Copyright Troll Michael Hierl (Dallas Buyers Club LLC) Dismisses ANOTHER Doe To Avoid Questions – 1:14-cv-02162 (IL)

The running of this one-man-band of a site can be hectic and I often find it hard to keep with the various cases.  While looking at some of the ongoing cases, I decided to revisit 1:14-cv-02162, Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) LLC v. Does 1-36, Northern District of IL.  The Troll in this case is no other than attorney Michael Hierl.   Previous post on this case.   Archive Docket

This is the case where Doe #17 filed a motion (Pro Se) and the Judge Gary Feinerman actually appeared to be open to exploring the request to sever all the Does.   MTQ_Doe17_02162(IL)   Troll Hierl responded to the motion and told the court that Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) “Blackjack” analogy that the DC Court of Appeals adopted in AF Holdings case (1:12-cv-00048 / 12-7135) was wrong.   Troll Response_02162(IL)   Troll Response_EXs_02162(IL)   The court gave the Doe until 29 Aug 14, to file a reply to the Troll response. On 24 Aug 14, Doe #17 made his reply.   Doc_31_Doe17_Response_02162(IL)

Doe17_Conclusion_02162(IL)

On 18 Sep 14, Troll Hierl filed a motion to dismiss Doe #17, which may mean that some sort of agreement was reached between the parties.   Doc_33_VolDismiss_02162(IL)   Doc_34_OrderDismiss_02162(IL)   The dismissal took place seven days after the 11 Sep 14, Status Hearing.   Doc_32_MinuteEntry_02162(IL)   It is worthy to note that the language in the dismissal states both parties will cover their own legal bills.  This is something we usually see when a settlement is reached.  Not that Doe #17 had any legal bill that could be claimed – Pro Se.  The “Without” prejudice dismissal tends to indicate the dismissal was done by Troll/Plaintiff to avoid having to address the motion and risk severing the Does.  This of course goes hand-in-hand with the recent dismissal of two Does from another Troll Hierl/Dallas Buyers Club (DBC) case in the ILND.  These two were also dismissed by the Troll to avoid having to defend joinder of the Does (1:14-cv-04940).  The main difference in the 04940 case is the Troll refiled single Defendant cases against both of the Does.

TrollBible_APMC2The dismissal of Doe #17 is indicative of a Troll/Plaintiff who doesn’t want to risk having to answer any uncomfortable questions concerning their operation and the people/organization behind it.  No Surprise!  As the saying goes, “Anything you say will be used against you.

Refile?

Now Troll Hierl could refile a single Defendant case against Doe #17, but that is pretty pointless in my opinion.  The only possible benefit would be to send a message to any Does filing motions that it is only going to cause you more stress and heart ache, as the Troll is not going away.  Doe #17 has shown he is willing to fight and has good head on his shoulder.  Troll/Plaintiff also does like the fact that Judge Feinerman is interested in the DC court of Appeals ruling against AF Holdings/Prenda Law – Mass Joinder IS NOT appropriate.  This Plaintiff claims it is not a “Copyright Troll,” but it clearly fails the duck test.

Now a single Defendant case would likely get the ISP subscriber information of Doe #17.  Even if this happens they would still need to tie the infringing activity back to the Defendant – beyond the fact he pays the ISP bill.  The Troll would need to conduct background checks to first determine who resides in the residence, possible family members, and of course if they have the financial means to pay.  Then they would have to conduct social media checks for any possible linkage of the “Other” BitTorrent files they recorded as being shared via Doe #17’s public IP address.  Unless they find something very telling, naming/serving Doe #17 is risky – a person may then hire an attorney and fight back.  It is much simpler (and profitable) for Troll Hierl to let such a case languish on the docket while working toward forcing settlements from the remaining Does in the mass case.  If a second cases against Doe #17 dies on the docket for lack of action (or 2nd dismissal), it will be deemed adjudicated on its merits (Doe #17 is the prevailing party) and this Doe/IP address cannot be sued again for this specific allegation.

No Facts Support Joinder

The mass Doe BT copyright infringement cases common to IL and CO, are an abuse of process to both the courts and Does (my opinion).  It would be nice if the courts in these jurisdictions took note of the historic actions of the Troll/Plaintiffs and started to ask harder questions about what they are doing, who is driving these operations, and exactly how these Does are properly joined.  If the actions of the Troll/Plaintiffs are completely above-board, then their evidence shows this, I will stand corrected.  As it stands now, there is NOTHING to show that any of the Does are properly joined (In Any Of The Cases) – this is the best the Trolls can claim:

The individual public IP address associated with each Defendant (who pays the ISP bills) was recorded as sending a small amount of data to the Troll BitTorrent monitoring firm.  This data was tied back to a hash file which correlates to Plaintiff’s movie.  There is NO information/evidence that shows any of the Does/IP addresses shared any part of Plaintiff’s movie amongst themselves.  The Does in these cases are simply lumped together (wrongfully joined) based on their location within the appropriate jurisdiction.  The joinder of Does is only done to reduce filing fees/costs to this business model.  The hash file only shows that it is the same movie/file, NOT who shared it with whom.  The BitTorrent protocol is not designed to share this type of information and thus the Trolls are unable to obtain it.

