Indiana

Attorneys who defend troll victims

Relevant posts

wordpress counter

Discussion

345 responses to ‘Indiana’

    • Prenda is running another mass John Doe case again. One “serial” infringer susposedly in IN and 9 pages of IP address of “tortfeasors” – will have to count out the number of IPs.

      DTD 🙂

      Reply

    • Left a message on their website:

      Welcome under the bridge, Mr. new troll M. Dumas!

      Make sure you are aware of my site and the role it plays in the fight with opportunistic greedy lowlifes like you, including, but not limited to spreading the word about the copyright trolling legal plague that negatively impacts the reputation of the legal profession. My site will celebrate one millionth page view soon, and it’s not something that can easily be discontinued. I collaborate with dozens of lawyers (those who, unlike you, value dignity) and sometimes I’m featured in the mainstream media and many court filings.
      Admittedly, I don’t have time to pay attention to lesser opportunistic scammers, but if I decide to write about you, please expect to see my site on the first page of Google search results when searching for your name, or your firm’s name. If you don’t believe me, search for other douchebags’ names: Paul Lesko, Joseph C Peiffer or Frederic Abramson.

      Please note that my greeting is not a threat, but as a friendly warning. I never resort to any illegal methods of fighting your kin, light is a good enough disinfectant, and so far it works. The mere fact that you have to mislead the court by implying that you are after a single individual (while in reality committing a fishing expedition for alleged filesharers to blackmail them later) is attributable to mine and similar (e.g., Dietrolldie.com) resources.

      Hope you realize your mistake and decide what is more valuable to you: fast cash or reputation.

      Cheers,

      SJD

      Reply

    • The bastards were here last year, got a pretty easy ruling granting subpoenas within a couple weeks that was initially hidden off the public docket for at least a month. I looked up a few of the addresses at random, and they came up as FL, DC, and NYC… so guessing the majority of these IPs aren’t in IN at all. Unfortunately it’s a different judge and magistrate than had the other cases last year that were dropped in December. Well, maybe it’s not a bad thing since the last magistrate (Hussmann) just rolled over and handed out identities last time…. but at least there were some motions and letters sent in so if they came back to him he’d at least know about the scheme (TF covered one of the letters). One of his ruling sounded slightly hopeful, where he “admonished” the troll bastards to not push the limits with the info he handed them. None of the prior cases had proper copyright registrations to enable statutory rap… damages of does.

      Reply

    • In CP Productions v. Doe (INSD 12-cv-808) Troll Dumas obtained expedited discovery from M.J. Lynch but she added this vague instruction:

      “Absent further order of the court, plaintiff is not granted leave to conduct follow-up,
      or further, discovery based on or arising out of the information learned in response to
      subpoenas served on the ISP providers and with respect to the IP addresses
      specifically identified on Exhibit A.”

      I take that to mean no letters or calls (robo or human) as that would be construed as “further discovery”. It will be interesting to see if the troll drops the lawsuit or, in usual Prenda fashion, overreaches and gets in hot water with the judge. http://ia600807.us.archive.org/24/items/gov.uscourts.insd.40564/gov.uscourts.insd.40564.8.0.pdf

      Reply

  4. 18 Jun 12 Update on CP Productions Inc., v. John Doe, 1:12-cv-00808. Still no copyright registration for Maryjane’s Second Visit. BUT, CP Productions now has a 15 May 12, registration date for the the 3rd & 4th Maryjane movies. If the registration date for the 2nd visit movie ends up at 15 May 12 +, only actual damages can be sought against ALL of the 499 Does. 6 Mar 12, is the key date to look for when (if) the registration is issued – 3 month period since 1st publication. http://dietrolldie.com/2012/06/14/copyright-trolls-cornholers-roll-into-indiana-cp-productions-inc-v-john-doe-112-cv-00808/

    DTD 🙂

    Reply

  6. Clicked on several, they all claim statutory damages but all the movies I saw were produced in 2009-2010 and had registrations in mid-late 2011. They had an easy time in IN last time… Unfortunately all the judges are different except for one case. As usual, the couple they tested the water with last year were all dismissed without any service. Maybe some torpedoes need to find their way here before they turn IN into a haven for clusterfuck? Shouldn’t these all be consolidated under one judge?

