Patrick Collins v. Does 1-33 (Colorado), Case 1:11-cv-02163-CMA-MJW (“Party Girls”)

At the request of a Doe, I took a look at a recent Colorado Case, Patrick Collins v. John Does 1-33, 1:11-cv-02163-CMA-MJW, filed on 18 Aug 11. 

The complaint shows the same old template Patrick Collins and K-Beech use in many of their copyright infringement cases.  The Troll for this one is Jason Kotzker – has other Colorado cases pending right now.  In fact there is a hear schedule for this case and his others for 31 Oct 11.  The judge is trying to determine if all the Does except #1 should be severed.  Here is the basics.

  • The work is “Party Girls″ (SHA-1 Hash: C637FE905DAE99EBB501ADCB2F75DA8B0EE37118)
  • They claim each of the John Does installed a BitTorrent client on their computer and downloaded/shared the movie.
  • IP address and BitTorrent information was collected by IPP, Limited (IPP) – previously seen in other cases. As far I know, this software and the agents using it have never been tested in a lab or in court.
  • Plaintiff claim ALL the Does took part in the same series of transactions. Range of activity noted by Plaintiff – 1st Doe (#4) was seen at 28 May 2011, 8:16 AM UTC; Last Doe (#30) was observed at 19 July 2011, 2:21 AM UTC.
  • Approximately time frame of just under two months.
  • Plaintiff attached the application for copyright for Party Girls. Filed the application on 26 May 2011. The date of first publication for Party Girls is 10 April 2011. 

 A Motion template for this case is in the “Motions” page.   

Here are some of the case files.

Collins_CO_02163_main  Collins_CO_02163_1-1  Collins_CO_02163_1-2  Collins_CO_02163_1-3  Collins_CO_02163_1-4  Collins_CO_02163_1-5  Collins_CO_02163_1-6  Preserve_Data_Order_02163  Hearing_Order_31Oct11_02163

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 1:11-cv-02163-CMA-MJW, bitTorrent, copyright, copyright Troll, IPP, IPP Limited, Jason Kotzker, Kotzker Law Group, Party Girls, Patrick Collins and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Patrick Collins v. Does 1-33 (Colorado), Case 1:11-cv-02163-CMA-MJW (“Party Girls”)

  1. Scott says:

    Could you look into case 4:11-cv-03036 and post a modified motion to quash if at all possible.

  2. DorkTroll says:

    Looks like more of the same old shtick. I find it funny that IPP claims/acts like they have some kind of super software involved to get this info when it’s so obvious all they have are people on home computers/laptops just joining up in a swarm and then making lists of all the IP’s they connect to/connect to them. Then they just sift through the list looking for whoever is supposedly in their state based on the IP and voila; they file a suit. Anyone could get this information. It’s so flimsy and pathetic.

  3. Raul says:

    Yet another case where there is no certificate of copyright registration (?!) so sections 411 (a) and 412 of the Federal Copyright Act may come into play. Also Colorado is within the Tenth Circuit so this might be applicable as well http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1071058.html

  4. Larro says:

    I just want to say thank you. I got a copy of the Subpoena from Comcast. I was really worried because I had an open network back then due to the ridiculous number of WiFi connections I needed just in my home. I have since locked down the network but was unsure how to respond to this. I read your motion and agree with it entirely. I’m not in the legal profession and was very worried when I received this information. Just want to say thank you again for giving me and my family peace of mind.

  5. Doe #N says:

    You know…not to sound like a douche, but I checked on RFC express and it seems that Mr. Kotzker is getting everything he wants. I mean do we even stand a chance here…Suddenly, Joinder is acceptable. Does anybody even stand a chance here?

  6. TL says:

    Any update with this? Looks like they are going to release the information tomorrow.

  7. TL says:

    Thanks,

    I got the letter from Comcast as well and am one of the does in this case. I only got the letter 2 weeks ago and haven’t filed anything. I’m pretty confused.

