Copyright Troll “Double Tap” Tactics

9 Nov 2012 Update

On 9 Nov 12, Judge Charles Breyer, granted Nicholas Ranallo’s motion to post undertaking in AF Holding LLC., v. David Trinh, 3:12-cv-02393.   TRINH UNDERTAKING GRANTED   This was the motion to require AF Holding LLC to post a security bond in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1030.  Ranallo requested a bond of $88,000 but judge Breyer decided that $48,000 was appropriate.  Of course not as high as we would have liked it, but it is still a success.

Judge Breyer decision was based on 1) AF Holdings LLC is a foreign company & 2) The Defendant has a reasonable probability of getting a judgment in his favor.

Defendant has demonstrated that Plaintiff is a foreign corporation. See Comp. (dkt.  13) ¶ 2 (“Plaintiff AF Holdings LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing  under the laws of the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis.”). Defendant has also shown a  reasonable probability that he will obtain a judgment in his favor. He has done so by noting  that Plaintiff’s current evidence of infringement is weak. See Mot. at 7 (citing SBO Pictures,  Inc. v. Does 1-3036, No. 11-4220 SC, 2011 WL 6002620, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011)  (“As many courts have noted, however, the ISP subscriber to whom a certain IP address was  assigned may not be the same person who used the Internet connection for illicit purposes.”).  He has also done so by noting that Plaintiff’s negligence claim is deeply flawed. See Mot. at  11 (citing Trinh Ex. B, an order of Judge Hamilton in AF Holdings v. John Doe & Josh  Hatfield, No. 12-2049 PJH (dkt. 26) at 4 (dismissing similar negligence claim and explaining  that defendant had no duty to prevent infringement of plaintiff’s copyrighted works)).

The judge ordered Plaintiff to post the $48,000 bond no later than 30 days from this order or the case will be dismissed.

The first shot of the double tap has been a success and I’m sure there will be more to follow.  What a nice start to the weekend.



Well I’m back home and things are crazy as usual.  Sorry if my response to some of you has been a bit slow.  Recently we have had a variety of interesting developments in Copyright Troll cases across the US.  So much so that I wish I had a clone to assist me in analyzing and reporting it all.  The war against Copyright Trolls is being fought on many levels and by some extremely bright individuals and firms.  We are a couple of years into this fight and I don’t expect it to end very soon.  What I do see is the effect all of you are having on how the Trolls operate.  Please don’t give into FUD.  You assistance, no matter how small is welcome and needed. 

For those of you who have the willingness to fight or if you are being forced to, I have a double tap tactic you should consider using.  These tactics came from attorneys Nicholas Ranallo and Robert Cashman.  Thank you gentlemen.

Show Me The Money

On 5 Oct 12, Ranallo submitted a motion to require Plaintiff (AF Holding LLC) to post a financial bond in the sum of $85,000.   1030Bond_Motion_02393(CA)   This was on case 3:12-cv-02393, AF Holding LLC., v. David Trinh, Northern District of CA.   Docket    Ranallo used the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1030 to justify the motion for a financial bond from Plaintiff.  CA CCP 1030 is very straight forward. 

(a)When the plaintiff in an action or special proceeding resides out of the state, or is a foreign corporation, the defendant may at any time apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to file an undertaking to secure an award of costs and attorney’s fees which may be awarded in the action or special proceeding. For the purposes of this section, “attorney’s fees” means reasonable attorney’s fees a party may be authorized to recover by a statute apart from this section or by contract.

(b)The motion shall be made on the grounds that the plaintiff resides out of the state or is a foreign corporation and that there is a reasonable possibility that the moving defendant will obtain judgment in the action or special proceeding. The motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit in support of the grounds for the motion and by a memorandum of points and authorities. The affidavit shall set forth the nature and amount of the costs and attorney’s fees the defendant has incurred and expects to incur by the conclusion of the action or special proceeding.

