** Update** Review of Pennsylvania Case, 11-cv-05060, Filed 8 Aug 11, K-Beech, Inc., vs. John Does 1-78 – Please Review And Comment

4 Oct 11 Update – All Does except #1  were dismissed on 3 Oct 11.  I will post more details soon.  Until then, please enjoy the image I’m dedicating to the Law Firm of Fiore & Barber, LLC, K-Beech, and Jeff Snyder.  The image represents were your case is heading.

DieTrollDie  🙂

———————————————————————————

In an effort to keep myself informed and educated on the various Troll efforts and legal system, I decided to review a recent PA case that was filed on 8 Aug 11, in the Eastern District of PA.  K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-78, Case No. 11-cv-5060 (EDPA)  BTW – I’m NOT one of the Does in this case.  I still have to run a PACER report on the case, but off of the initial complaint I noted the following points of interest/concern:

K-Beech, Inc., dba Cherry Boxxx Pictures, Jeff Snyder, 9601 Mason Ave., Unit B. Chatsworth, CA 91311, is the copyright claimant.

Attorneys for plaintiff is Fiore & Barber, LLC, 425 Main Street, Suite 200, Harleysvillie, PA 19438.  Christopher P. Fiore & Aman M. Barber.  They don’t appear to specialize in this type of cases, so I’m wondering if they were subcontracted by one of the bigger Trolls.

The initial part of the complaint has the usual Introduction, Jurisdiction and Venue, Parties, Joinder, and Factual Background (I dispute this part).  All the John Doe IP addresses do appear to be in PA – I haven’t verified the Eastern District claim.

In the Factual Background section, the Troll actually uses Wikipedia as a source and Exhibit for a BitTorrent terms list.  Wikipedia???  Wikipedia is not a source I would cite on a college or high school paper, much less a Federal Court document.  Use Wikipedia to start your data collection and analysis, but find something a little better for you final cite.

Exhibit A of the complaint is a listing of the 78 John Does, their IP addresses, Hit date (UTC), City, State, ISP, and Network.  The information in the “Hit Date (UTC)” is the really interesting bit, especially when compared to the date/time of the Copyright Application K-Beech submitted on the film “Virgins #4” (Exhibit B).

Eleven (11) IP addresses on Exhibit A have a Hit date (UTC) before the K-Beech applied for a copyright for this movie (Submitted on 22 Apr 11, 12:25PM Pacific Standard Time).

The Hit date is when Plaintiff’s agents noted the IP addresses as sharing this movie.

Does # 11, 18, 24, 25, 29, 50, 57, 60, 61, 67, 70 (Dates/Times before 22 Apr 11, 12:25PM PST)

K-Beech lists “Date of Publication” for this film as 9 Feb 2011.  I need to pose the question to some knowledgeable types on when does copyright start?  Application date (I assume) or does it post-date back to 1st publication (I doubt it, but I’m not sure)?

Exhibit A contains Hit Dates ranging from 12 Apr 11 – 7 Jul 11.  Plaintiff claims in the complaint that all of the defendants is jointly and severely liable for the infringing activities of each of the other defendants.  What he is trying to say is that ALL the IPs in question acted together (“Defendants acting in concert with each other,…”).  Exhibit A only shows one “snap-shot” in time for each IP address.  The nature of BitTorrent is that file sharer come and go from sharing files (The swarm).  There is nothing to say that all of the listed IP addresses stayed in the same swarm for the entire period.  If they did not ALL stay sharing the movie for ENTIRE time period (12 Apr – 7 Jul 11), how can you join ALL of the IP addresses together?  Plaintiff states that their investigators

“Identified Each of the defendants’ IP addresses as Participating in the Same Swarm That Was Distributing Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Work at the Same UTC time”

Plaintiff also claimed each defendant installed BitTorrent software/clients on their computer.  Another generic statement by the plaintiff that is not correct.  The IP address for the Does does not equal culpability.  It just means the IP address is registered to a person.  Did an unauthorized person (computer) use the Internet via that IP address?  If so, the defendants did not do this and the claim is baseless.

Exhibit D is a terrible screenshot of what appears to a BitTorrent client.  I can’t tell if the screenshot shows the movie “Virgin 4” being shared by Plaintiff’s agents.  If so, plaintiff was seeding the movie and essentially telling people to take the movie for free – claim of infringement would be baseless.