  8. Doe says:

    It looks like someone filed a quash motion P_Collins_CO_Quash_Motion_02163 in your motions link.
    What was the result of this? Was this filed for all 33 does?

  9. Doe#x says:

    Does anyone have any updates?

  10. FJ says:

    I am interested as well

  11. Angie says:

    Is this still in process or has it been dropped? I guess I need to go on RFC and pay for all of the court documents… I am also a Doe in this case… I dont even know what this is about… Is my boyfriend downloading things on my account?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Hello,

      I will try to take a look at what the docket states and post an update.

      If possible can you email me what you received from your ISP and the Troll? I will will not release you information.

      The Troll and their information collectors identified your IP address as downloading/sharing a copyright protected movie. If you haven’t already done so, please read the following post – https://dietrolldie.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/taken-from-the-files-of-%e2%80%9cdon%e2%80%99t-panic%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cwhat-can-i-expect%e2%80%9d/

      As far as is your BF downloading porn through your network? It is possible. Depending on how you have your network set-up, it could be a neighbor doing it. I assume you have a WiFi Firewall/Router that you and your BF connect to the Internet through. If you are running the WiFi Firewall/Router “Open” (i.e. NO password required), that means anyone close enough to “see” your WiFi signal can access the Internet through your connection. These rogue connections can then conduct various Internet activities and the only record someone will see is your “Public” IP address (the one from your ISP).

      Be warned that the Trolls don’t care if your BF or a neighbor did this. They will state that this is no excuse, your are still responsible, and they claim they will take you to trial. A load of BS in my opinion. Don’t talk to the Troll.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

    • DieTrollDie says:

      PACER shows the case is still ongoing – Does and Does with lawyers have filed various motions. The 120 day point from the initial case filing is approx. 18 Dec 11. You can file a Motion to Dismiss based or failure to name and serve defenadants by 120 days (Rule 4(m)), but probably have a better chance with 120 days from release of your subscriber information by the ISP. Take a look at the Motion to Dismiss Template (https://dietrolldie.wordpress.com/motions/) – Rule 4(m), as it cites a Patrick Collins case in Northern CA: 1 Dec 2011, order (Order For Plaintiff To File Declaration RE Case Status) from Judge Maria-Elena James, Northern District of California, for case #3:11-CV-02766-MEJ, Patrick Collins v. Does 1-2590. In this order, the court stated,

      “Since granting Plaintiff’s request, a check of the Court’s docket disclosed that no defendant has appeared and no proof of service has been filed. Further, the Court is aware that this case is but one of the many “mass copyright” cases to hit the dockets of federal district courts across the country in recent months. Like in this case, after filing the suit, the plaintiff seeks discovery from ISPs who possess sub-scriber information associated with each IP address. With the subscriber informa-tion in hand, the court is told, the plaintiff can proceed to name the defendants in the conventional manner and serve each defendant, so that the case may proceed to disposition. This disposition might take the form of settlement, summary judg-ment, or if necessary, trial. In most, if not all, of these cases, if the plaintiff is permitted the requested discovery, none of the Doe defendants are subsequently named in the cases; instead, the plaintiff’s counsel sends settlement demand letters and the defendants are subsequently dismissed either by the Court or voluntarily by the plaintiff.”

      1:11-cv-02163-CMA-MJW Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-33
      Christine M. Arguello, presiding
      Michael J. Watanabe, referral
      Date filed: 08/18/2011
      Date of last filing: 12/01/2011

  12. Doe # N says:

    So far, I entered the first motion to quash and then a lawyer filed a motion to quash for does 1-33. We are quickly approaching the 120 day mark. Is there anything I or we should file on or before the 120 days?

  13. Angie says:

    Any more updates?

  14. Angie says:

    Anyone? I see alot of activity on RFC Express

  15. Doe #N says:

    This flipping judge partially denies my motion and refuses to rule? Then he grants the extension of “Time to Effectuate Service on Doe Defendants up to and including 2/16/2012” Don’t be worried? Why……

  16. Angie says:

    These are the latest updates? Can anyone more familiar with these type of things explain to me what is going on?

