Colorado

Trolls

  • Jason Aaron Kotzker Guardaley | Lipscomb
  • Scott Kannady Guardaley | Voltage
  • David John Stephenson Guardaley | Voltage

Attorneys who defend troll victims

Relevant posts

wordpress counter

Discussion

302 responses to ‘Colorado

  1. Interesting Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion to take early discovery in Malibu Media v. John Does 1-27 (case no. 12-cv-00409) wherein the court states:

    The Court held a hearing on the above motion on March 14, 2012, to discuss, among other concerns,the nature of the technology at issue and the general course of similar litigation in this district and others across the country. In light of this discussion, Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.

    The order goes on to state:

    Finally, the Court emphasizes that Plaintiff may only use the information disclosed in response to the subpoenas for the purpose of protecting and enforcing its rights as set forth in its Complaint [docket #1]. The Court cautions Plaintiff that improper use of this information may result in sanctions. All other relief requested in the proposed order [docket #7-4] is denied.1

    1Plaintiff’s proposed order asserts, among other statements, a finding that joinder is
    proper at this stage in the litigation. (Docket #7-4 at 3.) The Court notes that Plaintiff’s counsel
    conceded on the record that other courts have disputed the propriety of joinder in cases similar to
    this one.

    The Judge’s Order can be found here: http://ia601200.us.archive.org/15/items/gov.uscourts.cod.131490/gov.uscourts.cod.131490.16.0.pdf

  2. Today there are 44 titles listed with copyright registration by Malibu Media. Malibu Media/X-Art/Brigham Field reportedly launched troll suits alleging infringement of 57 titles in one torrent.

    “The 11 suits, filed in California, Colorado and Washington, D.C., allege the defendants were involved in a so-called “site rip” that included 57 titles….”

    http://www.xbiz.com/news/
    http://cocatalog.loc.gov

    “Each of the defendants copied and distributed most of a website containing 57 movies,” a Malibu Media suit alleges. “The file containing the subject website is so large that the defendants’ computers must have worked collaboratively with each other through the process … for numerous weeks or months”

    Trolls have not established evidence for a single torrent video allegation in a jury trial. Now they claim justifying the allegation that any single Doe downloaded most or all of 57 videos.

    They also claim joinder over weeks to months.

    Also, they appear to lump registered and non-registered films in the same case.

    Maybe the tactics of alleging siterips is so that the troll papers can avoid mentioning in court titles like:

    Art of Anal Sex, Katka Cum Like Crazy, Ultimate Blowjob.

    Trolls are fine to openly accuse innocent persons with flimsy “evidence” while claiming liberty to hide themselves and their questionable actions.

    • Stumbled across this law firm that is touting itself as adept at troll defense work which might be a useful starting point if you are unlucky enough to be named in the lawsuits in the above post.

      As far as I can tell Jason Kotzker is the only active troll in Colorado at present but he has apparently been so successful at trolling that he is now expanding into other jurisdictions like the Eastern District of New York. This is one troll who WILL name individual Does and,sometimes, make them file answers to the troll’s complaint. Kotzker has been lucky in CO thus far as I could find no successful MTQs BUT the Colorado bench is now starting to wise up. I believe. There have been a few recent decision on the troll’s motion to take early discovery where the Judge has limited the use if the Doe info to only within the context of the lawsuit so the troll cannot just dismiss the lawsuit and, thereafter, harass Does without judicial oversight. An example is here: 12-cv-00407 as well as the one mentioned in my post dated 3-19-12.

  3. I\’ve been watching these cases with interest. Some motions to quash of varying quality, none yet successful. Varying interpretations of the plaintiffs identical complaint letter by different judges (how does this happen… 😦 ), some naive does identifying themselves in letters addressed to the court, and already a number of dismissals.

    I am personally concerned that this is also a cottage industry for defendants lawyers, not just the trolls. I think that another lawyer\’s popular torrent copyright website was more intent on scaring defendants so that they procure his services rather than accurately blog on this issue.

    It will be interesting to see what Mr Kotzker (big mountain rider, organic gardener, daddy, low-rent pornography lawyer) comes up with next. To all does: don\’t incriminate yourselves, screen your calls, anonymize your voicemail, and if you choose to respond in writing to demands to settle, be careful. Sit tight. And if you are or were ever doing it, probably good idea now to stop torrenting porn.

