New York

Attorneys who defend troll victims

(Listed alphabetically)

Relevant posts

wordpress counter


142 responses to ‘New York

  1. To get each of these new posts going and in an effort to encourage the spirit of those that are new to this vile practice of copyright trolling I am going to post a link to a state specific case where the troll case got slammed which could be used in your Motion to Quash/Sever/Issue a Protective Order.

    New York is in a rather embryonic stage with troll litigation with the trolls testing the waters. So far the water has been hot on the trolls tootsies. Here is an Order denying the issuance of third party subpoenas because the troll was trying to get away with suing on a DVD that did not have a copyright registration

    Recently Mike Meiers has filed a boatload of cases in the SDNY and Jason A. Kotzker has filed likewise for the same plaintiffs in the EDNY. Thus far Mike is getting his ass handed to him by the SDNY but we shall see what the future holds.

  2. Troll Jason Aaron Kotzker has filed a bunch of cases for relatively new troll plaintiff, Malibu Media in the Eastern District of New York. These case are slightly different as we give trolls hard time, so they have to adapt constantly.

    Rob Cashman wrote two articles about these developments:

    Also, make sure you read the first comment to the second article: very good analysis. Well, it is so good I better copy it here:

    Anonymous, March 23, 2012 at 2:56 am

    I interpret this as a sign of desperation on the Trolls’ part. If settlement rates were good for existing suits there would be no reason to do this. It seems insane to ask for more, if people were balking at ~$3,000, $7,500+ is even less likely to work.

    A couple of possibilities:

    1) They have discovered there is a small pool of Does that has money and is going to settle because they are afraid of embarrassment or very guilty, older men with respectable jobs and family lives, people who just have plenty of money, whatever, so they figure taking those Does for all they can get will net the scam more money. Basically, focus on the “elite” Does and take them for more to make up for overall low settlement rates.

    2) This is for additional fear-factor, as that is almost all the Trolls have, and they hope that by starting with a scarier number they will be more likely to get Does to call and plead poverty and negotiate a smaller settlement. If the Doe still balks they name him and demonstrate they are willing to pretend to be serious, and again settle for much less.

    3) They have actually buffed up their “investigative” methods and are more confident with these Does. Have better data that will help resolve past joinder problems. Have tracked people over time and captured data streams and have some actual evidence that a file transfer even took place.

    Beyond that, this does not seem like it will be productive. Doing some quick Googling I come up with statistics stating the average American has $3,800 in the bank and 25% of households have no savings, so trying this on unknowns is not going to be a profitable enterprise, as the average Doe will literally be unable to afford a settlement or a defense. Of course that leaves the plaintiffs with opportunities for default judgements but those will be Pyrrhic victories if the Doe simply can’t pay, and if the Doe can’t pay it doesn’t help sustain the scam.

    I am given to assume that part of the Trolls’ reluctance to name defendants and follow through is that they know their evidence and methods are weak and that they are likely to expose themselves to tons of negative publicity and regulatory attention when they get caught suing the wrong little old lady. There has been a fair amount of negative press regarding Copyright Trolls already and that is with a minimal amount of follow-through on the Trolls’ part. There also seems to have been some cherry-picking in named suits so far (i.e. people who contact the Trolls and admit guilt, or get ratted out by a housemate), but we have already seen things backfire for Prenda when they chose some random Does to name in California (the filings in the Wong and Abrahams suit suggest they were not guilty and did not incriminate themselves).

    Keep in mind that simply accusing someone of downloading a siterip does not mean they are more likely to be the right person. A single .torrent is a single .torrent whether it actually contains one file or one thousand, so unless something significant has changed with their “forensic” methods there is no reason for these cases to have a better false-positive rate than their predecessors, and if it is a false-positive then it doesn’t matter what the Doe is accused of downloading. If they were claiming multiple downloads of multiple torrents with the same IP, that resolved back to the same subscriber, that would be a bit more compelling as it would at least establish a pattern from multiple samples.

    Something else to toss out: We have seen, especially with Prenda’s cases, how lax these guys are about obtaining copyright registrations. If these cases are trying to extract larger settlements by alleging infringement of a multitude of works, what are the chances that the Plaintiffs have actually done the paperwork and registered every work in the siterip? Considering the trouble Trolls have had keeping registrations in order for single-work suits, that is something to keep a close eye on in these cases. The scope of Prenda & Hard Drive Productions fraudulent requests for statutory damages is breathtaking; fraudulently requesting statutory damages for dozens or hundreds of unregistered works at a time is going to make things that much uglier for the Trolls when their time comes.