In the compliant, the plaintiff states they employed “IPP, Limited” to identify IP addresses sharing the copyright protected file.  IPP is the forensic software “INTERNATIONAL IPTRACKER v1.2.1” and related technology enabling the scanning of P2P.  Does anyone have any information on IPP or the forensic software mentioned?

MY REQUEST – Please take a look at the complaint and give me your thoughts on the matter.  I’m no expert, but it just doesn’t look right to me.  I would love to draft up a response to this or have someone smarter do it.  This looks like a sloppy case the Trolls are trying to slip into a new area in hopes of getting the subpoena approved.

Any help is greatly appreciated – DieTrollDie 🙂

———————————————————————–

9 Sep 2011 Update –

Well here are the documents I got from PACER on this case.
Doc2 – Report on the filing or determination of an action or appeal regarding a copyright
Doc3 – Notice of Filing Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement
Doc4 – Exhibit A for Doc3 (above) – Declaration of Tobias Fieser, IPP, Limited (German Co.) who did the forensic work.
Doc5 – Order on Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpeonas Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference.  Judge granted it.
Doc6 – Motion toQuash or Modify Subpoena by John Doe, filed 9 Sep 2011.  Go Joe!

K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-78, Case No. 11-cv-5060 Doc 2 K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-78, Case No. 11-cv-5060 Doc 3 K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-78, Case No. 11-cv-5060 Doc 4 K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-78, Case No. 11-cv-5060 Doc 5 K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-78, Case No. 11-cv-5060 Doc 6

About DieTrollDie

I'm one of the many 'John Does' (200,000+ & growing in the US) who Copyright Trolls have threatened with a civil law suit unless they are paid off. What is a Copyright Troll? Check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation link - http://www.eff.org/issues/copyright-trolls
This entry was posted in 11-cv-05060, bitTorrent, copyright, Fiore & Barber LLC, infringement, IPP International IPTRACKER, IPP Limited, Jeff Snyder, K-Beech, p2p, piracy, Tobias Fieser and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to ** Update** Review of Pennsylvania Case, 11-cv-05060, Filed 8 Aug 11, K-Beech, Inc., vs. John Does 1-78 – Please Review And Comment

  1. dietrolldie says:

    FROM PACER –
    5:11-cv-05060-BMS K-BEECH, INC. v. JOHN DOES 1-78
    BERLE M. SCHILLER, presiding
    Date filed: 08/08/2011
    Date of last filing: 09/09/2011

    Case Summary
    Office: Allentown Filed: 08/08/2011
    Jury Demand: Plaintiff Demand:
    Nature of Suit: 820 Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement
    Jurisdiction: Federal Question Disposition:
    County: Outside the State of PA. Terminated:
    Origin: 1 Reopened:

    Lead Case: None
    Related Case: None Other Court Case: None
    Def Custody Status:
    Flags: A/R, SPECIAL

    Plaintiff: K-BEECH, INC. represented by CHRISTOPHER P. FIORE Phone: 215-256-0205
    Email: cfiore@fiorebarber.com

    Defendant: JOHN DOES 1-78
    Defendant: JOHN DOE

  2. dietrolldie says:

    Date Filed # Docket Text
    08/08/2011 1 COMPLAINT against JOHN DOES 1-78 ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 047640.), filed by K-BEECH, INC..(rt) (Entered: 08/09/2011)

    08/08/2011 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by K-BEECH, INC.. (rt) (Entered: 08/09/2011)

    08/08/2011 2 Copy of Form to Register of Copyrights (rt) (Entered: 08/09/2011)

    08/10/2011 3 NOTICE by K-BEECH, INC. of filing Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement (FIORE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 08/10/2011)

    08/10/2011 4 First MOTION for Leave to File to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference filed by K-BEECH, INC..Memorandum of Law.(FIORE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 08/10/2011)

    08/11/2011 5 ORDER. RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE THIRD PARTY SUBPOENAS PRIOR TO A RULE 26(F) CONFERENCE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON
    8/11/11.8/11/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 08/11/2011)

    09/09/2011 6 JOHN DOE’S MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(fdc) (Entered: 09/09/2011)

  3. Google search for International IPTracker shows only in claims of using it, such as mass p2p court filings. Can anyone actually believe that in this day and age there is a developer of any software product that does not have web exposure?

