Pennsylvania

Attorneys who defend troll victims

Relevant posts

wordpress counter

Discussion

490 responses to ‘Pennsylvania’

  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.

    PA is a little bit all over the map in terms of consistency in treating MTQs but here is a good Order to use if the copyright is dicey http://ia600804.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.paed.454242/gov.uscourts.paed.454242.6.0.pdf

    and this one with respect to joinder is one of the Does first victories on the East Coast: http://ia600705.us.archive.org/4/items/gov.uscourts.paed.432359/gov.uscourts.paed.432359.30.0.pdf

    Reply

  2. As part of the beginning of the Third Massive Wave of Troll Lawsuits, Troll/Punk Christopher P. Fiore yesterday filed 6 Troll lawsuits in the Eastern District of PA even though he should know better. 4 Malibu Media, 1 NuCorp and 1 Stagliano (new plaintiff but soon to be quite familiar). Punk Troll has had 50% of these cases assigned to Judges who have already kicked him in the head. Compare 12-cv-2096 to 11-cv-5060 (Judge Schiller), 12-cv-2095 to 11-cv-7247 (Judge Davis) and 12-cv-2086 to 11-cv-5172 (Judge Savage). This Troll is either incredibly stupid or starving because after the K-Beech fiasco of last Fall, the Eastern District is hostile ground for a troll lawsuit and Fiore, more than anyone, should know it.

    See:
    http://dietrolldie.com/2012/01/10/pa-judge-denies-troll-motion-to-serve-a-subpoena-on-isps-211-cv-07247-patrick-collins-v-john-does-1-26/

    Reply

  4. Summarizing the assault on Eastern Pennsylvania April 19 by Christopher P. Fiore of Fiore & Barber, LLC

    Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-15 12-cv-12-cv-02077
    Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-16 12-cv-02078
    Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-11 12-cv-02079
    John Stagliano Inc. v. John Does 1-17 12-cv-02080
    Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-22 12-cv-02083
    Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-14 12-cv-02084
    John Stagliano, Inc. v. John Does 1-15 12-cv-02085
    John Stagliano, Inc. v. John Does 1-12 12-cv-02087
    Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-22 12-cv-02088
    Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-8 12-cv-02089
    Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-15 12-cv-02090
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-16 12-cv-02091
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-16 12-cv-02092
    Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-7 12-cv-02093
    Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-25 12-cv-02094
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-18 12-cv-02095
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-18 12-cv-02096

    Reply

    • One of the reasons I believe why there are so many cases at PA east this month s because they had “some” success last Feb, which included maybe two site-rip cases.

      Reply

      • Is there anything particular about the cases that involve the site-rip? Does the troll pursue these more than others?

        Reply

        • There is an emerging case law: many judges say that since timeframe is huge, it’s unlikely that every Doe shared a file directly with every other one, and rule that joinder is not permissible. As far as I heard (but did not check myself), trolls claim that joinder is proper because, unlike in other cases, the file is so big that everyone in the swarm shred this files with others. In my opinion it’s hogwash: with a good connection a BD-rip can be downloaded for less than a day. I don’t know how big is this file, but I think it’s less or comparable to BD rip. I was actually contacted by a guy who promised, for the sake of experiment, download this damn site rip and make screenshots to prove the speed. I did not hear from him again though.

          Reply

  5. Named in 12-CV-0668 (filed 3/6). I didn’t do any motions to quash as it seemed from the information on this site that that generally would not work.

    Contacted by (I think) Bill Hagans who is a lawyer with an 818 number (San Fernando Valley, CA?) though that is interesting as C. Fiore is named on the paperwork. I picked up the first time as I didn’t recognize the number. Basically told Hagans that I was only vaguely aware of what he was talking about and did not have time to discuss it. I have received two subsequent calls “please get me information for your lawyer for this FEDERAL case”.

    I am not sure how to proceed. My initial impulse is to more or less ignore calls and see if they do anything further outside of harassing phone calls. I would appreciate any advice.

    Reply

  6. Hi,

    Just wanted to give an update in the case I was named as a Doe Defendant and I have been fighting. The case 2:11-cv-07248-MAM was filed on November and I did file a motion to quash and sever. Interesting, that as soon as the Judge denied the motion to quash in March, Fiore dismissed all the actions against the other Doe’s who had been identified but who he had failed to serve (and left the three does fighting the release of their information) in the case. Fiore recently filed a motion to extend time again for service, and complained Verizon still had not given over our names. Of course Verizon was waiting to see if an appeal was filed before handing over the information. Well today I filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court and asked the Court to request that Plaintiff provide a report to the Court of how it handles litigation in these cases, here in the ED of PA and across the country, and not just for Raw Films. It should be interesting, and I know that a Motion for Reconsideration is rarely, if ever granted, but you know what sometimes you have to keep fighting and this is one more opportunity to make the court pause and consider the motives and tactics of the Trolls. I cut and pasted the motion below – it didn’t transcrib well not sure how you guys attach files on the forum. Any hints would be appreciated.

    John Doe xx

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    )
    Raw Films, Ltd., )
    )
    Plaintiff, )
    )
    v. ) Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-07248-MAM
    )
    John Does 1-15, )
    )
    Defendants. )
    )
    JOHN DOE xx’s MOTION TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF MOTION (1) TO SEVER
    DEFENDANTS FOR IMPROPER JOINDER, AND/OR
    (2) TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND/OR
    (3) ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDER QUASH

    Defendant, John Doe No. xx1 (“Defendant”), files this Motion for Reconsideration
    respectfully asking the Court to reconsider its Denial of Defendant’s Motion (1) to sever
    defendants for improper joinder, and/or (2) to quash subpoena and/or (3) issue a protective order (“MTQ”).