    Full stop, if I felt like I was put in a situation where I *had* to spend $10,000+ one way or the other, you bet your ass I would spend it on a lawyer and fight. $3,000 is already pushing the limits for enough people that we are now seeing a lot of represented Does particularly in FL and a couple of suits against the Trolls. This is a definite gamble as actually taking one of these to trail will result in exposure of their “investigative” methods, open the Trolls up to discovery, etc., and there is nothing that can make me believe they want that.

  3. I have posted this elsewhere but in an effort to get interesting troll developments discussed on these state by state pages I am going to recap Mike Meier’s travails with Judge Colleen McMahon in the Southern District of New York and is entitled Patrick Collins v. John Does 1-139. On 2-22-12 Meier moved to take early discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference by serving subpoenas on ISPs to discover Doe info. ON THE SAME DAY Judge Colleen McMahon shot down the motion with a terse “Denied” with no expatiation. Undeterred Meier files a motion for reconsideration 3-3-12. On 3-6-12 Judge McMahon issues an Order to Show Cause directing Meier to demonstrate why he has misjoined 138 Does and is trying to cheat the court system out of 138 $350 filing fees which is burdening the court or the lawsuit will be dismissed against those 138 Does without prejudice (while the Order to Show Cause is pending the case is frozen with no further proceedings including discovery) On 3-8-12 the Judge decides Meier’s motion for reconsideration as follows:

    “[u]ntil I have decided whether joinder of these 139 defendants is proper-which I very much doubt-there will be no discovery. Motion denied. Get to work on responding to any order to show cause.”

    On 3-23-12 Meier filed his lengthy response to the Order to Show Cause and I hope the judge decides this fairly and severs the 138 Does and sends Meir packing. The Cashman law firm has blogged about these developments as well

    The court docket as of this date can be viewed here

    • Hey Mikey!

      Tick, tock, tick, tock! This might be an apt time to pack up your carpet bag you disgraceful example of your nationality. The SDNY hate you and your ilk, if you have a modicum of intelligence (which I think you possess) get the fuck outta here.

  4. If you are a Doe being marked by Mike Meier in the SDNY for potential harassment please note that according to Mike:

    Plaintiff does not object to allowing defendants to litigate the matter anonymously for any pre-answer motions, such as Motions to Quash.

    Counsel for Plaintiff would like to note that he never initiates contact with .John Does by telephone. Also, counsel for Plaintiff understands the John Does’ needs for privacy, and thus does not require John Does wishing to resolve the matter to disclose their identity. All dismissals of John Does are not by name, but only by Doe Number and IP address.

  5. One last battlefield report before getting into bed with a good book. If you are a Doe in Mike Meier’s troll SDNY cases which Judge Forrest has consolidated as “In Re Adult Film Copyright Film Litigation” (case no. 1:11-cv-09705) the Judge has given Meier until May 25, 2012 to effectuate service and I doubt she will be amenable to a second request. So hang in there for 2 months (file a motion to sever/quash/issue protective order if you or your attorney are so inclined) and, hopefully, this crap will have blown away long before the pool opens.

    Obviously the above does not constitute legal advice and is for discussion purposes only.

  6. Looking for a finger in ther right direction. I just recieved a letter from TWC about subpoena on my account in 30 days. This was against In Re Adult Films Copyright infringement litigation. Just looking for a good place to start, OVERWELMING amounts of info on the ole WWW.

  7. Mixed news in Next Phase Distribution v. Does 1-138 (case no. 11-cv-9706).

    Bad: Judge Forrest denies motions to quash.

    Good: Judge Forrest grants Does motion to proceed anonymously and finds, in part, that:

    Moreover, there is a risk in this case, and other similarly-situated ones, that the “names and addresses produced in response to [p]laintiff’s discovery request will not in fact be those of the individuals who downloaded” “Horny Black Mothers and Daughters #8” because often
    the “true offender” is the “teenaged son,” “a neighbor in an
    apartment building that uses shared IP addresses” or “a
    [neighbor in the] dormitory that uses shared wireless networks.”
    Digital Sin, Inc. v. John Does 1-176, No. 12 Civ. 00126, 2012 WL
    263491, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2012) (“Plaintiff’s counsel
    estimated that 30% of the names turned over by ISPs are not
    those of individuals who actually downloaded or shared
    copyrighted material.”) .

    • …Plaintiff’s counsel is not related to, or working through, any other law firms in these matters

      True or not true, how the hell is it relevant?

      Did you notice the term “torpedo” he uses, and how he blatantly misleads the court that if a motion is anonymous, it is necessarily filed by a non-party with a sole goal to disrupt the proceedings. Crook.

