Copyright Troll Dallas Buyers Club LLC and the One in Ten Duodecillion Odds (Mass Joinder) – 1:14-cv-01142 (IN)

BHOF_Chips1Poker is a game of luck and skill. The best poker players understand the odds of their hand, as well as analyzing the other players to determine what their hand is.  In the realm of BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Infringement (Copyright Trolling), knowing the odds is equally as important.

In this case, Dallas Buyers Club LLC (DBC) has filed suit against 20 Does (public IP addresses) accused of downloading/sharing the movie, Dallas Buyers Club, via BT.  Case # 1:14-cv-01142, Southern District of IN, filed on 8 Jul 14.   Archive Docket   Complaint_01142(IN)   IP_address_Doc_8_01142(IN)

The case is your standard template-based copy/paste effort from the Trolls.  For this case, Troll Keith Vogt is the attorney for DBC.  It even still uses the SD shelf-company, Crystal Bay Corporation (CBC) and Daniel Macek, to justify the early discovery of ISP subscriber information.   EarlyDisc_Support_Doc_11_01142(IN)   Granted_EarlyDisc_Doc_12_01142(IN)

Now after the Does in this case were notified by their ISPs, Doe #10 decided to retain an attorney – Gabriel Quearry, Quearry Law, LLCIt is then that things start to get “interesting.”

On 9 Oct 14, Doe #10 discloses his identity to the court.  Why?  Because attorney Quearry also filed a Motion to Vacate the Early Discovery for the ISP subscriber information for Doe #10.   ID_Disclosed_Doc_14_01142(IN)   MotionVacate_ED_Doc_15_01142(IN)

Plaintiff now knows Defendant’s true and actual name and that he is a real person; and, Counsel for Defendant is authorized and agrees to accept service of the summons and complaint on Defendant’s behalf. Defendant voluntarily satisfied the purposes of the Order as to himself, and aided Plaintiff in advancing its asserted claims and moving this case forward. As such, Plaintiff’s third party subpoena to Comcast is unnecessary and requests discovery prior to the time permitted by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d).

Why do this?

For all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should vacate the Order and Plaintiff’s subpoena as to Defendant, and allow both parties to conduct discovery on equal footing according to the timing and sequence prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d).

So it appears that Attorney Quearry wants to start out on an “equal footing” as far as discovery.  You may have observed in all of the BT Copyright Troll cases we have seen (to date – to include Malibu Media), the Troll/Plaintiffs do NOT like to disclose their internal information concerning who is running these operations, the various parties that receive payments from the settlements, the BT monitoring firms, the Anti-Piracy Management Company (APMC), etc.  So in effect, Doe #10, has told the Troll, “let’s dance!”  DBC doesn’t like to dance.

On 21 Oct 14, Attorney Quearry further throws a monkey wrench into this case by filing a motion to sever Doe #10.   Motion_Sever_Doc_17_01142(IN)   Decl_Neville_Doc_17-1_01142(IN)    Take a read of the motion and the accompanying declaration by Delvan Neville, Amaragh Associates, LLC.   According to research conducted by Mr. Neville, the chance that these 20 Does/IP addresses were actually sharing pieces of Plaintiff’s movie is incredibly slight.

As the range of “Hit Dates” in this case range similarly to those from the second soak (weeks, not a single day), the connectivity is almost certainly closer to the 0.05% average seen in the second soak, and thus the likelihood that there is any series of transactions that could link these 20 peers together in some fashion is 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% or a 1 in 10 duodecillion chance.

For all of the math-challenged people (like me), a duodecillion is 10 to the 39th powerThat is a lot of zeros.  Note: The odds of winning the Power Ball lottery is 1 in 175 Million (1 in 175,000,000).  Let’s put these numbers in prospective.  You have a better chance of winning the Power Ball Lottery three times (1 in 5,359,375,000,000,000,000,000,000 – That is 5.359375 Septillion!!! – 10 to the 24th power) than the chance any of these Does shared data between themselves via BT.

GooseCooked1This is the time when a poker player with the odds calls “All In.”  So what will Troll Plaintiff do?  IF they were a good poker player, they would simply fold the hand – dismiss Doe #10 and render the motion to sever “moot.”  As there is so much more at stake, I’m wondering what stupid stunt/move they will try.   Now the judge could allow a dismissal, but it sends a clear message to the other Doe Defenders and Pro Se Does on what angle to use.  The judge may also see such a move by the Troll as clearly avoiding the issue of joinder.  This could lead to the judge issuing a show cause order (on his own) for Troll/Plaintiff justify joinder of the Does.  Disputing Mr. Neville’s declaration is another possibility, but an unlikely one in my opinion.  What is Troll/Plaintiff going to do, present some garbage declaration from Mr. Macek or a copy of Patrick Paige’s declaration from the PA Bell Whether trial???  It is time to stick a fork in it, because the Mass-Doe BT Copyright Troll cases are “done.”  That is unless they can somehow refute the core of Mr. Neville’s findings.  Good luck on that!