    Reply

    • Actually, if there is a comprehensive FYI memorandum or motion to judges who arent wise to this that lays out the issues with the statutory claims, and is up to date Id be glad to print and mail a copy to each judge involved. Seems they think IN will be promising since they appear to be rolling in in force suddenly. Just point me to the best one we have.

      Reply

        • Still things that need brought to these new judges attention. Life cycle of a troll case most obviously and a survey of the rulings etc. I’m sure there’s a good memo of support out there. Even though it’d likely be stricken from docket due to anonymous filing, once the judge reads it, the damage is done to the trolls. Couldn’t hurt. Just not sure what the most comprehensive and up to date brief would be.

          Reply

  7. A new troll, Paul J Nicoletti hast started filing cases in Indiana, Illinois, i addition to the ones already filed in Michigan. His firm is based in Michigan.

    There is some good background on Paul J. Nicoletti.

    http://www.clr.org/Nicoletti-&-Associates.html

    http://www.flippingfrenzy.com/2008/10/17/finally-for-michigan-a-multi-agency-mortgage-fraud-task-force/

    It appears he was sued for legal malpractice, real estate fraud, sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit, etc..

    Reply

  8. I am involved in one of these recently-filed Nicoletti suits in Indiana. This is all very confusing, and due to my job, I truly can’t afford to be named publicly. Despite my innocence, the overwhelming incentive is to settle.

    Reply

  10. Well, I haven’t yet decided if I’m going to; I’m just saying the overwhelming incentive is to do so. That’s how the game is rigged, I guess.

    It does seem like most of the cases that are tossed out are tossed out *before* the judge grants a subpoena for the identities associated with the addresses. If that’s not the case, someone please correct me. I’d love to believe that this could still be kicked to the curb.

    To the last poster: I’m not a lawyer and maybe it’s presumptuous of me to give you advice, but I would not use your first name or other identifying information on here. If the plaintiff monitors this site, then once they receive a list of true identities, anything you say provides them with information to help build a strategy.

    Reply

  11. I know little of the specifics here. This (Nicoletti) round of cases started up just last month. But from personal experience, even as an innocent Doe, I was very worried about jeopardizing work and reputation. Looking back, I feel I greatly over-estimated the hazard. The risk was more inconvenience than jeopardy.

    It’s clear that many have been falsely accused in this scam (even the dead!). Trolls have shown themselves to be immoral and unscrupulous at best. You could answer any insinuations by noting this. Also, trolls aren’t usually going to be harassing business accounts. So the allegations are toward residential accounts. Matters at home are private issues.

    Gossip, though it may seem intense, fades very quickly. Virtually every adult male and a large per cent of females have viewed adult content on the web. Almost everyone is targeted by unjust gossip now and then.

    It’s clear that few Does are individually subpoenaed. The few Does that are targeted by trolls may have extra factors, like the accusation of a roommate. Nicoletti filed cases involving 80+ Does just in Indiana in a short time. He could not feasibly take more than a few to trial, even if he wanted to. And he doesn’t want to. It would reduce his take of the extortion proceeds.

    Reply

    • Google Nicoletti and you will see what kind of an attorney you are presented with, the lowest of the low. Do not settle unless your last name is Obama or Romney. None of these cases have ever gone to trial as this is merely a shakedown scheme and there is no reason to give these dickheads your hard earned money whatsoever. Nicoletti is a new troll and yet he has made some major missteps already, it is reasonably safe to predict he will flame out in due course.

      Reply

  13. I too received one of these subpoena notifications, so of course I have some vested interest in this development.

    A few thoughts: BitTorrent cases in IN seem to be a very new thing, I’m finding little to no precedent for seeing how the Judges in the state have been ruling on Quash Motions or towards copyright trolls.

    A question for those of you who have experienced this before: My letter from Neustar didn’t contain any information concerning the subpoena, including no reference to a case number, or the actually download in question. I did some cross-referencing with PACER and found the IP address listed on the release of information notification from Neustar in a Southern District Indiana Civil court case, so I think I know which case the subpoena is related to. Is it normal practice to not include that information when being told that you’re being threatened to have your personal information turned over from an ISP to a troll?

    Reply

    • Notification seems very ISP dependent. It’s best for Does always to contact the legal department of their ISP (or the ISP’s agent for these services), especially when details are missing. To respond to or understand an allegation, the troll attorney and their plaintiff, date, time, title, deadlines, and court district are needed.