    Finally, the courts authorizing release of large amounts of public private information based on flimsy evidence on a possibly forged sworn statement (if it ever gets to a trial, it\’ll be very interesting to meet Tobias Fieser, if that\’s even a real person) is what troubles me most. Kotzker was cunning to prevent does from responding anonymously at this point in the proceeding in his proposed motion which some of the (lazier?) judges signed unchanged. I wonder if someone knowledgeable in the law would be able to find a precedent or similar where these types of information releases were only permitted after affadavits or even better, sworn testimony had been given.

  4. Thanks for the kind thoughts, I have been told by friends and family to chill on this issue but with the trolls in retreat on so,any fronts… .

  5. So codoe, you think it’s a waste of time to mail in a motion to quash or vacate the subpoena like the one I found on this site that someone made and posted up for DL, so I could just change the info and mail it in? I might as well try right? I am not interested in getting calls all the time from collectors trying to screw me when I have a wifi network that was unprotected and lots of people used it in my building.

    • Here is the motion to quash that I plan to use, https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2011/08/05/updated-motion-to-quash-or-modify-subpoena/

      Aside from changing the plantif name and putting in my doe# and case number and changing the hedding to “the untied states district court for the district of colorado” , is there anything else I need to change?

      And to Kotzker since he probably reads this, the only big mountain riding you probably do is riding the mountain of shit your case is based on. thanks for helping to give the contact info of people that might have done what you said to creditors so that they can be abused for something that somone else might have done on their internet connection through an open wifi connection. Like everyone else says, there is really no real proof and you are just helping to promote trolling.

      • By filing that motion to quash and identifying your doe number, you’re increasing the chances that Mr Kotzker will later target you personally, looking at what he did in K-Beech and Patrick Collins cases last year. That is why lazy judges signing his unchanged motion which prohibited anonymous motions to quash was unfortunate.

        It is interesting that he now uses a post office box for his business address instead of the old address he used to use at 10268 Royal Eagle st in Highlands Ranch (it’s on public record, like potentially a lot of other people’s information may end up being thanks to him). Maybe he is making enemies, possibly not all nice ‘civil people’ like him who take matters up in court either. I certainly don’t encourage anything like that but I also don’t encourage what he does either.

  6. “By filing that motion to quash and identifying your doe number, you’re increasing the chances that Mr Kotzker will later target you personally, looking at what he did in K-Beech and Patrick Collins cases last year.” Are you sure about this? don’t you think it would be better to withhold my info for as long as possible? Obviously he is just looking to get everyones info so he can foward it to creditors. Was I reading somewhere correctly that CO judges are getting smart to this and preventing lawyers from giving personal info to creditors? And why did he go after someone who submitted a motion to quash? Because he assumed that had something to lose? And what ever happened in the case where he went after someone?

    • It appears that Mr. Kotzker does like to file single Doe cases to try and push the issue of getting Does to settle. As his evidence does not change just because he files a single Doe case, it doesn’t really matter. He only has the public IP address (weak evidence) and nothing else unless. That is why they like to threaten and never actual name/serve people unless they have better evidence. They can, but it is a crap shoot – a Doe may answer the complaint and then file counterclaims against Plaintiff. Once the counterclaim is filed, Plaintiff cannot just drop the Doe from the case – they are locked in. Prenda has two such cases in CA and Troll Mike Meiers has one in DC. Here is one case where the Doe got Kotzker to dismiss him WITH prejudice, but only after really having to work at it. http://dietrolldie.com/2012/04/02/single-pro-se-doe-makes-k-beech-troll-jason-kotzer-dismiss-him-with-prejudice-111-cv-02371-virgins-4-colorado/
      Bottom line: If you can stand the heat of being possibly singled out by the Troll, file a motion and make him work for it. If there is no evidence to better support their allegation, the Troll with evenutually move on to new victims.

      DTD 🙂

  7. I am currently going head to head with Jason. If I can I want to destroy this guy on behalf of the other John Does. This is racketeering by another name, extortion, and I don’t appreciate this guy making my life a living hell for the past few weeks. I have instructed my attorney that if possible, in the realm of legal possibilities, to return the favor in kind. I will not settle, Jason will pay my attorney fees.

    I am an international computer security consultant and I look forward to turning over ALL of my computers to have Jason show, as stated in his filing, that I have ever had a BitTorrent Client installed on any of the PCs if this goes to trial.

  8. I would like to se the John Doe’s turn this into a RICO case and/or class action! It has been done before and I want to make sure this History major doesn’t think his actions go without consequence.

  9. What Jason has done is hire a European Bit Torrent Tracker to monitor for his clients. He submits their screen shots that your IP passed through their tracker. This again is his only evidence. Jason needs to learn a hard lesson. He’s young and consumed with ambition that will be his undoing. He is not untouchable. Don’t be afraid of this guy!