On 16 Nov 12, Judge Charles R. Breyer will determine if a bond is needed and the amount required to be posted by Plaintiff.  As you can imagine Prenda Law LLC was not amused.  On 19 Oct 12, Brett Gibbs (at least his signature is on the response) filed a response to the motion.   Gibbs_Reply_1030_02393(CA)  Gibbs_Reply_EXA_02393(CA)   Reading this response was amusing and I saw who was the “True” author of it – John Steele.  On 26 Oct 12, Ranallo made his response to Gibbs/Steele and had the tact not to engage in personal attacks that Steele needs to bolster his ego and the pending downfall of one of his cases.  You have to ask, “What has gotten you so riled up John?”  😉  Take the time to read Ranallo’s response and you will see professionalism.   Ranallo_Reply_1030_02393(CA)

I don’t know Judge Breyer, but the way CA CP 1030 is written, I think it will be hard to dismiss it and not require a bond to be issued.  1) AF Holdings LLC is a foreign Company & 2) There is a reasonable possibility that Trinh will be successful.  What this motion does is make the Plaintiff put up the funds to cover a defeat.  This goes against one of the founding principles of these unholy alliances – The Troll foots most (if not all) of the cost up front and is paid out when the settlements come in.  With this motion, Plaintiff now has to take on the risk.  This is not a risk the Troll or Plaintiff wants, as unless they can get somebody to make an admission, all they have is the public IP address of a defendant (Weak Evidence).  This alone is justification that a Plaintiff can lose.  We saw this in the Wong, Abrahams, and Hatfield cases.  More to come on this interesting tactic. 

“Joinder Is Proper” (Troll Quote)

This one comes from the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s site.  On 26 Oct 12, Cashman suggested a new tactic where a defendant in a single defendant case (previously part of a mass one) motions the court to either dismiss the second case or join all the previous Does to the current one.  Force a copyright troll to fight the WHOLE BITTORRENT SWARM every time he names someone.

The dismissal of the single case would be because:  1) The mass-Doe case (single Doe is part of) was filed first.  &  2) Joinder of ALL relevant parties is required by federal rules.  Now if the mass-Doe case has been fully dismissed, the motion would be to join all the previous defendants to the new case.

Please read Cashman’s article, but the basic premise on doing this is to make the Troll fight a case with as many defendants as possible.  Even if the mass-Doe case only has 17 defendants, the Troll will be unable to cope.  It isn’t a matter of the Troll being incompetent (well some are), just the logistics would require all the Troll’s efforts and finances.  They would not have the time to file new cases or issuing settlement demands to Does.  Now the Trolls are going to whine to the court that the Defendants are just gaming the system to their advantage and should be dismissed.  What makes it hard for the court to dismiss such a motion is by using the Trolls’ own words (and case filings) against them.  Here is one example from Prenda Law case # 5:11-cv-03336, AF Holdings LLC., V. Does 1-135 (NDCA), filed on 7 Jul 11.  Note: This is the mass-Doe case Joshua Hatfield was initially part of.   

5. Joinder of Defendants is proper for just adjudication because all Defendants participated in a civil conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, which comprised of a series of transactions that ultimately ended in the Doe Defendants’ illicit distribution of Plaintiff’s unique copyrighted work amongst one another. The series of transactions in this case involved exchanging pieces of the Work’s file over the Internet amongst Doe Defendants with each Doe Defendant sharing pieces of Plaintiff’s copyrighted file with each other (otherwise known as “torrent swarming”) to obtain a complete copy of Plaintiff’s Work. The nature of the BitTorrent distribution protocol necessitates a concerted action by many people in order to disseminate files, such as Plaintiff’s Work…

Here is what the Federal rules say about “JoinderThe motion to join all relevant parties would go something like this.  Your Honor, Plaintiff has previously claimed in case # 5:11-cv-03336, that all Doe defendants were properly joined.  Plaintiff now tries to claim joinder is not supported, but fails to provide any justification or evidence to support this view. The legal principle of Estoppel prevents Plaintiff from doing this. 

