Hearing (Audio File) for Malibu Media v. John Does 1-14, 2:12-cv-02084, Eastern District PA, (Troll Christopher Fiore) 14 May 12

Posted on May 23, 2012 by

Thank you John Doe XX for posting about this hearing concerning three Malibu Media cases filed by troll Christopher Fiore, in the Eastern District of PA.  What was interesting about this hearing is that there is an audio recording of it in PACER.  Audio File.  I had to sign up for a “DropBox” account to get the mp3 file loaded.  If you are interested in getting a DropBox account, here is a link - DropBox

Here is a copy of the docket for 22 May 12, as well as the most recent order from the judge, allowing Plaintiff to serve the subpoena on the ISPs.  Docket_22May12_02084(PA)  Grant_3rdSubpoena_02084(PA)

-  Here is the .PDF file for the hearing with the .MP3 file embedded in it.  Hearing_02084(PA)

It was great to actually hear the interaction between the Judge and Fiore.  You could tell the judge did some research, but was certainly not a geek.  The first thing the judge asked him was if he was familiar with Judge Browns’ recent opinion in NY (ORR_03995(NY)).  Fiore tells him “No.”  I really doubt that.  Mind you, he isn’t an IP lawyer and is more of a token for the Plaintiffs.  Listen for when the judge asks him what a MAC address is.  There is a great pause and then a stammering stupid answer.  I wish I could have seen his face when the judge asked him.  The judge actually does a better job at stating what a MAC address is than Fiore.

There are other parts of the hearing that are interesting and I will leave it open for  readers to comment on.  Based on Fiore’s answers and the previous PA court rulings, the judge did grant them the right to serve the subpoena on the ISPs.  The judge did limit the information the ISPs could provide to the Name, Address, and MAC address of the subscriber.  It also looks like the judge is leaving the door open for the Does to make motions.

Enjoy and don’t choke on any food or drink while listening to Fiore.

DieTrollDie :)

Posted in Malibu Media | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 19 Comments

Looking for Settlement Letters/Emails

Posted on May 20, 2012 by

Hello everyone.  Hope the weekend is going good.  Doing a little collection effort and would like those of you who have received settlement letter/emails within the last month or so to please send copies to my email – doerayme2011@hotmail.com.

Thanks and make sure you have some fun!

DieTrollDie :)

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

“Richard Pryor Response” Letter for The Trolls

Posted on May 17, 2012 by

A Doe recently told me he got a voicemail from a Troll agent stating he was being sued and  he should call to discuss settlement options.

The Doe decided to call the Troll agent and make it clear of what he thought of their allegation.  He then left the following message to the Troll agent. 

I received a call from someone at this number this afternoon in regards to a civil case filed against me.  I know the nature of the case and what is alleged, and in that light, I ask that any future correspondence with me be done via mail through the US Post Office or similar means.  Telephone conversations devolve into “he said, she said” arguments and e-mails can be edited or faked, therefore any communications between us are more appropriately handled through a paper medium to provide verifiable records for both parties.  E-mails will be disregarded.

Knowing that there are allegations against me of copyright infringement, I request that you, your client, or whoever is in custody of the evidence claimed to incriminate me, submit all the information you may have concerning me, including but not limited to torrent hash tags, dates of alleged infringements, the titles of the works I am alleged to have downloaded, and in particular any data that specifically identifies my computer—not my IP address, but the computer proper—as having participated in any alleged downloads.

In closing, I must remind you that since you have successfully contacted me, you are prohibited from contacting any unaffiliated parties in regards to this matter, to include but not be limited to family, friends, and employers.  To do so would constitute harassment and would violate the terms of the court order providing for limited use of the defendants’ personal information. 

Thank you for your time.

After reading what he told the troll agent, I decided to draft up a Richard Pryor Response letter template. 

Please note that contacting a Copyright Troll is serious and you need to be careful not to say anything (even in jest) that could be misconstrued by them.  