    • Bet he wasn’t laughing when he had to dismiss K-Beech cases due to fraudulent copyrights. Oh hey wait, this is Jason Kotzker we’re talking about, shouldn’t you know better Jason? You know all about fraud don’t you?

      Gen X Marketing Group LLC still scamming, er, I mean going strong for you?

    • Thanks for this info Raul. I’m no lawyer, so I have a few questions as it relates to my situation. I am still a doe and the subpoena to my ISP states that my info will be turned over on 4/26. This document you linked tells me that the does are likely to be severed while still in the Doe phase, i.e. before their names are revealed. How did the court arrive at this decision? Did a doe file a motion to sever? Can a judge make this order themselves? How could a doe such as myself be proactive at this stage without filing an MTQ and potentially painting a target on my back?

    • 4/6/2012

      Click to access gov.uscourts.cod.131484.13.0.pdf

      Round ’em up!

      12-cv-00399-DME-CBS
      12-cv-00402-WYD-MJW
      12-cv-00404-PAB-MJW
      12-cv-00405-MSK-KMT
      12-cv-00406-REB-KMT
      12-cv-00407-CMA-KLM
      12-cv-00408-PAB-KMT
      12-cv-00834-DEM-KLM
      12-cv-00835-REB-BNB
      12-cv-00836-MSK-KMT
      12-cv-00837-PAB-MJW
      12-cv-00839-PAB-MJW
      12-cv-00840-PAB-BNB
      12-cv-00843-MSK-BNB
      12-cv-00846-WYD
      12-cv-00848-REB-BNB
      12-cv-00849-PAB-KLM
      12-cv-00886-MSK
      12-cv-00887-REB-MJW

    • Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty is rounding up ALL of Kotzker’s recently filed Troll lawsuits! Accordingly a single successful Doe motion could send Kotzker’s CO trolling enterprise into the toilet. ;

      • Not to mention the pending Order toShow Cause mentioned in my earlier comment that Kotzker demonstrate that joinder is proper.

      • HA, HA!

        “ORDER: This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Pursuant to discussions with U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty, this Court finds that the interests of justice are best served if Magistrate Judge Hegarty is drawn to Civil Action No. 12-cv-0906-WJM-KMT. As required by D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1A, approval from Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel has been obtained for the transfer of Magistrate Judge responsibilities in this case to Magistrate Judge Hegarty.”

        (I am messing around with WorldPress’s tools with not much success. Anyway I tried to BOLD type the “Pursuant to…” part). Judge definitely has a plan and would love to be a fly on the wall on 5-2. http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trademark-lawsuits/colorado-district-court/93839/john-stagliano-inc-v-john-does-1-9/summary/

        OK, to get the joke you have to read all of the 4-12 ORDERs together. Would say more but Trolls do peruse these forums when they are not off terrorizing their neighbors.

  10. Good to see they are starting to look at these all together…now round up the rest and lets see if these judges are going to finally call out this lawyer and the plaintiff’s for what they really are doing to the system.

  11. Judge Martinez smacks down Kotzker and DENIES his motion to take early discovery for failing to adhere to an earlier Order to Show Cause of 4-12 http://www.rfcexpress.com/search.asp (John Stagliano v. Does 1-9, case no.12-cv-906) It is about time this troll got a judicial whack upside the head. Very encouraging news for Colorado.

    This Order of Denial has not yet shown up on PACER

  12. All these cases have been assigned to one judge so that determinations are uniform in each case across the board. For example, two different judges could rule differently on issues like joinder or whether to allow expedited discovery in two different cases. With one judge hearing all troll lawsuits that will not happen. I am hoping it also means that Judge Hegarty is getting ready to drag all of Kotzker’s troll lawsuits down into the basement of the courthouse and shoot them all in the head ( find joinder to be improper).

    • Holy Shit,
      I wanted to suggest just the same thing but was bashful about makindg Does spies. This is an excellent chance to find out what is going on with Kotzker’s cases and how Hegarty views the current situation. The hearing is at 9:30 am at the courthouse. I can give you more detail if needed.

    • Very important and well reasoned decision. It could serve as a primary reference for any Doe defendant or attorney. Expect SJD and DTD will post about this. Some excerpts to follow.

      • Judge Brown’s decision is well written and covers many problems with the troll cases clearly. There are many gems contained in the report. i encourage readers to take a look. This is tweet worthy. Excerpts divided into parts. Here’s part I:

        One item not mentioned is the questionable technology of “tracking”, unvalidated and with the profiteering bias of the “forensic” companies.