    Also complaint mentions retaining IPP, a forensic company, that uses this software. IPP servers are located in Thailand, and their website has nothing but buzz phrases. Looks suspicious to me.

    So this software it is an in-house, closed tool that IPP uses internally, but why to mention its name at all then? Looks fishy.

    Also, usually there is a declaration in support by a forensic company is filed, none in this case, so I question the IPP involvement in the first place.

    On a side note, I glad to see that our template-based motion was filed today in this case.

  4. I sent the following email to IPP. Let’s see if they bother to reply.

    Subject: International IPTracker v1.2.1 and your involvement in US litigation cases

    Dear Sirs,

    We are a popular online publication that covers mass copyright infringement lawsuits in USA.

    Given your work in such high-profile areas as currency and hardware counterfeiting, we were surprised to see your firm’s name being mentioned in US mass peer-to-peer copyright infringement litigation cases.

    For example, http://www.scribd.com/doc/64416940/k-Beech-Inc-v-Does-1-78-Case-No-11-Cv-5060-Edpa

    Since we couldn’t find any declaration of support by a forensic expert in the court filings, which is required, I suspect that plaintiffs reference your company’s name without proper authorization or even your knowledge.

    In addition, these filings mention “International IPTracker v1.2.1” software supposedly used by your firm, but this name cannot be found anywhere on the web. The screenshots in court filings are (intentionally?) unreadable, and I doubt that they show the software in question, not a common BitTorrent client.

    We will appreciate if you confirm (or deny) that you company was hired to investigate copyright infringement in peer-to-peer networks.

    Sincerely,

    Jane Doe, FightCopyrightTrolls.com editor-in-chief.

    • Well, seems I targeted a wrong company.

      So it’s the same German bullshit. I read the description of the functionality, and some parts trouble me. First of all, it looks very unprofessional, concentrates on minor issues and carefully avoids relevant information.

      I’ll have more careful look and maybe write a report.

  5. From the declaration of support:

    22. I was provided with a control copy of the copyrighted work identified on Exhibit B (the “Movie”) I viewed the Movie side-by-side with the digital media file…

    .

    A paragraph is missing between 22 and 23:

    22a. Das ist fantastisch!

  6. Raul says:

    On October 14, 2011 it looks like the trolls for K-Beech filed individual lawsuits against both John Does and named defendants. Any thoughts on this development?

  7. Raul says:

    You may wish to check out the colorful history of Kevin Beechum, President of K-Beech, Inc., which can be found here: http://www.lukeford.net/archives/updates/030509.htm

  8. Raul says:

    I tried posting this link earlier but it did not work:

    http://www.virginiaiplaw.com/uploads/file/https___ecf_vaed_uscourts_gov_cgi-bin_show_temp_pl_file=3563704-0–11871.pdf

    The case is Hard Drive Productions v. John Does 1-30 in the United District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (2:11cv345) in which the judge granted John Doe’s motion to quash and mentioned that John Steele is essentially getting a bad rep in the District courts. Enjoy!

  9. PAJohnDoe says:

    I was one of the John Does in this case originally. Back in October, the judge ruled against joining all the Does together. So the Plaintiffs started new cases, some with named Defendants, and some with individual John Does.

    I just recently got a letter from my ISP about being named in another suit. When I looked it up by case number, it’s one of these related individual cases. I’m named as a John Doe again. I won’t give the case number, because it points to my IP in the subpoena.

    Not sure if it’s my bad luck or what. I have until mid-December to reply to ISP, or they release my contact information.

  10. Raul says:

    No worries; K-Beech has a weak case because it does not have a registered copyright for its pornographic movie (check out the complaint) insofar as it has only APPLIED for a copyright registration. Check this out and then start looking for some PA cases that fit the facts http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/2:2011cv03331/319938/10/0.pdf?1316528006

    This may also help: http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/motown_kovalcik_090203DeftsMotJudgPleadings.pdf

    • Raul says:

      Also remember that IF your MTQ is denied and IF, in the unlikely event, the troll decides to sue you K-Beech’s damages are modest. This is because plaintiff would not be entitled to statutory damages or its attorneys fees as authorized by Sections 504 and 505 of the Copyright Act by reason of Section 412 of the Copyright Act which states:

      In any action under this title, other than an action brought for
      a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a) or
      an action instituted under section 411(b), no award of
      statutory damages or attorney’s fees, as provided by sections
      504 and 505, shall be made for –
      (1) . . .
      (2) any infringement of copyright commenced after
      first publication of the work and before the effective
      date of registration, unless such registration is made
      within three months after the first publication of the work.

