Malibu Media Fails At Discovery – Malibu Media v. Mr. Harrison, 1:12-cv-01117 (SDIN)

23 Sep Update

Here is a quick update on case 1:12-cv-01117 (SDIN), Malibu Media LLC v. Mr. Harrison.

  • The court denied Mr. Harrison’s motion to make Malibu Media attached all cited documents and the movie to the case file.   Order_Doc_124_01117(IN)
  • Results of the 13 Sep 13, Telephone Status Conference.  Discovery – Both sides have exchanged witness/Expert lists.  Plaintiff was instructed to serve Mr. Harrison with its settlement demands (with a copy to the court) NLT 23 Sep 13 (Today!).   The next telephone conference is et for 31 Oct 13 at 10:30AM.   StatusConf_13Sep_01117(IN)
  • The court ruled that Mr. Harrison’s motion to sever and collection of attorney fees/costs was moot.  This was because after the recent dismissal of Mr. Harris, Mr. Harrison will be the only remaining defendant in the case.   Motion_Moot_Doc_126_01117(IN)

So it looks like this now single defendant case is slowly moving along.  Prior to the next telephone conference, I doubt anything will occur except for the settlement demand from Plaintiff.  If Mr. Harrison does not agree to settle, the best Malibu Media could hope for is something akin to the PA Bellwether case, where a forensic analysis of the system(s) discloses evidence was destroyed.  In my opinion, without some direct evidence or spoliation, Malibu Media will have an uphill battle.  They will then need to paint Mr. Harrison as the most likely offender by looking at the various movies/data that was shared from his public IP address.  These would be the “other” non-Malibu Media files (The infamous Exhibit C) that were being shared.  So if Mr. Harrison is a computer programmer, they will look in the record of files shared and see if there is anything such as “The C++ Programming Language, 4th Edition” eBook.

The interesting aspect of this case is it has a group of settlements, as well as a default judgement of $20K against one of the defendants.  As Plaintiff plead all the defendants were jointly and severally liable for the infringement, the previous settlements/judgement are relevant to an award of damages against Mr. Harrison – if it even happens.  Remember that a maximum of $150K in statutory damages can be awarded for this action of copyright infringement.  $150K minus $20K default judgement minus total of settlements = amount Plaintiff could be awarded.  I would also assume that Plaintiff might have received other settlements (other case in various jurisdictions) from the same hash file (Pretty Back Door Baby, SHA-1 # B17E6CBB71FF9E931ED034CFC5EC7A3B8F29BB1E).  If it ever gets that far, such information will be highly relevant to Mr. Harrison.

DieTrollDie 🙂

12 Sep 13 Update

This Malibu Media case has been going on since 14 Aug 12, and I bet Troll Paul Nicoletti and Malibu Media would like to drop it and move on.  Malibu Media v. Hind, et al, 1:12-cv-01117.   Archive Docket    Here is my previous post on this case.  Note: the last Malibu Media case filed in the Southern District of IN was on 24 Apr 13.

The case started out with 11 Does and we currently have seven defendants dismissed and one defendant (Mr. Harrison) actively fighting back and preventing Plaintiff from closing it.

On 27 Aug 13, Plaintiff responded to Mr. Harrison’s Motion to compel disclosure and imposing costs and fees.   Doc_121_01117(IN)   The main reason Plaintiff claims an award of costs and fees in regards to filing the motion is because the defendant failed to abide by local rules requiring a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute, to possibly seek assistance from the judge in resolving the issue, and the motion did not specify the efforts the defendant took to resolve the dispute.  Plaintiff claims the “unavoidable” delay in getting the discovery information to Mr. Harrison was due it being a time and labor intensive process.  Funny, Plaintiff brought this suit knowing full well what discovery would require, as well as their “expert” resided in Germany.  Weak a$$ excuse in my opinion.

Had he done so, he would have been informed that Plaintiff’s investigator, which identifies the infringement, records the evidence, and culls the electronic discovery used in all of Plaintiff’s cases, is located in Germany. And, the process of collecting, formatting, and sending the relevant electronic discovery to Plaintiff is both time and labor intensive. Had Defendant conferred with Plaintiff prior to filing his motion, the issues could have been resolved amongst the parties without the need for Court intervention. Choosing to forego the mandatory good faith conference, however, Defendant has unnecessarily involved the Court in an issue which is now moot, since Defendant has now received the relevant discovery.