The best the Troll can try to do is state that since the Doe was not “named” in the first case, that the cases are not related.  Yes it is a sad little argument, but we have already seen Prenda try to claim this.  The argument is extremely weak when you bring out the Troll settlement demand letter or emails stating in no uncertain terms that you are responsible for the copyright infringement because of the public IP address associated to your name.

This tactic could also be used to force the Troll to disclose the Doe identities it obtained from the mass case, as well as who settled.  The fact some Does settled under a confidentiality agreement would not prevent a defendant from gaining access to their identities.  The Does from the mass case may have information relevant to the single defendant’s defense and/or counterclaims against Plaintiff.  Even on a worse-case scenario where a defendant loses, the amount of settlements collected by the Troll is still relevant because they previously claimed ALL the Does were jointly and severally liable for this action.  There is case-law to support this (but I will not make it easy for the Troll at this time). 

Example – case 5:11-cv-03336, AF Holdings LLC., V. Does 1-135.  Prenda Law is actually successful is getting a judgment against a single defendant (don’t laugh!) for $100,000.  The defendant motions the court to have Prenda disclose the total amount of settlements it obtained from Does associated to 5:11-cv-03336.  The court would then have to determine how the settlements collected would adjust the amount owed by the defendant.  This adjustment would no doubt lessen the amount owed to Plaintiff. 

Sorry for running on so much, but both of these tactics are going to come back and bite the Trolls on their @#$!.  I can’t wait to see how the Section 1030 Bond motion fares next month.  As far as the motion to Join all relevant parties, I think the trolls are going to steer clear of Cashman in Texas.  Boy do we live in interesting times. 😉

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 Tactics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Copyright Troll “Double Tap” Tactics

  1. You guys (well, not you DTD) called Marc Randazza unethical for arguing against severance last month!

    For the record, I believe opposing severance is currently the right strategy. I articulated it more in detail on Cashman’s blog, but consider this. These are relatively well financed opponents. Taking an individual to trial would be easy and not all that expensive. You propound a discovery request and demand a copy of their hard drive. If the court allows it, you search it for the movie and the torrent file. If you find the movie the case is a slam dunk. If not, you try and build the case with circumstantial evidence – i.e., there is bittorrent on the system, other copyrighted works on the system (and torrent files reflecting they were downloaded), and a torrent investigator willing to testify that they saw the Doe in question downloading the file. Five day trial at tops, probably less.

    However, trying a case against hundreds of Does would be a bitch. First, trial would last over a year as each would have separate defense. Second, it would be extraordinarily costly for the plaintiff, as opposed to the Does, who could pool their resources. Having this many defendants evens the playing field.

    A year ago severance made good sense, because they just moved on after getting enough settlements. Now? Ehhhh… not so much. I believe they are going to try a few individuals successfully to a verdict. They are naming individuals, and I believe they’re going to want a few heads on a pike.

    If you get severed from the action, you’re just making yourself an easy target. If you’re situated with several other Does (even just 10 of them) it’s a much more difficult case to see all the way through.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      I think we are going to make the Troll have to take someone to full trial. This “head on the pike” is going to cost them when all the details on their technical monitoring set-up is disclosed. It may not help the defendant who becomes the token “head,” but all future cases are going to benefit from this knowledge. German IP monitoring firms and Prenda Law/6881 Forensics are going to be exposed for what they are, not to mention their unethical business relationship with the Trolls. This is like a game of chess where a sacrafice is going to lead to the downfall of the Trolls.

      DTD 🙂

      • DieTrollDie says:

        I see your point. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assume the defense attorney would have requested discovery the same time the troll did. Even if the movie was found, the information on the tech monitoring and all its faults are now out in the open.

        DTD 🙂

      • Anonymous says:

        And what are the chances that the Trolls will receive that computer or hard drive, even if the infringement occurred?

        I don’t mean to advocate perjury or spoliation, but let’s be realistic and admit that when people’s reputations and finances are on the line they are not going to play fair. If the Troll lawyers have no shame about lying to the courts, filing cases asking for damages they are not entitled to under statutes that don’t apply, why should anyone assume that a defendant will behave ethically in return? People are motivated by self-interest and of course many people are willing to lie to avoid trouble, just as Troll lie to make money.