      ISP’s AFAIK have little explicit obligation to give customers full information about their involvement in subpoena and legal discovery of client information for an I.P. address. Fortunately, many of the large providers give some information about the details of the subpoena, without making it seem like the plaintiff troll attorney should be contacted no matter what.

      Other ISP’s don’t do so well. Some of them outsource the legal/record jobs to Neustar and other outfits. Does are not direct customers of Neustar. It’s not surprising if Neustar communication with Does is less informative. Neustar also has its own web forensic, tracking, and monitoring work (not in these cases). (In theory, there’d be less incentive to assist challenges to forensic conclusions.)

      There are many comments about disappointing incomplete or missing notification of Does by their ISP’s. Here’s one thread about misleading correspondence:

      Received a message that suggests contacting Steele? Read this first!

      Reply

  14. I have gotten a notification from my ISP (comcast) for:

    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe 1-29
    I live in West Lafayette, IN

    Anyone else get one of these?

    Reply

    • I just received the same thing. I have a notification from Comcast …. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe 1-29. I’m north east of Indianapolis.

      Reply

      • So, people who’ve been through this? What do you suggest? How do we proceed? Do we do nothing. I’ve not yet been contacted by Malibu Media or any of its representatives.

        Reply

        • But, I can assure you, NO downloads have been done on my computer! ZERO! It’s used to remote to my office computer and nothing more!

          Reply

    • I am not in the same case but i’m in the same place. I suggest you to delete your city name tho. Who knows the plaintiff will use this to find you. Email me.

      Reply

      • We might need to find some lawyer to represent us. The more people stand up against them, the less likely they will succeed in pirating money from innocent people. U can email me at fighttroll@yahoo.com, we can meet and discuss this matter further as I’m one of the Does

        Reply

      • I received a Nicolette notice also. Comcast should know that many of the people they give wont be able to afford cable. $100 month x 12 months x 80 people is $96,000.00. Thats just the first round. A pretty big hit! I hope the do the right thing like they’ve done in the past and not give the extortionists the time of day!

        Reply

  15. The paper that comcast sent me had a list of Does ip address and date for #7-27 but didnt list the 1-6 or 28-29. This seems odd to me. Anyone know why?

    Reply

    • Are you sure that Does 1-6 or 28-29 are Comcast ISP customers? If those I.P. are served by another ISP, the trolls may have sent a list only of Comcast customers to Comcast.

      I would guess that as in other troll filings, there is an “exhibit” attached to the original troll complaint that lists all the alleged I.P. address with ISP, and date/time. This list would be available on the public record. It would make little difference for
      Comcast to withhold certain I.P. address. Comcast may not like to overlap the legal record business of other ISP’s. But the guess is that’s what the troll supplied.

      Reply

  16. From the moderate amount of research I have done on this, the overall majority will not settle and not get sued. Seems like they just go for the settlement money from people who are scared and don’t want to get “sued for pirating porn.” Just keep any calls from them brief and do not get into financial details about ANYTHING!!!

    This is just my opinion, as I have just gotten one of these notices myself and have not gone through this before.

    Reply

  18. How in the world does a schmuck like Nicoletti have the resources to pursue all of these Does? Wouldn’t any sane judge throw out any case represented by him? At my count, he’s got 36 copyright cases open, many with 20+ defendants!

    Reply

  19. An update to Nicoletti’s case: 1:12-cv-00845-TWP-MJD (Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-29)

    It looks like a Doe (one of the brighthouse customers) settled. Nicoletti filed a notice of settlement and voluntary dismissal with prejudice yesterday.

    Reply

  21. My first call from a troll today. This is an interesting sequence of events:

    1) Beginning of August: Nuestar sends me a letter, the usual thrown to the wolves note, not even with a case number referenced, just “contact Paul J. Nicoletti for details”.

    2) First (and so far only) call. I won’t quote it directly, though I have an archived audio recording of the voicemail, allow me to paraphrase, keep in mind this is the first communication EVER with this troll. I’ve added a few comments in brackets.

