Poker is a game of luck and skill. The best poker players understand the odds of their hand, as well as analyzing the other players to determine what their hand is. In the realm of BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Infringement (Copyright Trolling), knowing the odds is equally as important.
In this case, Dallas Buyers Club LLC (DBC) has filed suit against 20 Does (public IP addresses) accused of downloading/sharing the movie, Dallas Buyers Club, via BT. Case # 1:14-cv-01142, Southern District of IN, filed on 8 Jul 14. Archive Docket Complaint_01142(IN) IP_address_Doc_8_01142(IN)
The case is your standard template-based copy/paste effort from the Trolls. For this case, Troll Keith Vogt is the attorney for DBC. It even still uses the SD shelf-company, Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC) and Daniel Macek, to justify the early discovery of ISP subscriber information. EarlyDisc_Support_Doc_11_01142(IN) Granted_EarlyDisc_Doc_12_01142(IN)
Now after the Does in this case were notified by their ISPs, Doe #10 decided to retain an attorney – Gabriel Quearry, Quearry Law, LLC. It is then that things start to get “interesting.”
On 9 Oct 14, Doe #10 discloses his identity to the court. Why? Because attorney Quearry also filed a Motion to Vacate the Early Discovery for the ISP subscriber information for Doe #10. ID_Disclosed_Doc_14_01142(IN) MotionVacate_ED_Doc_15_01142(IN)
Plaintiff now knows Defendant’s true and actual name and that he is a real person; and, Counsel for Defendant is authorized and agrees to accept service of the summons and complaint on Defendant’s behalf. Defendant voluntarily satisfied the purposes of the Order as to himself, and aided Plaintiff in advancing its asserted claims and moving this case forward. As such, Plaintiff’s third party subpoena to Comcast is unnecessary and requests discovery prior to the time permitted by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d).
Why do this?
For all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should vacate the Order and Plaintiff’s subpoena as to Defendant, and allow both parties to conduct discovery on equal footing according to the timing and sequence prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d).
So it appears that Attorney Quearry wants to start out on an “equal footing” as far as discovery. You may have observed in all of the BT Copyright Troll cases we have seen (to date – to include Malibu Media), the Troll/Plaintiffs do NOT like to disclose their internal information concerning who is running these operations, the various parties that receive payments from the settlements, the BT monitoring firms, the Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC), etc. So in effect, Doe #10, has told the Troll, “let’s dance!” DBC doesn’t like to dance.
On 21 Oct 14, Attorney Quearry further throws a monkey wrench into this case by filing a motion to sever Doe #10. Motion_Sever_Doc_17_01142(IN) Decl_Neville_Doc_17-1_01142(IN) Take a read of the motion and the accompanying declaration by Delvan Neville, Amaragh Associates, LLC. According to research conducted by Mr. Neville, the chance that these 20 Does/IP addresses were actually sharing pieces of Plaintiff’s movie is incredibly slight.
As the range of “Hit Dates” in this case range similarly to those from the second soak (weeks, not a single day), the connectivity is almost certainly closer to the 0.05% average seen in the second soak, and thus the likelihood that there is any series of transactions that could link these 20 peers together in some fashion is 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% or a 1 in 10 duodecillion chance.
For all of the math-challenged people (like me), a duodecillion is 10 to the 39th power. That is a lot of zeros. Note: The odds of winning the Power Ball lottery is 1 in 175 Million (1 in 175,000,000). Let’s put these numbers in prospective. You have a better chance of winning the Power Ball Lottery three times (1 in 5,359,375,000,000,000,000,000,000 – That is 5.359375 Septillion!!! – 10 to the 24th power) than the chance any of these Does shared data between themselves via BT.
This is the time when a poker player with the odds calls “All In.” So what will Troll Plaintiff do? IF they were a good poker player, they would simply fold the hand – dismiss Doe #10 and render the motion to sever “moot.” As there is so much more at stake, I’m wondering what stupid stunt/move they will try. Now the judge could allow a dismissal, but it sends a clear message to the other Doe Defenders and Pro Se Does on what angle to use. The judge may also see such a move by the Troll as clearly avoiding the issue of joinder. This could lead to the judge issuing a show cause order (on his own) for Troll/Plaintiff justify joinder of the Does. Disputing Mr. Neville’s declaration is another possibility, but an unlikely one in my opinion. What is Troll/Plaintiff going to do, present some garbage declaration from Mr. Macek or a copy of Patrick Paige’s declaration from the PA Bell Whether trial??? It is time to stick a fork in it, because the Mass-Doe BT Copyright Troll cases are “done.” That is unless they can somehow refute the core of Mr. Neville’s findings. Good luck on that!
Previously I stated that the chance of Does in the same jurisdiction actually sharing data via BT was extremely slight. Thanks to Mr. Neville, we now have the details on just how slight.
DieTrollDie :) “Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer.” [Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #208]
