Motions & Orders

Note: This page is a bit dated, but may still be of some interest and of value to someone.



Here are some motions and orders I have collected and/or edited.  Please feel free to use them as a starting point in your Troll fighting efforts.  If you happen to file one, please send me a copy from PACER or at least where I can find it.  Also please keep me updated on the success or failure of it and what was the reasoning for the decision – this allows me and others to tailor the motions to be more effective.

DieTrollDie   🙂


CO Malibu Media, LLC v. Lindsey Maness, 1:12-cv-01873.  This Motion to Dismiss got the Troll Jason Kotzker to dismiss the Doe for the second time when her read it prior to filing.  Here is the post giving the background information Check out the Exhibits!   MTD – Maness_01873(CO)  MTD_01873_EX_A   MTD_01873_EX_B

MA case 1:12-cv-10805, Discount Video Center, v. Does 1-29.  Doe #22 MTQ.   Doe 22 Motion to Quash[1]   See the post on this motion.  Attacks the Plaintiff and troll on these points

    • The Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel Have Engaged in Bad Faith Pleading
    • Naming Subscribers As Defendants and Subpoenaing Their Identities Without Any Factual Basis Is An Abuse of Process
    • The Plaintiff’s Claim of Concerted Action As Justification for Joinder Is Groundless.

PA case 2:12-cv-02090, Malibu Media, LLC. v. Does 1-15

CO case 1:12-cv-00836, Malibu Media, LLC. v. Does 1-23

Order to Cite– 1 May 12, Judge Gary Brown, Eastern District of NY – Kicks the trolls in the junk.  Severs all Does except #1 and they only get the name and address of the ISP subscriber.  “Highly questionable factual assumptions underlie plaintiffs’ contention that these cases satisfy the Rule 20 requisites for joinder.”   ORR_03995(NY)

MTQ /S/D – Another Omnibus motion filed by a Doe in the Media Products, Inc., DBA Devil’s Film v. Does 1-59, 1:12-cv-00125, Southern District of NY.  MTQ_00125(NY)

MTQ/S/D – Here are two new (3 & 4 May 12) Motions filed on LA case 6:12-cv-00031 (4:20 Media, Inc. v. Swarm Hash Files……) – DocketMTQ_Omnibus_00031(LA)  SpportMTQ_Omnibus_00031(LA)  MTQ_Doe1002_00031(LA)

Court Order to cite, Digital Sin, Inc., v. Does 1-76, 1:12-cv-00126-AJN.  00126(NY)_Order  This one isn’t a motion, but the following court opinion & order permitting limited expedited discovery pursuant to a protective order does have some information I would cite in any future Doe motions.  The 30 Jan 12, opinion/order is from Alison Nathan, District Judge, Southern District of NY.  The judge states she has serious reservations on the ex parte application from the Troll.  In her discussions with the Troll, she got them to admit to the following error rate with assuming the registered public IP address owner is guilty & that Troll have harassed Does to obtain settlements:

The Court is concerned about the possibility that many of the names and addresses produced in response to Plaintiffs discovery request will not in fact be those of the individuals who downloaded “My Little Panties #2.” The risk is not purely speculative; Plaintiff’s counsel estimated that 30% of the names turned over by ISPs are not those of individuals who actually downloaded or shared copyrighted material. Counsel stated that the true offender is often the “teenaged son … or the boyfriend if it’s a lady.” (1117112 Tr. at 16). Alternatively, the perpetrator might turn out to be a neighbor in an apartment building that uses shared IP addresses or a dormitory that uses shared wireless networks. See, e.g., Mot. to Quash Verizon Subpoena, 11-CV -7564 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2012) (Docket #11) (claiming that a Doe defendant did not know how to use a computer and implying that the perpetrator was a neighbor in his condominium). This risk of false positives gives rise to “the potential for coercing unjust settlements from innocent defendants” such as individuals who want to avoid the embarrassment of having their names publicly associated with allegations of illegally downloading “My Little Panties #2.” SBO Pictures, Inc. v. Does 1-3036, 2011 WL 6002620, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30,2011).