DieTrollDie  🙂    “We have an old saying in Delta House: don’t get mad, get even.”  {D-Day, Animal House}

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.

5 Responses to Copyright Troll Michael Hierl (Dallas Buyers Club LLC) Dismisses ANOTHER Doe To Avoid Questions – 1:14-cv-02162 (IL)

  1. Anon E. Mous says:

    Nothing amazes me more than to listen to the Trolls crow about how they are so confident in their investigation and methodology of their investigation and proof of guilt of infringement….. with it would seem the exception of when it comes time to deal with a defendant and their attorney who deny the alleged infringement they are accused of.

    Obviously the Trolls don’t want the judge to hear or see any motions/evidence/filings from the Does that may interfere with the settlement machine and access to ISP info to obtain that subscriber information.

    Heaven forbid the Trolls may actually have to prove their case with factual evidence not used to file these cases. The trolls must fear the results and effects that Lamberson has had so far and will be coming in due course

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Yes, seeing this happen reminds me of the actions taken by John Steel/Hanameier/Prenda when people started to fight back. The Trolls will only get away with this for a while. It will come back to haunt them. The sad thing is the people/organizations in the background (Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC)) and German BT monitoring firms will probably get away. The local Troll attorney and the Plaintiffs with financial ties to the US will likely take the main hit. The Lamberson ruling is going to be big – I assume. As it is taking some time, I bet the judge is carefully looking at everything. It doesn’t look good for Troll/Elf-Man LLC. If the court was inclined NOT to award fee/cost and sanctions, the decision would not take so long to arrive at.

      DTD 🙂

      • Anon E. Mous says:

        I agree with you about our German friends. If history has shown anything with them, it is that even when they are in trouble with the courts ( like they had under the Guardaley name in their tangle with the German courts ) that no amount of financial penalties and a thrashing of their investigation methods and alleged evidence derived from it is going to dissuade them from the easy cash that the settlement machine provides.

        The German courts decision and ruling was very harsh, and all Macek Patzer and assorted ass clowns did was start new entities to keep the settlement cash coming in. We have seen this with different monitoring company names and different LLC’s they seem to create for the troll litigation purposes.

        If anything it just shows the mentality much like with the Prenda gang and some of the lawyers connected with these cases that the settlement cash is so easy to obtain with little or not effort that is worth the risk to take, as with the cases that were connected with ELF-MAN LLC and Lamberson in the original filing.

        Even though Lamberson was looming in the back round and the trolls still wanted to go after the cash for the defaults, peril looming and reputations on the line obviously were of no concern, but that play for some easy cash from defaults sure seem to be a high priority ( even though that is in jeopardy as the Judge seems to be giving some long thought on how the optics will look if he grants the trolls a windfall with the Lamberson case evidence in question ) which was part of the default cases as well.

        When ever our little German friends get in trouble with the courts and law, they just refine their tactics and methods and efforts to his who is who and the effort to keep suspicions to a minimum about the question of their methodology and experts.

        They will game the system as long as they can. When countries and courts see what is really happening and put this blatant extortion machine to and end all they will simply do is try and movie to another country and continue on (m like they are doing with their move to Canada and Australia )

        The lure of easy money is far too tempting for all of those involved in the supposed fight against copyright enforcement. This will be a long fight on many fronts and in many countries. The more the word spreads the harder and harder it will be for the trolls to continue their scheme as more and more people are using the internet to educate themselves about what these types of lawsuits are about and what they can do if they are notified of some alleged infringement..

        It is why the troll side has fought hard to label you and SJD and other sites as ” Internet Hate Groups” because the word is getting out, people are getting educated and it is cutting into the trolls settlement take, and the more that happens , the bigger the smile on my face gets!

  2. Pingback: Halloween Horrors (Copyright Troll Tricks) – Three Topic Post | DieTrollDie

  3. Doe says:

    I am one of these individuals affected by this troll. I received a letter from my internet service provider yesterday informing me of the impending lawsuit. If you were in my shoes, how would you handle this situation??

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