  8. Hi all, I’ve been lurking for a bit but I finally need some clarification. I’m going up against Mike Meier in SDNY, immediately (I mean, I know he has the whole time, but I meant right off the bat in the Complaint), I feel he has over stepped his bounds. First, he asserts the SDNY has jurisdiction over the case because of ’17 US.C. §101 et seq. ‘and ’28 US.C. §1331 (federal question)’

    However, he makes it very clear throughout the complaint the IP’s harvested are only narrowed down to New York State.

    “Although the true identity of each Defendant is unknown to the Plaintiff at this time, on information and belief, each Defendant may be found in this District (see Exhibit D, listing the believed State of Residence for each John Doe)”

    I know these guys are crazy, but is that not a blatant admission that while they tried to identify where, the best they could do was in NY, which by default means everyone is in the Southern District?

    Please, could anyone give me a second pair of eyes, hopefully I can pick out ALL of these awful discrepancies. The case number is 12cv1168

    Should I post all the court Doc’s to Scribd or do most posters on here have regular access to court records?

    Also, I was wondering how strong an Exhibit would be considered from an anonymous John Doe. In the Complaint, Meier’s included a statement of personal verification that the IP address were in fact, within the jurisdiction of the court, providing three websites he routinely uses to check the location of IP addresses. I was hoping to capture the location each site displays to illustrate that not only do most of the Does not reside in the jurisdiction, but that his method for determining was flawed, often showing a different location on each site.

    • First off take a deep breath and relax. Now it appears you have a decent judge presiding over this lawsuit even though he lazily rubber stamped the Troll’s motion to issue third party subpoenas and /gov.uscourts.nysd.392195.6.0.pdf Unless you live outside of the SDNY I think you are wasting your time with the certain discrepancies you have noticed so far. I have commented a LOT on Mike Meiers and will tell you this he will not call your house but will only send threatening emails and letters. As of this date, he has not voluntarily named a single Doe in a lawsuit much less taken one to trial. If you have not done so already read this and this and all of my posts on this NY discussion thread as I am trying to educate new Does with them as scatterbrained as they may seen. Come back with any questions you may have as this community and that of are here to lend support because everyone here knows how horrible this can be.

      • Oh, I’ve read all of that. Many of the motions as well. I’m currently building an outline as to the reasons to quash, argue for misjoiner, and request an order of protective measure. I’m confident I can write a more than adequate motion, I’m just not familiar on the procedural mandates of any of the motions. Are their any writing resource websites for judicial requirements?

    • This is the first Seeder case I have seen and, even if accurate, evil with the prior troll setting two roommates up and pitting each against the other. WOW!

      Also this is the first confirmation (that I am aware of) that the Trolls do not have a sophisticated economic analysis as to their actual damages (market share lost, profit degradation, other economic mumbo jumbo, etc.). This is because in the prayer for relief the Troll asks for the specific amount of $50,400 and the number of Leechers to whom these alleged Seeders uploaded “Down on the Farm” is 840. If you divide the number of Leechers into $50,400 you arrive at the figure of $60 and “Down on the Farm” (not its copyrighted title-BTW) retails at the top end of that figure. So in other words, the Trolls are using a simplistic “lost sale” analysis in measuring actual damages and some have argued that their copyright registration is deeply flawed which, if correct, would preclude an award of statutory damages and attorneys’ fees These facts and figures would be a good to keep in mind if you are inclined to have an attorney ( a must IMHO in this specific situation) negotiate a settlement of a Liberty Media Holdings lawsuit

  9. This is the first Seeder case I have seen and, even if accurate, evil whith the prior troll setting two roommates up and pitting each against the other. WOW!

  10. Welcome under the bridge, trolls.

    Maya Entertainment Group, Inc. v. John Does 1-53 12-cv-02989-GBD (NYSD) Andrew T. Miltenberg, Marco A. Santori of Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP

    Third World Media, LLC v. John Does 1-68 12-cv-02990-AKH (NYSD) Andrew T. Miltenberg, Marco A. Santori of Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP

    Will be watching how your “well known brands, such as Nike, Inc., 3M Corp., Nautica, Tory Burch and COOGI…” will respond when they learn of your new clients. Does your reputation matter to you?