    Defendant notes that once this Court denied the outstanding motions to sever the Doe
    Defendants or quash the subpoena’s in this case [Mar. 26, 2012, Dkt. No. 6], Raw Films
    dismissed the complaint against all the John Doe’s, who it had extracted personal information

    FN1 John Doe does not identify itself in this filing, but is one of the John Doe Defendants listed on the Subpoena to Verizon Internet Services and will be identified as “John Doe xx” in this Motion.
    from through the initial discovery process. [Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss, Mar. 29, 2012, Dkt.
    No 7]. Raw Films, in its Motion to Dismiss stated:
    “Plaintiff is dismissing these actions claimed against these Defendants and hereby reserves the right to re-file against them in a joined suit once Plaintiff has discussed with the Doe Defendants
    the possibility of an amicable resolution without the necessity of further court intervention. This process enables all parties to cost effectively and confidentially manage the disputes between them.” As Defendant argued in its MTQ, the instant case is part of a systematic effort to build a
    business model. This model is based on weak allegations of copyright infringement and
    questionable use of the legal system to quickly wrest profit generating settlements from
    Defendants cowed by the high cost and potential liability of such litigation. True to form, as
    soon as Plaintiff had acquired the names and contact information for the alleged infringers it
    dismissed the law suit. Various Courts have skeptically described this type of litigation, which
    has exploded across the country since 2010, as for-profit copyright lawsuits. By way of
    example, one court noted “this Court has some concerns about plaintiffs who file cases with
    extremely weak infringement positions in order to settle for less than the cost of defense and
    have no intention of taking the case to trial. Such a practice is an abuse of the judicial system and threatens the integrity of and respect for the courts.” Mem. Op. and Order at 5, Raylon LLC v.
    EZ Tag Corp., Civ. A. No. 09-00357 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2011).

    In a recent case in the Northern District of California, after initially agreeing to allow
    Plaintiff to proceed with discovery to identify the ISP holders, the court required Plaintiff to
    describe to the Court the process it used in litigating this type of case and how it had litigated
    previous cases. Astonishingly, Plaintiff admitted to the court that it had not served a single Doe
    Defendant despite having filed claims against thousands of John Does in various cases. The
    Court denied any further discovery and severed all but one John Doe defendant finding that:
    “The court realizes that this decision may frustrate plaintiff and other copyright holders who, quite understandably, wish to curtail online infringement of their works. Unfortunately, it would appear that the technology that enables copyright infringement has outpaced technology that prevents it. The court recognizes that plaintiff is aggrieved by the apparent infringement and is
    sympathetic toward its argument that lawsuits like this one are the only way for it to find and stop infringers. However, the court will not assist a plaintiff who seems to have no desire to actually
    litigate but instead seems to be using the courts to pursue an extrajudicial business plan against possible infringers (and innocent others caught up in the ISP net). Plaintiff seeks to enlist
    the aid of the court to obtain information through the litigation discovery process so that it can pursue a non-judicial remedy that focuses on extracting “settlement” payments from persons who
    may or may not be infringers. This the court is not willing to do.”
    Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. John Does 1-90, No. C11-03825 HRL, Docket No. 6, Order
    Denying Application for Leave to Take Expedited Discovery and Severing Does 2-90 (ND CA.
    Mar. 30, 2012).

    In the three cases filed by Raw Films in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, it appears
    that Plaintiff has dismissed its other two law suits as well, one because the ISP’s no longer had
    the identifying information, the other apparently after it had obtained the identifying information
    of the ISP holders. See Raw Films v. John Does 1-17, 2:2011-cv-07249, Raw Films v. John
    Does 1-5, 2:2011-cv-07354. Defendant would ask the Court to request a report from Plaintiff,
    Raw Films, detailing for example: (1) how many defendants Raw Films has served across the
    country in its various copyright infringement cases, (2) how many scheduling orders have been
    issued by courts in the litigation, (3) how many requests for admissions/interrogatories have been propounded, (4) how many depositions have been taken, (5) what type of discovery has been undertaken, (6) how many documents have been produced, (7) has its expert ever produced an expert report and been deposed, (8) has its expert ever testified in court or been qualified as an expert witness, (9) what type of motion practice has it engaged in, (10) how many mediations has it conducted and (11) has it ever taken a John Doe Defendant to trial on the merits of its complaint. Additionally, Defendant would request that the court ask Fiore for a report on all the cases he has filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for copyright or trademark infringement and their status, not just those cases filed on behalf of Raw Films nationwide. For instance in addition to the various questions posed above, how many forensic examinations has Raw Films, or any of Fiore’s other Plaintiffs, conducted on a john doe defendant’s computer and what is the error rate, or false positive rate, of its “tracking software” when compared to actual forensic examinations.

    Defendant agrees that copyright infringement is a serious problem for businesses in this
    new internet and digital age. However, using the copyright laws and suing individuals for
    statutory damages of $150,000 for an alleged single download of a movie is a horrible misuse of
    the copyright regime and the legal system. Congress never intended that those types of damages would be assed against individual infringers, but were intended for large commercial enterprises that were distributing large numbers of movies or other copyrighted material and earning significant revenues without properly compensating the original owner of the protected work. Yet, Plaintiff files lawsuits against many unrelated “alleged infringers” for a mere $350 filing fee. After obtaining the names of the alleged infringers, the Plaintiff proceeds to “encourage” the alleged infringer into agreeing to a settlements of $2000 to $3000 for downloading a $20 to $30 movie in order to avoid the costly expense of defending a copyright infringement case in federal court. John Doe Defendants are offered the choice to settle or pay a private lawyer, and when a few calls are made it becomes painfully obvious that just to obtain representation a private attorney will probably initially charge a John Doe Defendant $2000 to $3000.

    So as a defendant, who has not committed the infringement alleged against me, I am
    faced with the prospect of a costly federal lawsuit or paying a settlement to make the lawsuit go
    away. And it doesn’t look as if the Plaintiff’s lawyer, Fiore, has ceased filing these massive
    lawsuits in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania having just filed 17 new lawsuits2 on April
    19th to compliment the approximately 52 similar actions Fiore has filed since August of 2011,
    with at least 472 individual John Doe Defendants.

