Short Update on VA case 3:11-cv-00469-JAG, K-Beech Inc., v. Does 1-85

A check of PACER disclosed a 7 Nov 11, notice of filing of official transcript.  The transcript is from the 24 Oct 11, hearing.  Notice_of_Transcript_00649_VA

On November 3, 2011, the Court Reporter filed an official transcript for a hearing held on October 24, 2011. The parties have 30 calendar days to file a Redaction Request requesting only personal identifiers (Social Security Numbers, financial account numbers, names of minor children, dates of birth, and home addresses) in the transcript be redacted. If no such request is filed, the transcript will become remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.  Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may purchase a copy from the court reporter or view the document at the Clerk’s Office public terminal.

Well it looks like we will not know the exact details of the hearing until 1 Feb 12 (90 days).  😦

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 3:11cv469-JAG and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Short Update on VA case 3:11-cv-00469-JAG, K-Beech Inc., v. Does 1-85

  1. Raul says:

    Some very interesting motion practice is going on in the Southern District of New York in the case entitled K-Beech v. John Does 1-21 (1:11-cv-04777 (GBD)). Check it out http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/new-york-southern-district-court/77865/k-beech-inc-v-john-does-1-21/summary/

    For example:

    1. One of the parties being represented by an attorney is filing as Anonymous for a protective order and to quash as he is the son of a listed John Doe. One of the arguments is that Anonymous downloaded the movie but he is not the computer /router owner so his frail/infirm father is being improperly named as a John Doe on the subpoena.

    2. Another argument is that New York is a state that requires a certificate of copyright registration as a condition precedent to bringing a lawsuit for copyright infringement and K-Beech does not have a certificate of copyright for the movie “Virgins 4” but has only APPLIED of one which is not good enough for the Southern District of New York to make out a claim for copyright imfringement. See, http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/2:2011cv03331/319938/10/0.pdf?1316528006

    3. Apparently realizing that its copyright infringement claim is premature and, accordingly, dismissable sua sponte the plaintiff is rolling out claims for violations of the Lanham Act Section 43(a) which deals with unregistered trademarks (?!). The attorney representing Anonymous quickly disposes of this desperate argument with aplomb.

  2. Raul says:

    Likewise the fur is flying in the Eastern District of New York in the case entitled K-Beech, Inc. v. John Does 1-37 with what looks like 7 motions to quash currently pending. Check it out here http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/new-york-eastern-district-court/79821/k-beech-inc-v-john-does-1-37/summary/

    I would note that it is the same troll representing K-Beech in this case and in the above one (local troll that is because we all know who is calling the shots in Illinois).

  3. Just Another Doe says:

    I’ve read the transcript. There is NOTHING for any Does to redact. Everything in the transcript is already common knowledge: It is alleged the plaintiff to be using court improperly. It is the right of the defendant to defend himself. The method of implementing the “scheme” are talked about. Judge Gibney ordered the plaintiff to find new counsel. I don’t want to share much more than that as it’s taking food off the Court Reporter’s table, until it becomes a public document in February.

  4. DJ says:

    Anything new in this case?

  5. Raul says:

    Not much I am afraid; the Judge decided not to impose Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorney (which kinda sucks) and Doe1’s attorney accepted service of the summons and complaint on behalf of his client on 12-30-11.

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