    “Hello this is ___________ [worth noting, though it’s a Nicoletti case, there is no mention of his office, the number is from LA], I’m calling in regards to a federal case you’re involved in right now, [cites case number, first “official” time this has ever been referenced to me in any communication], this is a federal case in [my district]. We’re just a little bit concerned as we’ve not gotten any correspondence from yourself or representing council. I do need to hear from either you or an attorney representing you as soon as possible [goes on a little more about this]”

    The whole thing is surreal. First of all, there has been no official communication with regards to me contacting ANYONE. If I wasn’t internet and troll savvy, and hadn’t read through all the comments and articles on the nets regarding this, and cross referenced my alleged IP with the cases open in my district I wouldn’t have even known there was a case until this troll calls. This guy calls acting SURPRISED that I hadn’t contacted anyone. What’s up with that!

    And I will admit that I’m fairly new to this whole legal issue shtick, but a voice mail, from an individual, who doesn’t even cite a law firm, doesn’t strike me as terribly official. I know I’m dealing with petty scum here, but doesn’t that seem pretty lazy? My ISP has obviously released my info to them, but wouldn’t they try to intimidate me in a little more, I don’t know, official way?

    Reply

    • Was the guy who called you named “Bill Higgins?” I got a call from that guy with the same exact line. I especially like the part about how they haven’t gotten a call from your and that “greatly concerns” them. I also got a letter from “Neustar” and never bothered to open it, because I never heard of them. I thought it was junk mail, because that’s the only mail I get. Never even thought it was communication from my ISP.

      Anyway, this Bill Higgins guy represents Malibu Media, and his message makes it seem like I should know what’s going on and I’m not on top of things. They probably found out this is a very effective wording to get people to call back, because it makes it seem like you’re missing out on something.

      What he won’t tell you is you aren’t named in any suits, no suits have been filed against you personally, and he wants to start negotiations for a “settlement” with you even though they have no evidence you did anything wrong.

      Reply

  22. I believe if nobody settles with those trolls, they will most likely to give up their business in this state. I bet they dont have the courage to sue every does who dont pay the settlement fee. Most of the people are innocent and they know they cant win. And they might face high attorney fees and the chance to be counterclaimed at.

    Reply

  23. It looks like on the 24th of August in Nicoletti’s case: 1:12-cv-00845-TWP-MJD (Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-29), Doe #14 (a comcast Doe) filed a Motion to Dismiss. Hopefully with his/her articulate motion, Judge Pratt will see through Nicoletti and his lackey’s exploitation of the judicial system!

    Reply

    • It’s a routine conference where both sides meet with the judge to set discovery deadlines, motion deadlines, discuss settlement, etc. Seeing as how there will be no served Does, the conference would be pointless so look for the troll to either request an adjournment or a dismissal without prejudice prior to the conference date.

      Reply

  25. Just received a call from someone representing Malibu Media. His name was lee and was calling about the Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-29. He left a message saying my legal council should contact them. Just thought I would give an update to anyone else involved in this.

    Reply

  28. Malibu Media v. JD 1-8 1:12-cv-00840-RLY-MJD SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 9/7/2012 11:00 AM in room #243, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/29/2012.(SWM)

    Reply

    • I’m not Raul, but yes. Only Lipscomb’s gang is conspired with Malibu Media owner, Brigham Field. There are only few big mafioso “families” out there in copyright trolling world. There are some mavericks (Lesko, McDaniels), but most of the trolls are connected to certain gangs (DGW, CEG, Prenda and Lipscomb are the biggest). A comprehensive diagram is long due.

      Reply

  31. I wonder if the actors in these movies have ever been made aware of the extortion their production companies are engaged in. Seems like many have twitters and other personal social media, and are sensitive to issues in their industry. Might be worth tagging some of them into posts regarding these lawsuits to increase exposure.

    It would be great if say when searching for the “lunchtime fantasy” movie, the first link that comes up is a copyright troll article… how’s that for publicity?

    Reply

  35. Well now, it looks like on the IN Nicoletti cases, our lovable troll attempted to delay the status hearing. I think he may have rubbed Judge Dinsmore the wrong way, as it seems like Nicoletti was still ordered to appear by telephone, and the judge made specific note that the “Plaintiff’s motion was improperly filed as an ex parte motion”.

    Tomorrow should be interesting…

    Reply

  36. Woah woah woah, and in a second reading of Judge Dinsmore’s response to Nicoletti, the telephone conference request was denied. Nicoletti has to show in person tomorrow.

