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

The New Year is off to a fast start and I hope everyone is doing well. My apologies if I have missed responding to anyone. Please send me a reminder and I will get back to you (E-mail & Twitter).

Recently a kind person (Thank you!) informed me of a multiple Doe BitTorrent (BT) Copyright Troll case in GA, where the judge Sua Sponte (on his own) severed all of the ISP subscribers except for Doe #1. While we do see this from time to time, it is usually the exception to the rule as far as BT Copyright Troll cases go.

kathleen_lynch2_trollThe case is 1:16-cv-04055-WSD (Northern District of GA), ME2 Productions, Inc. v. John Does 1-14, filed on 31 Oct 16, by local Troll attorney Kathleen Maher Lynch, Law Office of Kathleen Lynch, PLLC. The case is the same old template claiming that on 29 Sep 16, someone using a BT client (on the 14 listed public IP address) download/shared the movie “Mechanic: Resurrection.” All of the public IP addresses were recorded sharing out a small portion (to the German BT monitoring apparatus) of the movie during a period of little more than 13 hours.   complaint_04055ga   complaint_ex-2_ip-list_04055ga   docket_9-jan17_04055ga

On 21 Nov 16, Troll Kathleen Maher Lynch (No relation to Doe Defender Christopher Lynch) filed her motion to take early discovery of the ISP subscriber information. I find it a bit odd that the local Troll attorneys do not simply file all their documents for early discovery the same time the case is filed. They have had this information since prior to the case filing.

I did a simply review of BT Copyright Troll cases in GA and only came up with seven multi-Doe cases (19 Oct – 10 Nov 2016), with 81 ISP subscribers.


On 28 Nov 16, Judge William S. Duffey Jr., Sua Sponte issued an Opinion and Order on the early discovery request.   opinion-order_04055ga   Judge Duffey dismissed all the Does/ISP subscribers (#2-14) except for Doe #1 – for the “practical reasons” of efficiency and fairness.

[T]he majority of district courts—including courts in this district—that have considered the swarm joinder theory have rejected it.” Breaking Glass, 2013 WL 8336085, at *4; see Kill Joe Nevada, 2013 WL 3381260, at *4. Because joinder in this case would not result in judicial economy, the Court exercises its discretion to sever the claims against each Defendant. John Does 2-14 are dismissed without prejudice.

I haven’t taken the time to check to see if all the cases are under judge Duffey and/or if the Opinion and Order has been applied across the board. While I’m extremely happy the court dismissed most of the ISP subscribers, I wish the courts would actually look into the technical aspects of these cases and see that there is ZERO evidence to show (In ANY of these cases) that ANY of the joined IP addresses actually shared parts of the movie with any other IP addresses in the case(s).

The ONLY record the Trolls have is that a public IP address on specific date/time (for this case 29 Sep 16), shared an extremely small portion of Plaintiff’s movie with the German BT monitoring apparatus. The Trolls know this and their claims are straightforward misrepresentation (AKA: Lies – my opinion) to the various courts. Their misrepresentation centers on the claim the Does/IP addresses are rightly joined because the file name and file hash are the same for all the IP addresses (For this case – Mechanic Resurrection.2016.HC.HDRip.XViD.AC3-ETRG & B5201111ACEC1E5025DE3087B15DF84612C02579 (SHA1)). WRONG!!!

There is ZERO evidence (and I challenge the Trolls to show otherwise) to support joinder regardless of what previous courts have ruled. NO court has yet taken the effort to seriously review the technical aspects of BT in relation to joinder.

Now I will say there is a possibility that some of the 14 IP addresses could have shared between some of the other IP address in the case.  BUT to claim ALL of them did is highly unlikely in my opinion. The nature of BT is it looks for other BT clients that are sharing the same torrent file. It doesn’t care if the other BT client is your next door neighbor or is located on the other side of the world. So, it is actually more likely that the seeder (has a full copy of the movie) or leecher (has less than a full copy) a BT client is downloading from is located somewhere other than in the same jurisdiction. The Trolls also fail to tell the court that if one (or more) of the IP addresses were “seeding” (already had a full copy of Plaintiff’s movie), they would not be sharing any data with the other “seeder” IP address.

Another fact not reported to the court is that BT clients often do NOT run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, non-stop. Thus, it makes it even more unlikely that ALL 14 IP addresses could be downloading/sharing Plaintiff’s movie during the entire period claimed by the Trolls (approx. 13 hours). The ONLY evidence the Troll show is on 29 Sep 16, between 10:43 – 23:49 UTC, each one of the 14 IP addresses spent ONE SECOND to share an extremely small portion of Plaintiff’s movie with the German BT monitor apparatus at 14 different times. Nothing shows that ANY of the IP addresses shared Plaintiff’s movie between themselves.