A footnote to the above section (page 2) then also tells the court.

Defendant was initially unintentionally sent electronic discovery from Plaintiff’s investigator pertaining to a different defendant. Defendant notified Plaintiff of this error and Plaintiff has taken immediate action to correct the inadvertent mistake. Defendant will receive the correct electronic discovery in the immediate future.

MLPoss1I guess it was so labor intensive that IPP couldn’t even get the discovery information for the right case.  So as of the filing of this document, Plaintiff has yet to have provided the discovery information to Mr. Harrison.  Good job IPP, Trolls, and Malibu Media.  Keep claiming you are not “Prenda,” it just makes it that more funnier.

I have also attached Plaintiff’s response to Mr. Harrison’s motion to require all referenced documents and audio-visual works in the 3rd Amended complaint to be attached as exhibits.   Doc109_01117(IN)

Since the last post on this case, Mr. Harris (Pro Se) reached a settlement agreement with Plaintiff and has been dismissed.  Harris_Setttle_Doc120_01117(IN)

On 13 Sep 13, at 3PM, there is a scheduled telephone conference with Judge Dinsmore.  A settlement conference is set for 14 Apr 14, at 8:30AM, but I wonder if it will get that far.  If Mr. Harrison is innocent (sorry for playing devils-advocate) and has a will to fight, Malibu Media is going to be hurting.

As of the posting, this case has had seven dismissals (assuming settlements were paid to Plaintiff), one default judgment of $20K (doubtful any money has been recovered), and one defendant fighting back.   As the settlement for this one movie case (Pretty Back Door Baby, SHA-1 # B17E6CBB71FF9E931ED034CFC5EC7A3B8F29BB1E) is not going to be as high as for their newer single Doe multi-movie cases, the potential for a Malibu Media financial loss here is significant.  The best thing Plaintiff could do in this case is to make a deal with Mr. Harrison to cover all his fees and costs (as well as a little extra) to be able to close this case.  I cannot see this happening anytime soon, but stranger things have happened.

Other case documents

3rdAmendComplaint_01117(IN)   3rdAmComp_IPs_01117(IN)   Answer_3rdAmdComp_01117(IN)

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 Keith Lipscomb and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Malibu Media Fails At Discovery – Malibu Media v. Mr. Harrison, 1:12-cv-01117 (SDIN)

  1. SJD says:

    Haha. And in addition, in an ILED case, Mr. Fieser is going to the USA to rechtfertigen his ingenious monitoring methods, as this motion was granted:

    Mr. Feiser must appear for deposition in this district on or before 11/5/13 or the plaintiff will not be permitted to rely on any evidence supplied by Mr. Feiser going forward.

  2. UpYoursTrolls says:

    Seems as it may be time to advertise and encourage use of this specific tact (Bochnak motion) regarding the expert deposition on each MM case that relies on the supposed expert located outside the US…….here’s to a great big UP YOURS to the trolls if they fail to comply, then followed up with sanctions-and-fees motions. Hmmmmm……

    Add another possible UP YOURS to the troll with a motion, or extension of this motion, to fully submit, explain, and demonstrate the so-called proprietary-software-and-methods used by the alleged expert, requesting the full code for detailed observance and verification to corroborate the experts declaration/deposition (as if a depo will actually happen anyway). Can anyone say “snapshot-theory debunking and discrediting” with popcorn in their mouth?

    Everyone has a right to depose the primary ‘witness’ or ‘expert’ in any individual case that relies on that ‘expert’ so exclusively as the basis for an action. This may/should include the germane topics of software and processes for what, how, when, where, etc., the expert utilized as the basis for each individual expert declaration, being specific to an individual allegation/case. The more individual depo’s needed, the more it will cost the troll to produce the expert in each case and each venue, as each defendant has the right to individually depose on specific case facts.

    Or the trolls can just put an end to the ongoing extortion-racket-pretending-to-be-copyright-enforcement………..wishful thinking.

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