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

Attorneys who defend troll victims

Relevant posts

wordpress counter


302 responses to ‘Colorado

  1. Interesting RFC note on a 6/12/12 case involving 7 individual Does. Judge orders plaintiff (porn purveyor Malibu media and copyright troll lawyer Jason Aaron Kotzer) to show cause for joinder:

    “ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: returnable by Malibu Media, LLC for failure to properly join. Show Cause Response due by 6/29/2012 by Judge William J. Martinez on 6/14/12. (dkals, ) (Entered: 06/14/2012)”

    Is Kotzker trying to pay one fee to name multiple individuals ? It’s tempting to say that it’s a penny-pinching extortion racket.

  2. I just got a letter from Comcast (accompanying subpoena). I don’t want my family to be disburbed by this issure. What is the best thing I should do? find a lawyer? file MTQ? or do nothing? Please help.

    • I got a letter from comcast too. John Does 1-33; 1:12-cv-01394. It said comcast will release my info by the due date if I have not filed with the court.
      If I ignore it, what will happen next?

      • maybe the best solution is to move so that the Troll will not be able to find you with the old address and they will give it up eventually?

      • A family member of mine got a letter back in Feb, (1:12-cv-00409) busted my butt trying to figure out what to do and decided not to get a lawyer and instead send in a Motion to Quash. I researched as much as possible and put together what I felt was a good up to date Quash. About a week after sending it to Kotzker, Comcast, and the Court I was dismissed by Kotzker. Not sure why, guess he didn’t want to deal with me. The judge still looked at the quash and shot it down but that was a month later and I was already free. I would do a bunch of research and file a MTQ without a lawyer (I did talk to a Lawyer, Cashmann Law, and it was a waste of time and would have been a waste of a lot of money.)

  3. Check out 1:12-cv-00406 on RFC( which I am one of the Doe’s) I see that on 6/14/12 I, along with most everyone that didn’t settle OR file a MTQ (odd…) was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Any idea what prompted the dismissal?

  4. Troll Kotzker recently fucked up and this fuck up could be the iceberg that sinks his Titanic Trolling Enterprise in CO.

    As we have seen most of Kotzker’s lawsuits are being managed by Judge Hegarty who has been routinely denying Doe motions to sever/quash/issue a protective order on technicalities. However in Patrick Collins v. Does 1-6 (12-cv-849), Doe 6 submitted a motion to proceed anonymously which Kotzker neglected to oppose! Accordingly the judge granted this motion so now the judge will entertain the Doe’s motion to sever (judge admonishes, however, “In addition, the Court advises counsel for John Doe #6 that his characterization of other federal judges as “pro-pornographers” or “anti-pornographers” is neither persuasive nor appropriate.” ;)). Docket is here

    Apparently this is the acceptable manner to get a motion to sever/quash/issue a protective order before the judge, you have to first file and have granted a motion to proceed anonymously. Represented and unrepresented Does have picked up on this cue and the motions to proceed anonymously are flooding into the Judge’s chambers. See for example this one where Doe Defender John Arsenault has picked up on this cue,

    I hope John can drop by to either point out that I am wrong or to confirm that Troll Kotzker’s ship is taking on Rocky Mountain water.

  5. To find out the IP address in the p2p, the company has to be one of the swarm during a file sharing. In another word, the company is downloading and uploading the same ‘unauthorized file’ to help others to complete the downloading. Are we even sure they are not the original seeder? Is it illegal?

  6. Just received notice in 12-cv-01409. Seems that motions to quash don’t work in Colorado. Next step? Comcast is supposed to reply with identity by July 23rd. Attorney wants $600.00 retainer to discuss settlement.

    • With judge Hegarty the protocol is to first move to proceed anonymously and, if granted, move to sever/quash/issue a protective order.

  7. I think it’s obvious that MTQ’s don’t work in Colo. in the eyes of the Judges but I don’t think that should stop you from filing one. From my understanding the letters being sent out, well the Comcast letters, gives the impression that they will release your name if nothing is done. Not sure how true this is but at least the MTQ lets everyone know your stance in the matter. That and it doesn’t cost anything. We did a MTQ and Kotzker threw us off the case a month before the Judge even ruled on the MTQ, which was denied of coarse. So, in my eyes it was all worth it in the end. Raul’s link to the status report is just proof that this guy is in for the easy kills.

    • could you please share your motion to quash with us? I don’t know where to find the form and what format it has to follow for Colorado court.