        Opening line:
        “These actions are part of a nationwide blizzard of civil actions brought by purveyors of pornographic films….”

        Here are some excerpts, though they don’t do “justice” to the scope and clear thinking of the magistrate’s report:

        “For the reasons that follow, including evidence of abusive litigation tactics by plaintiffs, the plaintiffs’ applications for service of subpoenas are granted only as to John Doe 1…”

        “…it is respectfully recommended to the respective district judges that…plaintiffs and their counsel be directed that all future actions be filed only against a single defendant.”

        “according to the allegations, K-Beech does not have a registered copyright to Gang Bang Virgins, but premises its action on a copyright application. K-Beech has amended its complaint to include trademark allegations, but, notably, has not alleged the receipt of a copyright registration.”

        • here’s the link to the archived documents for the case:
          http://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.nyed.321301

          Here’s part two of excerpts:

          “Doe…states under oath that he closed the…account…which had been compromised by a hacker, before the alleged download.”

          “Doe…’s counsel represents that his client is an octogenarian with neither the wherewithal nor the interest …to download Gang Bang Virgins.

          “it is no more likely that the subscriber to an IP address carried out a particular computer function – here the purported illegal downloading of a single pornographic film – than to say an individual who pays the telephone bill made a specific telephone call.”

          “This risk of false positives gives rise to the potential for coercing unjust settlements from innocent defendants such as individuals who want to avoid the embarrassment of having their names publicly associated with allegations of illegally downloading ‘My Little Panties # 2.’” [quoting from a judge’s report about the 1/30/12 SDNY Digital Sin case]

          “…this Court cannot conclude with any reasonable certainty that
          plaintiffs have overcome the expectation of privacy….”

        • Here’s part three of excerpts:

          “The most persuasive argument against permitting plaintiffs to proceed with early discovery arises from the clear indicia, both in this case and in related matters, that plaintiffs have employed abusive litigations tactics to extract settlements…..this may be the principal purpose of these actions, and…distinguish these plaintiffs from other copyright holders….”

          “…the dates of downloading provided in the complaints – which are often weeks or months apart — further undermine the allegation that all…Does were part of a single swarm.”

          …obtaining the home telephone numbers seems calculated to further plaintiffs’ settlement strategies… rather than advancing their claims by allowing them to effect service.

          “…due to plaintiffs’ litigation strategy, which includes avoiding review on the merits except…preliminary…, these determinations were made without any factual record by judges unaware of the highly individualized, fact specific defenses….”

          “In the four cases before this Court, plaintiffs have improperly avoided more than $25,000 in filing fees by employing its swarm joinder theory.”

    • LMAO!!!!!!

      A must read for all. Here is a footnote that is just a small part of the “drive by.”

      “7 Plaintiff K-Beech’s rambling motion papers often lapse into the farcical.”

      Part of the order –
      “3. That plaintiffs and their counsel in all four actions be directed that any future actions of a similar nature in this district be filed as separate actions as against each John Doe defendant, so as to avoid unfair outcomes, improper joinder and waste of judicial resources, and to ensure the proper payment of filing fees.”

      Very nice indeed.

      DTD 🙂

  13. interesting… the date on the document is 05/01. i wonder if judge hegarty will have read this prior to today’s conference.

    • i wonder why so far out? also, isn’t today the deadline for kotzker to respond to the motion to show cause regarding joinder?

    • Interesting…. So Kotzker reports on these:

      12-cv-00397-WJM-MEH
      12-cv-00399-DME-MEH
      12-cv-00402-WYD-MEH
      12-cv-00404-PAB-MEH
      12-cv-00405-MSK-MEH
      12-cv-00406-REB-MEH
      12-cv-00407-CMA-MEH
      12-cv-00408-PAB-MEH
      12-cv-00409-REB-MEH
      12-cv-00834-DME-MEH
      12-cv-00835-REB-MEH
      12-cv-00836-MSK-MEH
      12-cv-00837-PAB-MEH
      12-cv-00839-PAB-MEH
      12-cv-00840-PAB-MEH
      12-cv-00843-MSK-MEH
      12-cv-00845-MSK-MEH
      12-cv-00846-WYD-MEH
      12-cv-00848-REB-MEH
      12-cv-00849-PAB-MEH
      12-cv-00885-WYD-MEH
      12-cv-00905-PAB-MEH
      12-cv-00906-WJM-MEH
      12-cv-00907-MSK-MEH
      12-cv-00908-MSK-MEH
      12-cv-00909-REB-MEH
      12-cv-00910-PAB-MEH

      But here is more (not guaranteed to be a complete list) of this troll’s activity.