Saying that, here is a template to send a written reply to the Troll.  Only use this template after the Troll has your personal information and you are getting the telephone calls, letters, or emails from them.  Make sure you edit it to your situation, sign and date it, and make a copy for your records.  I

Continue reading →

Posted in copyright Troll, What To Do | Tagged , , , , | 12 Comments

Two Strikes and You’re “Out!” – FRCP 41 & Copyright Trolls

Posted on May 17, 2012 by

TrollBall

Anyone who knows me knows I’m not a huge sports person.  Well I got back into baseball.  Well actually I will call it “Trollball.”  This sad game Copyright Trolls wish to play is serious, but also a cruel joke of sorts.  A keen legal mind pointed me in the direction of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) that may be of interest to those of us facing possibly legal action from Copyright Trolls (Trollball).  I will caveat this posting that I’m a layman and if I get any legal aspects wrong I apologize in advance.  I look forward to any feedback from our legal minded friends out there.  

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41

Rule 41. Dismissal of Actions

(a) Voluntary Dismissal.

(1) By the Plaintiff.

(A) Without a Court Order. Subject to Rules 23(e), 23.1(c), 23.2, and 66 and any applicable federal statute, the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing:

(i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or

(ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.

(B) Effect. Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. But if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.

(2) By Court Order; Effect. Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper. If a defendant has pleaded a counterclaim before being served with the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, the action may be dismissed over the defendant’s objection only if the counterclaim can remain pending for independent adjudication. Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice.

(b) Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule—except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19—operates as an adjudication on the merits.

(c) Dismissing a Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Claim. This rule applies to a dismissal of any counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim. A claimant’s voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) must be made:

(1) before a responsive pleading is served; or

(2) if there is no responsive pleading, before evidence is introduced at a hearing or trial.

(d) Costs of a Previously Dismissed Action. If a plaintiff who previously dismissed an action in any court files an action based on or including the same claim against the same defendant, the court:

(1) may order the plaintiff to pay all or part of the costs of that previous action; and

(2) may stay the proceedings until the plaintiff has complied

Most of you are probably saying, “OK, so what?” 

The Trolls dismiss Doe defendants all the time, some with prejudice (after paying the settlement demand) and others without prejudice.  The common view is the dismissal without prejudice is almost worthless, as the Troll can just refile at his leisure.  This may be technically correct, but additional parts of Rule 41 make it a bit more interesting. 

Many times single Doe defendants have been dismissed from mass cases by a Troll because they filed a motion to quash/dismiss.  This dismissal allows the Troll to avoid addressing the issues in the motion.  It also allows the Troll to refile against the single Doe as a scare tactic.  Courts have also dismissed large numbers of Doe defendants from cases when it was determined that joinder was improper.  It is also common for the Trolls to dismiss all remaining Does from old cases they are unable get the court to grant time extensions to.  

A Key Portion Of Rule 41 Is Section (a)(1)(B):

(B) Effect. Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. But if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.

The first part states that unless stipulated, dismissals are without prejudice.  OK, straight forward.

The second part is where it gets interesting.  This part clearly states that if Plaintiff dismisses an action that they “previously” dismissed (ANY Federal or State action/case) based on the same issue, THEN the dismissal acts as an “adjudication” on the merits.  That means the case is done and over, as if the court ruled – i.e. a dismissal WITH prejudice. 