        It’s not 1980 anymore, people have lots of computers. I was able to find statistics from earlier this year that say the average number of computers per household in the US is now 1.8. I certainly know a lot of families with a lot of computers, then you have dorms, apartments shared by students and young professionals, individuals with a laptop and a desktop and a tablet (or two), etc. So, a Troll is granted discovery and people have options regarding which computer or hard drive to provide as evidence. Of course the Troll will receive one that doesn’t have any trace of infringement while any other devices that may or may not have been involved in infringement simply cease to have ever existed.

        Remember, the Troll has no evidence that ties the infringement to any specific device or person. The IP address identifies a network at best. So what recourse do they have once they get a computer that contains no evidence? How would they prove that some machine that contains evidence actually exists unless the defendant hands it over?

        A dangerous game? Perhaps, but of course this will happen. I’m sure the Trolls have already considered this problem and this is likely why they are not rushing to your “easy” trial victories and in fact appear to be stonewalling where they are being pushed towards trials. Since they have no evidence that can identify an infringing device much less tie it to the person who did the infringing, they are ultimately dependent on the defendant to incriminate himself. How many people will rush to do that?

        Then of course you have the potential for countersuits or counterclaims as seen with Wong, Abrahams and Fantalis. Look at how desperate Malibu Media is to avoid discovery, Kotzer is apparently willing to risk contempt of court to avoid complying with ordered discovery. Even if certain Does would make for easy trial victories, it only takes one mistake, one determined innocent Doe to bring the whole scam crashing down. This literally happened to Righthaven, at the hands of a Copyright Troll no less, so I believe this is why in practice we see that Trolls are very reluctant to go to trial even against defendants of their own choosing.

      • > If you find bittorrent and pirated stuff, badda bing badda boom!

        Umm, the “badda bing badda boom!” approach is not as easy as you would like it to be. It might be difficult for you to win a case on circumstantial evidence (a.k.a., “weak evidence”), especially when the methods of catching that downloader are questionable at best. A smart judge will not find a person guilty for $150,000 unless he is DAMN SURE that he did it. So with the court’s “more likely than not” preponderance of the evidence standard, your counsel BETTER CROSS THAT 51% LINE or else the troll’s case is dead.

      • DieTrollDie says:


        Correct me if I wrong, but as a defense attorney you would also ensure the search of a client’s hard drive was limited to the facts and circumstances of the case. The only thing Plaintiff would be able to justify a search for is: the specific movie(s), the specific torrent file, BT software (specific version, etc.). Unless the defendant consented to a free-for-all examination, the search should be limited to the relevant facts of the case.

        DTD 🙂

      • SJD says:

        That’s an interesting topic. I’m (theoretically) still inside the time window when I can be sued. I’m not concerned about that damn movie I was accused of sharing, I’m pretty sure I never had it anywhere in my system (as of bittorent client, I installed it less than a year ago for research purposes). But… due to my activity I have tons of sensitive information (some Doe confessions for example, although claims of innocence by far overwhelming), any troll will love to get a hold on my info. I have correspondence with 30+ attorneys, some sensitive data on trolls (including communication with whom they perceived as personal friends).

        So, any wide-net fishing expedition would be disastrous for many, not only me. I do have some safeguards though: 30+ character password protected full disc encryption (and the password is not written anywhere and never shared with anyone). And no way I will consent to any search.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        Exactly why a Doe (Pro Se or represented) should ensure any search is limited to the relevant facts of the case.

        DTD 🙂

    • Sol says:

      I, probably along with most others visiting this sight, like your insight and appreciate your posting on here but you see to be implying that finding the “smoking gun” is a foregone conclusion. What if the accused absolutely did not download the file, and has no damning traces of torrent related material on their hard drive? Then what? I would be more than happy to clone my drive and send it of to my troll. However, they don’t seem to want it.