      In other words, statutory damages and attorneys fees are only available to plaintiffs who have a registered copyright at the time the alleged copyright infringement occurred which is not the situation with any of the K-Beech lawsuits (i.e preregistration infringement). See, this fairly famous Eastern District of Pennsylvania federal opinion for more on this issue http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06D0794P.pdf

      Consequently plaintiff can only recover its “actual damages” plus court costs (such as the $350 court filing fee). “Actual damages” in a case like this would be measured by K-Beech’s lost profits per infringement, if they have lost anything from a download, which would be their share of a DVD sale (K-Beech’s DVDs at issue retail on the on the internet for approximately $19.99-$25.00). So IF K-Beech decided to take such a case to trial they would be looking at a very small recovery indeed. Would you bother risking exposing the questionable forensic methodology, the legal soundness of K-Beech’s allegations and the extortion business model which underpins this scheme for a next to nothing recovery? If you were a troll, where is the upside to litigating a case like this when you are working on a contingency basis?

      Finally, I am not an attorney and the above is just my opinion and interpretation on what I have gathered from the internet which does not constitute legal advice. Best of luck to you and all the other Pennsylvanians who are ready to put up a fight.

    • PAJohnDoe says:

      Thanks for the links. I’ll be filing a Motion to Dismiss based on helpful info here and the http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com mega-thread.
      We’ll see how it goes…

      • TrollTrasher says:

        Just stay aware and informed, PAJohnDoe. With these solo cases the trolls seem to be either banking on receiving a default judgement or the Does incriminating themselves. If you haven’t already speak to an attorney from this list:

        https://www.eff.org/issues/file-sharing/subpoena-defense

        Consultations are free and it’s wise to have someone aware of your situation who can fight for you if necessary. It also wouldn’t hurt to contact the EFF itself and to point out how your type of case is the trolls’ next step and see if they can offer assistance. They tend to only do that in the big cases, but with the big cases falling apart and the trolls going smaller they need to switch up, too. Obviously don’t communicate with the trolls. Like I said, stay aware and stay informed.

  11. DieTrollDie says:

    Yes, many of the Trolls are now filing single cases either to overcome court ruling severing mass Does, to scare Does who “Dare” to file motions, or those cases where a trial may be an option for the Troll. In reality, being a single Doe based on the same information as the Troll had as a Doe in a mase case is essentially the same. Weak evidence (IP address only) doe not make a good case and the Trolls know this. Being a single Doe is scary and the Trolls like that. The Trolls do not want to risk a trial on a weak case. They have said this in recent filings (https://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/3trolls_memo.pdf) – Sorry if it is so long but it gives good information on Troll motivation and who they may want to take to trial. How do they get good evidence? Statements/admissions from the Doe, Statements from others with evidence, & forensic examinations of system. Can they take you to trial with only the IP address? Yes, but it is likely to cost them up front and after they lose (attorney fees, etc.). As well as any trial that a Doe is actively fighting will expose the questionable technical collection methods, systems, and personnel the Trolls use.

    DieTrollDie 🙂

    • PAJohnDoe says:

      My MTQ was entered, based on K-Beech not being the registered copyright holder, among other things. The NY court stuff was pretty much copy & pasted from links supplied here and fightcopyrighttrolls.com

      I also pulled some of the original case vs Does 1-78 filings, notably K-Beech’s response to the judge about using a mediator to resolve the issue. In this they state the reason for lumping everyone together is that the alleged infringement is due to the actions of everyone involved, and in fact could only happen with everyone involved. So, I pointed out that if any of these alleged infringers are dismissed because they weren’t infringing, then by their own admission, no one else would be. I probably didn’t explain it very well, and so I didn’t try to hang my hat on it. But maybe someone wiser can do something with it.

      One more interesting thing I noticed in this case: Tobias Fieser, the tech from the German company who did all the IP number lookups filed an affidavit, which looks very generic. This is in the request to subpoena Verizon for subscriber info. What’s interesting is that in the beginning of this motion, the declaration is specifically directed to Patrick Collins (“Plaintiff”), where this case was brought by K-Beech. Maybe an oversight, with all the mass lawsuits going on. And maybe more evidence that Chris Fiore is just a puppet in this foolishness. Again, I didn’t push this issue very hard, but maybe someone else could.