    I will categorically state that I did not download the alleged movie, nor have I ever used
    BitTorrent software to download any type of movie or music; however, that does not seem to
    matter. Based upon the research I have conducted regarding the litigation commenced against
    similarly situated defendants in these types of lawsuits around the country, it looks highly
    unlikely that I would ever have an opportunity to have my day in court, to attest to my
    innocence, or to force the Plaintiff to actually have to prove his case.
    FN 2 Summarizing the cases filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 19 by Christopher P. Fiore of Fiore &
    Barber, LLC
    Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-15 12-cv-12-cv-02077
    Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-16 12-cv-02078
    Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-11 12-cv-02079
    John Stagliano Inc. v. John Does 1-17 12-cv-02080
    Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-22 12-cv-02083
    Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-14 12-cv-02084
    John Stagliano, Inc. v. John Does 1-15 12-cv-02085
    John Stagliano, Inc. v. John Does 1-12 12-cv-02087
    Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-22 12-cv-02088
    Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-8 12-cv-02089
    Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-15 12-cv-02090
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-16 12-cv-02091
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-16 12-cv-02092
    Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-7 12-cv-02093
    Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-25 12-cv-02094
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-18 12-cv-02095
    Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-18 12-cv-02096

    The truth of the matter is that these cases are based on flimsy “scientific evidence”.
    Notably, Plaintiff’s expert would probably not be able to pass the evidentiary standards imposed
    by the federal courts. Additionally, the plaintiffs in these copyright infringement lawsuits really
    do not appear to be interested in litigating these cases on the merits. Instead they have found an
    efficient and cost effective method to file massive copyright infringement litigation, allege large
    damages, join many unrelated individuals together, and then coerce settlement payments.
    Settlement payments may be received from some, who may have download the movie (although
    the settlement payments far outweigh the economic harm caused by downloading a movie).
    Many other innocents are caught up in this scheme, who did not download the alleged
    pornography but decide to settle for expediency to make the case go away and avoid a potentially expensive legal proceeding. This abuse of the legal system by the Plaintiff is manifestly unfair to individuals who do not have the experience, resources or knowledge of the federal courts. To allow the courts to be used in this method, almost as a private investigator that secures the names of the alleged infringers on behalf of the pornographers is hard to understand. More ridiculous is that once one of the pornographers receive the ISP information, they dismiss the cases and essentially tell the courts “oh we don’t need you anymore — we will take care of this matter privately and not burden the courts with our dispute”. This is a perversion and abuse of the legal system.

    Finally, I request that this court reconsider its prior ruling on the appropriateness of
    joining the 15 John Does in this action. I would again ask the court to reconsider the facts
    alleged by the Plaintiff. The 15 John Doe’s in this suit allegedly downloaded the movie,
    Bareback Street Gang, over a period of more than 10 weeks, or a span of almost three months,
    each on a different day and at different times during the day. See Exhibit A to the Complaint.
    Although, Plaintiff’s counsel alleges that the Doe defendants “in concert” transferred
    pieces of the copyrighted work to, or from one another, there is no objective evidence to support
    that allegation. The probability that the 15 John Doe Defendant’s acted in concert with each
    other is unlikely because each John Doe appeared in the swarm on a different date and time,
    hours, days, or weeks apart from one another. Further, even if the John Does did download the
    alleged movie a BitTorrent download is generally accomplished in a short period of time,
    minutes or hours, so it is extremely unlikely that any one of the Does remained in the swarm
    long enough to have direct contact with another Doe who entered hours, days or weeks, later.
    Consider how many times an individual may log in or off a computer, or the internet, or merely
    how many times the internet crashes — to assume that each of the 15 John Doe Defendants had his or her computer turned on, and connected to the internet with an open connection to
    BitTorrent continuously for the alleged 10 week period which Plaintiff contends constituted the
    “swarm” strains credulity. The allegation and presumption advanced by Plaintiff in support of
    its claims is unsupported by reality. Plaintiff cannot show that the defendants acted in concert with one another simply by appearing in the same swarm at completely different times, or that they conspired with each other to download and distribute the movie for commercial gain to others. Therefore, the court should not find that “a single transaction or series of closely related transactions” connects these 15 John Does. Accordingly, joinder of the Does is inappropriate and John Does 2 through 15 should be severed from this case.
    [Remainder of page left intentionally blank]

    Conclusion

    I respectfully ask that the Court reconsider its denial of Defendant’s Motion to Quash and
    grant Defendant’s (1) Motion to Quash, and (2) Sever Defendant’s 2 through 15, from the instant
    case and such other relief as this Court deems is just and appropriate.
    April 25, 2012
    Respectfully submitted,
    ___s/John Doe xx_______________
    John Doe xx*
    Johndoeedpa1234@yahoo.com
    * In order to preserve my confidentiality I have not provided the court with my name
    or address. I have provided an anonymous email address and I certify that I will
    monitor the docket of this case for activity and respond to any order of this court
    requiring action on my part.

    Johndoeedpa1234@yahoo.com

    Reply

      • Verizon won’t release the information – since we have technically filed an appeal of the Judge’s decision to deny the Motion to Quash with the Motion for Reconsideration. Fiore dismissed the case against all the other does who didn’t file MTQ once he got their names and contact information. Perhaps that will raise the awareness of the Judge in this case as to the real tactics and motives of the trolls. Still hasn’t served a Doe as far as I can tell. Should be interesting to see what happens.

        Reply

  7. Unfortunately on this great day I got a tip from a friend of mine regarding some cases (3 Malibu, 1 Nucorp) in PAED that a few judges signed out to SERVE THIRD PARTY SUBPOENAS. I wonder what Malibu is using this time, a torrent or site rip, but still these are only 1/3 of the entire cases filed in 4/19 so I hope there would be better news on the road.

    Reply

    • You said ” a few judges signed out to SERVE THIRD PARTY SUBPOENAS”. Does that mean they are actually suing individuals?

      Reply

      • No, it means subpoenas are being served on ISPs to ascertain personal identifying information but the Does will be given the opportunity to file a motion to quash/sever.