    1/30/2012 50 MINUTE ORDER granting 49 Unopposed Motion to be Excused from Attendance at January 31, 2012 Status Conference. Counsel for Defendant John Doe #6, Stewart Cables, is excused from participating at the Status Conference on January 31, 2012 at 9:00 a.m., by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/30/2012.(mjwcd) (Entered: 01/30/2012)

    1/30/2012 49 First MOTION to Exclude J.Doe #6 from Status Conference by Defendant John (6) Doe. (Cables, Stewart) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
    1/30/2012 48 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal of Party John Doe 20 by Plaintiff Patrick Collins, Inc. (Kotzker, Jason) (Entered: 01/30/2012)

    1/27/2012 47 MINUTE ORDER granting 45 Motion to Continue Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference. Status Conference set for 1/31/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/27/12.(jjpsl, ) (Entered: 01/27/2012)

    1/26/2012 46 MEMORANDUM regarding 45 MOTION to Continue Rule 16(b) Conference filed by Patrick Collins, Inc. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 01/26/12. Text Only Entry (cmasec) (Entered: 01/26/2012)

  17. Raul says:

    Not much; on motion of the plaintiff to adjourn the Scheduling Conference (set up a discovery schedule) the Judge changed it to a Status Conference (advise the court as to what is going on with the case). John Doe 6 and his attorney, on motion, were excused from attending this conference for reasons that I not privy to, having not read the motion to excuse.

  18. Angie says:

    So how do we look? Any chance of getting this dropped? You would think the judge would see how ridiculous these lawsuits are.

  19. Angie says:

    What do these most recent updates mean?

    2/10/2012 55 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Patrick Collins, Inc.. (Kotzker, Jason) (Entered: 02/10/2012)

    2/8/2012 54 ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEVER re: 20 First MOTION to Quash Subpoena, 18 MOTION to Quash, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 2/8/2012. It is ORDERED that the motions to sever (Doc. ## 18, 20) be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE insofar as they request the Court to sever Doe Defendants 2-33 from this action. (jjpsl, ) (Entered: 02/09/2012)

  20. Angie says:

    Latest: Someone please explain. My legal knowledge is lacking.

    2/13/2012 56 ORDER granting 41 Motion to Compel Compliance to Subpoena, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/13/2012.(mjwcd) (Entered: 02/13/2012)

  21. anonymous says:

    Angie, the Judge had ordered Comcast to produce the identities of the unknown doe defendants within 10 days.

  22. anonymous says:

    That should read “The Judge has ordered”

  23. Angie says:

    Great 😦

  24. anonymous says:

    That doesn’t mean that Comcast will comply. But, I would be surprised if they didn’t. It looks like Qwest released the subscriber info after the initial order.

  25. Angie says:

    Yeah hopefully they will not comply…But I doubt it as well… I guess I need to get ready for the phone calls and letters. I have looked at the other cases in colorado with the same plaintiff and judge and they have almost all been dismissed. This seems to be the only one that is going this far.

  26. Angie says:

    Well they already complied… I just got my first call from Patrick Collins inc… I did not answer. The message just said that they “want to explain the case to me” and “help me pick my my best option”

    Should I just keep ignoring the calls and letting them go to voicemail? This is really stressing me out.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Try not to stress out. The Trolls love the smell of fear. My personal recommendation is to answer the phone one time and give them the “Richard Pryor Response” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVdCZ2G06dc).

      Tell them this and only this. Don’t get mad or argumentative – that is what they want.
      1) I didn’t do it
      2) The movie is not on my system
      3) I will fight you in court
      4) Have a nice day and don’t call back

      Follow this as a script and DON’T talk about anything else. Make sure you document the Who, What, Where, When, Why, & How of the conversation. Keep this information in a folder, just in case you ever need it. Be sure to add to it when they continue to call and email with threats. Documentation is key.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

  27. Angie says:

    The number that called me was 818-748-6023

  28. Larry says:

    I just took that call by mistake. They want $2850.00 to settle. I was pressured into giving him a date to put in the settlement letter. I didn’t give him one but was threatened that once this goes to court I will no longer be anonymous. I have the same question as Angie.