Case Example

Prenda (Paul Duffy) files a mass John Doe case in the DC court; I will use 1:11-cv-02176, Millennium TGA Inc. v. Does 1-939, filed on 7 Dec 11.  Because they don’t like the judge it is assigned to, Prenda voluntarily dismisses the case on 16 Dec 11.  This dismissal is “Strike One.”  Prenda goes on a Forum shopping spree and refiles the same case in TX – 4:11-cv-04501, Millennium TGA Inc. v. John Doe, filed on 20 Dec 11.  Now since Prenda has one strike (previous dismissal) on this case, the trick is to get them to do it again.  If you are a Doe in this case (over 900 of you), Prenda’s only option is to name you and issue a summons FOR THIS CASE.  If they dismiss you and refile a new case, all the Doe has to do is motion the court and point out this fact that THE SAME CASE has previously been dismissed by Plaintiff TWO times and in accordance with FRCP 41 (a)(1)(b), the matter is “adjudicated on its merits” – lack of them/with prejudice.  Now if Prenda doesn’t dismiss you, their only option besides harassing you is to issue a summons for this case.  As there are 900 other Does involved in this case, you can see what a nightmare it would be for the court and Prenda to manage.  Hell, I would love to see the process-server fee for 900 defendants.  LMAO!  Even if it was only 20 Does who have attorneys, the mess and chaos it would cause is tremendous.  Let’s not forget that even the Does who settled could possibly be called back into this, as they are likely to have relevant information concerning the swarm they allegedly took part in.        

ANY State Or Federal Action Is Relevant

As Rule 41 deals with any Federal or State action, the State Pure Bill of Discovery cases (AZ, FL, & IL) are also part of this.  As these cases are primarily designed to get the ISP subscriber information, they are starting off with “One Strike” against them.    

Strike Two Tactics

Here is where it can get tricky.  I will give you a quote from one of my favorite movies, The Hunt for Red October – “The hard part about playing chicken is knowing when to flinch.”

If the Troll files a new mass Doe case in a different jurisdiction with the same allegations and defendants, file your motion to quash in hopes he will voluntarily dismiss you – Strike two.  Even if the motion is denied, the Troll now has to name and serve all the Does in a large case.  He can’t dismiss the Does and seek single cases, because that would be the second dismissal – Adjudication (dismissed with prejudice).  The Troll doesn’t want to try to run a mass trial and it is doubtful the court would allow it anyway.    

If the Troll files a single case against you (named) based off the original State or Federal case, file a motion to dismiss and make them work for their money.  As the Troll has named you in the case, the 120 day time limit to serve a summons is now running.  If they fail to serve a summons on you by that time, file a motion to dismiss for failure to abide by FRCP 4(m) and FRCP 41 (b) – Strike two.

If the Troll actually serves you with a summons, hire a good IP attorney, answer the complaint, and make counterclaims against Plaintiff.  Now Plaintiff is locked into the case and unless they have some good evidence (public IP address doesn’t count), they have to hope the initial deposition of you discloses something they can use.  If it doesn’t, they are likely to settle with you under a confidentiality agreement – or at least try to.  If you decided to allow the Troll to voluntarily dismiss you, then “Strike Two.”  I personally wouldn’t do this without getting Plaintiff to at least cover all your legal expenses.                 

Rule 41 (b) Involuntary Dismissal; Effect

Rule 41 (b) covers involuntary dismissals of a named defendant.  John Doe defendants are unlikely to be covered by this.  In Rule 41 (b), if Plaintiff fails to prosecute a named defendant, follow FRCP 41, or a court order, then the defendant can motion the court to dismiss the action/claim against it.  The dismissal acts as “an adjudication on the merits” – lack of them/dismissal with prejudice.

I know that some of the smarter Trolls already knew about the Rule 41 issues, but now that it is getting out in the open, the game is getting interesting.

“Play Ball!”

DieTrollDie :)

Posted in FRCP 41 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

“Prenda Sloppy Seconds” – The Phantom Doe Part 2, Case 3:12-cv-02049, AF Holdings LLC. v. John Doe and Josh Hatfield

Posted on May 16, 2012 by

Truth Be Told

You know, some of what John Steele states isn’t all BS. Don’t get me wrong, I know that a vast majority of it is. But based on his silence on a variety of recent events, I decided to see what I could find out concerning Doe defendants who were possibly being served summons for Prenda cases. John made reference to this activity, but I think many of us were under the impression these summons were regarding the Lightspeed hacking/password case out of St Clair County, IL. As the timing didn’t look right, I figured he might be talking about their Federal copyright infringement cases. What I did come up with was a case out of the Northern District of CA, 3:12-cv-02049, AF Holdings LLC. v. John Doe and Josh Hatfield, filed 24 Apr 12 (Troll Brett Gibbs). Note: knowing Prenda’s propensity to use template based cases, I assume there are other similar Prenda cases out there right now. Please post them if you come across one.  Complaint_02049(CA)   CopyRight_02049(CA)   CopyRight_Trans_02049(CA)  

The case is in standard Prenda format, but there have been some changes made. There are two defendants. 