    • In a city such as NYC where the practice of law is ultra competitive and reputation is everything I am surprised these Trolls are risking their meal ticket to torture Does and others over porn (with one title being gay and the others unknown-I looked). Apparently they are not aware of the SJD treatment of another NYC troll

      Regrettably the Trolls have taken the even handedness of the SDNY judiciary’s recent Opinions as an invitation to set up a copyright trolling factory and overburden the already overburdened SDNY with their obviously predatory lawsuits. A case in point would be Jason Kotzker a CO Troll that has on April 13 filed 12 troll lawsuits (2 Patrick Collins, 9 Malibu Media and 1 Stagliano trademark infringement (which is a disguised and flawed copyright infringement claim)). Both Patrick Collins and Malibu Media had filed troll lawsuits through DC Troll Mike Meiers so I do not know if the porn plaintiffs are pitting Kotzker against Meiers to see which can get the best results. My hope is that it is a draw with neither getting enough to justify the expense. Law Clerks please take notice, you have CO and DC carpetbaggers filing large lawsuits on one filing fee against unrelated descendants on a moronic theory of joinder-sever,sever,sever!

  11. Just got a Letter from TWC saying they will give my info to:
    599 Lexington Ave
    New York, NY 10022

    USDC- Southern District of New York

    I live, work, conduct buisness in california and have no ties in NY.
    Can I argue personal juristiction to a means of quash? or wait until I recieve papers from the troll?

    • Hmm.. Reed Smith is a HUGE firm, with 1700 attorneys. I wonder what happens if many of them would receive info about their colleague’s love to [insert porn movie title here]. Is there a case number or at least plaintiff’s name?

      • Civil action No. 11-CV-8469

        Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc.
        Does 1-50

        This time it’s not about porn, or movies but software.

  12. Holy Hackers Batman!

    Troll David Yin files lawsuit Millennium TGA v. Leon et al (12-cv-1360) in the EDNY. The lawsuit alleges that Leon hacked passwords, stole content and uploaded it to his blog with the assistance of Does 1-5. Copyright infringement, trademark infringement, violation of the CFAA and civil conspiracy is alleged in the complaint. Uber Troll Malcolm DeVoy of Randazza Legal Group is appearing pro hac vic for the plaintiff and Leon has been served with the summons and complaint. WOW!

    • Thanks Raul. This case differs from the usual ones and I’m sure will be used by the Trolls to brag that “See, we do name and serve defendants in these case.” I haven’t been able to research Leon’s Blog and his alleged activity, but it does sound like the type of case that the copyright infringement law was actually written for. Depending on where the Blog is hosted, the Troll may be able to obtain Blog registration information and blog activity logs (uploads, access, IP addresses, etc.) from the hosting service. Again more possible evidence that is the exception to the rule for these Troll cases. It doesn’t surprise me that the Randazza Legal Group is jumping in on this. From reading the complaint, it seems like an easy one (compared to 99.9999% other Trolls cases) to get a win on. I’m not sure what Leon’s financial situation is, but it looks like more of an attempt to shut down the offending Blog/Leon and send a message to other who may be doing this. If Leon did make some money from uploading the content, there will also be bank records to show this.

      I thought it was interesting that the Troll stated that Leon’s Blog did not have a registered agent for the notification of copyright infringement as required by the DMCA, so the safe harbors provision does not apply.

      DTD 🙂

      • I had similar thoughts that the Trolls would use this lawsuit to try to establish favorable precedent for the CFAA and trademark infringement causes of action.

        • Can you elaborate your thought Raul? It may be possible as you said but I think this case is a bit different from most of the other bittorrent cases, since the trolls are arguing the does made “profit” from 1) hacking and stealing contents, 2) intentionally distributed materials for “profit,” and 3) had a blog with a name for it, which the trolls look like to categorize as an online “shop.” I agree with DTD that this case kind of fits the copyright / trademark infringement law…if the trolls can prove the does gained “profit” or something like. As for the other bittorrent cases…I’m not sure this can establish a strong precedent.

        • Yes, and that’s why they are dangerous – unlike Steele and other opportunists, Randazza and gang think well ahead and even if they lose money on a particular lawsuit, they treat it as a long-term investment.

          They cheat though. Known Randazza’s tactics is to stipulate a huge settlement and brag about it, while in reality the hapless former defendant pays in small installments and the fine print says that if he behaves good, he can be forgiven soon.

      • Randazza’s gang sues individuals for ages, and they have a grip of a pit bull. Cashman once said that some trolls bark but not bite, some are more dangerous. Undoubtedly, Randazza & his cohort are the most dangerous trolls. It does not mean that they cannot be successfully challenged, yet remember that they are very smart attorneys and won’t drop a case just to avoid publicity or save a couple of bucks – it’s a matter of “reputation” to them. They despise other trolls, especially Steele and think they are somehow better. They are not.

        • In 99% of the troll lawsuits a CFAA and trademark infringement cause of action would be dismissible, not so with this case I fear. That is why it can possibly establish some precedent to the effect that those causes of action are not BS in the context of a troll lawsuit.