Previously I stated that the chance of Does in the same jurisdiction actually sharing data via BT was extremely slight.  Thanks to Mr. Neville, we now have the details on just how slight.

DieTrollDie 🙂   “Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer.”  [Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #208]

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

19 Responses to Copyright Troll Dallas Buyers Club LLC and the One in Ten Duodecillion Odds (Mass Joinder) – 1:14-cv-01142 (IN)

  1. SJD says:

    Great post, DTD. I hope that the idea of accepting service by the defendant’s attorney will stick. I closely watch an OH case where Jason Sweet along the same lines.

  2. Anon E. Mous says:

    As SJD has said I like Sweet’s move with taking service on behalf of his client. Quearry’s move is a little more advanced in that his client was willing to put their name out there, and that has to be the bane to the trolls efforts which I believe is a great tactical move and one that is detrimental to the trolls and their strategy in the dash for the cash.

    The fact that we are starting to see defendants counsel start the trend to effectuate service by having it done upon their counsel or having their defendant named has to be causing the trolls fits as it throws a serious problem their way in their goal to extort -er I mean negotiate a settlement with the alleged infringer ( victim really )

    Lets face it, the trolls want and need the discovery order to be handed down so they can then get a name to start the pressure campaign to get a settlement, because as we all know this is about enrichment not enforcement of copyrights in my opinion.

    Once the trolls are able to gain discovery they are able to put a name to their list and start the settlement pressure tactics to the ISP subscriber, and really that is the game. To make and have that ISP subscriber feel pressured.

    Pressured that they have could be named in a lawsuit, pressure that they could face a potential penalty of upwards to a 150k, pressure that they will be named and served in a lawsuit unless they settle. Pressure that this could cost them their reputation. Pressure that if they don’t settle now costs will escalate. Pressure that this will costs them more if they hire a lawyer. Pressure that their legal costs will far out weight the cost of a settlement. Pressure that if they fight they will lose everything. Pressure that they will face potential examination of all relevant and non relevant electronic devices that attach via a usb. Pressure that they will be deposed and embarrassing revelations may come about. Pressure that this will drag on and on and on….pressure, pressure, pressure.

    If the trolls aren’t able to apply the maximum pressure it is detrimental in their dash for the cash and Sweet & Quearry’s tactical move is very detrimental to the trolls ability to extract a settlement. I like these moves Sweet and Quearry have made. This is going on the offensive and putting the trolls on the defensive. We have already seen how the trolls have had trouble with Sweet’s move in the case on behalf of his client, and I expect that Quearry’s client will be causing the same grief for the trolls case here as well.

    As SJD said earlier I would like to see this become a trend more and more and put the trolls in a difficult position to obtain discovery. We all know the trolls need discovery but I believe this will seriously make some Judges wonder why the trolls are not willing to effect service to the defendants counsel when the defendants counsel has agree to accept. It may clue some of these Judges in as to what the trolls really are up to and would definitely make the trolls lives a little more difficult in trying to get a settlement ( which is not such a bad thing and may even help in starting to get these types of litigation to become less frequent )

    Nevilles declaration is problematic for the trolls, but pretty much confirms what many of us have already suspected in that they are taking a oh so second brief fraction of infringement and basing their litigation on it. Not only this but the trolls are trying to stretch their time periods for as long as possible to get as many connected IP addresses as possible to add to their potential pool of victims.

    Neviille’s declaration is going to be a thrown in the trolls side, and look for our german friends to scramble to find some way to back up their claims with some “new” evidence ( and I use that term loosely ) The fact that they are using DBC and their favorite ( now legal ) SD shelf corp shows nothing but sheer complacency and a willingness to get that cash at all costs, even if there is still peril looming in the back round.