Now I don’t claim to be an expert on BT, but I know of one person who is. Delvan Neville, Amaragh Associates, LLC. He is the owner of Amaragh Associates, a digital forensics company specializing in BT investigations. Mr. Neville is an AccessData Certified Examiner (ACE) as well as the author of a BT monitoring suite, EUPSC2k. The following articles and his declarations explain that the likelihood of proper joinder of multiple Does in these cases is very unlikely.  Declaration1   Declaration2   Declaration3

Associated DTD Articles – Why Mass Joinder is WrongOne in 10 DuodecillionDBC v. Gaslight Coffee – DBC Joinder of Does Is Unjustified

What are the odds for this case?

joinder1So if you read the Neville declarations, you will see his opinion is based on two different “soaks” he did concerning BT “swarms.” Mr. Neville is of the belief that BitTorrent joinder litigation is not based upon any real likelihood that the joined peers engaged in any series of transactions with each other.

Note: For this GA case, the Troll limited the Does/ISP subscribers to those that were recorded over an approx. 13 hour period. This will of course affect the likelihood that ALL 14 Does/IP addresses exchanged data with ONE or more of the Does in this case.

I thought I might try to run the numbers from this case based off of Mr. Neville’s declarations. I got close, but still hand to seek assistance from a very intelligent and knowledgeable person (Thank you!).  Note: It was determined that the swarm numbers for this hash file was still heathy and ongoing (B5201111ACEC1E5025DE3087B15DF84612C02579). So based on the case specifics of the 14 Does/IP addresses record during a 13-hour period, it was determined that the likelihood at least one Doe-to-Doe link for every Doe is 0.0001%. To give you an idea of the odds, know that the chance of getting a royal flush dealt to you in poker – 0.000154%, it only slightly higher.

NOTE: In the declarations, Mr. Neville states that his calculations were based on the assumption that the IP addresses involved were at the top end of the top 5% as far as connectivity to other peers in the swarm. If you recalculate using the average connectivity for peers in the given time period (more realistic – no bias towards Troll or Doe) rather than the top 5% (highly-connected outlier peers), we come out with a 0.0000000000003% chance that all 14 Does connected to at least one other Doe in the case.

Take you pick – 1 in 10,000 or 3 in 10,000,000,000,000 

So the best odds for Troll/Plaintiff is there is a 1 in 10,000 chance that all 14 Doe are properly joined. Worst odd (most realistic) are 3 in Ten Trillion. As I said before, the Trolls actually have NO idea of what IP address the various BT clients are connecting to. The only way they could obtain such information is to somehow be connected to each Doe and actually see what IP addresses they download/share with. As the Trolls only claim proper joinder based on the same file hash number, they are technically in violation of FRCP 11 (Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions), as their pleading are based on the improper purpose of justifying joinder when they know there is NO evidentiary support for it; AND that further investigation/discovery is unlikely to provide it (Their best odds are 0.0001).

So why doesn’t the various courts start dismissing multi-Doe cases outright???

Well, it usually takes a Doe to first hire a defense attorney who then decides to employ an expert (like Mr. Neville). Also remember that hiring an expert will cost you money. For many of these cases, a Defense attorney is not hired, or one is hired only to negotiate a settlement. For those Does who actually put up a fight, the Trolls will eventually try to cut and run instead of trying to refute Mr. Neville’s declarations. Why bother to fight when all it takes is to get a different judge and/or jurisdiction; and then you are back in business. I do suggest for those defense attorneys looking to attack “joinder,” that they contact Mr. Neville.

DieTrollDie 🙂  “The point is that you can’t be too greedy.” {Trump, The Art of the Deal, page 48 (1987)}

– Suggested reading – Troll Poker & Talking To The Trolls   Basic PACER Case Look-Up

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.

7 Responses to GA Court Servers BT Copyright Troll Case Sua Sponte – 1:16-cv-04055 (NDGA) – “Royal Flush Odds”

  1. Pingback: Seattle judge splits minimum statutory award among defaulted defendants, drastically reduces fees awarded to copyright troll | Fight © Trolls

  2. Pingback: Anti-Piracy Outfit Targets 'Troll' Defense Sites With DMCA Takedowns - TorrentFreak

  3. Pingback: Anti-Piracy Outfit Targets ‘Troll’ Defense Sites With DMCA Takedowns – Curtis Ryals Reports

  4. Pingback: Anti-Piracy Outfit Targets ‘Troll’ Defense Sites With DMCA Takedowns | Crypto Cabaret

  5. Pingback: Anti-Piracy Outfit Targets ‘Troll’ Defense Sites With DMCA Takedowns ⋆ Business Monkey News

  6. Pingback: Anti-Piracy Outfit Targets ‘Troll’ Defense Sites With DMCA Takedowns - The Tech News

  7. Pingback: Anti-Piracy Outfit Targets ‘Troll’ Defense Sites With DMCA Takedowns | InternetNews.Space

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