          • Interestingly, plaintiff does not ask for statutory damages: he is so sure that he will be able to prove huge actual damages – it would be interesting to watch if this case goes to trial…

            Although I’m concerned about the case law being affected there and the damage to society trolls can inflict with this lawsuit, it seems that defendant is not an angel and they have a solid case against him; what is the proportionate the punishment should be – that’s the question.

    • it looks like the summons was ignored and a default judgement was issued. not suer what the ammount he got stuck with was as i could not tell from that link, but i am sure they will tout this as a victory

  13. You’re right…but I really want to believe judges are not that stupid and unable to draw the difference between this case and others, for example John Stagliano’s case in PA (though I don’t know the case’s nature…)

    • Loved the footnote – “Counsel shall broadly construe filings by pro se plaintiffs and err on the side of interpreting filings as requests to proceed anonymously when there is any indication that they might be such requests.” – The judge basically said, don’t even think you can go against my order; even if a Doe doesn’t directly stated they wanted their personal information protected.

      DTD 🙂

  14. The EDNY case (11-cv3995 filed 5/1/12) is a welcome reward to all those fighting this flagrant abuse of the legal system. John Doe #16 clearly put Plaintiff’s counsel in a corner — knowing full well that they never had any interest in determining whether or not JD #16 was actually culpable. Rather, this is all about extracting lawsuits and, no matter how hard they might try, Plaintiff’s counsel cannot hide their true motives. These Plaintiff’s attorneys should know that by bringing these nonsense claims, top-notch attorneys will respond, who will defeat them at every step. To Plaintiff’s counsel, I say: BRING IT ON.

    • Thanks to you tor the tip: as with many significant event, it was an avalanche of comments, and personal emails. And my congratulations to those dismissed from these cases, especially Doe #16. I just posted a quick article: I expect more from Raul and update it later.

      • Updated with Raul’s insight. Also it seems that at least 2 of three publications (ArsTechnica, TorrentFreak, Techdirt are working on the posts about this event). And this order deserves publicity!

  15. Hopefully this ORR will embolden the judges of the SDNY who are bending over backwards to accomondate the trolls when it is clear that permissive joinder is not proper in these troll lawsuits for a host of reasons..

    • I am sorry about your outcome. The judges in the SDNY have been, as a whole, unreceptive to severance arguments to date. Hopefully with recent developments in the EDNY that will change.

      • How can I nicely write to the judge and point out the other rulings of a similar nature (those that found severance not premature and against trolls) like, Gary Brown’s in the Eastern District. Do judges (by and large) often take flat out suggestions to review similar case law as “telling them how to do their job” or do they find it helpful? I figured even a letter, written to the pro se office, would have to be seen by him. Instead of a 11 page motion a simple letter might suffice to raise awareness of trolls.

        • You could also try making a Rule 60(b)(6) motion for reconsideration on the ground that there has been an intervening change in the law since you made your motion (Judge Gary Brown’s ORR). Whichever you decide to do be sure to attach Judge Gary Brown’s ORR and certify that you mailed a copy to the troll.

      • @sophisticatedjanedoe, would I actually attach Judge’s Browns ORR or just the reference to it in the Notice?

  16. In the Big Balls Department. In less than a full week after getting smacked by Judge Gary Brown of the EDNY, Troll Kotzker moves for expedited discovery in his 15 or so troll lawsuits that were filed in the SDNY in April.It should be interesting to see whether the SDNY will still coddle trolls.

    • This move also may be desperation. The troll is trying to get through the door of the scam before it is shut. The may hope the effects of Judge Brown’s report move slowly. I don’t want to guess too much about a troll’s intent. Who wants to get into the mind of a nasty person ?

  17. Big news out of the SDNY! In the lawsuit Digital Sin v. Does 1-245 (case no. 11-cv-8170) Judge Colleen McMahon on 5-15 handed down a 9 page Memorandum Decision and Order lashing Troll Meier’ theory of joinder, failure to adhere to local rules and seriously questioning the geo-location abilities of the troll’s software. Furthermore she cites both Judge Gibney and Judge Gary Brown in severing 244 Does from the lawsuit. This is great!!!! With some luck the other SDNY judges will follow her lead (I’m looking at you Judge Forrest). Docket is here

  18. SJD tweeted about this 5/15/12 Meier letter today.

    Mike Meier says in a letter to Judge Katherine B. Forrestthat he needs “to serve individual Does in several of the consolidated cases” related to the 10/25/11 Third Degree case in NYSD. The case included 217 Does, for the “motion picture” “Illegal Ass 2”.