  • “John Doe” who faces the copyright infringement charges – AKA Phantom Doe
  • “Josh Hatfield” who faces a negligence charge.

Gibbs does have a nice little caveat in the complaint that states it is possible Hatfield is also the John Doe and they reserve the right to amend the complaint as needed. I guess this is their way of trying to avoid a counterclaim of harassment by Mr. Hatfield for trying to settle a copyright infringement claim. I don’t see the point, as they are still trying to scare and harass defendants into paying a settlement. I think Prenda believes they can tell the judge with a straight face that “they don’t think Mr. Hatfield is the infringer,” but it is a possibility, and even if he isn’t, his negligence at a minimum allowed it to happen.  Not that Prenda really cares about possible defendant guilt or innocence. They only want to generate settlements and the possibility of innocent parties only messes up their business model.  In their eyes, all the defendants are guilty.

Summons

On 3 May 12, Prenda actually had the court issue a summons for Mr. Hatfield. Seeing that entry was a bit of a shock. OK John, it appears you have started to try to serve some of the Does.  As of this posting, I didn’t see a return of service in PACER.  summons_02049(CA)

 Now I don’t want any of the Does to do the Chicken Little act, “the sky is falling!” The number of Does to be served is going to be small and most likely only in those jurisdictions where they have their attorneys in place (CA, IL, DC, TX, etc – sorry if I miss any locations). I still believe it is primarily a scare tactic to force a settlement. “OH no, Prenda is serious and I had better pay them the money!” (Heavy on the sarcasm). Don’t believe it. We have seen how hard Gibbs tried to weasel his way out from Wong and Abrahams counterclaim suits. As this business model continues to take a beating from all sides, the Trolls are exploring new angles. The additional cost isn’t going to bother Prenda, as they will just add the cost to the settlement demand.

Problem For Prenda

The problem for Prenda is that if a Doe fights, they still only have the public IP address as their “great” piece of evidence. Weak evidence and a baseless claim of negligence isn’t going to win a trial. The best they can hope for is a default judgment against Mr. Hatfield. If they could get a judge to buy off on the negligence charge, Prenda would say since John Doe and Mr. Hatfield are “jointly & severally” liable, the statutory damages portion and legal fees associated to the copyright infringement by John Doe should be assessed to Mr. Hatfield. Prenda will say it is now Mr. Hatfield’s responsibility to go after the John Doe for his portion of the judgment. As there is no “John Doe” and this is just a poorly veiled Troll tactic, Mr. Hatfield (and future served defendants) would be screwed.

So Why Go After Mr. Hatfield?

Well I could assume Prenda has something on him to begin with. Why else risk another counterclaim suit like Wong (recently settled) or Abrahams for a $3400 settlement (will probably be more for this case) or a default judgment. It is possible that Mr. Hatfield made some admission to Prenda agents in the previous case. As this Doe/Hatfield complaint doesn’t list Hatfield singularly, I doubted what they have is very strong. Possibly he sounded scared or stated he wanted to avoid public embarrassment for fear of losing his job.  This could also be in response to the fact that Prenda had to previously admit that for all the copyright infringement cases they have run since 2010, NO defendants were ever served a summons (see the document link in the next paragraph).  Maybe this is part of a weak effort to refute the following statement from our good friend: 

a little bird has told me that the first 100 individual cases against NAMED defendants will be filed and placed on wefightpiracy.com. If it is not, you will all know the Master Troll is full of ^*(%(&#. {“The Pirate Hunter” posting on 13 Apr 12, www.fightcopyrighttrolls.com}   

