Judge Castillo’s Pure Bill Of Discovery (ILND) – 1:14-cv-02168, Dallas Buyers Club LLC v. Does 1-46

The world of BitTorrent Copyright Troll law suits never seem to surprise me.  A Doe recently asked me if a Dallas Buyers Club case had been dismissed/closed.  I said I doubted it, as they were currently getting early discovery back from the ISPs and milking the settlements out of people.  He then provided me a link to the following document in the archive docket of case #1:14-cv-02168, ILND, Dallas Buyers Club LLC v. Does 1-46.   Doc_7_Notice_02168(IL)

The document is small and looks like it was done almost as a second thought.  Upon closer inspections, it in clear that this document has the court doing two almost opposite things.  If this had been done a day earlier, I would have assumed it was an April Fool’s joke.

  • Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint – Pending an Amended Complaint – named Defendants need to be properly joined (Joinder Issue).
  • Allows Early Discovery To Continue – The Troll will get the ISP subscriber information for the Does.

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, April 2, 2014:

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ruben Castillo: After a careful review of this recently filed case, Plaintiff is authorized to proceed with expedited discovery and issue subpoena(s) to determine the identity of the appropriate individual defendants. In the meantime, the current Doe complaint will be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate amended complaint which names individual defendants that can be properly joined together in one lawsuit. All third party subpoenas must be complied with even though the pending complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Mailed notice (rao, )

Case Complaint and Exhibits – Complaint_02168(IL)   Complaint_Exhibits_02168(IL)

Now I had to reread this a couple of time to make sure I wasn’t losing it. REALLY…. Now why in the hell would the Judge Ruben Castillo do this?  I will say that Judge Castillo is no newbie to BT Copyright Trolling.  He is one reason why the Illinois Northern District is a Troll hot spot.   Here is an early Steele|Hansmeier case he was involved in (filed on 29 Sep 2010) – archive docket.

Judge Castillo has essentially created an Pure Bill of Discovery action in IL (Background on what a Pure Bill of Discovery is – One & Two).  The docket shows the case was closed on 2 Apr 14; but the last action is the appearance of a Doe’s attorney – Doc_9_02168(IL), indicating the Troll is getting the ISP subscriber information.  I have heard that this is not a new action from Judge Castillo, but I don’t have the cases number to show this.  If you have this information, please post or send me an email.

Now I have ZERO faith that Troll Hierl/Plaintiff is going to file an amended complaint that will actually name PROPERLY joined Defendants.  It just isn’t going to happen.  This notice from Judge Castillo will allow the Troll to obtain the ISP subscriber information and then they will start the settlement process – all WITHOUT a valid complaint.

If there is NO valid complaint, how can the public IP addresses listed in the complaint exhibit be part of early discovery???  Judge Castillo clearly states the complaint was dismissed for improper joinder (“the current Doe complaint will be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate amended complaint which names individual defendants that can be properly joined together in one lawsuit.”).

Troll Hierl is loving this – it removes any time-table with having to move the case forward – in fact it shows it as closed.  With the ISP subscriber information, the Troll can then refile a case at any time up to the 3-year Statute of limitations.  Most of the these Does will not have a case re-opened on them, but they will be subject to the harassment of Troll Hierl.  The only draw-back for Troll/Plaintiff is that over time, any evidence on the Doe’s computer is going to be at risk of being lost due to a variety of reasons – computer is stolen, destroyed in a fire, mechanical failure of the hard drive, etc.  Not that it matters, as they do not want to pay for a forensic examination anyway.

Based on the date of the notice and the representation of Doe #19, I assume the settlement demand letters have reached the Does.  For the Does – Please send me a copy of any demand letters you receive for this case or others like it.  Also, please note that I have an “Answer” template for the Dallas Buyers Club case in the Defendant Answers Page – just in case.

Based on what I have seen so far from this Plaintiff, I do not expect any of these cases to go to a full trial.  Some default judgments are expected, but Plaintiff will back down if a defendant is willing to fight.  Remember this is done for Profit, not to prevent copyright infringement.

DieTrollDie 🙂  “The Defendants have liable Plaintiff under the disguise of such childish and unsophisticated pseudonyms as ‘die troll die.’”  – a statement like that could cost you $11K!