  29. Larry says:

    Just re-read the blog.. Feb 18 is the 120 day mark. Does that put us in the clear or now that they have our names we can expect more?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      OK. Haven’t had a chance to look again, but is that 120 days since the start of the case? If so, I wouldadjust your calculations to 120 since the Troll got your name. Saying that, I would have a Motion to dismiss ready to go once the time is right. If it is a multiple Doe case, I keep my IP address/Doe # off of it. Just have to tell the court that the Troll has had your true name since (date) and has not served you. There are no negociations ongoing to reach a settlement and request the court dismiss the case based on the failure to serve a summons by day 120. Even if the judge grants the Troll more time to serve summons, he is going to first have to explain to the judge why it is taking so long – time is money.

      • JohnD says:

        Does the 120 days from having your name hold true for the “bill of discovery” cases?
        Do I need a lawyer to request dismissal?

        thanks again for your great work DTD !!!

      • DieTrollDie says:

        The “Pure Bill of Doscovery” is a strange (and old) case type. The only thing it is used for is to obtain information from a deffendant – for us, that means obtaining subscriber information from the ISP. Once that information is obtained, the case is over. The Troll then has to file a Federal copyright infringement case in the correct jurisdiction. They are not going to do this. Once they have the subscriber information, the settlement demands start to go out to the Does.

        “This article examines the ancient equitable remedyCourt-ordered action that directs parties to do or not to do something; such remedies include injunctive relief and Specific Performance. Alternatively, a non-monetary remedy, such as an Injunction known as a pure bill of discovery. A pure bill of discovery is initiated by filing a complaint which seeks relief in the form of discovery. It is usually brought to obtain disclosure of facts within a defendant’s knowledge, or of deeds or writings or other things in the defendant’s custody, or in the aid of prosecution or defense of an action in some other court. (1) A pure bill of discovery is distinguished from other types of bills for discovery in that the only relief sought is discovery, and nothing else. (2) Filings of complaints for a pure bill of discovery have been limited since the adoption of modern rules of procedure. Most discovery requirements in cases can be met by using the standard methods available in the rules. Nevertheless, a complaint for a pure bill of discovery can satisfy certain needs that can not be met under the rules.”
        — From the Article, The complaint for a pure bill of discovery: a living, breathing modern day dinosaur?http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+complaint+for+a+pure+bill+of+discovery%3a+a+living%2c+breathing…-a0114167255

  30. Angie says:

    I think they got our names today. This is the first time I have been contacted since the initial letter from Comcast several months ago.

    So is the best thing to do to just keep ignoring the trolls?

  31. Angie says:

    Thanks DieTrollDie…. I just saw your response above and I will follow the script.

  32. Doe says:

    Can people share stories to whether Trolls stopped calling without settlement? There is a new set of case in Colorado with Malibu Media filed by same attorney as Patrick Collins case. It would be helpful to get some advice.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Each Troll is different, but they will eventually move onto other cases/Does that are more likely to pay-up. Take a look at some of the previous Kotzer CO cases. Are they still on-going or has he closed them and moved onto you and the other Does. Were any Does named and served with a summons – NO!

      DTD 🙂

      • Doe says:

        Thanks DTD,

        I hope my cases move like that.

        I was thinking of MTQ, but decided not to as its going to cost me money to get an attorney and have no time to fill one out myself.

        It seems like they get shut down pretty fast.

  33. Larro/larry says:

    After they called me that one time and I talked to the guy who demanded a settlement. He called back once.. didn’t answer. Nothing now for two weeks knock on wood.