Previous Case

So what is the previous case associated with Mr. Hatfield? With a little bit of digging I came up with case 5:11-cv-03336, filed 7 Jul 11, Northern District of CA, which contains Mr. Hatfield’s public IP address. The judge that presided over this case was District Judge Lucy Koh. The case stayed open 265 days (27 Mar 12), when Judge Koh ordered it dismissed without prejudice. The dismissal order is a good read if you want to see how Prenda/Gibbs generally operates in CA.   Dismiss_Order_03336(CA)   The judge found that there was no good cause for Plaintiff failing to serve any of the defendants. The judge also had Prenda provide the court with a declaration showing what information the ISPs have provided, date it was requested, date provided, and the that wonderful piece that shows PRENDA LAW/STEELE HANSMEIER HAS SERVED NO DEFENDANTS in any of the listed case (as of the declaration date – 24 Feb 12).  Piehl1_03336(CA)   Piehl2_03336(CA)

Joke

The negligence claim is a joke meant only to scare Mr. Hatfield into settling.

59.  Defendant Hatfield had a duty to secure his Internet connection. Defendant Defendant Hatfield breached that duty by failing to secure his Internet connection.

As previously posted, there is no duty to the Plaintiff or society for a person to secure their Wireless Internet connection or to monitor it to ensure illegal activity does not occur.  Go ahead, Mr. Gibbs, copy Mark Randazza and try to use the 1932 Tug Boat case (T. J. Hooper) as support - it will fail.  Even the T.J. Hooper case shows there was a duty (i.e. contract/agreement between the two parties) for the defendant to take certain preventive/protective actions.  There is no contract/agreement between Plaintiff and Josh Hatfield.  Now if Prenda can show that Mr. Hatfield positively knew his Internet/network was being used to illegally download/share the copyright protected movie (and did nothing to stop it), then they have something to work with (but it isn’t negligence). As stated in his article, Why Copyright Negligence Won’t Fly, Nicholas Ranallo raises the point that the copyright law is going to preempt any other charges, as this is clearly a copyright matter.

So What Is The Best Tactic If A Troll Serves You With A Summons?

IMO you need to hire a good IP lawyer and make counterclaims for harassment. You have previously been harassed by the Troll in the initial mass case and this is just an extension of it (Sloppy Seconds). Prenda knows it is going to cost you money to fight and they hope that will get you to settle. By making counterclaims, it locks Prenda into the case and prevents them from voluntarily dismissing it when things get tough. If the Troll only has the public IP address as evidence against you and the phantom “John Doe,” they are hurting. Don’t forget the ridiculous negligence claim that will never fly either. The Troll will eventually press to settle the issue and move on.

I hope that Mr. Hatfield hires a good IP attorney, files a response to the complaint, and makes counterclaims against Plaintiff. Prenda will try to weasel out as usual and after being denied, the initial deposition will take place. Unless they get Mr. Hatfield to admit to being an active knowing participant in copyright infringement, Prenda will likely settle this as quietly as possible. Risking exposure of Peter Hansmeier, 6881 Forensics LLC, and their “proprietary forensic software” is not worth it for this case.

Nice Try Boys! ;)

DieTrollDie :)

Posted in Brett Gibbs, Prenda Law Inc. | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Judge Vanessa D Gilmore, TX – “You Have Been Shopped,” DC case 1:11-cv-02176 becomes TX case 4:11-cv-04501

Posted on May 14, 2012 by

***   This posting is due to  a very nice Doe who forwarded me the fact that forum shopping was happening.  Thank you Doe.  To any Doe – Please feel free to send me your ideas or anything you find.  DTD :)   ***

On 19 Dec 11, Sophisticatedjanedoe posted a story about Paul Duffy, Prenda Law, closing down two cases that were assigned to Judge Robert Wilkins – Paul Duffy dumps the second lawsuit assigned to an “inconvenient” judge.