      Here’s the rfcexpress link to my case:
      http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/85054/k-beech-inc-v-john-doe/summary/

      I don’t have any of the docs posted anywhere, but I could email them…let me know PAJohnDoe178 at yahoo

      We’ll see how this response works out…best of luck to everyone else

      • PAJohnDoe says:

        K-Beech / Fiore filed a response to my MTQ yesterday. The main argument is that copyright registration is not necessary to proceed on a claim. They also say that one of the ways they will prove contributory copyright infringement is by calling other John Doe Defendants as witnesses for direct testimony.

        There’s a bunch more about how joining John Does together isn’t necessary to prove contributory infringement, which I thought flies in the face of the original case where it was necessary to join everyone together.

        Oh, and they called the bit about the expert declaration for Patrick Collins instead of K-Beech a “typographical error.” I guess the keys were next to each other and got stuck.

        Anyways, the letter from my ISP’s legal dept concerning the subpoena said that if I file a motion, they will not release my info until the judge rules on that motion. I don’t see anything to indicate when that will be. And I don’t know how long the court will give the ISP to respond if they deny my motion. So it looks like I’ll have some time to digest the Plaintiff’s response.

  12. DieTrollDie says:

    PAJohnDoe – Please email me a copy of their response. It may be worth crafting a torpedo. 😉

    DieTrollDie 🙂

  13. JohnDoeInPA says:

    I was one of the Doe’s in this case that was intially dismissed. However my isp must have release my info anyway. It has been over 120 days and still i recieve phone calls every 15 days or so. Any ideas what I can do about this. Should a get a lawyer involved at this point who could get the case thrown out completly. The phone calls are the only only contact they have tried other than the intially letter they sent out saying that they planned on filling individual suits against all the defendants. Looking for a little advice. I have never answered a phone call as I never answer any numbers I don’t know.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      You can either ignore the calls OR answer and give them Richard Pryor Response. You may get a letter in the mail, possibly certified mail. The only possible problem with totally hiding from the Troll is he may think you are ripe for a default judgement or that you are too scared to hire an attorny. I personally wouldn’t hire an attorney until I was served with a deposition subpoena or court summons. Don’t be afraid and don’t let them push you around. This is a scam based on fear.

      DTD 🙂

  14. JohnDoeInPA says:

    So the most recent call says that I’m am a named defendent #xx in case number 11-cv-05060. They state that I must have my attorney contact them and that I can look the case up on PACER. Then when I looked up the case on pacer I get this. It staes the case was terminated as of 12/06/2011. I also searched my name and nothing showed up. So what exactly does this all mean. I am taking it as they have my info and even though the case was terminated they are trying to scare me into given some money by making regimented phone calls every 2 weeks or so. This was the info I got and was wondering what this all means for me. Thanks for any and all your help.