      Technicality?

      John Stagliano, Inc. v. John Does 1-4 12-cv-02965 (NYSD)
      Malibu Media, LLC v. _ 12-cv-00886 (CO)
      Patrick Collins, Inc. et al v. _ 12-cv-00887 (CO)
      Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-13 12-cv-01156 (NYED)
      Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-26 12-cv-01147 (NYED)
      Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-20 12-cv-01148 (NYED)
      Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-30 12-cv-01149 (NYED)
      Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-11 12-cv-01150 (NYED)
      K-Beech, Inc. v. Doe 11-cv-2372 (CO)
      K-Beech, Inc. v. Doe 11-cv-2370 (CO)
      K-Beech, Inc. v. Doe 11-cv-2371 (CO) – p.s. A classic, a doe kicks ass.
      Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Doe 11-cv-2165 (CO)
      Raw Films, Ltd. v. Does 1-24 11-cv-2162 (CO)
      Patrick Collins v. Does 1-33 11-cv-02163 (CO)
      Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-15 11-cv-2164 (CO)
      Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-20 11-cv-01655 (CO)
      Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-35 11-cv-01653 (CO)
      Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-11 12-cv-01153 (NYED)
      Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-9 12-cv-01154 (NYED)
      Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-7 12-cv-02952-DLC (NYSD)

  14. Every time I try to be funny, I fail.

    The letter is from a TN Doe in a Prenda lawsuit in CO. Peter Hansmeir is Prenda’s so called computer forensics expert who swears in a declaration in every Prenda lawsuit how accurate it’s proprietary software is and the letter proves the program is flawed and Hansmeir is a liar

  15. In Sunlust Pictures v. John Doe (case no. 12-cv-656) pending in the District Court of CO, attorney David Tamaroff has filed a VERY NICE motion to dismiss and issue a protective order which should be read by any Doe planning on filing a motion in that lawsuit. The motion is here http://ia700808.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.cod.132021/gov.uscourts.cod.132021.15.0.pdf and http://ia600808.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.cod.132021/gov.uscourts.cod.132021.15.1.pdf The docket is here http://ia600808.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.cod.132021/gov.uscourts.cod.132021.docket.html You can also contact David as he has already filed one motion maybe he can file one on your behalf at group rate? http://tamarofflaw.com/florida-copyright-troll-defense/

  16. I got a call today from Malibu Media, even let me know which john doe i am. Have not been sued or even named in a lawsuit before, I am going to engage an attorney on this. Seems like this trolling is costing everyday people alot of money.

    • David Kerr with Santangelo Law Offices in Colorado does mostly pro bono. They took on Righthaven last year and got in the news quite a bit. You might try him as well.

  17. Thank you Raul and Anon. Most people are doing these of their own and I will do the same. I spoke with Nick Ranallo (very nice person) and he was very reasonable. if anyone from CA needs help, you may want to try Nick.

  18. Hey guys, I’m new here because I just received a friendly little letter from Kotzker via Comcast. The letter came from UPS and claims that a movie was downloaded or uploaded illegally in January from my I.P. address. I never downloaded anything, it could have been my roommate… I am quite confused on the whole situation and what I have ahead of me… What should I do? Do I need to “motion to quash or vacate the Subpoena”? The case is Patrick Collins vs John Does 1-12. CN: 1:12-cv-00848-REB. I just graduated from college and have no money. This whole thing is freaking me out and I’m worried. I’ve never even been pulled over in my car… What happens if I ignore this letter? Can someone please help me?

    • My most humble suggestion is to use your college education to research this blog and that of dietrolldie.com, file a motion to quash/sever/have the court issue a protective order. Above all RELAX, the chance that you will be named in a lawsuit is small and Troll Kotzker (IMHO) is getting ready to self immolate with his greedy overreaching. What a self-destructive pig!

      • I don’t have the time or energy to learn about all of this before June 15th (the date I would have to quash/sever/whatever…) I plan on just ignoring it and hope nothing comes of it.

    • OK, I noticed it also. Deleted one instance (with your name). Trolls are frequent lurkers here, and having your name in the plain sight is not advisable 🙂 As for your questions, start with FAQ and read posts/comments. Also virsit DieTrollDie’s site. After you understand what’s going on with you and 250000+ similarly situated, you won’t be “worried and freaked”, but rather “pissed off”. And don’t worry, you don’t have to pay anyone.