    Would it help the court to know that Mr. Mike Meier of The Copyright Law Group PLLC has filed at least 25 cases in several states, on behalf of porn purveyor plaintiffs, involving 1982 Does since October 2011? How many of these Does have been named and served ? The number listed on RFC is less than one.

    How many cases and Does are there for the out of state supervising attorney with how many Does ?

    Click to access gov.uscourts.nysd.386729.60.0.pdf

    • Good Morning Troll Kotzker and Welcome to the White Plains Division of the SDNY!

      Judge Forrest transfers Patrick Collins v. Does 1-7 (case no 12-cv-2963) to White Plains where Judge Briccetti promptly frog marches it out the rear door of the courthouse, makes it kneel in the courtyard and puts a bullet into the back of its head. Specifically he finds that the lawsuit does not have a copyright certificate attached to it which is a precondition for a copyright infringement action and he finds the trademark infringement claim insufficient (the judge cites Judge Gary Brown’s ORR twice). Judge Briccetti’s Order has not hit RECAP yet but it will shortly

  19. To the above, I posted most of this regarding the Mike Meier SDNYC cases yesterday, it seems his deadline to name defendants is today.

    On 5/24 Mike Meier requested an extension of time to serve. It seems that the deadline for him to serve individual does is today, 5/25. The extension is based on Judge Forrest’s decision that does have the right to proceed anonymously, and further that the plaintiff had to confirm whether any such request was submitted. Likelihood this will simply be granted? Also interesting, the plaintiff notes that(regarding the request for confirmation that does wanted to proceed anonymously):

    “Plaintiffs notified the 122 remaining John Does by letter (priority mail with delivery
    confirmation) on May 22, 2012 of the Court Order of May 17, 2012. A copy of Plaintiffs’ letter
    is attached as Exhibit 1.”

    Can we take this to me he intends to file against those 122 remaining?
    I did not total up all these linked cases, but it seems the original doe count was around 1300 or so.

    • Umm, this is unusual to say the least and, if not a mistake, sanctionable to say the most. I tried to find out the who, when and how as to how Troll Kotzker got admitted in the SDNY but the SDNY website is not user friendly in that regard (unlike other federal district court websites).

  20. Here are some NY cases that popped up on Justia..

    Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-28
    Filed: May 14, 2012 as 1:2012cv03794

    Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-27
    Filed: May 15, 2012 as 1:2012cv03873

    Are those still dealing with the same Panties movie or whatever that the other cases have been about all this time? I don’t know if these cases have been referred to earlier. Considering a judge just smashed another case in the state not to long ago, I wonder if these are related to that.

  21. Just saw this order today 1:12-cv-01168-AKH:

    “I hereby vacate all previous orders issued in this case, without prejudice, and transfer the case, for all purposes and with her consent, to Judge Katherine B. Forrest.”

    Good News? What does it mean when he vacates all previous orders? Does Meier need to start over?

  22. Going out on a limb here. Troll Kotzker files a shitload of troll lawsuits on 4-13 which he then files a motion for expedited discovery on 5-8 in the SDNY. In the past these motions were granted in a 1 or 2 week time frame but not these motions-only silence….. . Maybe not total silence. I think if you listen closely you can hear the sound of cleavers being sharpened on the grindstones located in the dark recesses of the basement of the SDNY and maybe the rustling of dark hoods being donned?

    • OK so the first Order issued by Judge Oetken on 6-1 regarding 2 of Troll Kotzkers 4-13 lawsuits was not the Grand Guignol I was hoping for but there is still some good stuff that points in the right direction. In Patrick Collins v. Does 1-6 (case no. 12-cv-2964) and Malibu Media v. Does 1-5 (case no. 12-cv-2950) the judge finds the following:

      “1. The Court concludes that there is good cause to allow some expedited discovery in this case, because, without it, Plaintiff will not be able to ascertain the identities of the Doe defendants or to effect service upon them.

      2. Nevertheless, the Court believes that Plaintiffs proposed order lacks adequate
      protections for the Doe defendants and is otherwise inappropriate. This Court shares the growing concern about unscrupulous tactics used by certain plaintiffs, particularly in the adult films industry, to shake down the owners of specific IP addresses from which copyrighted adult films were allegedly downloaded.

      3. There is real risk that defendants might be falsely identified and forced to defend themselves against unwarranted allegations. In such cases, there is a risk not only of public embarrassment for the misidentified subscriber, but also that the innocent subscriber may be coerced into an unjust settlement with the plaintiff to prevent the public filing of unfounded allegations. The risk of a shake-down is compounded when the claims involve allegations that a defendant downloaded and distributed sexually explicit material.