    Date Filed # Docket Text
    08/08/2011 1 COMPLAINT against JOHN DOES 1-78 ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 047640.), filed by K-BEECH, INC..(rt) (Entered: 08/09/2011)
    08/08/2011 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by K-BEECH, INC.. (rt) (Entered: 08/09/2011)
    08/08/2011 2 Copy of Form to Register of Copyrights (rt) (Entered: 08/09/2011)
    08/10/2011 3 NOTICE by K-BEECH, INC. of filing Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement (FIORE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
    08/10/2011 4 First MOTION for Leave to File to Serve Third Party Subpoenas Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference filed by K-BEECH, INC..Memorandum of Law.(FIORE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
    08/11/2011 5 ORDER. RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE THIRD PARTY SUBPOENAS PRIOR TO A RULE 26(F) CONFERENCE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 8/11/11.8/11/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 08/11/2011)
    09/09/2011 6 JOHN DOE(PAJOHNDOE178@YAHOO.COM) MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(fdc) Modified on 9/30/2011 (td, ). (Entered: 09/09/2011)
    09/23/2011 7 JOHN DOE (SEE PAPER NO. 7) MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA AND TO DISMISS, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fdc) Modified on 10/3/2011 (td, ). (Entered: 09/23/2011)
    09/23/2011 8 JOHN DOE 20’S MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(fdc) (Entered: 09/23/2011)
    09/27/2011 9 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by K-BEECH, INC. As To With Prejudice of Doe 46 Only(FIORE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 09/27/2011)
    09/28/2011 10 JOHN DOE #7’S MOTION TO QUASH OR VACATE THE SUBPOENA, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fdc) (Entered: 09/28/2011)
    09/30/2011 11 JOHN DOE 39’S MOTION TO QUASH, MODIFY, OR VACATE THE SUBPOENA, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(fdc) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
    10/03/2011 12 MOTION TO DISMISS AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY, FILED BY Dismiss JOHN DOE (IP ADDRESS 98.114.99.6), CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(fdc) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
    10/03/2011 13 ORDER THAT ALL DEFENDANTS EXCEPT JOHN DOE 1 ARE SEVERED FROM THIS ACTION AND DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THE MOTION (DOC. #6) IS GRANTED. ALL SUBPOENAS SEEKING DISCOVERY REGARDING ALL DEFENDANTS EXCEPT JOHN DOE 1 ARE QUASHED. THE OTHER PENDING MOTIONS TO QUASH IN THIS CASE ARE DENIED AS MOOT. BY 10/14/11, PLAINTIFF SHALL SERVE A COPY OF THIS ORDER ON EVERY DEFENDANT FOR WHOM IT HAS OBTAINED AN ADDRESS AND THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS ON WHOM THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS HAVE BEEN SERVED. BY 10/28/11, PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SHALL FILE A DECLARATION ATTESTING THAT PLAINTIFF HAS COMPLIED WITH THIS PROVISION. PLAINTIFF SHALL HAVE UNTIL 10/14/11 TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST JOHN DOE 1, IF IT WISHES TO PROCEED WITH ITS CLAIM AGAINST THIS DEFENDANT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 10/3/11. 10/4/11 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PARTIES, E-MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
    10/03/2011 Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: AMENDED PLEADINGS DUE BY 10/14/2011. (fdc, ) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
    10/04/2011 14 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by K-BEECH, INC. As To Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of Does 1, 20 and 30 Only(FIORE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
    10/05/2011 15 NOTICE by K-BEECH, INC. of Plaintiff’s Intention to Sue Each of the 77 Severed Defendants Individually (FIORE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 10/05/2011)
    10/05/2011 16 ORDER THAT JOHN DOE’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY IS DENIED AS MOOT BECAUSE, BY PRIOR ORDER OF THIS COURT, THE MOVANT HAS BEEN SEVERED FROM THIS ACTION AND THE SUBPOENA SEEKING HIS NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION HAS BEEN QUASHED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 10/5/11. 10/5/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 10/05/2011)
    10/07/2011 17 JOHN DOE #48’S MOTION TO QUASH, MODIFY OR VACATE SUBPOENA, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(fdc) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
    10/07/2011 19 ORDER THAT JOHN DOE 48’S MOTION TO QUASH, MODIFY OR VACATE SUBPOENA IS DENIED AS MOOT BECAUSE, BY PRIOR ORDER OF THIS COURT, THE MOVANT HAS BEEN SERVERED FROM THIS ACTION AND SUBPOENA SEEKING HIS NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION HAS BEEN QUASHED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 10/7/2011.10/11/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(lbs, ) (Entered: 10/11/2011)
    10/08/2011 18 MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA together with Certificate of Service filed by JOHN DOE (SEE PAPER NO. 18).(ti, ) (Entered: 10/11/2011)
    10/13/2011 20 ORDER THAT JOHN DOE’S MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY THE SUBPOENA (DOCUMENT NO.18)IS DENIED AS MOOT BECAUSE, BY PRIOR ORDER OF THIS COURT, THE MOVANT HAS BEEN SEVERED FROM THIS ACTION AND THE SUBPOENA SEEKING HIS NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION HAS BEEN QUASHED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 10/12/11. 10/13/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 10/13/2011)
    10/14/2011 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to John Doe (IP Address 98.114.99.6). (fdc) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
    10/17/2011 21 AMENDED COMPLAINT against JOHN DOE, filed by K-BEECH, INC., jury demand.(fdc) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
    10/17/2011 22 RULE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER. PLAINTIFF K-BEECH, INC. SHALL SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE IS RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING CASES: K-BEECH, INC. V. PERIDIER, 11-CV-6435; K-BEECH, INC. V. LAW, 11-CV-6431; K-BEECH, INC. V. DOE, 11-CV-6427; K-BEECH, INC. V. VANDERHORST, 11-CV-6432; K-BEECH, INC. V. STASTNY, 11-CV-6437; K-BEECH, INC. V. FITZPATRICK, 11-CV-6429; K-BEECH, INC. V. FOSTER, 11-CV-6430; K-BEECH, INC. V. BLAZKO, 11-CV-6436; K-BEECH, INC. V. DOE, 11-CV-6426; K-BEECH, INC. V. FRANCESCHINI, 11-CV-6434; K-BEECH, INC. V. DOE, 11-CV-6425; AND K-BEECH, INC. V. GRISAFI, 11-CV-6433. PLAINTIFF SHALL FURTHER SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT APPOINT A MEDIATOR, PAID FOR BY PLAINTIFF, FOR CONFERENCE AND SETTLEMENT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED CASES PRIOR TO TRIAL. COUNSEL SHALL FILE APPROPRIATE PAPERS NO LATER THAN 10/28/11. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 10/17/11. 10/17/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
    10/28/2011 23 Response to Show Cause Order by K-BEECH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (FIORE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
    10/28/2011 24 Declaration re 13 Order on Motion to Quash,, Order on Motion to Modify, Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,, Order on Motion to Vacate,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Declaration of Compliance by K-BEECH, INC.. (FIORE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
    12/06/2011 25 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by K-BEECH, INC. As To Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of Doe #1(FIORE, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 12/06/2011)