        Reply

  8. Some interesting developments in the EDPA – Judge Michael Baylson ordered a hearing before he would consider the request to serve Third Party Sub on the ISPs. The actual audio of the hearing is available on the Pacer website and well worth a listen. The Judge starts off by asking about Judge Browns opinion in NY and asks Fiore if he was familar with the ruling — Fiori said no (really what a liar) – anyway the Judge did not grant the motion to serve the ISPs at the end of the hearing and he said he would take it under advisement. No ruling yet from what I can tell.
    :
    1. Malibu Media v. John Does 1-14, 2:12-cv-02084-MMB (EDPA 4/19/12)
    PLT filed motion for 3rd party discovery (4/24/2012); Hearing on Motion for Leave set for (5/14/12); Taken under advisement after hearing

    2. Malibu Media v. John Does 1-22, 2:12-cv-02088-MMB (EDPA 4/19/12)
    PLT filed motion for 3rd party discovery (4/24/12); Hearing on Motion for Leave set for (5/14/12); Taken under advisement after hearing

    Reply

  9. New Doe here. I’ve noticed that a particular case in PA was voluntary dismissed by MALIBU MEDIA, LLC without prejudice (entered on 5/2). Looking into the court documents, the reason they gave was that too much time lapsed and the ISP no longer has data records. Does anyone know how long Comcast keeps pertinent records? File access (on the part of the Does) for this case dates back to 12/6 at the earliest.

    Reply

  10. Again, thank John Doe XX. OK PA Does, take a listen to the 14 May 12, hearing where Troll Fiore comes across as a non-technical bozo who is nothing more than a front-peice for other Trolls and the content owners. Judge asks him if he thinks all the copyright infringment cases in the district should be put under one judge. Fiore – shakey laugh and a delay….. No I don’t think they should be put under one judge – they are all different cases. BS – they are ALL the same type of case and you even have a template based complaint form you use (because you boss sends it to you). You don’t have a clue when it comes to the details of these cases – you don’t even list IP as one of the fields you specialize in – Because you don’t and it shows.

    DTD 🙂

    http://dietrolldie.com/2012/05/23/hearing-audio-file-for-malibu-media-v-john-does-1-14-212-cv-02084-eastern-district-pa-troll-christopher-fiore-14-may-12/

    Reply

  11. Chris Fiore,
    Hello Punk Troll! I am guessing you did not get the memo from Germany that it is past time to drop the asinine Stagliano trademark infringement lawsuits? All other puppet trolls have done so but you. Why?

    Reply

    • I was wrong as rfcexpress.com had not reported it but Punk Troll did get the memo from his German-masters on 5-2 and wisely dismissed the Stagliano trademark infringement lawsuits (I still am amazed at the stupidity of this cause of action, was a Miami Troll on a cocaine bender when this was conceived?)

      Reply

  12. Just got a letter from my ISP regarding a subpoena (Eastern District PA). Took a little searching on the internet to find the case, http://torrentlitigation.com/cases/NuCorp,%20Ltd.%20v.%20Does%201-9,%20Case%20No.%2012-cv-2086%20(EDPA).pdf

    To put it simply, I have never seen or even heard of these files that i’m accused of accessing.

    It sounds like the motion to Quash is kinda pointless, but i’m waiting for an attorney to return my phone call atm. Frustrating tho having to hire a lawyer as I have no money (almost zip), and am unemployed atm.

    Reply

    • If money is tight do not waste it on an attorney just now. Troll Fiore is a poor excuse for an attorney never mind a human being. His cases tend to drag longer than most other trolls (he is an inexperienced punk) but if you do not speak to his master’s’ colllection agency you should be fine. If you doubt me just go to rfc.express.com and type in “does” under party name and then select the Eastern District of PA as the court to search and you will see what I mean. He has has only served at most 2-5 people out of the hundreds he has threatened in the lame ass attempt to get a feeble default judgement ($750)

      Reply

        • http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504

          It is the minimum amount the judge could set, unless it was deemed defendant didn’t know of the activity. That min is $200.

          DTD 🙂
          ————————-
          (c) Statutory Damages. —

          (1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

          (2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.

          (3) (A) In a case of infringement, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that the infringement was committed willfully for purposes of determining relief if the violator, or a person acting in concert with the violator, knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering, maintaining, or renewing a domain name used in connection with the infringement.

          Reply

        • Isn’t this also the case if a Doe is served individually after their information is revelaed, and ignores the subpoena? What are the consequences for a Doe who ignores a court order?

          Reply

  13. Well it looks like this case in particular doesn’t have the fault of having large numbers of John Does (only 9). So i’m not sure a MDQ will work. My router was replaced by my provider because it was running slow (incredibly slow), and they said alot of settings were wrong on it, I wonder if that could have been part of the problem… someone was accessing it other than me. And if so, how do I prove that in court as I no longer have the router, and I assume my provider has either reset the router, or trashed it?

    Have any of those who refused to settle yet gone to court? I’ve been doing some research on what their claims are, and it doesn’t sound like they have much of a case. in particular it accuses me of working in coordination with other people.. I don’t know who anyone else would have even been (Aside from the fact torrents are p2p), so wouldn’t that be hard to prove that my network was in collusion with other parties to share? It also claims that we ‘uploaded’ and ‘created torrents’ to a website. My understanding of torrents is that you don’t actually upload anything to a particular website?

    And then there comes the fact that, I have no money.. are _most_ of the default judgements $750? It says that the greater of Actual Damages, or $150k. How can they claim ‘actual’ damages when most people in a bittorrent swarm may be in other countries who don’t recognize US law?

    I’m pretty confused here, annoyed because now I have to deal with this crap for something that I didn’t even do. I got a quote from a lawyer for the MQD and it was $850… so I can’t even imagine how much it would cost to have them be a ‘buffer’ between fiore and me.