Indeed Plaintiff’s counsel also bluntly conceded that there are “horror stories out there, what some law firms have done. For example, they have called and harassed the John Doe defendants.” (1117112 Tr. at 20). The Court appreciates counsel’s candor and notes that Plaintiff’s counsel appropriately does not request that the ISPs turn over the John Does’ telephone numbers.

John Doe 25’s Motion to Quash/Sever, Liberty Media Holdings, LLC, v. Does 1-38,1:11-cv-21567, Southern District of FL.  Doe25_Motion_21567  The judges agreed with Doe 25, quashed the subpoena and severed all Does except #1 (Court Order).  As Doe 1 didn’t reside within the court’s jurisdiction, the Troll was SOL and terminated the case.

John Doe 148’s Motion to Quash/Sever/Dismiss, Digital Sins Inc., v. Does 1-245, 1:11-cv-08170.  MTQ_Doe148_08179(NY)  Very nice motion.

JOHN DOE 85’S OMNIBUS MOTION TO SEVER AND/OR QUASH THE SUBPOENA AND/OR ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW,” (OmnibusMotion_FL_00570) for case 4:11-cv-00570, Third Degree Films Inc., v. Does 1-259, Northern District of FL.

Motion to Quash – PDF Format.  THIRD DEGREE FILMS, INC., v. Does 1-259, case 4:11-cv-00570-RH-WCS,  Northern District of Florida.   John Doe 126, by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20, 26, and 45 moves to dismiss/sever for improper joinder. In the alternative, John Doe 126 moves to quash the third-party subpoena and/or for a protective order. MTQ_FL_00570

Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 4(m) – Word Format.  This is a Motion to Dismiss template, based on no summons being served on Doe defendants for 120+ days.  There is also an Exhibit for this motion.  Make sure you add the correct case information, edit the details in the body as needed, change the date, and place the Troll’s address on the certificate of service.  Dismiss_4m  sh_comments

Third Degree Films, Inc. v. John Does 1-152 (DC – Mike Meirer/Copyright Law Group), 11-CV-01833-BAH.  Motion to Quash OR Modify & Motion to Dismiss. – 72721924-Quash-And-dismiss-Third-Degree-and-Copyright-Group

New Sensations v. John Does 1-1474 (California – Ira Siegel), CV-11-2770-MEJ (Big Bang Theory A XXX Parody).  Motion to Quash & Dismiss AND Exhibit A – newsensations_ca_2770  Support for Plaintiff Motion_Exhibit

Patrick Collins v. John Does 1-33 (Colorado), 1:11-cv-02163-CMA-MJW (Party Girls).  Motion to Quash & Dismiss AND Exhibit A – P_Collins_CO_Quash_Motion_02163  Support for Plaintiff Motion_Exhibit

Support Document filed by a John Doe – supporting his Motion to Quash (Patrick Collins v. 1-58, 3:11-CV-00531-JAG)  Paper written by the Computer Science Department of the University of Washington – MotionQ_Support1

FL case (Patrick Colins, 3rd Degree, K-Beech, Raw films, Diabolic Video, Nucorp, Berlin Media Art, Zero Tolerance Entertainment), case # 11-24714 CA 22 – Motion_Quash_Dismiss_FL_-11-24714-CA-22

PA K-Beech Case – Motion (Word Format) –K_Beech_Motion1


Exhibit A to this motion – graph1

Exhibit B to motion – IPAddress1

Exhibit C to motion – GeoIP1

K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-78, Case No. 11-cv-5060 MTQ

K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-78, Case No. 11-cv-5060 MTQ2

K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-78, Case No. 11-cv-5060 Doc 6




87 Responses to Motions & Orders

  1. Anon-1187 says:

    I received a letter from RCN informing me that they’re releasing my IP information per subpoena in 11-24714 CA 22 tomorrow. Stay classy, guys.

    • Tom says:

      call neustar who handle RCN’s claims. They said mine was being released two days ago but has not been yet, and I was able to file a motion to quash it today.