  34. Raul says:

    So this Kotzker troll from Colorado must have make a pile of loot off his local trolling because last week he filed at least eight Malibu Media and Patrick Collins cases in the Eastern District of New York. One of them (case 2:12-cv-01146-JS-ETB) was assigned to Judge E. Thomas Boyle who had earlier opened my eyes as to the issue of copyright registration with this http://ia600707.us.archive.org/19/items/gov.uscourts.nyed.319938/gov.uscourts.nyed.319938.10.0.pdf
    He is supposed to be an expert in the area of copyright law so it will be interesting to see what he does with this particular troll lawsuit.

  35. Anonymous says:

    http://www.ipinbrief.com/ending-confusion-re-statutory-damages-i/

    Raul, have you seen this series of articles? An in-depth look at statutory damages in copyright cases, by some actual IP lawyers.

    I discovered these a while back and they motivated me to search the Copyright Office’s online registration database for some of the works in Troll cases. I discovered at that time that many of Prenda’s (then Steele | Hansmeier) cases, particularly Hard Drive Productions, Inc. cases, were brought for alleged infringement of works that did not appear in the online registration database. I began to hammer this point on the blogs covering these cases, but was a little bit unsure of my conclusion because as a layman I did not know if the online database was a definitive source for registrations, or if there is a more correct and reliable way to check if a work was registered when your really need to know (i.e. you are being threatened with a copyright infringement lawsuit). My suspicions were ultimately validated by the Wong complaint, which made me feel pretty satisfied for putting that piece of the puzzle together as it was a critical mistake on the Trolls’ part that was apparently overlooked even by the attorneys covering these cases.

    One particularly interesting point the article makes is that in a mass-style lawsuit, the plaintiff would be entitled to a single award of statutory damages. So in the extremely unlikely even that a Troll were to go all the way and win a mass-Doe case against all the Does, they would at best get $150,000 to divide among all the Does, which would actually be considerably less per Doe than they would make with a 100% settlement rate given the huge numbers of Does in some cases. In a 1000+ Doe case it would be $150 or less per Doe… A very sad reflection on the state of US law and the Troll’s abuse of the system, that they may be making dramatically more money than if they actually had to put in the work to win these cases.

  36. Raul says:

    You are correct, I was clued onto this, like you, after learning that the trolls were suing for copyright infringement on non-registered DVDs because it naturally led into the issue of statutory damages. The seminal case I stumbled upon was this one which enabled me to breath a lot easier https://dietrolldie.com/2011/10/25/patrick-collins-v-does-1-33-colorado-case-111-cv-02163-cma-mjw-party-girls/#comment-1438 Since stumbling upon this fact I have been screaming in the blogs about how the troll is only entitled to “actual damages” if (1) you live in a state that applies the “registration” as opposed to the “application” approach to copyright registration and (2) the alleged infringement occurred before the certificate of copyright registration is issued. To make matters even more ridiculous, I have since learned that certain pornographers like K-Beech take another pornography distributor’s copyrighted product, rename/repackage it, fraudulently apply for a copyright/obtain a copyright and then sue Does for alleged copyright infringement for a DVD that has absolutely no original content. For example go to http://www.adultdvdempire.com/and compare K-Beech’s 2010 “Gang Bang Virgins” with Combat Zone’s 2006 “Grand Slam”. Copyright infringement indeed!

  37. Raul says:

    “Actual damages” being a lost sale of the DVD which would translate into the cost of the DVD ($20.00) being divided by the number of Does in a particular suit. Talk about a waste of a judge’s limited time which is why these dipshits should be obligated to pay a filing fee for each individual suit they file and not be permitted joinder of ten, hundreds or thousands of Does. F%cking parasites!

  38. Raul says:

    This is embarrassing if the comment which is awaiting moderation gets posted the link is wrong regarding statutory damages it should be this http://www.loeb.com/files/Publication/53b6a05b-fa96-4897-a434-23681e51db60/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/47a63104-4dcd-4b43-a886-ab89aa532640/Arista%20Records%20v%20Lime%20Wire%20SDNY%20March%2018%202011.pdf
    If Steele were to call me a tech retard her would be close.

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