    Reply

  14. Well if you really have no money to spend for a MTQ or to settle, there are two options: first write your own MTQ. There are many example here and at DTD’s website, read them, copy what overlaps with your case, and mail it. Above, John Doe XX is one example. There are well written MTQs talking about the defect of plaintiff’s conspiracy theory, even written by a NY judge. Of course, you must not use your actual name or address!! Whether your MTQ will work or not depends on the judge. Even a MTQ drawn by a laser does not always get accepted so I think there is no harm here. Second, since you’ve mentioned about your tight budget, probably the only option (beside a DIY MTQ) is to wait it out. This will be tough and might take a long time but there are people doing so. Again check DTD’s website for some info. Lastly, by any chance, if you decide to settle, do not manage it by yourself! Ask an attorney for advice or help. A MTQ for $850 doesn’t seem extremely high but try to call others and see what you can get. Good luck!

    Reply

  15. PAJohnDoe, congrats! I’ve seen your case a while ago but didn’t know how it ended. Good for you and happy to hear your MTQ worked out!

    Reply

  16. Troll Fiore on 6-4 files another dozen lawsuits against his fellow citizens. When are the judges in the EDPA going to stop this little prick?

    Reply

  18. Wow, I had followed the K-Beech cases brought against Doe’s last year by Fiore (becasue I was a named Doe) and when they were all dismissed I thought Fiore had given up. It appears not. Definately file an MTQ. The likelyhood of actually being served is so slim that I wouldn’t worry. And, as a result of this ‘scare’ look into hidemyass.com or usenet groups for all your safe downloading needs 🙂

    Reply

  19. Hi, Im a doe in one of malibu medias cases Just curious.. does anyone know if the order of the does mean anything? ie.. would doe #1or2 be any more or less likely to actually being served than would doe 9or10 or is the doe #s basicly meaningless?

    Reply

  21. Hello everyone, and thank you to those like DTD and Raul are so active on these websites. I am a Doe of a newer Troll Fiore lawsuit, and have been much more enlightened since reading this website and dietrolldie.com. The lawsuit I am involved in is 5:12-cv-02088. It can be found on rfcexpress here http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/94473/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does-1-22/summary/

    I have a few weeks to file a MTQ, but I am undecided even to do it myself. I am in contact with a lawyer who has offered a free consultation and already called me and left a message, but I feel like I am at the best possible position for a Doe to make a move. So as one would do in chess, I am trying to develop a strategy while I have time.

    I have heard that filing a MTQ can make you a target for the Troll, for whatever reasons. I also do not have extra money laying around, so I would have to do it myself (Or ask the lawyer who is waiting for my call).

    I’ve come to greatly appreciate the people on these sites and hope that with all of the awareness here I can have my case end happily and never have to deal with this again. I have read the newbie section of DTD, and am prepared to completely ignore the trolls after my information is released.

    My only quests are:
    Can I file a MTQ and or settle anonymously through a lawyer?
    If I settle/default/become dismissed without prejudice, can the troll EVER come back after me again?
    Is there anyone else out there involved in this case or familiar with the rulings of Judge Michael M. Baylson?

    Thanks to everyone who replies.

    Reply

    • I have been wondering this myself, the people who settle, does that make them an easy target again for the next time these people decide to pick random IP numbers? Knowing that they are easy targets who don’t put up a fight?

      Reply

      • Yes, you are right. Life is not black and white though, and every happening has multiple tendencies that are not necessarily have the same direction. There are 2 trends here.
        Those who don’t settle indicate that they are tough and are willing to put up a fight, give Richard Pryor’s response or file motions:

        1. Additional hassle for trolls, so they are eager to get rid of such opponents.
        2. But such Does create precedents and encourage others to fight, i.e. singling them out would serve as a warning to others.

        I believe that at this time trend 1 prevails: there are too many who put up a fight or eager to do it. Singing out every one of them would be devastating for trolls’ “business.” It also depends on a troll. Fiore, Hoppe, and other third-rate lawyers are not smart enough to be real villains and run with the tail between their legs once confronted. Unfortunately this kind of people are more prone to going after the weak.

        Reply

  22. Has anyone ever written a letter to their ISP’s legal department requesting them to not release the information, and fight Trolls themselves? It seems like in some parts of the nation they have been doing so without being requested to.

    Reply

  23. You should definitely send a copy to your ISP, and try to time it to a few days before the information would be released. This way, your ISP will wait for the judge to make a decision before they release it. This will be further aggravating for the troll. If the MTQ is denied, then you should file a motion for reconsideration of that MTQ, for ALL does once again. This will make the troll wait even longer, and at the same time, it won’t single you out. Who knows, he might give up.

    Does anyone have other opinions on this? This has given me the idea to do the same thing in my case. Jonothan Doe, what is your case number? I would like to view the Motion to Quash that covers all Does. Is it on Pacer?

    Reply

  24. I would urge every Doe to file a motion to quash. The motions may ask for relief for everyone in the suit but it appears to me that the motions apply to the individual does and that is the way the court and the ISPs act. It isn’t that hard to file — a me too motion. I join with John Doe —- Motion filed on xxxx to quash the subpeona with respect to me. And if you don’t live in the Eastern Disctrict of PA and are not a resident I would through in that the court doesn’t have jurisdiction over me because I live outside the district. The trolls depend on Does staying silent. They can fight off a few of us at a time but imagine if every doe named in a lawsuit were to file individual defenses as to the claims, it would further the joinder and other arguments.

    There are too many good samples to use and filing isn’t that hard. Set up a email account and mail it or drop it off at the courthouse in Philly. Silence is the thing the trolls depend on. Scaring innocent and even if you did download the movie there is no way that damages should be $3,500.

    Please let your voice be heard. You don’t need to hire a lawyer to file a motion. Good luck and keep on fighting. This is important/

    Reply

    • Then what is to stop 1 Doe from filing 15 MTQ’s and putting each Doe’s different number on every MTQ, making it look like the entire group of Does are fighting back?