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 Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Judge Castillo’s Pure Bill Of Discovery (ILND) – 1:14-cv-02168, Dallas Buyers Club LLC v. Does 1-46

  1. Paul Overhauser says:

    One explanation for this bizarre order is that by causing the case to show as being “€œclosed,”€ the Judge gets credit from the powers that be in the Judicial system for “€œclosing” the case, even though it isn’€™t really closed.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Thanks Paul. Nothing like padding your stats so you don’t have to deal with the BT Copyright Trolling issue in ILND. BTW – On 30 Jun 14, Dallas Buyers Club LLC filed 8 more cases in ILND – 310 more Does! “No, we don’t have a problem here.”

      DTD 🙂

  2. D'oh! says:

    Surely there’s a way to complain about judges? This ruling is sort of insane…

  3. John Roberts says:

    People should notify their ISP, I think Comcast would not release the information if the case is dismissed. And write the judge request he terminate the subpoena as plaintiff has dismissed the case. One might also write to whoever is the Chief Justice of the court, explaining what happened.

  4. Raul says:

    I’ve seen this with some of the ILND single Malibu Media suits, not sure if it is the same judge. Like you spelled out above this is a boon to troll attorneys as it gives them the info they need to harass Does while taking away any judicial oversight.

  5. Jane Former Doe says:

    Well here is a judge that has not logic or understanding of the law. How would any Doe file a motion opposing the subpoena, when the judge dismissed the complaint. This sure is one messed up judge.

  6. Anon E. Mous says:

    Talk about a Judge contradicting his own orders in a case. This is not going to stand if a Defendant counsel files an appeal of the Judge order. Obviously Castillo seems to not understand how the law works. How does one dismiss a case and yet allow a order for discover to the ISP when the case has been dismissed? Even if Comcast appealed this order, you know the Judge is going to come out of this looking like an ass.

    The ISP order to turn over subscriber information should be null and void as there now is no case. The ISP’s in my opinion do not have to turn over a thing to the trolls. I would believe the ISP’s have legal ground to ignore the order since this case was dismissed, as such they have no further legal obligation to comply with an order for a case that is dismissed.

    One would have to believe that if the ISP’s see there is no active case, then any orders issued in the case are not valid. The troll would be forced to re-file since they would be unable to go before the court to ask that it issue an order to compel the ISP’s to turn over subscriber information.

    Honestly Castillo has made a mess of the case before him by his own contradictory rulings and orders that followed these rulings.

    In my opinion the Troll who has a duty as an officer of the court to inform the court of an issue in any cases to which they are involved in. The troll I believe may land in hot water if they obtain discovery in a case that is dismissed.. This one ought to be interesting to watch…

  7. WDS says:

    It is frustrating when you have a Judge in effect write his own laws, instead of applying the laws that the legislature puts in place.

  8. John Roberts says:

    I doubt this could be taken to trial as the subscriber info (doe defendant identification) is being illegally obtained. Of course we know and likely the judge also knows that the Plaintiff has no interest in litigating. They are just going after ill informed to settle with fake threats, harassment, and bullying. This judge is a cog in the shakedown scam. (That is my opinion).

  9. that anonymous coward says:

    So something created out of a case that is dismissed gets to live on as a zombie.
    No oversight, no having to file pesky extensions… just handing peoples names over for $400.
    Gee with no active case, do they even need to pay the ISPs? Who are the ISPs going to turn to for relief when there is no case and no Judge overseeing the case. Who will hear objections?

    I’m not a big legal scholar, but this strikes me as judicial misconduct, dereliction of duty, abuse of the office and the position.

    If I was getting notified by the ISPs about a subpoena from this case, I’d write the head Judge and ask how can someone try and fight a subpoena when the Judge closed the case. Nothing like removing any chance of due process to make things move right along.

  10. Doe says:

    Just received word that Dallas Buyer’s Club LLC wants approx. $3K to settle. Just wanted to let people know how much $$$ they are looking for. Extortion! I have contacted the Attorney General’s office. I think we need more of an unified effort to stop these lawsuits.

    • Die Troll says:

      So what necessary step should a doe take if the trolls are harassing them with a $3k settlement and it goes up if not paid according to their due date?

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