    Reply

  37. In Malibu Media v. Does 1-9 (12-cv-1115) Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch grants Troll Nicoletti discovery of Doe info but denies “leave to conduct follow-up, or further, discovery based on or arising out of the information learned in response to subpoenas served on the ISPs and with respect to the IP addresses specifically identified” which I take to mean “no telephone contact”

    Click to access gov.uscourts.insd.41742.14.0.pdf

    Reply

    • Hey Raul, I’m on the list above (cv-01115). This is insane, I’ve never heard of such a thing until I got a random delivery this evening. I don’t want these people to have my personal Information, so to Quash or not to Quash? Also are you pulling these docs from RECAP using the Firefox plugin mentioned in other posts, or what is the best way to stay up? Google search for docket #? I’ve yet to go that far, but am trying to get educated. At this point anything I’d do would be lawyerless, I’m broke (wish they knew that, maybe they’d leave me alone).

      Thanks to all your posts, and everyone on this and similar sites. I’ll post what I hear/learn.

      Reply

  38. In Malibu Media v.Does 1-29 ( INSD 12-cv-845) check out Document 10 which lists a “Declaration to Refute Information Provided by Plaintiff’s Counsel, Christopher Fiore, 14 May 2012” which is DTD’s SLCM 🙂 http://dietrolldie.com/2012/06/06/dtd-slcm-strikes-home-malibu-media-v-john-does-1-14-212-cv-02084-eastern-district-pa/ in support of a Doe motion to dismiss http://ia600709.us.archive.org/10/items/gov.uscourts.insd.40654/gov.uscourts.insd.40654.docket.html

    Reply

  39. I got a call from one of the representatives on the Indiana case for Does 1-29. Her name was Lauren Michaels. She left a message on the phone. I called my lawyer who said, do not bother responding to the call; they should literally think you’re dead!! hehe!!

    Reply

  40. Anyone has any update on Malibu Meida vs John Does 1-23 (1:12-cv-00841)? Seems 1-29 case is progressing in a good direction. Dont about the 1-23 case

    Reply

  41. It looks like Malibu Meida vs John Does 1-23 (1:12-cv-00841) was reassigned/consolidated to Judge Dinsmore. Our friend Nicoletti has been called in today to discuss this case with the Judge at 11 today. Expect movement on it! not all the documents have been RECAPed on that case, but these are the three that have:

    reassignment letter: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.insd.40650/gov.uscourts.insd.40650.10.0.pdf
    MTQ: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.insd.40650/gov.uscourts.insd.40650.7.0.pdf
    initial complaint: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.insd.40650/gov.uscourts.insd.40650.1.0.pdf

    You should read 1:12-cv-00845’s documents too. DTD linked to them above, and they seem to be duplicates (at least the ex-parte motion, and the scheduling order) of the documents filed for 1:12-cv-00841: http://ia600709.us.archive.org/10/items/gov.uscourts.insd.40654/gov.uscourts.insd.40654.docket.html

    Reply

    • Well, I don’t really know how that works. I would assume (but I have no basis other then seeing lawyers on movies 😉 that he would be held in contempt of court, and get a sanction imposed on him. I doubt dismissal would happen, unless that was what the Judge had called him in there in the first place.

      I bet it was an early morning for Nicoletti though, Detroit to IN for an 11 o’clock meeting, can’t say I envy him that.

      Reply

    • It seems like he did. I don’t see any court documentation to state otherwise. I’m not sure what came of the meeting, however I did notice that he has filed a extensive opposition to the motion to dismiss for 1:12-cv-00845. I’m not sure why the RECAP isn’t showing up for that document specifically, but it’s worth a read. I’ll see if I can get the recap archive to kick in. Maybe DTD or Raul would weigh in an opinion on it?

      I think that he indirectly refers to DTD and this site as anti-copyright blogs 😉

      Reply

      • Its been a week and still no Pacer update on last weeks schedule meeting for Trolloletti cases. Should one expect to see minutes from this meeting in the Pacer system?