      Reply

  25. I hadn’t thought of that. Guess it is because you are supposed to file truthful statements in your motions to the court —- I know a novel idea and doing that would be a fraud on the court. In some of the cases because the trolls claim that does are doing this Judges have required you identify yourself by the Doe # or ISP #. Lucky for me in my case that wasn’t required and I filed as John Doe xx (when i communicated with the ISP provider I had to give my ISP address and Doe #). I filed a motion to quash, then a motion for reconsideration, then after an opposition motion by Fiore, I filed a reply to his opposition and in addition to the reconsideration asked alternatively for an interlocutory appeal to the third circuit. Fiore ran for the hills and filed a voluntary motion for dismissal without prejudice – what a coward. And guess what he never got my information – but unfortunately 12 of the does in the case did have their information released because they did not fight. Only 3 of us fought and we were able to keep our information private. My case was Raw Films, Ltd., v. John Does 1-15, Civ. A. No. 2:11-cv-07248 – MAM.

    We have one more motion to file in the action and I will share with the board once we have filed it with the court.

    Good luck.

    Reply

  27. As I have been beginning to write my MTQ, I noticed some things in my copy of the court order that are giving me problems:

    “7. Until the Doe Defendants’ ISPs disclose the Defendants’ identities to Plaintiff, any motion that is filed by a putative Defendant that fails to identify the putative Defendants’ IP address or Doe number (as set forth on Exhibit A to the Motion) is hereby denied without prejudice.
    8. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court finds that joinder is proper. This finding is made without prejudice to the Defendants’ ability to dispute this finding after the disclosure of their identities.”

    From what I gather, this means I am going to have to identify my IP or Doe # on my MTQ and can not claim improper joinder against Fiore? Has anyone else had these in their subpoena?

    Reply

    • This is standard boilerplate that the troll prepared in his order that he submitted with the motion to take expedited discovery. Some judges recognize the prejudicial nature of this boilerplate and strike it when they sign the order, others do not. Insofar as you are asking the judge to vacate or reconsider this very order it is a non-issue even though the troll will argue that it is applicable. Just forge ahead, a lazy judge might rely on this language to deny but a smart judge will not. As SJD has said a MTQ is a lottery but now that troll pollution levels in the EDPA are reaching critical levels, one of these judges is going to make a move adverse to Troll Fiore soon.

      Reply

  28. Unfortunately you will have to identify yourself by your IP or Doe number – for the court I would probably use my Doe #, unless you want to make Fiore work and then I would use the ISP number. At the end of the day I don’t think it makes much difference. In your MTQ I would still raise the joinder issue, the court can rule on that any time (even without a motion from you) – I think it is important that you make the arguments – long time frames, lack of communication between the alleged infringers, lack of conspiracy, lack of any intent among the parties, the unlikelyhood that you would have been logged onto bittorrent the entire time frame, infact if you shut down your computer every night, or reboot on a schedule I would mention that — the allegation depends on a constant connection which is highly unlikely. Any of those arguments would be important to make and get on the record even if the Court denies your MTQ (gives you the ammo for a motion for reconsideration and request for an interlocutory appeal). Also, if jurisdiction is not proper in the EDPA (you live outside of the district) then you should raise that as well. The Court can require you to indentify yourself (generally) but it cannot tell you that you can’t assert an affirmative defense. Go ahead and argue the joinder issue, the privacy issue and due process issues. Make note of the decisions out of California and New York blocking the Plaintiff’s discovery requests, and the decision in Illinois granting the Comcast motion to quash.

    Good luck and I am so happy to see others speaking up — not only do we need to not feed the trolls but we also need to make our voices heard in the courts. Silence on our parts only healps the trolls.

    John Doe xx

    Reply

    • Thank you. I am doing my best. Without any experience in the court of law, all I can do is read through everyone else’s cases and piece an MTQ together based on my situation. I wish it were easier but I would rather not spend money on a lawyer or settle with the Troll.

      Reply

  29. So, not wanting to draw any attention in filing a MTQ (on the chance that it might fail – and also not wanting to spend any non-existent money I might have on a lawyer), I’ve played the waiting game. Got a phone call from someone saying they “represent Malibu Media, time is of the essence, etc, etc”. Didn’t answer – they left a message. This was a few days ago. Now what? Keep waiting? What is the likely-hood of actually getting served? No one in my case has settled, nor has anyone filed anything but an extension for a response. Why won’t these guys just leave people alone? Would love to fight these guys and put them in their place, but I haven’t got the resources ($$).

    Reply

    • Well you can still file a MTQ – do it yourself and use one of the templates you find here or other places on the web. Try to use one from the EDPA. As for serving you — don’t know what the timing is but according to the federal rules a plaintiff has to serve you within 120 days of the filinf of the complaint (so if it past 120 days and they haven’t filed for an extension) then the case can be closed by the court. These people won’t leave people alone as long as they think they can get a couple of thousand dollars out of you. Again right now don’t worry you don’t need a lawyer and the last thing these guys want is to go to court. If you have to actually go to court and litigate this stuff at that point I am sure that a pro-bono (will work for free) lawyer can probably be rounded up. But remember these guys don’t want to be in a courtroom because they don’t have a case and if the judges figure out what these cases are based on they will be shut down.

      Reply

    • Pretty sure SJD is up to no good tonight (for trolls) so will presume to use her percentage: 99.9% sure you will not be served by Punk Troll Fiore.

      Reply

  30. Don’t worry about not having a lawyer. In these cases the most important thing is to get your objection on record. And at this time there are plenty of cases on file and examples to draw from. Don’t worry if the MTQ isn’t perfect, believe me the troll lawyers are not careful or thoughtful about their pleadings before the court – cut and paste appears to be their standard. Raul is right the EDPA is ripe for a judge to step in and say “enough already”. I think the behaviour of the trolls speaks for itself in the litigation. One of my exhibits was a list showing all the litigation in the EDPA Fiore had filed and the disposition of the cases. Not one of the cases has been litigated to date — no discovery issued, not depositions. As soon as they get the names they go onto the next step, Extortion. And if you have questions come on this site and ask. You can send me a personal question at johndoeedpa1234@yahoo.com if you want a more personal response.