      • Once again, I want to also point out that having pirated material on your computer does not mean that a court will conclude that you downloaded the movie you were sued for. Remembering back to my college days… How many people used Limewire, Napster, or used pirated passwords on their Windows software? Does that mean that I downloaded “Joann’s first sex tape?” No. Not at all.

      • Rob,

        You make an interesting point. However, if the work is found on the hard drive, you’re going to have (a) a hard drive with the file on it; (b) a hard drive with the torrent file on it; and (c) a torrent tracker who will testify that they saw the IP address associated with the Doe downloading that file. Yikes.

        Assuming the file isn’t on the hard drive, I agree that’s a tough case to build with circumstantial evidence. The problem is it’s going to depend mostly on witness credibility (the torrent tracker compared to the defendant) and expert witness testimony. I think it could be tough convincing a jury that sure, you download all kinds of copyrighted stuff off bittorrent, and you obviously have the means to do it, but you didn’t do it in this one instance.

        But would such a judgment stand up to post trial scrutiny? I dunno.
        Would a case built entirely on circumstantial evidence even survive a summary judgment motion? I dunno.
        Would a court allow the plaintiff to force the defendant to clone their hard drive for a forensic inspection? I dunno.
        Is evidence of bittorrent and other pirated content even admissible at trial? I dunno.

        That’s part of the problem – there is too much uncertainty in these cases. I’m glad Judge Bayelson is interested in sorting it all out.

      • I can’t discuss the specifics of your case because I don’t know enough about it.

        Here in Pennsylvania, Judge Bayelson has made it crystal clear that he intends to award fees to the losing party. If the Doe is innocent, that Doe will probably also have claims against the plaintiff after they win at trial.

        I’d take the case like yours to trial. The problem is it’s difficult to find a lawyer who is competent to do so, and you would probably need one willing to work on a contingent fee basis. Taking a copyright case to trial isn’t a cheap endeavor.

        However, since most of these cases settle for small dollar amounts, most of the lawyers who handle them focus on settlement rather than winning them.

        There are very few Rob Cashman’s out there.

  2. Thank you for your compliments and mentioning my article. I agree with everything you have said, and on the contrary, I expect that the trolls will test me on this theory. This will be fun, as it has been pretty dull here with the big copyright trolls acting through local counsel who do not particularly know copyright laws, who only want to settle, and who do not even like the trolls they work for (and who are upset that they are being cheated by them, FYI). And on an unrelated note, I suspect that certain local counsel should start changing the passwords on their ECF accounts so that the trolls stop filing things on their behalf, because PA should serve as a lesson to y’all.

  3. Johndoe says:


  4. sharp as a marble says:

    the bond hearing for the LSM case in la county court (case # NC057950) is on the 14th of November filed by (pietz lawfirm) ( i am super interested in how the bond hearings play out.

  5. The Tod says:

    Steele’s ego is the extra piece on the board, just piss on it and watch the flowers.

  6. Pingback: Opposing Severance Is Now In Vogue – Using the Battlefield to Your Advantage in Bittorrent Litigation « Philly Law Blog

  7. that anonymous coward says:

    I’ve not had time to read Mr. Ranallo’s filing completely but did he mention where AFH is based?
    The website for the country specifically points out why they are an awesome tax shelter, they keep no corporate records, and IIRC you have to put up $25,000 and hire a local lawyer to even BEGIN to try and find the right people let alone assets to pursue. That is a tactic setup specifically to shelter AFH from any judgements against them.

    As to Randazza… I think I made it clear on Mr. Rushie and Mr. Cashman’s blogs why we might find fault with his reasoning. (One might notice some people have earned respect others have a really deep hole to dig out of.)
    Having heard Mr. Cashman’s review of the tactic it seems sound, and could be useful in the proper setting against the proper trolls. The business model of trolls has adapted multiple times during the period I’ve been following and commenting on them. Every case is a little different, if you go back to some of the original filings made during the reign of the trolls you can see wording slowly evolving to try and avoid certain problems that were pointed out time and time again by us dumb bloggers.