The second case Duffy dropped as soon as it was assigned to Judge Wilkins was 1:11-cv-02176, Millennium TGA Inc. v. Does 1-939, filed on 7 Dec 11.  Complaint_02176(DC)  The wonderful title of the movie in this case was “Shemale Yum – Jenna Comes A’Knocking!”  Nine days later, Duffy voluntarily dismissed it – must be some sort of Troll record.  Dismissed_02176(DC)  To dismiss a case with 939 Does, something must have scared Prenda/Duffy.  To abandon all that potential settlement money must have been so frustrating.

It was so frustrating, that they (Prenda) decided on a new plan.  Four days later (20 Dec 11), they had Troll Douglas McIntyre, Houston, TX, filed case 4:11-cv-04501, Millennium TGA Inc. v. John Doe, in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.   Complaint_04501(TX)  The movie is the same title as in 1:11-cv-02176. This “new” case does not have a straightforward list of all the Does. It only has one main Doe defendant and then 23 pages of co-conspirators (public IP addresses). Doe1_IP_address(04501(TX)  Other_IP_Adrreses_04501(TX)  Doe #1 in case 4:11-cv-04501, is public IP address 64.91.220.134, with a recorded date/time of alleged infringement on 5 Dec 11, 03:28:19 (UTC), location: Houston, TX.

A quick examination of the DC complaint disclosed that on page 13, Doe #1′s public IP address 64.91.220.134 can be found (3rd up from the bottom). The date/time is also the same – 5 Dec 11, 03:28:19 (UTC).  Now I haven’t gone through and validated all the remaining IP address, but I’m pretty confident majority are there.

Sample comparison of public IP address (date/time) in both cases

  • 107.2.237.107, 5 Dec 11, 01:25:50 (UTC) – Yes
  • 108.53.36.121, 22 Nov 11, 06:28:52 (UTC) – Yes
  • 173.48.124.241, 26 Nov 11, 21:11:45 (UTC) – Yes
  • 205.201.209.2, 19 Oct 11, 12:54:24 (UTC) – Yes
  • 24.113.215.15, 9 Nov 11, 20:38:20 (UTC) – Yes

If you find any significant difference in these cases, please post your findings. The only thing that stands out as different between these cases is the venue (DC verses TX), and how Prenda lists out the public IP addresses. In case 1:11-cv-02176, there are 939 Doe defendants, all accused of copyright infringement equally. In case 4:11-cv-04501, there is only one defendant (Doe #1) and 23 pages of “co-conspirators” (public IP addresses). The allegations for the new case are copyright infringement and civil conspiracy.

Now obviously Prenda feels it has a welcome venue in the Southern District of TX. It does seem odd that with this many Does, that there is no listed attorneys for any of the defendants. There are only two people who are listed as Pro Se defendants with true name/addresses. I imagine being associated with SheMale porn is going to make it harder for some people to tell anyone what is going on. In my view, it is all a load of crap, so the title doesn’t bother me. I don’t know what this judge would think of the obvious forum shopping that Prenda has engaged in, but one can only hope the court will see what sleazy methods the Trolls are using.  Dockets

DieTrollDie :)

Posted in Prenda Law Inc. | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 18 Comments

You Just Got Served – Copyright Trolls & The Stupid Things They Do

Posted on May 11, 2012 by

Just Got Served a Summons  Or Deposition Subpoena

I’m writing this for the very few Does out there who are actually served a summons or subpoena.  Now I’m not talking about the copy of the subpoena the Internet Service Provider (ISP) is served with and you get a copy of.  I’m talking about one that is addressed to your true name and you are provided a copy in some authorized way (i.e. personal service at your home or work). 

As Prenda is claiming it has started to actually serve Does with summons, I wanted to get the information out again.  Prenda has also on occasion tried to get the courts to authorize limited deposition (interview) of a Doe defendant prior to a summons being served.  I know they have been successful on at least one occasion with this tactic. 