    I filed another motion in the EDPA today — once it hits the docket I will post here. I hope it makes Fiore think twice about his litigation tactics.

    Best,
    John Doe xx

    Reply

  31. Well, it’s too late to file a MTQ for me. My ISP was quick to give me up after the waiting period and the trolls have my phone number (hence the first phone call). Is there anything I can do besides wait?

    Reply

    • (1) Make sure a routine is in place for either not responding to the troll calls or giving them a deflecting and minimal response, like the Richard Pryor response. Have a method of logging/recording troll harassing messages ready.

      (2) Gather support from trusted friends where possible, as trolls will try to pounce on Doe worries and isolation.

      (3) Track other cases of the local troll as well as your cases, and look at cases in other states by henchman in the same gang. ( If you look up, for instance, Malibu media cases in RFC Express, and see the patterns of different troll lawyers in the same gang.) That will give more idea of specific tactics of these low lifes, as well as problems they’re having from courts catching on to their scams. Some responses to and judgements against this troll group in one state may be of use in your state.

      Reply

  32. Is any one on Patrick Collins V John Does 1-30 , Docket Nr 2:12-cv-03148, filed on June 14th 2012 ? If so I would like tag with you and fight. Also Can any one send me MTQ template please
    Thans in advance

    Reply

  35. Should I wait out or file for MTQ. I heard that Troll will come after me If I file for MTQ. Any advice is appreciated.
    Thanks

    Reply

  37. You can mail it to the Federal District Courthouse in Philadelphia, you can personally deliver it to the clerk’s office (they don’t ask for your identify and I like to make sure it gets to the court) or you can use a FED EX or other delivery service. Make sure you send a copy to your ISP (with your identifying infor so they know who you are, a copy to the Judge who is assigned your case, a copy to any other defendants who have provided email addresses and of course a copy to Fiore. The website lists the numbers and addresses for the clerks as well as the various judges. Here is the website http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/

    Reply

  38. i have been looking through the motions templates and there seems to be alot of references to cases where does numbered 2-xx are severed and dismissed. does anyone know if this changes things for me if i file a motion being that im a doe# 1 ?? should i just delete those references and file or just not file at all and wait it out? and does being a doe #1 decrease my chances of a quash or dismissal or increase my odds of being served, because i do not plan on settling? thanks

    Reply

    • as doe #1 if you can prove you are not a resident of the filed jurisdiction then the judge may sever you, and if it is a “doe + conspirators” case and the judge cuts you (as doe #1) loose then the whole case will have to be dismissed. or if you get any motion approved it will kill their whole co-conspirator case. imo all does should help doe #1 to file on all “co-conspirator” cases because if doe one goes away, so does the whole case. or atleast that’s how i understand these cases to read.

      Reply

  40. Is any one on Patrick Collins V John Does 1-30 , Docket Nr 2:12-cv-03148, filed on June 14th 2012 in EDPA? If so I would like tag with you and fight. Also Can any one send me MTQ template please
    Thans in advance

    Reply

  41. Do i have to send a copy of my MTQ to Fiore as well. I thought I should only send it to ISP and Judge. Please advice

    Reply

    • Yes you must send a copy to Fiore. Make sure to NOT put a return address on the envelope, and to send it from a city you do not reside in.

      Reply

  42. During my research for the content of my MTQ, I spoke to a representative of Comcast and they gave me some alarming information. I was inquiring about how long they keep the record of my IP address (6 months), and he told me that he has several notices of Bit Torrent usage on my account, but none regarding Malibu Media!? I asked why I was not notified of these warnings and he could not answer me. I checked my Comcast.net e-mail, and all my personal e-mails, none of which contained any notice. I also have never received a notice in the mail about these warnings from other media producers. If I had received any warnings, I would undoubtedly reset and changed all of my network security settings and monitored anyone who I allowed to use my wireless network, but no, my first warning is a notice of a subpoena in the mail from Malibu Media.

    Raul, DTD, JDX, do you think I can use these as arguments in my MTQ? Also the fact that Comcast no longer has record that my address is associated with the IP on the date in which Fiore is suing for?

    Reply

  43. I woudn’t admit to anything in my MTQ related to any information Comcast provided you about notice of bittorrent activity— saying if I have received the notices I would have stopped esp since it is another film owner is just the type of information does give the trolls that gets them in trouble. Keep it to the point, raise your defense of joinder, jurisdiction, I wasn’t there at the time, I don’t have a computer, I am 80 yers old, Im blind — whatever they may be . . . but don’t tell them about other potential infringements.

    Reply

  44. I keep hearing of all these great victories by ISPs in the mid states and up north.. what is going on in PA, the ISPs (at least mine) says it will be complying with the subpoenas shortly. Disappointing that I have to put up with this crap because someone things they found a spot to squeeze some money out of people.

    Reply

  45. I recommend everyone who is submitting an MTQ to get in contact with someone in your ISP’s Legal Response center, on the Copyright team. I found it difficult to get a hold of mine as the only way to reach them is to leave a voice message and wait for a call back…. but once I did, the person that spoke to me was very helpful and even gave me direct contact information so I could reach her again. (Made me promise not to harass her!) She also added a note to my file so that in the event that my MTQ gets denied, they already know I am going to file a motion for reconsideration, and will not release my info if the troll tries to sneak in.