    I find it funny that Randazza takes time to call out the bloggers as not being lawyers and implying we aren’t very bright. Funny I know that DTD and SJD both have gotten shout outs from the bench, seems maybe they aren’t that dumb afterall. We avoid letting people think the advice is legal advice, the goal is to educate the Does and get them to stop flipping out so they can make a rational informed decision instead of plunking cash down to make the nightmare go away. Many times the cases are just bad dreams they find themselves caught in afterall.

    I was smart enough to make him run from every single encounter we’ve had, but he still needs to make himself look good compared to us poor peons without degrees.
    We’ve helped thousands of people, he’s threatened to sue thousands.
    I’ve never been chased out of court for improper service or forgetting the name of my clients property.
    I’ve never engaged in an ill-conceived state lawsuit for a copyright complaint trying to sneak past the law. (Ahem) Which is funny when he was taking potshots at the Bill of Pure Discovery Cases… but then Steele’s been stealing Randazza’s wins to hold up in his threat letters to scare people into paying the extortion.
    Turnabout is fairplay I guess.

  8. lkjsdf says:

    Whats to stop them from planting evidence on your hard-drive once they have it?

    • that anonymous coward says:

      A true forensic analysis of the drive is costly for reasons just like this.
      Being able to bring the drive up for inspection, but blocking the ability for anything to be altered on it. There is certified tech to do this and it is not cheap.
      The clone would most likely never be placed directly into the hands of the troll, instead the expert would have to use their tools to create an image of the machine, and maintain custody of it for the duration of the trial. They would always be working on a copy of the copy so that they can verify that they are working with a true copy of the original image.
      It is expensive and lengthy to undertake, and the troll would not take this step lightly unless they had an admission or very good suspicion.
      Of course this is why they want you to talk with them, so they can lead you towards making a damning statement admitting guilt or knowledge so they can use that to pressure you into settling. Sad are many people who call the troll to explain that this had to be a mistake and were then lead down the path to paying a settlement for something they weren’t actually responsible for.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        Thanks TAC. IF a case ever went that far into discovery, there would have to be some agreement/decision between the parties and the court on what Digital Forensic company would handle the imaging of the hard drive(s) and analysis. The people that do this as a profession generally don’t take sides. They get paid to let the evidence speak for itself. To do otherwise risks their lucrative profession and the field in general. The equipment, software, techniques, training, and certifications have been independently tested and fought over in the courts. Years ago, Computer Forensics was attacked as being “Junk Science.” ** (See below). The attack failed and it is a respected field. Saying that, mistakes can be made and there is a requirement to constantly test and verify that everything is working as normal.

        Certified true copies (bit for bit) of the hard drive(s) are made and then working copies are made from them. Both side are afforded access to them. It is expensive for one hard drive to be analyzed and the cost goes up for more drives. For majority of these cases, IF the correct hard drive is analyzed, the following will be disclosed.

        1) No evidence of movie file, BT software, and torrent files. Note: The Troll will just claim you hid or destroyed the real hard drive.
        2) Evidence of movie file, BT software, and torrent files. Note: BT software is not illegal, but does support the claims of the Troll.
        3) Evidence showing the movie file in question and BT software/torrent files possibly resided on the system at one time. Could be as simple as the name of the movie in question. ** Funny – you would find the name of the movie I was accused of on my hard drive, as I did Internet searches after I was notified. Not a smoking gun, but it can paint a picture.
        4) Evidence showing that a system was reimaged after you received ISP subpoena notification of the case/subpoena. Paints a picture that you possibly destroyed evidence. This must been viewed in the totality of the case and not alone.

        I agree with TAC. A forensic analysis would normally only happen after they can get some type of admission prior to or during a deposition. But after such an admission, the Troll knows he has a settlement in the bag. Wasting his money on an analysis is stupid. UNLESS, they want to make a point of showing that they do take people to trial. Still a sad weak argument, as these cases (and business model) was never designed to survive a full trial. They were designed as a “hit & run,” using the court to obtain ISP subscriber data which leads to settlements.

