Draft Motion to Quash & Motion to Dismiss, Baseprotect UG, LTD., v. Does 1-X (New Jersey), Case No. 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD, The McDaniel Law Firm

*** Update – 8 Oct 11 ***

Well one of the Doe in this case sent me a copy of a court order on this case.  The order Baseprotect_03621_NJ_CourOrdert states that Plaintiff has withdrawn the subpoena on this case and is required to serve the movant with a copy of the order.  The order mention one specific IP address that filed a motion to quash.  I haven’t looked at PACER to determine what exactly happened, but something is up .  I’m not sure if the withdrawal of the subpoena is for all Does or just the one on this order.

Anyone following this case right now?


Well I spent a little time tailoring this motion to quash and motion to dismiss.  It even have three exhibits attached to it.  It is for Baseprotect UG, LTD., v. Does 1-X (New Jersey), Case No. 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD, The McDaniel Law Firm.  Actually there is 1449 Does listed in this one.  It was kind of a pain in the #$%! to get all the date/time/IP listing into a spreadsheet so I could filter and graph it.

Please take a look and give me some feedback.  🙂

Motion – Baseprotect_NJ_Motion_QUASH_DISM_28sep

Exhibit A to the motion – graph1

Exhibit B to the motion – IPAddress1

Exhibit C to the motion – GeoIP1

For those Does where Plaintiff has your information already, just tailor it to be a motion to dismiss (not to quash).

Have fun!

DieTrollDie  🙂

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 2:11-cv-03621-CCC -JAD, bitTorrent, copyright, McDaniel Law Firm, open wifi, p2p, piracy and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Draft Motion to Quash & Motion to Dismiss, Baseprotect UG, LTD., v. Does 1-X (New Jersey), Case No. 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD, The McDaniel Law Firm

  1. John Doe Mow says:

    You’ve really contributed alot into the anti-trolling community. Great work you’ve put together!!
    You’ve saved alot of victims time and worries over the past few months, I must say thank you.

    Keep up the good work. You’ve brought inspiration to many including myself to battle againsts these money-sucking scavengers.

  2. Great! Thank you, comrade!

    I wouldn’t even dream for such anti-troll activity half a year ago.

    This particular lawsuit stinks. Not only it has all the flaws typical for troll suits, it won’t have a chance to stand on merits: copyright assignment is definitely a Righthaven-style sham, piggybacking on popular movie of the same title also amounts to fraud.

    Also, I have confidential information that some knowledgeable anti-troll lawyers may be involved soon…. 😉

    Does, stay strong! Keep creating troubles for scumbag lawyers, file motions, file a lot of motions!

  3. troll hunter says:

    Great work. I hope this gets to all the a holes out there looking to start a new case. WE WILL FIGHT BACK!!!!!!!

  4. Baxter says:

    Do you know the following already (as an example, how they make money according to their slogan “Turn Piracy Into Profit”)?


    And here you can see what’s (official) being registered at the German register of Companies:


    There is actually no “UG” anymore and according to the british register of companies (http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk) there is no “Ltd.” either…


    OK, that’s it for the moment. Don’t worry and enjoy….

    If you need more evidences that show how they are betraying people, just let me know… 😉

    Take care and many greetings from Germany,


  5. Monkey says:

    So I should just print this motion and mail to the ISP, Court and troll laywer without changing anything? How will my ISP know to hold my info if I don’t specify my IP addrss and/or Joe#?

    Please, make it clear for newbies.
    Thank you,

    • DieTrollDie says:

      1. Yes, but the ISP may want you to write your IP address on the motion you fax to them – that is so they don’t release your information until the judge rules on the motion. If the ISP does release the IP addresses other than yours, the Trolls will likely determined what IP filed the motion. What the ISP should do (but are too scared or stupid) is hold all the subscriber information back until the judge rules on the motion. As I have stated a couple time, don’t worry too much, the Trolls don’t want to actually take anyone to court for a fight. That would cost them more money and they know they have a good chance of losing.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      • Anonymous says:

        Thank you for all the clarity, DieTrollDie. I received the letter you described from The McDaniel Law Firm today. It reads as you describe, an attempt to collect a settlement amount in lieu of alleged thousands in court fees. If I clearly understand the posts, this must mean that my ISP already released information about me? It appears that doing nothing is the right answer at this point? Although I can see the benefit in sending the Quash requests, I’d honestly prefer to not even waste a minute of my time if the suit is likely going away.

        As a side note to add to the all the other points of inappropriate actions the Plaintiff has made, my letter came addressed to me at a name that I have not legally held for over 15 years. I can’t even imagine how they could have possibly tied any current IP address of mine to the name they addressed my letter to. Seems I could argue the 3 year statute of limitations and also the “blind” attack against Does’ random IP addresses, proving they dont have a damn bit of proof.
        PS, I’ve never even heard of the movie at claim.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        If possible, please email me a copy of the settlement letter your received from these guys. I will ensure all your personal information is redacted from it before posting. Yes, too late to file a motion to quash. I would suggest not doing anything at this point. I asume you don’t live in the jurisdiction, so it is less of am issue for you. I don’t think you would have much luck with the three year statue of limitation, regardless of their name screw up. It is fitting, as this is a really piss-poor case. As ir is one of the large number John Does cases, I’m sure they are making money off many of the Does. Sad.

        I would call your ISP and find out from them the exact date they provided your information to the Troll. From that date, figure 120 days out and start preparing a motion to dismiss IAW Rule 4(m), failure to serve within 120 days. I think I have an example of one on the motions page. I would file this motion as ALL the Does. The judge then has to decide if he will dismiss it or ask the Troll to explain why it should not be dismissed. Even after dismissed, the Troll can refile, but it costs them another filing fee and paperwork.

        DieTrollDie 🙂

  6. doe 123 says:

    At least tell us how much they are trying to settle for?
    McDaniel are a reputable firm and I dont understand why are they involved with such a lawsuit?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      I can’t say what McDaniels reputation WAS, but associating themselves with such a law suit is bound to take them to bottom. As far far as why???? Why else – MONEY! These cases are a profit generating business – plain and simple. It varies, but a normal settlement amount is around $3,000. If only 50% of the Does settle for this amount, plaintiff and the Troll split $2,172,000 (724 Does X $3K). Wow! There is very little preventive benefit from these settlements – Non-disclosure agreements and nobody who refuses to settle with a Troll is taken to actual trial. Yes there have been a couple of default judgements against Does who refused to do anything, but otherwise it is a FEAR = Cash game. The Trolls and copyright owners know they will never end piracy, but the influx of cash is loved by them.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

  7. jon doe says:

    whats this new development all about ? see RFC EXpress
    Baseprotect USA, Inc. v. Swarm # 6F3E88FE60CA4A30467E1F93EEDE61B787BFCE07 et al

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