      If you get them a copy of the motion you file with the court they WILL NOT release your information until the judge rules on whether or not the subpoena is legal.

  2. G says:

    Any good information on how to file a motion to quash the subpoena without disclosing my identity? Can one use federal express without a sender mail address? Placing my IP address on the forms as the only link back to me.

    • Tom says:

      You do not have to file the motion with the prosecution…simply mail it to the courtroom.

      I included a return address, no name and an email address in my Motion to Quash.

      I motioned for all 1544 defendants to be released from this rediculous scam.

      • G says:

        Will my return address become public information? The website in the section for “What should I send with my motion, and where should I send this?” states that they will find your identify and start contacting you. I don’t want to involve a “friend’s” address for a return receipt since I believe they will be harassed.

        As I also have received a letter from my ISP in case 11-24714-CA-22 my 30 days to send my motion is running out.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        If you put a return address they will see it. Either put nothing as a return address OR put a fake one. I just sent a declaration with the address of 711 Happy St. The other point to consider is the post office stamp. If you are the only person in a certain location, the Troll can reason out it is you. That is if he has your personal info. Or at least which IP sent it.


      • G says:

        Anything on 11-24714-CA-22? I really cannot find too much info on the web. Cannot locate it in PACER either. Is there a limit on how long a troll can wait before taking action?

  3. Tom says:

    The envolope that you send your item to the court in is not public record, only the documents inside it. As long as those do not have identifying information I wouldnt worry.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      I heard different, but I wouldn’t take a chance.


      • G says:

        I am really liking the FedEx approach. Court will need to sign for it and I will have the receipt with the tracking numbers to ensure delivery. Name for FedEx can be John Doe with a made up address. Anybody see a flaw with this approach of blocking my address?

  4. Raul says:

    Another John Doe motion to quash has been filed in the United District Court for the Southern District of New York in the case entitled K-Beech, Inc. v. John Does 1-19 (11-cv-05786 (GBD)) in which the John Doe, among other things, argues that plaintiff’s complaint does not plead a prima facie case of copyright infringement because plaintiff does not have certificate of copyright registration for “Gang Bang Virgins” and, therefore, is not entitled to issue third part subpoenas in ISPs.

  5. Anonymous says:

    So just to verify. I’m sending in my version of a quash above. I only needed to edit info if I was naming my ip/doe number correct? I also added my “burnable” email address. Sending that copy to the court/troll

    I’m sending the same form to my ip but replacing the doe 1-x numbers with my individual doe number and ip address. Is that it then?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Take a good read over the motion you decide to use and make any changes you see fit. Even simple changes (like changing “Happy” to “Glad”) show it is yours and not a complete copy. Add/change your JD#/IP address if you want to. See what the court you are dealing with thinks of a completely anonymous filing. If it is applicable to your motion, consider adding the Declaration I filled in response to the VA Troll (see my recent post). Yes – add the email address to the signature blocks. Send a copy to the court and the Troll from a location other than yours (different State or City/County) – no return address. 🙂 For the copy you send to the ISP, write your IP address (If not already on the motion) on the copy you send them. Call the ISP and find out if they will accept a fax and if they require proof that you sent it to the court (certified mail or FedEx – signature required, etc.). That or wait for the court to publish it in PACER and then get a copy showing the filing date – mail to the ISP.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

  6. JD says:

    has it been attempted to file a motion to sever? with the biggest tide currently flowing for us right now being the near-precedent rulings being made all over severing the does, it seems reasonable that in areas tending to allow the early discovery antics (where motions to dismiss, proceed anonymously, etc tend to fail), it might make sense to turn our motions toward severing, with the case law showing such decisions and well-written judicial opinions around the country made recently.

    If that is in fact available, pointing me to it would be awesome. If not, feel free to get in touch with some advice/ideas or templates that we might be able to collaborate and put together if you have time or interest.