      4.More than one court has observed that Doe defendants, whose telephone numbers have been disclosed, are at particular risk of receiving coercive phone calls threatening public filings that link: them to alleged illegal copying and distribution of pornographic films, if a settlement fee is not forthcoming. The Court can see no reason why the disclosure ofthe Doe defendants’ telephone numbers is necessary at this stage of the litigation to preserve Plaintiffs copyright interests.”

      So Troll Kotzker is reduced to writing Halloween cards and emails and if you are a Doe that receives one please forward it to SJD who will redact your personal identifying info as the contents of such a communique are invaluable for informing current and futures Does.

    • Some may love their Whitman, Browning , Keats but I love this: “In
      considering plaintiff’s application, however, the undersigned finds that for the reasons set forth in
      the well-reasoned decision of Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown dated May 1, 2012, plaintiff has
      not satisfied the requirement of establishing that defendants participated in the same
      “transaction” or “occurrence” within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 20” Glorious!

  23. Behold the power of a lowly Doe MTQ!

    In EDNY lawsuit Malibu Media v. Does 1-13 (case no. 12-cv-1156) a Doe files a humble motion to dismiss/sever or issue a protective order on 4-16. On 5-10 Judge Boyle orders that enforcement of the third party subpoenas is stayed and on 5-22 orders Troll Kotzker to turn over all Doe info in his possession and denies him permission to serve process on the Does pending a decision on the Doe motion. Undoubtedly sensing another kick in the crotch, Troll Kotzker calls upon his Master Troll, Lipscomb, to present oral argument at the hearing held on 6-1. Wow!

    • New Judicial Approach to Troll Lawsuit: Ignore it and It Will Die

      In the EDNY Troll Kotzker files several Malibu Media lawsuits but two get assigned to Judge Tomlinson (12-cv-1148 and 1149) and on 3-12 the troll makes a motion for expedited discovery in both lawsuits. What does the good judge do? Nothing, just lets the motions gather dust. On 7-9 the troll determines that the ISPs have purged the Doe info in the ordinary course of business and dismisses both lawsuits.

      In the SDNY Judge Ramos and others appear to be adopting this tactic with respect to Troll Meier’s lawsuits.

  24. Mixed news out of Troll Meier’s massive consolidated SDNY mess before Judge Forrest entitled “IN RE ADULT FILM COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION” (11-cv-7564). Good news: literally hundreds of Does have been dismissed without prejudice. Bad news: 11 Does must have tried to talk their way out of it as he is promising to file 11 individual lawsuits (seeing how Meier still has a DCD Doe’s attorney chewing on his ass it is doubtful that these lawsuits will go beyond the filing stage-you’ll see). Big News!

    • I think this is mostly good news. In 14 total cases, three were “voluntarily” dismissed entirely and the trolls are “seeing fit” only to threaten one Doe in each of the remaining 11 cases, dismissing the others. It’s sad if trolls think 11 individual Does are more exploitable. Since Doe groups have been severed from Does #1 in other SDNY cases, SDNY is becoming a poor troll extortion ground.

      As SMDH noted, in a comment under the Florida federal discussion page, notorious copyright troll lawyer for porn purveyors in multiple states, Mr. Mike Meier, filed new troll cases for porn purveyors in Florida Northern District today. The two listed under Mike Meier’s Florida filings so far were for those “creative” porn purveyor studios Digital Sin Inc. and Metro Media Entertainment, LLC.

      Mr. Meir, the lawyer for porn purveyors, is already admitted to practice in DC, Maryland, New York and Virginia. He has filed suits for porn purveyors in those four states/districts. If he has sought and obtained Florida licensing, it seems likely that this is only to work in this porn purveyor copyright trolling scheme. As of 6/26/2012, Mr. Meier’s name is not listed on the Florida Bar member search list. It could be that the listing is not up to date.

      Though he appears to be part of a nationwide troll gang, the indications are that Meier himself is a solo practitioner, acting as attorney of record in four states, or now five. That’s more reason to suspect that Mr. Meier is serving for as a front man for an operation.

      If porn purveyor troll cases went to trial (they don’t, other than in defaults), it’s doubtful that Mr. Meier as a solo practitioner could litigate troll cases in five jurisdictions.concurrently.

      • That is an excellent point. One of the rules of conduct for a lawyer is that they maintain a reasonably case load so as to be able to devote adequate time to each case. At the rate he is going that would not seem to be in line with the bar’s rules and could subject him to sanctions.

        I’m just throwing that idea out there.