        Reply

  46. All of Judge Dinsmore’s troll cases are in the process of being rocket docketed which is good for Does, bad for Troll Nicoletti:

    “The Court has become aware of several court opinions from across the country that have raised concerns regarding potentially inappropriate procedures being utilized by plaintiffs in cases similar to the instant case to extract settlements from putative defendants without any intention by the Plaintiff of ever actually litigating the case on its merits. While the Court does not assume that Plaintiff or its counsel have engaged in any improper conduct, the Court will impose the following procedures in this matter to ensure the prompt identification and service of the putative Defendants in this matter.” http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/indiana-southern-district-court/102191/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does-1-9/summary/

    Reply

    • Curiosity got the better of me so I RECAPPED the order and it is good. So good I expect it to shut down trolling in the ILSD in short order. What is going to kill Troll Nicoletti, among other things is no contact with Does AND:

      “Within seven days of the date of this order, Plaintiff
      shall file under seal a copy of any and all correspondence
      between Plaintiff or anyone acting for or on behalf of Plaintiff
      or Plaintiff’s counsel and any of the putative Defendants. Such
      submission should include any agreements or proposed agreements
      between Plaintiff and any of the putative Defendants. Such
      submission shall also include a log of any oral communications
      between Plaintiff or anyone acting for or on behalf of Plaintiff
      or Plaintiff’s counsel and any of the putative Defendants
      identifying the date of such communication, the identity of the
      individuals who participated in such communication and a summary
      of the substance of such communication.”

      Cases are now rocket docketed, Troll has 7 days to file individual suit after learning ID of Doe. In other words, put up or shut up. Enjoy http://ia600605.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.insd.40652/gov.uscourts.insd.40652.19.0.pdf

      Reply

      • “With regard to any of the putative Defendants whose identity is known to the Plaintiff as of the date of this Order, the amendment of the Complaint to name those Defendants required by this paragraph shall be accomplished within seven days of the date of this order.”

        So the Judge is basically saying put up or shut up. No more subpoenaing doe identities and then harassing them for 6 months. Either name them within 7 days or get the hell out of court. Of course we all know Trolls don’t actually want to name does, because it’s so damn costly to litigate every single case one by one, rather than sit on a case with 10-20 does and let the settlements roll in.

        I think we all agree that copyright owners have a right to protect their copyrights, and these orders do nothing to prevent a copyright owner from exercising a legitimate attempt to do so. Problem for trolls is they run counter to troll tactics, making trolling more costly and shifting the cost/reward ratio. Now the schmuck in the call center has to log his calls, make a transcript, file them with the court, and the court will pick up the fact that they’re basically harassing individuals for settlements.This is good news all around! I bet Nicoletti is pissed off today.

        The best part is, this type of order has a reverberating effect, just as previous anti-troll orders influenced this one.

        Reply

  47. Additionally, I think this still leaves open the possibility of pursuing the improper joinder as a legitimate justification for a Motion to Quash. We know that most of the does subpoenaed in these suits have had their information released from their ISPs (with exception to the cases created the past few weeks, these have been open since June), so could potentially be named, but there’s 0 evidence that their IPs were working in coordination, and these does colluded with each other. Then we’re back to taking each doe to court individually, which fly’s counter to troll-philosophy. Nicoletti is going to cut his INSD losses, and pursue IL and MI again. My two cents? Expect these IN cases to either be dismissed in a week, or atrophy into non-exsistance.

    Reply

  48. I owe several of you some digital beers. Do you all think a motion to quash would be worth the time and/or risk at this point? Say one of 13 file a motion, and it’s denied, doesn’t that tell the Troll exactly who you are regardless of where the motion is postmarked? Or is there no correlation between DoeXXX and the actual person once the Troll receives info from IP? I guess, if prosecution is doubtful in light of recent events should someone risk putting troll cross-hairs on their back for a motion that likely won’t pass (or so I’ve read)?

    Reply

    • I have always advocated the filing of a motion to quash/sever/issue a protective order as it worked out for me but I consider myself lucky. On the other hand if you are in one of the increasing pool of lawsuits being overseen by Judge Dinsmore IMO it would be wise to just sit tight and monitor developements. You can take some solace in the fact that CEG/Lipscomb/Nicoletti cannot possibly harass an admission out of a Doe and do a background check into his appoximate wealth so as to make an informed decision to name him in an individual suit in 7 days. They simply will not do it unless they are truly reckless.

      Reply

Leave a reply to Raul Cancel reply