    In my opinion I believe what we are seeing is that easy cash is just so tempting that the risk is worth the reward. It reminds me of the film Heat with Robert DeNiro, where they play a bunch of cons who take down high money scores, and are contemplating doing a bank robbery. In this one scene from the film, DeNiro asks one of his guys if he is in. The other guy asks DeNiro : ” if he thinks this is the smart thing to do” DeNiro character says: “You have plenty put away, stocks, t-bills real estate…If I were you I would cut loose of this “, “for me, the risk is worth a stretch ” ( jail time in prison is what he means by a stretch )

    In my opinion the Trolls and friends are like the bad guys in Heat, they can’t resist that cash that is their for the taking. I remember some other guys who couldn’t resist the easy cash and the have fallen and still haven’t hit the ground yet… and that’s the Prenda gang. They have been hit hard and the hit’s keep coming and they are still in a free fall and have not his the ground yet.

    This will be another case to keep an eye on, obviously the trolls have learned nothing from those that fell before them that crashed and burned.

  3. that anonymous coward says:

    Isn’t Delvan dreamy? 😀

  4. WDS says:

    Isn’t it fun to watch when a troll with a fake expert runs into a defendant with a real one.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      And even if they change their BT client to record PEX data, the IP address that they can show linkage will most likely be in a different jurisdiction or outside the US.

      DTD 🙂

      • Anon E. Mous says:

        Gee that IP address in a different jurisdiction wouldn’t be in town that starts with the letter “K” in Germany would it? ~ wink wink ~

  5. Anon E. Mous says:

    Hmmm This is interesting. In a TorrenfRreak article ( link below )

    It would seem the law firm Sydney-based Marque chosen by Dallas Buyer’s Club LLC to represent them in Australia. In 2012, Marque published a paper titled “It wasn’t me, it was my flatmate! – a defense to copyright infringement?” which detailed the company’s stance on file-sharing accusations.

    The publication provided a short summary of cases in the US where porn companies were aiming to find out the identities of people who had downloaded their films, just as Dallas Buyers Club – Marque’s clients – are doing now.
    And here’s the line all potential targets of Dallas Buyers Club and Marque Lawyers should be aware of – from the lawfirm’s own collective mouth.

    “The judge, rightly in our view, agreed with the users that just because an IP address is in one person’s name, it does not mean that that person was the one who illegally downloaded the porn.

    As the judge said, an IP address does not necessarily identify a person and so you can’t be sure that the person who pays for a service has necessarily infringed copyright.

    This decision makes a lot of sense to us. If it holds up, copyright
    owners will need to be a whole lot more savvy about how they identify and pursue copyright infringers and, perhaps, we’ve seen the end of the mass ‘John Doe’ litigation.”

    So there you have it. Marque Lawyers do not have faith in the IP address-based evidence used in mass file-sharing litigation. In fact, they predict that weaknesses in IP address evidence might even signal the end of mass lawsuits.

    LMAO…Obviously our German friends and Dallas Buyer’s Club LLC didnt put too much research into their law firm of choice, too funny. A good read and chuckle for us that want to have a laugh at the trolls expense

  6. Doe says:

    Just received notice from Hughes, Socol, Piers, Resnick, Dym Ltd. (in regards to case No.: xxxx
    xxxxxxxx, Northern Illinois) asking for $3800 using Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum verdict of $675,000 as an example. It also stated that “forensic computer evidence suggests that you did delete media files following receipt of the letter from your ISP, our client will amend its complaint to add a spoliation of evidence clam in against you.” In that I didn’t have any movies to delete on my computer, I view this as a scare tactic. Looks like I’m going to have to retain a lawyer.

  7. Pingback: Why Mass Joinder in BitTorrent Copyright Infringement Cases Is Wrong | DieTrollDie

  8. help me!! says:

    I am so confused. I just got one of these subpoena letters in the mail from comcast and i’m not sure what to do next… I seriously have acquired maybe 5 movies total in my entire life… and now I get this letter saying i’m being sued… first off this movie is about fucked up shit and lies and then they are going to turn around and do more fucked up shit and sue people… someone help! I am absolutely clueless…

  9. Pingback: Dallas Buyers Club, LLC, Versus The Gaslight Coffee Roasters – 1:14-cv-04010 (NDIL) | DieTrollDie

  10. I keep wondering why the defense lawyers in these cases don’t file and pend some motions for affirmative relief and dismissal of all charges against all defendants (with prejudice), including some potential sanctions, before they file the meaty motions. You don’t schedule the motions for hearings, but you get them into the record. That way, if the Trolls attempt to dismiss without prejudice, the defendants would still be entitled to set a hearing date and have their cases heard.

  11. Pingback: “London Has Fallen” BT Copyright Troll Case, 2:16-cv-02028 (NV) – 23 Does | DieTrollDie

  12. Pingback: GA Court Servers BT Copyright Troll Case Sua Sponte – 1:16-cv-04055 (NDGA) – “Royal Flush Odds” | 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