      • Mr. Meier’s Pimp is CEG. If you remember He and Terek Hamshi are buddies from Buckingham Financial. Looked like some investment firm, guess it didn’t work out either. Terek got busted back in February for practicing without a license and was pimp slapped by CEG. Meier’s took up the cases Pro Hac Vice just before they were all dismissed. Now it seems he wants to get slapped down like both Steele and Hamshi have for practicing without a license in FL. Word is still out as to whether the bar decided on the Third Degree Felony.

    • Nothing real useful to add here other than to say my ISP service sucks. Still down and my wife took the air card with her to CO on business. Asked her nicely to dodge the wildfires and give Troll Kotzker a kick in the crotch for me and all Does. It has now been over a week with no reliable Internet service (at the library parking lot now), chomping at the bit to get back in the fight.

  25. Be careful there Raul, the Trolls will trace your IP to the library and just KNOW that it is you using infringing the public WiFi up to no good dissing them.

    Be prepared for a canned letter in the mail soon. LOL! I just couldn’t resist putting on the trolling hat for a moment. I’m sure that sounds logical to them.

    • Right now I am illegally downloading a comedy “Prenda”. Critics have generally given it negative reviews but I happen to like comedy in the Jerry Lewis genre.

  26. But honestly, I wanted to go back to what another poster said recently. If the only way to know that a movie is copyrighted is by the title screen disclosure then how does one know before it is downloaded? Surely a torrent tracker is not going to be called “COPYRIGHT MOVIE: Candie’s Panties.XXX” or something of the like.

    This sounds like a sting operation I read about in Dominican Republic where a friendly stranger shakes your hand and the next thing you know there is a packet of cocaine in your hand and immediately along comes a cop to arrest you. How convenient!

    I know of porn sites that give away a free movie download each week to its members. Interestingly enough, the very same companies that are suing people are also allowing this on certain sites.

    Just want to throw that out to the members of this forum as it might come in as handy info some day to a defendant.

    Another interesting point is if they are giving away free samples so to speak, just like Costco and the grocery stores, then how can they claim that this is hurting their business. If they were wise they would write this off as a promotional expense, but I guess this is not what this is about anyway, but another salient point for a judge to consider.

  27. Was just over on TF and Wiley managed to get a default Judgement against someone.
    The Judge went above and beyond awarding $7000 in total.
    $5000 for copyright infringement and $2000 for trademark infringement for counterfeiting.
    I’m worried about a couple things… defaults in copyright cases often can be shown to be caused from defective service, and the counterfeiting charges are a bizarre new twist.
    1:11-cv-07627-WHP is the docket # from the linked default document on TF.

    • Re: 11-CV-09620-WHP / 389859
      Doc 17 (Scheduling Order)

      1. Plantiff is directed to submit a status report of third party discovery to identify the DOE Defendants on 8/3/12;

      2. Plantiff shall serve all DOE Defendants by 8/31/12; and

      3. A status conference will be held on 9/7/12 @ 12:00 p.m.

      SO ORDERED: William H. Pauley III
      Dated 5/21/12
      Filed 5/22/12

      Any thoughts on this?

      • If this lawsuit follows the usual life cycle, troll will dismiss Does without prejudice on 8-30 and drop lawsuit.

  28. What is going on in Judge Forests consolidated cases. Meier hasn’t updated anything in a month. Should I stop paying attention to my case and start back with the lead case? I’m somewhat lost since my case was consolidated in with the rest. I mailed in a notice of supplemental authority and a motion to quash (same day different envelopes) a month ago. The supplemental authority came up on PACER but not my motion and there has been no comments rulings in regards to either of them. Any help?

      • My case is consolidated with the others, but the filing of 06/25 does not list mine. It appears my case, along with two others, were consolidated later than the other cases. Could it be they were swept under the rug, as Meier may have prepared that filing before my case was added? Mine along with two others were added on the 14th.

        • Hard to say without the docket number to look up. However, it is safe to guess that your lawsuit might have been lost in the shuffle as Meier was beating a hasty retreat out of the SDNY having had his nose bloodied on several occasions (Kotzker as well). For the time being it looks as if trolling is all but dead in NY but for the handful of cases that have been ignored thus far by the assigned justices.

    • The case has yet to go to a default judgment. At this point there is only a Certificate of Default. To obtain a Default Judgment the troll has to put in evidence as to actual damages, reasonable attorneys fees, etc. Insofar as actual damages will be difficult to prove and will require the hiring of an expensive expert, I doubt that the troll will apply for a Default Judgment but will use the default to try to hammer out a settlement. Hope that makes sense.

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 )

Connecting to %s