VA Judge Recommends Severing All But Doe #1 In Nine Cases

Sorry this is a very short post.  Don’t have enough time right now to do a full analysis.  Take a look at the attached Court recommendation that for nine cases, all but Doe#1 be severed from them.  Please provide your thoughts on this, as well as any information you have on these cases.  There are eight Malibu Media cases and one Patrick Collins case.


    • 1:12cv159 (CMH/TRJ)
    • 1:12cv160 (CMH/TRJ)
    • 1:12cv161 (CMH/TRJ)
    • 1:12cv162 (CMH/TRJ)
    • 1:12cv163 (CMH/TRJ)
    • 1:12cv164 (CMH/TRJ)
    • 1:12cv165 (CMH/TRJ)
    • 1:12cv166 (CMH/TRJ)
    • 1:12cv167 (CMH/TRJ)

Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommends that all but the first of the Doe defendants in each of these matters be severed, and that plaintiffs then be permitted to serve discovery on these remaining defendants’ internet service providers to learn their identities.

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 -
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to VA Judge Recommends Severing All But Doe #1 In Nine Cases

  1. Raul says:

    Hey D. Wayne O’Bryan didn’t you see this one coming you hapless idiot? Great news for the Does as the EDVA has become inhospitable for Trolls.

  2. Just Another Doe says:

    The nice thing here is: No Soup For You! Discovery was blocked on all severed Does.

  3. anonymous says:

    What I don’t understand here is that the judge “recommends” severing all but one defendant per case but does not *order* it.

    In this context does recommend = order?

    • njfgjndfg says:

      the magistrate judge is recommending the district judge to sever all but does #1 in each case. not final yet, but a very good sign.

  4. Doe-eyed_Deer says:

    Why would they not sever the first doe?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Because the judge beleives the Troll has shown enough “prima facie” evidence to justify getting the ISP subscriber information – Alleged copyright infringement took place and they recorded the public IP address. The Troll hasn’t shown enough evidence to justify that the remaining Does are properly joinded together for the entire period of the “swarm.” The judge told the troll to either file single cases or refile with the proper evidence showing the same act to support joinder (doubtful they have it). The judge didn’t buy the claim that if the SHA-1 Hash is the same, all the Does are properly joined.

      DTD 🙂

      • To complement DTD’s reply: trolls usually don’t go after Doe#1 after the severance. Sometimes they do, but only to create an impression that the game they play is legit and not a scam, either way they do it reluctantly since litigating is not their goal: it draws resources from more important stuff: shaking down Does en masse.

  5. Raul says:

    On 4-17 Troll O’Bryan put in some opposition papers to the R & R but the Judges appear to be ignoring him

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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