Sorry for the short post here, but I wanted to get this out so everyone can read and digest the information contained in the hearing transcript and other related documents. I will do some follow-up posting as I can. Also, if you are a MA Doe for one of the Marvin Cable (C.E.G.) cases, please see the note at the bottom of the post. 😉
Have fun with this one Marvin!
Samuel Perkins (Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten, LLP) Represents Doe 22 in 1:12-cv-10805, Discount Video center, Inc., v. John Does 1-29. On 30 Jul 12, a hearing took place in regarding Doe 22’s Motion to Quash. 12CV10805doe22.tn.mhrg.07-30-12
Sorry it is so long of a read, but I think you will enjoy it. The other documents are the Supplemental Memo from Doe 22, Motion for a Protective Order, and a Response from Troll Cable. Doe 22 Supplemental Memo Doe 22 Mot Protec Ord Filed Cable 8-7 Response
Here is one interesting bit from Doe 22’s Supplemental Memo:
At the hearing on Doe 22’s motion, held July 30, the Court asked plaintiff’s counsel whether the court-approved subpoenas seeking subscriber names and addresses were simply a “first step” in finding the infringer:
THE COURT: — and what you’re seeking is the subscriber’s identity as the first step, so you can figure out who the infringer might be. And then once you figure that out, you can substitute for Doe whatever, whichever Doe it is, the name of the person you believe to have been the infringer or the persons of Doe –
MR. CABLE: Right.
Transcript 7-30, p. 23.
In fact, however, Mr. Cable and his client have no interest in ferreting out the true infringer: the target victims are the subscribers, and they always were. Exhibit A to this memorandum is a copy of a letter Mr. Cable sent to a Comcast subscriber July 5, 2012, after Comcast had responded to his subpoena with the names and addresses of the subscribers identified by IP address in his complaint in Combat Zone, Inc. v.
Does 1-22, C.A. 3:12-cv-30086-MAP.1 (The name and address are redacted.) Once Mr. Cable had the identity of the subscriber, he applied the screws:
Pursuant to a Court-approved subpoena in [this] case, the Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) named above and other ISPs have disclosed personally identifiable information about such subscribers, and you have been identified as one of those subscribers.
On behalf of Plaintiff, we will formally name you as a defendant (i.e., as an alleged infringer of Plaintiffs copyright in the above-named motion picture) in the above-identified case or in a subsequent case if you do not reach a settlement by the close of business on Wednesday, July 25, 2012.
In connection with any such case, we will seek, among other things, an award against you for damages of up to $150,000 for willful infringement, and up to $30,000 for non-willful infringement. . . .
To settle your infringement now, the settlement fee is $4,500.00. As indicated above, the settlement fee must be received by us, on behalf of Plaintiff, by the close of business on Wednesday, July 25, 2012. Otherwise, we will proceed to enforce Plaintiff’s copyright with the understanding that you do not intend to resolve this matter without a lawsuit.
Exhibit A, July 5 Letter of Marvin Cable (emphasis added).
Call For MA Does
Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten, LLP, are working on defending Doe for these cases. They would be interested to hear from any MA Does who would like to be the lead Plaintiff in a possible law suit against C.E.G. (including its clients & lawyers).
Samuel Perkins (Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten, LLP)
1 Exeter Plaza
Boston, MA 02116