        ** What the Trolls use to collect the public IP address is “Junk Science.” This is not computer/digital forensics. It has some aspects of it, but due to its “Security through Obscurity” nature, it methods and possible limitations cannot be fairly tested and evaluated. This information once release for public view will make it even harder for the Trolls. It will not kill their operations, but it will make it easier to fight back. This is the central part of their operations, as the courts use it to grant the subpoenas for ISP subscriber information.

        DTD 🙂

      • anony123 says:

        What really sucks about bittorrent on your computer as circumstantial evidence is that it is increasingly used for legal purposes. A lot of major MMO’s and video games now push updates/downloads through bittorrent. is a big database of mods/updates/free games all pushed through bittorrent.

        Hell, a lot of the file websites that catalog updates and files now usually have links to torrent files of the same files right on the site to cut down on their bandwidth costs.

      • DieTrollDie:

        That’s part of the problem. I used to do insurance defense. When a person is hurt, the insurance carrier subjects them to an “IME” or an “independent medical exam.”

        Sounds great, right?

        Except the judge or the state doesn’t appoint the “independent medical examiner.” The insurance carrier hires a doctor of their choosing. Although it’s called “independent”, the exam is often anything but that.

        At trial, you end up with the plaintiff’s doctor saying “He’s hurt really bad, and the injury was caused by the defendant.” You also have the insurance carrier’s doctor saying “He’s not hurt all that bad, and even if it is, something else caused the injury.” Yep, two medical doctors, each with an agenda claiming to be independent.

        In a torrent case, it’s very possible the plaintiff’s expert would say one thing and the defense expert would say something different.

        Who would the jury believe? I dunno.

        The biggest, most interesting issue, in my opinion, will be the deposition of the torrent tracker.

        And whether the troll will get a cloned copy of the hard drive is up to the judge. Do you think a few well known DC judges would prevent them from forcing the defendants to clone their hard drives? I doubt it.

        The scope of discovery varies from judge to judge, unfortunately.

  9. Anon says:

    Most likely your attorney would require that the troll outfit use a reputable Data recovery company to analyze your HDD. That company would have no incentive to plant evidence or get caught in a pornography related lawsuit.

    • that anonymous coward says:

      I personally would love to see the bill if they came after me.
      The last time a troll moved to get an examination of the hardware was a Steele case after they admitted to the Judge that IP alone wouldn’t do what they promised. They wanted access to every PC, phone, tablet, et al from everyone residing in the house as well as guests.
      With access to storage approaching a petabyte I think they’d be REALLY sad.

  10. DieTrollDie says:

    On 9 Nov 12, Judge Charles Breyer, granted Nicholas Ranallo’s motion to post undertaking in AF Holding LLC., v. David Trinh, 3:12-cv-02393. See the update to main post and the document. This was the motion to require AF Holding LLC to post a security bond in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1030. Ranallo requested a bond of $88,000 but judge Breyer decided that $48,000 was appropriate. Of course not as high as we would have liked it, but it is still a success.

    DTD 🙂

  11. Pingback: Eight Named AZ Prenda Cases – Set To Backfire – Doe Fights Back! | DieTrollDie

  12. Pingback: Discovery and bond in an AF Holdings case « copyrightclerk

  13. Pingback: Prenda Law Responds To Order Requiring An Undertaking (Security Bond), AF Holdings LLC v. David Trinh, 3:12-cv-02393 (CA) | DieTrollDie

  14. Pingback: Thinking about Malibu Media’s single “Doe” lawsuits. | TorrentLawyer™ - Exposing Copyright Trolls and Their Lawsuits

  15. Pingback: Ruminations regarding Malibu Media’s single “Doe” lawsuits. | Federal Computer Crimes (CyberLawy3r)

  16. Pingback: Thoughts about the Malibu Media single “Doe” lawsuits and reverse joinder theory (adding co-defendants). | The Houston Lawyer Blog

  17. Pingback: ZEMBEZIA FILM (Pty.) Ltd Wants A “Tap” – 2:13-cv-00308 (WA) | DieTrollDie

  18. Pingback: Is Two Years Old | DieTrollDie

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