    DTD: feel free to share my email with persons at your cautious discretion who may be interested in making a document happen/helping it along.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      I think it is worth a good try. One area I want to work on is showing that IP address alone is a poor reason to grant a subpeona. The other one is to show that the nature of BitTorrent does support the claim of the Trolls that ALL of the Does are tied to the case because the MD5/SHA-1 hash of the movie is the same. The nature of BT is that seeders/downloaders come and go during the life of the torrent. This would be a good point to justify serveing all the Does that the Troll can’t show direct ties to JD#1.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      • PAJohnDoe says:

        While I was preparing a MTQ, I had a thought…

        I know this is jumping the gun a bit, but hypothetically, if the Plaintiff’s research showed that a particular IP was sharing as well as downloading on BitTorrent, but at the time didn’t have 100% of the file, would there still be infringement?
        In other words, if a movie file was broken into 10000 parts, and a particular IP only had a random 1%, it probably wouldn’t be playable, or even visually identifiable, other than through the hash. Is there a certain threshold that kicks in and results in copyright infringement?

        I didn’t put any of this in my MTQ, because I figure it’s for big boys and girls to handle. Just something that I was thinking of…

      • Doe Computergeek says:

        You know, another good argument is that you might have been in the swarm, but you never got a playable work. Pieces in the middle of an .avi file might not even play. They would have to allege that they not only downloaded the entire file from you (something BitTorrent does not allow) but also watch the entire thing to ensure that it is the same worlk.

  7. RGR says:

    I’ve been reading about all this and I want to say a HUGE THANK YOU for all your help and advice.
    I do a few questions.
    Is filing a motion to quash as an individual John Doe better or worse than filing that motion as a mass of Does?
    • Under the word “Defendants” do I need to sign it as “J. Doe?”
    • Should I include my IP address in the motion to quash?
    • Do I need to mail the motion to quash (to the court, the Troll Lawyer and to my ISP provider) from out of state, or is mailing it from another county good enough?
    Thank you.

    • Jerry Cox says:

      I am going to ride on your coat tails for answers to these questions as I now have my own identical circumstances to deal with… all of this information is invaluable and thank you to those who have done so much work… Looking forward to answers to RGR’s ??s.

  8. Rafael says:

    I have been recently notified by Comcast that unless I take action they will release my personal information to some trolls….. however before I even got to quash the motion myself, I just learned that someone had already submitted a motion to quash. (see below, from RFC express). does this particular motion covers just one doe or is the motion for all does involved? is there at timely way of obtaining a copy of this file? what should be different at the header of the document when submitting a motion to quash for a single doe or multiple does?

    “12/21/2011 7 MOTION to Quash subpoena served upon Comcast Cable Communications as it pertains to Doe no. 122, by Doe No. 122 (Attachments: # 1 mailing envelope)(dass, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/23/2011)”

    thank you!

  9. AnonymousJohn says:

    Hey I need some advice on the subpoena I got from my ISP. I have read a lot in the last few days, however my case seems to be a little different. It’s case number 4:11-cv-00545 from the United States District Court district of Eastern Texas, Xpays, Inc. V SWARM. The lawyer is Kevin Harrison. The information I got from my ISP (Charter) does not give me much information to go off, there is no list of the alleged copyrighted work that I infringed on. It doesn’t let me know how many people are in this with me, and the court case is sealed, meaning I can’t get any of this information from the court, and I can’t see what other people have sent in. I’m kinda at a lose right now on what to do. I did contact the court and the person I talked to said that all responses would be sealed, but I’m not sure if I should still file something anonymously or use real information. Any advice would be great.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      I don’t have details on this case, but have you tried PACER yet? (download the complaint from PACER – OR it is on RECAP for free!). Some aspects of the case may be sealed, but it is unlikely the entire case is under seal. I will see what I can find.

      DieTrollDie 🙂

      • AnonymousJohn says:

        Yeah I’ve tried PACER again and recap but nothing has come up. This is incredibly frustrating especially since I have so little information given to me. I don’t know how many people are in the lawsuit and I don’t know what it is they alleged was downloaded. It makes trying to fill out a motion to quash very hard.