For the federal copyright cases we are talking about, you will 21 days to respond to the Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s attorney with an answer to the complaint or a motion in accordance with Rule 12 (Federal Rules of Civil Procedures).  For any State or local court summons I would contact the court directly for details and time frames to respond. 

Failure to do this will likely result in the Troll requesting the court make a default judgment in their favor.   

Summons To Do:

  1. Don’t ignore it.  Sticking your head in the sand isn’t going to work. 
  2. Start calling attorneys to see who the best one for your situation is.  Yes this is going to cost you some money.  If you are that poor, I suggest you contact the court and see what options they have for low-income assistance.  There is the possibility that a default judgment may cost you more than lawyer fees. 
  3. File a response to the complaint or have your attorney request an extension to do so. 

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

A defendant’s written response to a plaintiff’s initial court filing (called a complaint or petition). An answer normally denies some or all of the facts asserted by the complaint, and sometimes seeks to turn the tables on the plaintiff by making allegations or charges against the plaintiff (called counterclaims) or providing justification for the defendant’s behavior (called affirmative defenses). Normally a defendant has 30 days in which to file an answer after being served with the plaintiff’s complaint. In some courts, an answer is called a “response.”

Once the response is filed, the Troll will see you are serious and it may even contain counterclaims that Plaintiff/Troll have to respond to.  This happened to Prenda Law when Liuxia Wong filed claims against Plaintiff {My post of the Wong case}.  BTW this case was recently settled.  The details of the settlement are confidential, but as the Plaintiff/Prenda was trying their best to get the case dismissed, I’m sure they paid Mrs. Wong a pretty penny.  This settlement is like a little bit of chum thrown from a fishing boat.  The smell gets to the sharks and pretty soon they are in a frenzy.  The Seth Abrahams case {My post of the Abrahams case} is next and based off of the Wong case, it is likely to go the same way. 

Deposition Subpoena To Do:

  1. Don’t ignore it.  It isn’t going away.
  2. Hire an attorney.  It doesn’t matter if you didn’t do this, the Troll doesn’t really care.  An attorney will make sure that you are prepared for the deposition.  Don’t believe you can talk you way out of this and not make some mistake by going at it alone.  Remember these guys make their living doing this and some of them are good at it.  Hell, even the bad ones have more experience than most of us.

Why Start Serving Now?

This has been and will continue to be a very limited action by the Trolls.  Mark Randazza seems to be one of the more aggressive guys doing this.  Now Prenda has claimed it is well on its way to serving Does.  I’m not sure if this is primarily for the IL Lightspeed Password case or in combination with the usual Federal Copyright cases.  Prenda does make its fair share of mistakes, but they tend to keep their eye on the bottom line.  Making money drives their business and it isn’t financially responsible for them to serve everyone.   

Now actually serving a Doe with a summons costs the Troll additional money and it opens the door to counterclaims.  Unless the Troll has some good evidence (public IP address doesn’t count as good), they are taking a chance.  I assume each Troll has its own methods for determining which Does make the best targets.  I bet the people at the top of the list are the ones who tell the Troll something incriminating about themselves, a member of the household, or possibly a roommate – but never pay the settlement.  Next would be the people they have talked to and they assess as too scared to fight.  Serving some of these people may generate more settlements and not risk a default judgment.  Default judgments may count as a win for a Troll, but unless the Doe has some assets, the victory is hollow.  Based off this limited analysis, it is best to not to speak to the Trolls OR give them the Richard Pryor Response (RPR).  The RPR has the benefit of showing you are strong and not running away from the allegation.  Not everyone can handle giving the RPR to the Troll, but it is the best option IMO.

For anyone who has actually received a summons, please email me the details of how they did it.  I would like to get this out to the masses. 

DieTrollDie :)  

Posted in Prenda Law Inc., Randazza, Summons | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment