DieTrollDie Podcast (2016-1) – Troll David Lowe – “Voluntary Or ELSE!”

CobblerNV_VolORelse1*** 26 Jan 16 Update ***

Today Judge Zilly told Troll Lowe that he was not going to grant the request to depose ISP subscribers prior to official Discovery (FRCP 26(f)).  No_Depo_Doc_16_01406(WA)

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to extend time for service and to conduct early discovery, docket no. 14, is DENIED. As a general matter, a party may not seek discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference has taken place. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Plaintiff seeks the Court’s authorization to conduct depositions, prior to the Rule 26(f) conference, of the persons associated with the IP addresses that allegedly infringed plaintiff’s copyright. The Court “has wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist., 768 F.3d 843, 862 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). While deposing the IP address holders may help to identify the true infringer in some circumstances, the Court concludes that there is significant potential prejudice to the responding parties. “Expedited discovery may be inappropriate where defendants are required to unwarily incriminate themselves before they have a chance to review the facts of the case and to retain counsel.” Pod-Ners, LLC v. N. Feed & Bean of Lucerne Ltd. Liab. Co., 204 F.R.D. 675, 676 (D. Colo. 2002) (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff has the names of the holders of each IP address that allegedly infringed its film, and can proceed by naming those parties as defendants and conducting discovery in the normal course prescribed by the Federal Rules. See, e.g., Hard Drive Prods., Inc. v. Doe, 2012 WL 90412, *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2012) (denying request to depose identified IP address holders). To the extent subsequent case developments show that the IP holders are not the infringing parties, plaintiff may seek to amend the Complaint as necessary.

The news is good, but it still leaves Troll Lowe with the option of naming the ISP subscriber as a Defendant and moving ahead with Discovery. Not something he or Plaintiff likely wants, but they may start to do this on a limited basis.  We will see.

————————————————————————

Hello 2016!!!  I hope the new year is going well for you and your family.  For my first podcast of 2016, I was going to talk about US Copyright Law, how it relates to these BitTorrent copyright infringement law suits, and what parts I think are broken.  I got approximately half way done and I came across a couple of document recently filed in a Cobbler Nevada LLC case in the Western District of Washington.  I will come back to the Copyright Law podcast at a later date.  I felt this case required my immediate attention.

Case 2:15-cv-01406, Cobbler Nevada LLC v. Does 1-11, filed on 2 Sep 15.   Docket_8Jan16_01406(WA)

Please take a listen to the podcast and review the documents. I think it is pretty telling that “Voluntarily” talking with the Troll is not a good idea.

Take a look at the last section of Lowe’s declaration.  It has two references to Web pages on DieTrollDie.com and Fightcopyrighttrolls.com  – they are both old (2011 & 2012) postings.  I guess Troll Lowe is trying to say we are part of some Internet Hate Groups and making his life harder.  SJD had a great response to such Troll actions, “Douchebag.”  😉

Daniel Macek (Anti Piracy Management Company) get special mention in Troll Lowe’s Motion (Page 5). He calls him a Forensic Expert, while the APMC prefers that the courts do not ever see his qualifications.  DTD Article on Macek

Troll Lowe forgets to Tell Judge Zilly.  On page 7 of the Motion, Troll Lowe “preemptively” submits that joinder of the Doe Defendants is proper in such cases. He goes on to list a groups of case that support his assertion.  One of thees cases is Cobbler Nevada v. Does 1-38, out of the Northern District of IL.  WHAT he forget to tell the court is that on 17 Dec 15, the ILND actually reaffirmed that joinder of Does in these cases has to based on REAL evidence and not simplistic claims with NO evidence. All the Does except for #1 were dismissed.  DTD Article1   DTD Article2

Docket_8Jan16_09851(IL)   Min_Entry_Joinder_Doc7_09851(IL)   DoesDismissed_NoJoinder_09851(IL)

Please give me your feedback and send me any questions you may have. Make comments or send me an email – dietrolldie@dietrolldie.com

Late additionA Guide On Defending Depositions from the Philly Law Blog (Jordan Rushie)

Cheers!

DieTrollDie 🙂  {Jack Sparrow}What? You’ve seen it all, done it all. Survived. That’s the trick isn’t it? To survive?{Captain Teague} It’s not just about living forever, Jackie. The trick is still living with yourself forever.”  {Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End}

APMC_D_Macek1

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 Podcasts and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to DieTrollDie Podcast (2016-1) – Troll David Lowe – “Voluntary Or ELSE!”

  1. that anonymous coward says:

    You mean he “forgot” to tell the court that what hes citing was ruled against?
    Always seems the trolls enjoy thinking the law says one thing when its clear it does not, if someone without a JD did that in a court they’d be benchslapped.

    The mind boggles how good advice to not speak to someone allegedly filing suit against you when you do not have the legal documents for review or to take to your own lawyer is seen in a bad light.

    Does the lawyer want Does directly contacting them so that the court can not make sure that this fine upstanding moral paragon isn’t lying to people and using the threat of the courts to obtain settlements they might not be entitled to?

    Your Honor, you have to let us hassle people because we can not prove our case without putting in time and effort. If you let us talk to them we can trick them into making damning statements and paying us without you looking over our shoulder!

    Motion for time page 2 starting at line 14.
    So we want the court to allow us to pursue a case against the name on the bill and unduly burden does because we can’t prove our case. Just because we are threatening to sue them is no reason for someone to take offense and not want to speak to us. *BOGGLE*

    We have no evidence other than this bicycle we allegedly recorded on tape (because no one may know how our supersecret tech works, despite several other cases using the same firms product has targeted truly innocent people who were still pursued to pay up or else) was paid for by this Doe. You need to force them to tell us everyone who MIGHT have used the bicycle, or taken the bicycle that is left unlocked in the backyard without permission, and all we need to do is go through their entire home looking for a pair of sweaty bicycle shorts so we can trot out the $150,000 number to get them to pay us a fraction of that without wasting the courts time following the rule of law. Just because some people object to the idea of a 3rd party going through all of their closets based on seeing a bicycle but not the rider is no reason to think they have any rights to not fall all over themselves to give us everything they want. If they didn’t do it they have nothing to hide after all, so why object to people turning their lives upside down and trying to get them to show us who the real criminal is by informing on everyone known and unknown who might have used the internet connection to get a millisecond of a shitty movie (because our evidence is merely single moment hits & not proof of a completed download). How dare these little people object to being treated in this manner, they are guilty until they pay us (because there have never ever been cases where someone was out of the country & not using their connection but we still demanded payment from… oh wait.)

    One does not answer informal questions from someone initiating (or threatening to initiate) legal action against you without the benefit of someone versed in the law. Even people seen shooting someone dead are entitled to rights that we wish to deprive these Does of in our informal setting. Copyright infringement isn’t as bad as murder, yet the law provided that all accused have rights, pity there seems to be nothing in the law to punish those who bring these actions that are then proven merit-less other than allowing them to collect settlements and then slink away without doing anything to make the accused whole. For a lawyer to suggest that people they are targeting are not due legal rights and should totally speak with them in a setting that can and will be used in a court of law seems like something not so ethical.

  2. Al S says:

    What is the statute of limitations in cases with CEG. They tried to suck money out of me in Nov 2014. Have heard nothing since from the Scum Bags!!

  3. Harry says:

    Are these podcasts available through iTunes or another RSS feed?

  4. Christenson says:

    Dear Die Troll Die…
    I’m old school and peculiar…love to read…barely have a cell phone, and never did learn to like listening to lectures/podcasts… any way to get transcripts of these podcasts?

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