    • PAJohnDoe says:

      I was also one of the John Does in the original 1-78 case (11-cv-05060). And now I am one of the individual John Does in a subsequent case they filed in November 2011. I filed motions, both in the 1-78 John Does case and in my individual John Doe case. I have never received any contact from the Plaintiffs.

      But you are right, the 11-cv-05060 case was dismissed, so it seems they shouldn’t be able to seek a legitimate settlement based on a dismissed case.

      Now K-Beech also filed Pennsylvania suits against 9 separately-named Defendants back in October and November 2011 as well. But it looks like only one is still pending; the others have been dismissed.

      Check out http://www.rfcexpress.com/search.asp put in K-Beech as the “Party Name”, and Pennsylvania Eastern for “Filed In” and take a look. That could tell you if you are specifically being named. Or else just search for your own last name.

  15. Raul says:

    After the 10-3-11 order severing all Does but Doe 1 the troll ran out and filed a boatload of individual cases, some against named defendants and some against Does. It is possible that one of these Doe cases could be converted into a named defendant suit by simply amending the complaint. However the troll has not done that yet, even once, and last year I briefly spoke to a PA attorney who is representing some of these folks who opined that he did not think the troll was going to name defendants other than the ones previously named. He seemed quite nice and wants to fight. If you need to speak to an attorney about this you could contact http://www.keenanlaw.com/current.htm scroll down a little to see the post about K-Beech.

  16. Raul says:

    In other words, it seems that you are named as”John Doe” and will likely remain so.

  17. PAJohnDoe says:

    Since I’m on a PA case kick this morning,

    11-cv-07248-MAM has another MTQ filed by John Doe XX (http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/85472/raw-films-ltd-v-john-does-1-15/summary/), and

    11-cv-07252-MSG has its first MTQ filed (http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/pennsylvania-eastern-district-court/85475/patrick-collins-inc-v-john-does-1-18/summary/). It’s a big one. 11-cv-07252-MSG lists a Defendant lawyer John J. Jacko III from Fellheimer & Eichen, so he probably did the work.

    All are in PACER, but not RECAP yet.

  18. PAJohnDoe says:

    In Eastern PA K-Beech has dismissed with prejudice 9 cases against individual John Does (including me). This is in addition to the few cases dismissed with prejudice last month. From the dismissal: “Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) Defendant has neither answered Plaintiff’s complaint nor filed a motion for summary judgement.” Any comments?

    There are a couple cases still active, including one John Doe who filed a MTQ that was denied earlier this month.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Looks like it is the Troll’s time to cut & run. Actually more like work on the new cases/Does – $$$
      DTD 🙂
      ————————————————————–
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41
      (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;

  19. Pingback: (Audio) In order to win, at very least you must pick up the fight – an encouraging story of a fighting Doe « Fight Copyright Trolls

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s