      • Thanks SJD… I’ve been reading up on this shit all day and its driving me crazy. From what I can understand, I shouldn’t quash or anything but just wait and hope they don’t call me out? I still don’t quite understand if this is serious or not yet as in what my chances of going to court are.

        • Motion to quash is a lottery (with ~5% chance of success), and people do it hoping for lucky strike AND for other reasons: 1) educate judges and 2) create more work for a troll, thus making his “business” less lucrative. So it’s up to you

          Chance you will be named individually is ~0.01% — even if such unfortunate event occurs, you are still OK if don’t do stupid actions like allowing troll to talk you into saying something you shouldn’t say. I understand it’s distressing, I’ve been in this situation. After the knowledge settles down in your head, you’ll calm down and go on with your life… I’m sure.

          • Thanks, you are doing a great service helping people against these monsters! I really appreciate it.

          • My 2 cents, a MTQ also puts AGE on the case which is always positive if you are a defendant. Sometimes a judge will just sit on a MTQ and allow the troll to collect settlements until he is sated and then dismiss the lawsuit with the MTQ having never been ruled upon and the Doe info never having been disclosed. I write from personal experience.

  19. Does anyone have any more information on the previous suits filed in CO (such as 11-CV-01656-CMA-MJW)?

    I see that some people have settled, but what about the rest of the Does?

    Just wondering since i got my letter yesterday..

  20. So now most of the MOQs has been file and the deadline for submission is over, what is the next step in this case? Is court going to review and MOQ and make decision on each case? when do they decide the fate of this case?

    • It depends on the judge, some will rule on the motions rather expeditiously while others will take months with the troll collecting settlements from Does who did not file motions during the interim. There are many troll lawsuits where the motion never gets decided because the Troll collects enough settlements to satisfy his black soul and dismisses the lawsuit while the motions are still pending.

  21. Calling an attorney right now for a MTQ. Received my letter from Comcast yesterday to release my info to Kotzker.

  22. A pile more cases in the last 24hrs.

    Malibu Media:
    1:12-cv-01394-WYD-MEH
    1:12-cv-01395-REB-MEH
    1:12-cv-01404-CMA
    1:12-cv-01405-WJM
    1:12-cv-01406-REB-MEH
    1:12-cv-01407-WJM
    1:12-cv-01408-REB-MEH

    Patrick Collins:
    1:12-cv-01409-CMA
    1:12-cv-01410-MSK
    1:12-cv-01411-REB-MEH
    1:12-cv-01412-WJM

    Someone must be pretty busy somewhere copying and pasting, what with these and the forum-shopped NY cases.

    so …. God Bless America?

    • Added to the dozen in CO are 13 more cases today filed in Illinois Northern District, 22 cases in California, day before yesterday, divided between eastern & central districts.
      Since sometimes the listings are slow to be posted, the numbers be undercounting.

      The Illinois cases (mostly AF Holdings as plaintiff) are by Duffy/Prenda. The other cases belong to a different group, with Leemore L. Kushner of the Kushner law Group and Jason A. Kotzker of Kotzker Law Group being the local representatives of the porn purveyors and troll gang.

      The filings are clogging the dockets of many courts. Unless judges halt the scam, the Federal civil courts won’t have time for genuine cases with merit.

      • As listed on RFC, Jason A. Kotzker of Kotzker Law Group has filed, on behalf of porn purveyors Patrick Collins Inc. Raw Films, & Malibu Media, 31 NEW copyright troll cases in Colorado district court since 4/3/12.

    • Two does with pending Motions to Quash have been dismissed from 1:12-cv-00397 *with* prejudice – both represented by Arsenault. Unsure if comcast/Qwest have provided details of all does in this case as yet, but probably not given these were pending. Assuming not, wonder if the sniff of settlements from the other Does was what made the plaintiff dismiss these defendants, because that would void the motions.

  23. Hi everyone
    First wanted to thank everyone for your posts here VERY helpful. 2nd i wanted to ask/make sure i got the right thing to use in COL.

    https://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2011/08/05/updated-motion-to-quash-or-modify-subpoena/

    I was reading though it and saw how it was talking about Steele Hansmeier and other CA cases wanted to make sure i could use in COL.

    3rd if this is the right one as far as stuff i need to change is just the state in the header, Malibu Media my case #, and my Doe # on the line?

      • TY that looks alot better then the other one. However is there a template to use and just change out my info? or do i need to just retype all 10 pages of that?

      • Sorry for asking again however while reading though this and retyping for my use it sites the video and the copyright dates…. I do not know this info, or am i reading in to this to much,and should just keep retyping it?

        • I cannot gleam which video it is from the RECAP docket. Most Malibu Media lawsuits involve “My Little Panties #2” but not all. You could just refer to it as “plaintiff’s allegedly copyrighted pornographic work”

        • Raul, not challenging your advice, just a FYI: The complaint refers to: 107 MOVIES – “X-Art Siterip #2” hash 625659538761601BE56B75C3D1DF1053A7C8BB28 , allegedly during the time frame roughly Nov 2011 – Mar 2012 (find a copy of the complaint at http://torrentlitigation.com)

        • Trust me I do make mistakes, many of them, but the X-Art site rip docket is 12-cv-836, not 12-cv-835 which is not to say that it is also not a X-Art site rip lawsuit as I was just guessing as to the video or videos in question.

        • OK, as usual Anonymous has shone a flashlight on the correct answer and I will have to remember torrent litigation.com in the future (it will save some Pacer expense), yours is an X-Art site rip lawsuit with 13 videos out of 107 allegedly possessing copyrights. So in your motion refer to them as “plaintiff’s pornographic works of which 13 out of 107 alledegly possess copyright certificates”.

        • Raul, * without question you rule and please keep up your great work! Just trying to assist because this is a lot for anyone to keep track of *

          12-cv-00836 complaint can also be found at http://torrentlitigation.com . It’s “Girls Night Out” hash 3B39460ABF5377A5830F532935B590D40086B834 alleged dates: Nov 2011 – March 2012 .

          With all the Malibu Media cases flooding the country, surely these same ‘works’ are listed in other cases too. There are just too many to list.

          On the other hand, “My Little Panties #2” I believe is a Digital Sin abomination that has also been all over the country in countless cases. Some of the trolls that are pedaling or have pedaled that sh!t are Wayne D. Carroll in AZ, Marvin N. Cable in MA, Mike Meier in NY & MD ( 12-cv-00126 sdny is where he admits a 30% error rate on the IP addresses ), Terik Hashmi gave it a run FL (before he was booted out for not being licensed to practice there), and Ira M. Siegel in CA.

        • Hi Raul and SJD
          First i wanted to thank you again, you all are lifesavers. I just wanted to make sure, i know i have to send a copy of my MTQ to Comcast, however do i need to send a copy to troll Kotzker?

          • Yes, you should. Just make sure you don’t include your real name. And you should add a “certificate of service” at the bottom of your motion sent to the court (not on the troll’s copy): see other motions: there is plethora of examples.

  24. Does anyone knows on the Sunlust case, when the ISPs are suppose to handover the information to Puppy (I mean dufffy). Also what we can expect to see any action on this case?

  25. After reading the monthly update, interesting that three cases (-01405, -01407 and -01412) have orders to show cause pending on them why does 2-XX should not be severed. This was ordered by Judge Martinez after which these were then transferred to Judge Hegarty. It would seem Judge Martinez is more favorable than Judge Hegarty towards the defendants? At least Judge Hegarty is now routinely denying some of the plaintiff’s requests, assumptions and statements, although still granting the motions for early discovery.

    Some of the february-filed cases may be grinding to a halt it seems … temporary or permanent is the question.

    Also interesting to read Jeff Fantalis’s response and counterclaims in -00886, himself appearing pro se. I’m not sure on the copyright counterclaim, but the others are all relevant. Great job Jeff.

    • You are right, every time Judge Martinez gets a troll lawsuit he throws a OTSC grenade at it before Judge Hegarty can snatch it away. Yesterday I spoke to a CO attorney who shares our frustration that Judge Hegarty denies Doe motions on technicalities rather than addressing the legal issues raised.

    • Indeed. Though it’s suspicious: 2 motions were up to discussion, and both movants settled prior to that? Does not make sense to me unless the settlement was 0 or nominal: Kotzker already let his reputation as a scarecrow down the toilet: he is known to dismiss vocal defendants without getting a dime from them. So if I would be a Doe, I would probably sold my silence for the peace of mind, there is nothing wrong with that.

  26. More mass dismissals in the February filed cases today (1:12-cv-00397 up to 00409).

    “Plaintiff recently received the names and identifying information of many of the Defendants in this case and is unable to coordinate service of process to properly serve the Defendants by the Rule 4(m) deadline. Plaintiff plans on further investigating and confirming the information provided by the Internet Service Provider and will re-file and serve against each Doe Defendant it deems necessary.”

    And it seems plaintiff and plaintiff’s lawyer will in fact do that 😦 New filing 2 days ago has named 6 individuals who were previously dismissed from -00402 (1:12-cv-01522) being Does 2, 12, 21, 26, 27 and 30 from the original case. But Judge Martinez issues order to show cause why the 5 co-named defendants shouldn’t be severed for improper joinder before passing case over to Judge Hegarty. Still bad for defendant Felitti and other generally Comcast does who were assigned IP addresses starting with a 1 and have appeared near the top of the majority of plaintiff’s IP lists.

    I wonder if these 6 talked, or if plaintiff determined they had assets and were good targets … I’m personally leaning towards the latter.

    This could get nasty/interesting. Hope Judge Martinez/Watanabe keep on with the orders to show cause.

    • This new case is in addition to case -00886 vs Fantalis et al which was Does 23, 24 and 25 also from case -00402 who were earlier dismissed without prejudice in April. It seems a default judgement has just been entered against the second of those defendants.

    • Both 12-cv-886 and 12-cv-1522 are Malibu Media “x-art site rip” lawsuits against individuals http://ia701204.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.cod.132446/gov.uscourts.cod.132446.docket.html and http://ia600806.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.cod.133785/gov.uscourts.cod.133785.docket.html In 886 one of the named pro se individuals has put in a nice answer and counterclaims http://ia601204.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.cod.132446/gov.uscourts.cod.132446.18.0.pdf As alleged the actions of Anthony Palmer are despicable.

    • I think you’ve hit it on the head…a quick search on a few of the names for the 6 on the Malibu case shows that these people may indeed have assets or at least good jobs which means they are more collectible. The only reason why these names are still joined is because they started the original cases with joinder — otherwise, it is just ludicris to think these people were actually sharing with each other and more likely that if they did share the files it was with people outside the state of Colorado. Still, remember Kotzker is just looking to get settlements and if your in a siterip case you’re an even higher target and the settlement numbers will start much higher — $20,000 in some cases.

      I like the recommendations to just keep your head low and don’t talk to these guys and once your named, you really don’t have much to lose so hold out. Buying your anonymity early on is one thing but once your name is out there I don’t think they actually have as many cards to play even though seeing your name on an actual case can appear very intimidating. Going to trial is still highly unlikely. Kotzker clearly needed to repay those big law degree loans and probably has justified his activity in his head as nobel in some way.

      Hey, Kotzker if you read this — you need to retake the ethics course and remember that a lawyer needs to very careful how they pick their clients. How well do you sleep at night knowing that you are helping companies exploit people and families with a law that was not intended to be used this way? You know that this could be handled through the ISPs properly first and then go after those that ignore and continue to infringe but you also know that this would result in only a fraction of the settlement money.

      Ethics Kotzker, ethics! You lack ethics! If you had them and you really felt these cases are proper you wouldn’t have ducked away from Channel 7 news — you would have granted an interview to explain how valid your client’s position really is…its because you know this is nothing more than exploitation of a law that needs be changed.

      • If this does go to full trial these cases are all flawed anyway. There’s just not enough proof from a single instance of alleged file-sharing to build a case that overcomes the doubts about open wireless networks, IP spoofing, accuracy/honesty of ‘Tobias Fieser/IPP international’ etc. AND plaintiffs gross negligence in not issuing DMCA takedown notices when it observed its material being distributed illegally. AND plaintiffs aggressive settlement tactics including calling third parties (employers, neighbors, childhood friends) during the John Doe phase, which to me seems like slander.

        Now if plaintiff could actually demonstrate that over a period of months through comprehensive records taken by a recognized and respectable American company, that many of its works were being uploaded/downloaded by a single IP address, and that DMCA takedown notices were regularly being submitted but ignored, that might be a big pay day and constitute wilful infringement. But they haven’t and they haven’t and they won’t … they need better lawyers (i suspect the types with real office addresses for instance) to achieve that.

        A courageous judge would probably tacitly recognize that many of the defendants in these mass cases are probably guilty, but also that this is a shakedown racket and that the outrageous settlement demands being paid by some vulnerable Does is not an effective outcome for justice. And naming possibly innocent people in pornography cases based off one IP record is a further miscarriage of justice. The law would have to change, but ~$100 payable from defendant to plaintiff (far in excess of the value of most of this smut … sorry ‘works’) in return for dismissal with prejudice seems more reasonable and would get more Doe co-operation. But almost certainly less profitable.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s