    DTD I used your declaration in my MTQ that i filed for my case. It has not shown on Pacer yet, but luckily someone else filed one for all Does as well.

    http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/94473/malibu-media-llc-v-john-does-1-22/summary/

    Reply

  47. Lots of development on 5:12-cv-2088 today, my motion included:

    14 MOTION to Dismiss and/or Sever Complaint Against Defendant John Doe #1 and Quash Subpoena Against Same filed by JOHN DOE #1.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(kp, ) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
    7/5/2012

    13 Memorandum in Support re 12 First MOTION to Vacate Order Granting Leave to File Subpoena, Quash Subpoena and in Alternative for Protective Order and Certificate of Service filed by JOHN DOES 1-22. (O’SHEA, ETHAN) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
    7/5/2012

    12 First MOTION to Vacate Order Granting Leave to File Subpoena, Quash Subpoena and in Alternative for Protective Order filed by JOHN DOES 1-22.certificate of service.(O’SHEA, ETHAN) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
    7/5/2012

    11 NOTICE of Appearance by ETHAN R. O’SHEA on behalf of JOHN DOES 1-22 with Certificate of Service(O’SHEA, ETHAN) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
    7/5/2012

    10 MOTION to Vacate 8 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by JOHN DOES 1-22.Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order No 1, # 2 Proposed Order No 2, # 3 Certificate of Service for Motion and Proposed Orders, # 4 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Vacate Order, # 5 Certificate of Service for Memorandum)(GELSINGER, THAD) (Entered: 07/05/2012)

    Reply

    • Even more interesting and hilarious, is that July 5th is the last business day that Comcast was going to hold our personal information. Fiore was probably all ready to call and start his barrage of harassment until he saw the wave of last minute retaliation.

      Reply

  48. Malibu Media LLC v J Doe 1-6. I am a defendant in the case 2:12-cv-03142-AB. If any other defendant is case are here, I would like to join forces in mounting a defense.

    Reply

    • I believe I know a few of your co-defendants. My girlfriend’s 62-year-old parents are getting hit by this and are in over their heads.

      Reply

      • Are you saying you know one IP owner? That would be one not a few. I am confused about about this, just got copy of Complaint and hour agao and need to look into this over next few days.

        Reply

  49. Some activity on case # 2:12-cv-02083-CDJ over the past week. Information has been released by ISPs and trolls started their calls a couple weeks ago (which is probably what led Doe #15 to settle).

    7/6/2012
    13 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by MALIBU MEDIA, LLC As To Plaintiff Notice of Settlement and Voluntary Dismissal of John Doe 15 Only With Prejudice(FIORE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 07/06/2012)

    6/29/2012
    12 MOTION TO DISMISS AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY filed by JOHN DOE. Certificate of Service. (ems) (Entered: 07/02/2012)

    6/29/2012
    11 MOTION to Sever ALL CLAIMS AGAINST DOE DEFENDANTS 2 THROUGH 22 filed by JOHN DOES 1-22.Memorandum. (Attachments: # 1 Order, # 2 Memorandum, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit M, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit N)(VON ROSENSTIEL, MARTHA) (Entered: 06/29/2012)

    6/26/2012
    10 NOTICE by MALIBU MEDIA, LLC of Non-Opposition to John Doe 13’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Response to Subpoena and to Stay Disclosure of Information [Dkt. #6] (FIORE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 06/26/2012)

    Martha Von Rosenstiel and the Doe she is representing are heroes in my book. Trying to get the case dismissed for all but Doe #1, much like what happened in New York. Hopefully the motion goes through. This could help to bring some peace to the Eastern District of PA.

    Reply

  50. I am confused on how to tackle all this. I’ve been reading through here and do not know what to do. All the legal wording is a bit confusing.

    The letter recommends I file something called a motion to quash which I see being referenced here. Should I just do that myself and mail it in to all the parties involved? Who all needs to get it? I don’t see a judge name or much info on these papers. I am debating seeing a lawyer because I feel like I am in over my head but I don’t have tons of money to spend on one.

    This is all very scary, but I from reading through all this this is what this Fiore guy wants. Are there definite steps I should be taking to get rid of this?

    It’s extra confusing because I am one of twenty people. If enough people file against this does it disappear for everyone in the group?

    Ugh 😦

    Reply

    • No cause for freaking out just yet (or at all). Here’s how these cases usually shake out (from what I’ve gathered – please correct me if I am wrong):

      -Troll (Fiore on behalf of whoever he’s representing) files suits against groups of Does that allegedly work in concert to download a given file via bit torrent. Whether or not the Does are guilty doesn’t matter. Could be someone using your internet connection, could be you, could be your brother, doesn’t matter.

      -Troll subpoenas your internet service provider to give up your contact information, etc, so that they can call and harass you, saying they’re going to take you to court for thousands and thousands of dollars, time is of the essence, etc.

      -This scares people into settling for hundred(s)-thousand(s) out of court (I have no idea of the actual amount – they don’t put the settlement amounts in court documents). Most of the people that settle are either people that are wealthy and just want it to go away, or people that feel they are in over their head and need to take action quickly or their life will be ruined.

      -Troll thrives off of the people that settle. This is how they make their money and why they keep up with these frivolous lawsuits. I haven’t seen a single case where a Doe has actually been called into court and successfully sued.

      You can do several things.

      -Hire an attorney: This can be costly and might not even get you what you want. I had a consult with an attorney that suggested I settle and wanted me to pay him $1000 to negotiate the settlement for me. Yikes. Some attorneys are actually human beings and willing to put up a fight for you, but are still pretty costly.

      -Do some research and file a motion to quash/sever yourself. It might be granted, it could get shot down. Some say that it puts a target on your back and the troll will go after you harder because they think you’re scared. If your motion gets granted, good on you and you’ll be just fine.

      -Wait it out. This is the option I went for. A handful of cases have been dismissed by the trolls after a few people settle. They got their money and decided to focus their energy on filing more cases so that that can scare some easy money out of a fresh batch of unexpecting people.

      Hope this helps, “SOCONFUSED”. Do reply if you have more questions. This board has been very helpful to me. It sucks, but there’s no reason to get discouraged.

      Reply

    • Also, you can keep up with your case as well as other cases in the district and across the country at rfcexpress.com . Use the search function and type “Malibu Media” or whoever the plaintiff is in your particular case under “party name”. Best of luck.

      Reply

Leave a reply to burnthetrolls Cancel reply