Note: This page is a bit dated, but may still be of some interest and of value to someone.
Here are some motions and orders I have collected and/or edited. Please feel free to use them as a starting point in your Troll fighting efforts. If you happen to file one, please send me a copy from PACER or at least where I can find it. Also please keep me updated on the success or failure of it and what was the reasoning for the decision – this allows me and others to tailor the motions to be more effective.
CO Malibu Media, LLC v. Lindsey Maness, 1:12-cv-01873. This Motion to Dismiss got the Troll Jason Kotzker to dismiss the Doe for the second time when her read it prior to filing. Here is the post giving the background information. Check out the Exhibits! MTD – Maness_01873(CO) MTD_01873_EX_A MTD_01873_EX_B
- The Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel Have Engaged in Bad Faith Pleading
- Naming Subscribers As Defendants and Subpoenaing Their Identities Without Any Factual Basis Is An Abuse of Process
- The Plaintiff’s Claim of Concerted Action As Justification for Joinder Is Groundless.
PA case 2:12-cv-02090, Malibu Media, LLC. v. Does 1-15
- MTQ/S/D Doe #14 – Pro Se. He used my latest declaration (#7) as an exhibit in the motion. MTQSD_Doe14_02090(PA)
- MTQ Doe #13 – Represented by Ronald Smith. MTQSD_Doe13_02090(PA)
- MTQ John Doe – Pro Se. MTQ_02090(PA)
CO case 1:12-cv-00836, Malibu Media, LLC. v. Does 1-23
- MTQ John Doe #7 – Pro Se. MTQ_Doe7_00836(CO)
- MTQ John Doe #10 – Represented by John Arsenault. MTQ_Doe10_00836(CO)
Order to Cite– 1 May 12, Judge Gary Brown, Eastern District of NY – Kicks the trolls in the junk. Severs all Does except #1 and they only get the name and address of the ISP subscriber. “Highly questionable factual assumptions underlie plaintiffs’ contention that these cases satisfy the Rule 20 requisites for joinder.” ORR_03995(NY)
MTQ /S/D – Another Omnibus motion filed by a Doe in the Media Products, Inc., DBA Devil’s Film v. Does 1-59, 1:12-cv-00125, Southern District of NY. MTQ_00125(NY)
MTQ/S/D – Here are two new (3 & 4 May 12) Motions filed on LA case 6:12-cv-00031 (4:20 Media, Inc. v. Swarm Hash Files……) – Docket. MTQ_Omnibus_00031(LA) SpportMTQ_Omnibus_00031(LA) MTQ_Doe1002_00031(LA)
Court Order to cite, Digital Sin, Inc., v. Does 1-76, 1:12-cv-00126-AJN. 00126(NY)_Order This one isn’t a motion, but the following court opinion & order permitting limited expedited discovery pursuant to a protective order does have some information I would cite in any future Doe motions. The 30 Jan 12, opinion/order is from Alison Nathan, District Judge, Southern District of NY. The judge states she has serious reservations on the ex parte application from the Troll. In her discussions with the Troll, she got them to admit to the following error rate with assuming the registered public IP address owner is guilty & that Troll have harassed Does to obtain settlements:
The Court is concerned about the possibility that many of the names and addresses produced in response to Plaintiffs discovery request will not in fact be those of the individuals who downloaded “My Little Panties #2.” The risk is not purely speculative; Plaintiff’s counsel estimated that 30% of the names turned over by ISPs are not those of individuals who actually downloaded or shared copyrighted material. Counsel stated that the true offender is often the “teenaged son … or the boyfriend if it’s a lady.” (1117112 Tr. at 16). Alternatively, the perpetrator might turn out to be a neighbor in an apartment building that uses shared IP addresses or a dormitory that uses shared wireless networks. See, e.g., Mot. to Quash Verizon Subpoena, 11-CV -7564 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2012) (Docket #11) (claiming that a Doe defendant did not know how to use a computer and implying that the perpetrator was a neighbor in his condominium). This risk of false positives gives rise to “the potential for coercing unjust settlements from innocent defendants” such as individuals who want to avoid the embarrassment of having their names publicly associated with allegations of illegally downloading “My Little Panties #2.” SBO Pictures, Inc. v. Does 1-3036, 2011 WL 6002620, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30,2011).
Indeed Plaintiff’s counsel also bluntly conceded that there are “horror stories out there, what some law firms have done. For example, they have called and harassed the John Doe defendants.” (1117112 Tr. at 20). The Court appreciates counsel’s candor and notes that Plaintiff’s counsel appropriately does not request that the ISPs turn over the John Does’ telephone numbers.
John Doe 25’s Motion to Quash/Sever, Liberty Media Holdings, LLC, v. Does 1-38,1:11-cv-21567, Southern District of FL. Doe25_Motion_21567 The judges agreed with Doe 25, quashed the subpoena and severed all Does except #1 (Court Order). As Doe 1 didn’t reside within the court’s jurisdiction, the Troll was SOL and terminated the case.
John Doe 148’s Motion to Quash/Sever/Dismiss, Digital Sins Inc., v. Does 1-245, 1:11-cv-08170. MTQ_Doe148_08179(NY) Very nice motion.
JOHN DOE 85’S OMNIBUS MOTION TO SEVER AND/OR QUASH THE SUBPOENA AND/OR ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW,” (OmnibusMotion_FL_00570) for case 4:11-cv-00570, Third Degree Films Inc., v. Does 1-259, Northern District of FL.
Motion to Quash – PDF Format. THIRD DEGREE FILMS, INC., v. Does 1-259, case 4:11-cv-00570-RH-WCS, Northern District of Florida. John Doe 126, by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20, 26, and 45 moves to dismiss/sever for improper joinder. In the alternative, John Doe 126 moves to quash the third-party subpoena and/or for a protective order. MTQ_FL_00570
Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 4(m) – Word Format. This is a Motion to Dismiss template, based on no summons being served on Doe defendants for 120+ days. There is also an Exhibit for this motion. Make sure you add the correct case information, edit the details in the body as needed, change the date, and place the Troll’s address on the certificate of service. Dismiss_4m sh_comments
Third Degree Films, Inc. v. John Does 1-152 (DC – Mike Meirer/Copyright Law Group), 11-CV-01833-BAH. Motion to Quash OR Modify & Motion to Dismiss. – 72721924-Quash-And-dismiss-Third-Degree-and-Copyright-Group
New Sensations v. John Does 1-1474 (California – Ira Siegel), CV-11-2770-MEJ (Big Bang Theory A XXX Parody). Motion to Quash & Dismiss AND Exhibit A – newsensations_ca_2770 Support for Plaintiff Motion_Exhibit
Support Document filed by a John Doe – supporting his Motion to Quash (Patrick Collins v. 1-58, 3:11-CV-00531-JAG) Paper written by the Computer Science Department of the University of Washington – MotionQ_Support1
FL case (Patrick Colins, 3rd Degree, K-Beech, Raw films, Diabolic Video, Nucorp, Berlin Media Art, Zero Tolerance Entertainment), case # 11-24714 CA 22 – Motion_Quash_Dismiss_FL_-11-24714-CA-22
PA K-Beech Case – Motion (Word Format) –K_Beech_Motion1
Exhibit A to this motion – graph1
Exhibit B to motion – IPAddress1
Exhibit C to motion – GeoIP1