  8. Hi Raul, have you seen more motion to proceed anoymously successfull with Judge Hegarty besides the one you mentioned earlier?

    • Hi Primp, could you please share your motion to quash form with us? I don’t know what form and format I need to follow to file it in Colorado. Greatly appreciated.

      • I don’t have a problem sending you a copy of my MTQ to understand what you have to do. Just shoot me an email (click on my pic and you should be able to see an email for me), I’m not going to just post it on here, hope you understand. Still be prepared to spend a few solid hours on your MTQ, it’s not something you want to slack on.

    • No, but most Doe Defenders seen to see this as the sole avenue left open with a overly technical judge at the helm.

  9. Raul, could you give more details where find the form for the motion to proceed anymously? Either MTQ or MPA, is the main point that the Plaintiff file the joinder? I would think the way they take the evidence of IP address is illegal, but I don’t know where to find the exact law to prove it. If I can prove it, it will be a solid point to file a motion, right?

    • It is late but if you scroll back in this discussion you will find a comment I made a week or two ago which specifies the lawsuit in which this tactic worked. After that step,you will need to work in conjunction with PACER to track down the motion to use as a template. It might be difficult without an attorney, sad to say.

    • There are a few main points.

      1. Number 1 is the joinder. people fight this because, for this to be done the Does must have alot in common. being that on some cases it happens over months, also that they don’t even use the same ISP, and in some cases people are in different states. The main reason they use a Joinder is to avoid the 350 filling fee. If they had to pay this every time there is no way they could make any money

      2. IP addresses. As far as collecting your IP i do not believe this illegal. I know if your talking on a phone only 1 party has to know it’s being recorded. What people are fighting is that there software they use has as high as a 30% wrong ID rate. Also they can’t prove that it was the person owning the IP addresses that was the person who downloaded the movie.

      It has been said that the original people who upload some of the works are the copyright holders, as far as legality of this I don’t know. If you find out anymore about this PLZ let us know.
      I hope this helps a little bit. I am not a attorney, so plz don’t take anything I say as law but helpful hints to guide you.

  10. if you read the copyright enforcement company explanins how it collects the IP address, you will understand how it works. It is not like recording. The IP address of the downloaders can be only seen by the seeder during the downloading. In another word, they have to upload the file to get your IP. My point is without their uploading, the file can not be completed even they uploaded 0.0001%. If they monitored the file sharing for a couple of days or even weeks, that also means that they uploaded the same file for days and weeks. Am I wrong?

  11. Raul, could you please point out the detail location where to get the expample of motion to proceed anoymously in PACER? I need a help to get this. Thanks.

  12. ATTENTION Colorado Does involved in the Raw Films, Ltd cases (4/05/12 or before)! The plaintiff attorney for the porn purveyor Raw Films, Ltd is Jason A. Kotzker of the Kotzker Law Group.

    Be aware that the Raw Films titles involved have NO U.S. copyright registration. That means no penalties for $1000’s and no plaintiff attorneys fees paid, even if a case went to trial and verdict (which happens almost never). The maximum award would be actual damages-here probably the cost of a single DVD. No troll is going forward with a trial to win $15. Threats by trolls of severe financial damages and court costs are empty.

    A post in the General Discussions section will follow soon.

  13. It seems in an effort to put some fear back into the their victims that the trolls are starting to roll out the individual named suits.Troll Jason A. Kotzker just filed 9 named complaints on July 18 in Colorado.

    This seems to be a clear plan of action by the Trolls to try and keep their corrupt business model working. It’s clear that the effect of sites like Fightcopyrighttrolls and others combined with increasing negative media coverage has hurt their profits by informing their doe targets that their threats of personnel litigation and going through with a jury trial is mostly all bark and no bite by the trolls trying to scare settlements out of people through lies and fear. So more people are fighting back with motions or just ignoring the trolls empty threats. In an effort to save their business model the trolls have no choice but to create more fear by filing named suits which they and we know they have no intending of taking to trial. It’s just the usual abuse of the judicial system to extort money out people who lack the resources to truly defend themselves from the trolls fallacious claims of unproven copyright infringement. Their Bullies plan and simple, for all intense and purposes their behavior in no different then a playground bully taking lunch money from kids weaker then them. And just like most bullies when confronted by someone of equal or greater strength they reveal themselves for the cowards they truly are by crawling back into the shadows from whence they came.

    In the end they will get what they deserve, and payback is going to be one nasty cold hearted unforgiving bitch!

  14. Wow! No more low hanging fruit. I guess the middle is gone too. It must be time to get the ladder out. Even the troll will find that the fruit is hard to get on the very top of the tree.

    • Troll Kotzker is one of the few trolls who will actually name and serve Does as he has been doing this from the beginning (the named and served Does must have tried to “talk their way out of it” and bought a lawsuit for their troubles). Once a Doe lawyers up and files a counterclaim or two the troll drops the lawsuit. My understanding is that the trolls’ contingency percentage increases depending on how far he pursues the game of chicken, most Trolls do not have the balls to take it beyond the harassment level but Kotzker is an exception to the rule.

    • Coincidence that Kotzker filed 10 individual, named suits in Colorado a few days after Fantalis’s broadside pointed out, among many other things, that the Trolls’ were abusing the courts and had little interest in actually going to trial?

      I suspect not. 🙂

      Hopefully, there will be a couple more equally innocent and po’d people among the next 10, leading to an exponential increase in the number of counterclaims and damage awards against the Troll’s.

      • And it looks like they went with just a straight copyright claim with little more than and IP address. No Randazza or Prenda shenanigans of claiming negligence, suing John Doe and [insert subscribers name] to avoid prevailing party’s attorney’s fees

  15. Hello all, someone I know has just gotten one of these letters from Patrick Collins and the troll above. it is Patrick Collins ves does 1-32. anyone else heard of this one? if I ignore this (i really don’t have any money) will it go away?

    • Odds are quite good that if your friend does not speak to the trolls, at all, it will eventually fade away. This is especially true if your friend has no real assets as I believe trolls (sometimes) look into this aspect before filing individual lawsuits.

      • Thanks for the reply, my issues it that evry copyright attory that my buddy calls sales that for $750 they can get the settlemet number down. They also say that if he doesn’t pay then the extrotion money will only go up. Is this true, there is so much confliting information out there they we don’t know what to do. Frankly there is not enough money between both of us to pay $3,000. Please help this is a so stressful, and we feel all alone one this.

        • Don’t listen to attorneys who recommend settling: they are simply not aware of the happenings. Don’t listen to your fear. Read around and you’ll understand why. Kotzker is about to pop. I wonder how this clown manages to create so much fear.

          Give me a single reason why should you pay to this idiot?

        • Thanks all this site is excellant! The people telling me to settle are the lawyers listed above. They are asking for $750 (same number for both) to offer to be the point of contact and “maybe” get my settlement down. I am filing a MTQ this week.

        • @ninja: A MTQ has never been successful in CO. Prior to the Court’s Juy 25th Order, defendants really had no premature recourse except to litigate. That Order addressed issues of Joinder, and there remains little to no grounds to grant a MTQ. You can file a MTQ, but you’re likely going to spend much more money, and end up right where you started. The defense attorneys likely weighed your concerns, your case and your finances, to reach that recommendation–and did so, because of their legal understanding of what works, and what doesn’t, in Colorado.

  16. On 25 Jul 12, Judge William J. Martínez ruled on a few cases 1:12-cv-01405 (Malibu Media v. Does 1-5); 1:12-cv-01407 (Malibu Media v. Doe 1-54). He dismissed all Does except for Doe #1. I have posted a short article at
    I will update it with a couple additional Judge Martínez case in a while. Of particluar interest is a sentence on page 7 of the orders, in which it appears CO may be consolidating all the BitTorrent cases under a single judge.

    “The Magistrate Judge assigned to all BitTorrent cases has noted that defendants are coming forward with a multitude of different defenses.”

    If Judge Martínez is the one OR part of a small group of CO judge who will now handle these cases, it is going to cost the Trolls more to play their game in CO.

    DTD 🙂

  17. More cases filed on July 27 in Colorado by troll Kotzker.

    13 cases filed in July so far alone, with a total of at least 62 filed by Kotzker in Colorado this year.

    Seriously how could any competent judge not see this as an abuse of the Court that it so obviously is; the case load alone should make it glaringly obvious that he has no intention of taking any case to trial.

    Given the complete lack of openness or independent verification of the Bitorrent monitoring software used by European tracking firms that the Trolls buy the ip addresses from, one would think that judges would be hesitant to just accept what is essentially hearsay evidence by the Trolls based upon nothing but their word and a signed statement by some guy claiming to a computer technician recording ip’s online infringing on copyrighted content. There is so much inherently wrong about this entire scheme, that one wonders what reality some judges exist in where they buy the Trolls numerous lies, misrepresentation of the facts, and worst of all the pitifully weak legal arguments that look like the were written by a first year law student before his first day of class that any knowledgeable or experienced person in the legal profession should have seen through in a heart beat.

    But as the legal tide has turned against the troll in many court districts this year, with more and more judges killing the mass doe cases, the trolls in their desperation to save their vile business model have begun employing every legal shenanigan they can think of to get judges to sign off on discovery for does personal information or to scare the does themselves into settling. The recent smattering of named and single doe’s cases is also nothing more then an attempt to give the appearance that he trolls are serious about litigating these cases to judges who have noted the lack of cases going anywhere, when in truth they have no intention of moving forward with a trial. The writing is on the wall, but being the greedy little pigs that they are, the trolls are to busy stuffing their pockets with their ill gotten gains to notice the ever approaching butcher knife in the form of legal sanctions and counter suits coming to end their extortion scheme.

    So get ready to squeal Troll piggy’s

  18. can anyone tell me 100% how the 120 ruling works?
    I don’t want to says any dates, just incase, don’t want to pull troll kotzker back to my case.
    But is it 120 from 1st filing? or from when he served the ISP’s?

  19. This is somewhat curious.

    A new troll, Thomas Gerald Jacks, has invaded Troll Kotzker’s previously exclusive territory What’s more is that this guy appears to be a bona fide IP attorney from a respectable Dallas law firm

    He has also filed a troll lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas

  20. I’m a doe in a recent CO case 1:12-cv-01643. Comcast has not yet released our information. After reading part 5 of the subpoena sent to Comcast I have a question, since I moved out of state 9 days after the alleged date of illegal downloading, can they still take me to court in CO?

    Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c),
    because: (i) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims
    occurred in this District; and, (ii) a Defendant resides (and therefore can be found) in
    this District and all of the Defendants reside in this State; additionally, venue is proper in
    this District pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) (venue for copyright cases) because each
    Defendant or each Defendant’s agent resides or may be found in this District.

    Thanks for all your information!

    • i have a similar problem (albeit a different case), except i moved AFTER the alledged infringement, but BEFORE the case was filled. it would be safe to assume that because the alledged infringement took place from the prior address then the venue for that address is propper, though you could still petition the court for a change of venue (ecconomic hardship) if you actually get served

  21. I also am a Doe in case 1:12-cv-0193; just received my Comcast notice via UPS yesterday. Spent most of my evening unfortunately researching past history and educating myself on my rights and appropriate next steps. This site is a great site and resource for more information for those caught up in this web, so first off thanks to the person who keeps this site going and updated for everyone – I’m sure it’s not easy and time-consuming. I would be interested to hear from any of the other 42 Does named in this court action. I immediately contacted my attorney for legal advice and direction.

  22. was wondering if anyone knew anything about this case got a letter in june and havent heard anything. 1:12-cv-01406-REB-MEH


    I love how we can’t put everything in to 1 motion because “will likely require several different standards of review and legal analyses” but the trolls can group so many does in to 1 case? is this a joke?

    and “In the interests of judicial efficiency and the proper management of its docket” is this a quote from the trolls for joinder?

    and the icing on the cake QUOTE “Further, the Court notes that Defendant failed to file with his motion to quash a copy of the challenged subpoena. Therefore, if Defendant chooses to re-file his motion, he is instructed to file a copy of the challenged subpoena with the motion.” has anyone EVER heard of this?

    DTD or SJD do you guys/gal have any insight to why judge Hegarty is so pro troll?

  24. Defendents from 1:12-cv-02069 1-31 US District Court for the District of Colorado: Hello. As unified John Does, we could go for group discount by consolidating our representation. **This case is for supposed copyright infringement of a single movie. So far, best option found is attorney offering $1,000 flat rate SETTLEMENT fee, who initially estimated SETTLEMENT at $1500-2500, (though later increased to $3,000 for no apparent reason). Deadline 9/21/12, means we have 1 week to team up. John Does 1-31 or anyone with more ideas PLEASE contact me ASAP at

  25. I would prefer NOT to feed the trolll, but in looking over past cases, I see ISP’s releasing contact info for all who have not reached settlements. …’settlements dismissed and no further actions filed’ -is that really the end? I can only assume contact information for ‘un-settled john does goes in folder marked for later subpoena. Peoples’ contact data would be cheaply investigated to approximate their net worth. Once trolls have tired of IP address group settlements, they would begin targeting john does individually. IP addresses who settled will go into another file. ‘Financially capable of arranging settlement,’ they are still potentially good subjects for new suits in the future. What is reasonable here? Sadly, I am still leaning toward settlement at as the ‘safest, path of least resistance.’

    • It all depends on your level of comfort. I you can handle some harassing phone calls and letters/emails just sit tight for the time being and check on developments. Remember it is the minority who settle, most get dismissed eventually. If you do not wish to be harassed go out and hire an attorney to act as a “shield” who will receive the calls and letters, there are 2 attorneys listed at the top of this post. The FL law firm of Lalchandani Simon is also representing Does in CO By no means should you contact Kotzker before he even gets your info as he will perceive that as a sign of weakness and extort you accordingly. If you must settle do it through an attorney.

    • Read out loud with your best Discovery Channel Australian accent from whatever your favorite nature show happens to be:

      “The balance of power is constantly changing in the savanna. Here we have two juvenile hyenas, who instinctively sense that the warthog who once ruled this particular watering hole is wounded and reeling for survival. They begin to slowly encroach on his territory, calculating their angle of attack before moving in for the eventual kill. Once they eventually devour the flesh of the warthog, the circle of life shall continue, and the hyenas will one day be challenged by another predator for this delectable resource.”

      Lion would have fit the narrative better than warthog, but that would have been an insult to lions!

    • Hegarty granted “limited discovery” but after reading Kotzker’s motion for expedited discovery and comparing it to Hegarty’s order, I see no limit to the discovery.

      “The subpoenas shall be limited to providing Plaintiff with the true name, address, telephone
      number, email address, and Media Access Control address of the Defendant to whom the ISP has assigned an IP address. With each subpoena, Plaintiff shall also serve a copy of this Order. 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.

      He then threatens Kotzker with sanctions if he uses the info improperly…
      “The Court cautions Plaintiff that improper use of this information may result in sanctions. All
      other relief requested in the proposed order is denied.”

  26. I received a letter last week – sure ruined my weekend! Looks like number is 1:12-cv-1963. Spoke with a friend who is a lawyer and they indicated I shouldn’t worry too much about it because Combat Zone doesn’t seem to have their act together. Do any of them? Curious if any of the other Does in this case have done anything. Looks like Judge is Craig B. Schaffer. Lawyer Thomas Jacks

  27. So I had received the letter earlier in the year and after doing some research I followed the advice of all the message boards and sites to ignore the phone calls and do nothing.

    However, today I was served with a subpoena to appear in court in three weeks in regards to this case. Any ideas if there is a precedent to this type of action? Any advice on how I should proceed moving forward? As much as I don’t want to, I’m thinking the best course is hiring a lawyer and settling. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated!

    • Subpoena as in a summons to appear in court? As in an actual court appearance or 21 days to file an answer to a complaint? You should’ve received a copy of the complaint as well. I’d STRONGLY advise retaining counsel. As far as settling goes, I can’t tell you whether to do so or not since I’ve voiced what I’d do if this happened to me.

      On a side note, the default judgments (if you don’t even bother to answer the complaint) have been a few hundred dollars and one has been set aside by the court because of defective service of process. On the other hand, you risk contempt citation for not answering so, yeah. Huge gamble there.

  28. The whole thing that gnaws at me about this situation is the uncertainty. I’ve done a whole lot of reading on the topic and thought of following the course of action of Anonymous (9/24 @ 12:38am) but then a subpoena?! It seems some people have no choice but to settle but is the amount less or more if you had done it right away? Is a settlement negotiable? Thousands of dollars is ridiculous. I even had a crazy ass dream that they had a PI on my tale and mentioned a $10K settlement. Yeah, I’m thinking about this way too much.

  29. Hey CO Does going to be in your neck of the woods for an extended weekend, so out of pocket starting 9-27 to 10-2.. My kid who is touring colleges tells me U of CO (Boulder) is founded upon the dictates of Nancy Reagan?

  30. DTD recently wrote a post covering the answer and counterclaims raise by Doe Defender Arsenault in Malibu Media . Doe #7 (12-cv-409) Troll Kotzker filed motions to strike the affirmative defenses and dismiss the counterclaims on 9-10 and on 9-25 Arsenault filed a mighty response that echos and compliments Fantalis’s recent opposition to the imposition of sanctions

    Docket is here

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s