205.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.530118/gov.uscourts.cacd.530118.docket.html
Complaint – http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.530118/gov.uscourts.cacd.530118.1.0.pdf
A summons was signed by the court on 20 Apr 12. Not sure if PACER shows proof of service on this case.
DTD 🙂
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?
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.
Almost forgot. Digital Playground is owned by Manwin, one of the largest Tube Site owners in the industry.
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?
Is the notice similar to this? http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138295
If so, I highly doubt a subpoena was sent. They sent your ISP a DMCA notice, claiming a subscriber had infringed their client’s work.
Had they subpoenaed your ISP, they would have referenced a lawsuit case number, etc…
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.
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!
🙂
😳
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.
A very inexperienced troll with all these lawsuits, what could go wrong? Thanks for the heads up doecumb
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.
Should read: 52 cases in 7 weeks
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.
Am I missing something here?
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
This case is a textbook example of sloppiness.
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
While most judges in the CACD are merrily granting Troll Kushner expedited discovery Judge Tucker see thing differently and oders the severance of all Does but Doe 1 and limits the subpoena to name, address, and MAC address. The lawsuit is Malibu Media v. Does 1-10 (12-cv-649). http://ia601207.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.530769/gov.uscourts.cacd.530769.8.0.pdf
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.
Troll Hervey assaults a senior citizen on his 70th birthday. http://ia700703.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.caed.227009/gov.uscourts.caed.227009.11.0.pdf
Also with trolls no good deed goes unpunished. http://ia700703.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.caed.227009/gov.uscourts.caed.227009.17.0.pdf
In CASD lawsuit entitled 808 Holdings v. Does 1-20 (12-cv-532) Judge Brooks denies Troll Carvalho’s motion for expedited discovery in a very nice 16 page order http://ia600804.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.casd.377909/gov.uscourts.casd.377909.5.0.pdf
Who the fuck is Carvalho? Why didn’t I hear about him before?
Domain Name: LHCLLP.COM
Administrative Contact:
Lang, Hanigan & Carvalho acarvalho@lhcllp.com
21021 Ventura Blvd., Suite 450
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
US
818-883-5644 fax: 818-704-9372
Technical Contact:
Gillette Global Network hostmaster@GGN.NET
Gillette Global Network
39 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10006-3003
US
212-897-8442 fax: 631-439-5553
Record expires on 16-Jan-2016.
Record created on 16-Jan-2002.
Database last updated on 19-Jun-2012 14:09:03 EDT.
So, these so called “lawyers” registered their domain in 2002 and since then have been displaying a landing gateway page full of spam links? Brilliant minds.
How about Hervey, new troll to me?
I know him. He is a seasoned one, stays separate from other trolls. Was featured in Wired a year ago. Blocks me on Twitter.
If you live in Northern Cali you should consider Sonic.net as your ISP http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/06/22/ceo-of-internet-provider-sonic-net-we-delete-user-logs-after-two-weeks-your-internet-provider-should-too/
In the Malibu Media v. Does 1-35 (CAND 12-cv-1135) Judge Bartick denies discovery as to 3 Does (improper venue) and prohibits Troll Kushner from accessing Doe phone numbers. http://ia601209.us.archive.org/17/items/gov.uscourts.casd.383890/gov.uscourts.casd.383890.6.0.pdf
Hmmm…Judge Dembin does the same thin in Malibu Media v. Does 1-11 (CAND 12-cv-1056). Sensing a trend here http://ia600801.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.casd.382967/gov.uscourts.casd.382967.5.0.pdf
Judge Goldman smashes Troll Kushner’s lawsuit Malibu Media v. Does (CACD 12-cv-649) http://ia601207.us.archive.org/22/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.530769/gov.uscourts.cacd.530769.8.0.pdf
We all know that trolls are oftentimes inept and always sleazy but to have a judge chronicle it in an Order is nice.http://ia600707.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.cand.243669/gov.uscourts.cand.243669.33.0.pdf
As SJD tweeted, DTD reports a motion for sanctions against plaintiff Malibu Media made by Doe defense lawyer Morgan E. Pietz concerning California Central District cases:
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/
Calfornia Does, especially in Malibu Media cases, should follow this story.
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/
In the Never Underestimate the Power of a Doe MTQ Department:
In Malibu Media v. Does 1-10 (CDCA 12-cv-3615) a Doe files a motion to dismiss/sever/issue a proective order and Judge Pregerson shuts down Troll Kushner’s discovery of Doe info as to ALL Does pending the determination of the motion. Nice! http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/california-central-district-court/95012/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does-1-10/summary/
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.
Did you read Cashman’s article Raul?
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)?
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.”
New troll in CAED Anne-Leith Matlock? http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/california-eastern-district-court/100255/new-sensations-inc-v-does-1-306/summary/ Not heard of her before.
Looks like we have another winner. Here’s some info about her partner in the law firm (I didn’t try to verify it):
http://www.yelp.com/biz/matlock-law-group-san-francisco-2
Since all but Doe 1 were recently severed from Hervey’s mass troll-suits in CAED, I doubt that this one will go very far.
Wish I could express some surprise about this but after a year into this sewer nothing really surprises anymore, still what a fucking sleazoid!
Actually, minor correction, the shit Prenda is pulling lately floors me as does the fact that the authorities haven’t shut it down yet.
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.
it should read “the [Matlock]firm lists 10 LAWYERS in their office”
I developed a habit of sending welcome emails to new trolls. Just sent this one:
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
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.
Ha, Ha, Troll Kushner, keep knocking them out of the park!
All CAED, all anti-troll determinations!
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.”
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 🙂
Judge Brennan’s footnote 4; a new severance argument?
Glad to see it’s several different Judges and not just one competent sole.
Now Troll Kushner also steps in to try to save what we can hope is a sinking ship in the consolidated cases for Malibu in CACD.
Or a sinking tugboat?
A new Media Products, Inc (Devil’s Film) complaint filed in California.
http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/california-eastern-district-court/100699/media-products-inc-v-unknown/summary/
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.