  10. Raul says:

    This is the first time I have seen this: the entire case is sealed. Under these circumstances you might wish to contact the court anonymously using a throw away phone and ask about the specifics.

  11. UnnamedDoe says:

    Wanted to chime in to say that I got a similar letter from my ISP recently about case 4:11-cv-00545 regarding Xpays v. Swarm. I don’t want to mention my Doe number specifically, however based on the list I that came with the court documents it looks like at least several hundred people are being targeted. I’ve tried searching for this case online (unfortunately I’m still waiting for my PACER registration to go through) and this is the first mention of it I’ve found of it. I had been debating whether or not to file a motion to quash, but it looks like it might be difficult to do so if the case is sealed. At least I know to ignore the harassing calls/letters should my information be released.

  12. anonymous says:

    If it is the Xpays case filed in Eastern District of Texas, it is sealed and nothing appears in Pacer. At least, that is what someone said on another blog. I just googled the name Xpays, the only films that come up are the Paris Hilton sex tape.

    That is hilarious. Someone films a sex tape, it is sold to a porn studio and they copyright it?

  13. UnnamedDoe says:

    I looked up the Paris sex tape lawsuit as well, but wasn’t entirely certain what the outcome of it was. From what I could gather – without paying for documents from PACER – was that it ultimately came down to a settlement with a single Doe. I’m speculating that it was one of those scenarios where all Does but the first one on the list are dismissed from the case. Maybe this new lawsuit will proceed in a similar fashion?

  14. anonymous says:

    There are two other Xpays torrent suits that I could find. One was filed by Evan Stone, and dismissed by the judge. The other is from Michael Fattorosi, and is still pending.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Does anyone know anything about this Kevin Harrison guy? It seems like a lot of people are involved in this XPAYS thing. As for me, I’m just going to ignore this until it gets dismissed, like the other similar cases. I think many people start to panic and settle because they’ve never been involved in something like this before. But after researching on the web, it seems like the best thing to do is not settle and wait for this to pass.

  16. Wow says:

    Is it true that I must pay a court fee in order to just file my motion to quash? If so that is ridiculous that I must pay a fee just to defend myself for something that I didn’t even do.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      If you are talking Federal court, the answer is “NO.” You just have to abide by the rules of filing a motion. The court is usually pretty forgiving for filing errors of Pro Se John Does. If you are talking about State court (AZ & FL), i not sure what (& if) there are filing fees. Best thing is to call the clerk of the court and ask them.

  17. chris tubbs says:

    yOU ARE doing a great service! im still waiting on my case – 11-cv-01833-bah . no news yet! kind of nervous.

  18. Raul says:

    Yet another excellent attorney generated Motion to Quash, Sever and,in the alternative for a Protective Order

  19. hokeymcdokey says:

    Just noticed something, my subpoena via Neustar (for Brighthouse) has only John Doe, does that mean I’m alone on this? Weird!!!

    • njfgjndfg says:

      Not necessarily. If the only thing you received so far is a copy of the subpoena from your ISP it’s most likely a case filed against John Doe + co-conspirators.

      • njfgjndfg says:

        I say that because it seems unlikely they’d file suit against you individually without you first being included in a larger case.

  20. Doe-eyed_Deer says:

    Hey SJD, Here is an amateur MTQ from my case in MA. Assuming this person is truthful, this is a perfect example of why these trollsuits can’t continue!

  21. I filed a motion to quash and special appearance motion to dismiss yesterday in Sunlust Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-120 in Miami, Florida. This motion is somewhat unique in that it includes challenges to the plaintiff’s pleading style of incorporating each paragraph from prior counts into subsequent counts and challenges the manner in which the plaintiff mixes law and equity within the same count. The court has not yet ruled on this motion or these pleading challenges, and they may not be prevailing arguments. The motion is available on my website for your reference or can be found at

  22. Xxccgtuhd says:

    In 1:12-cv-10532 in MA, there was filed today (June 6, 2012) a beautiful motion to sever. It is Item #17 Motion to Sever. I think that it is very impressive.

  23. eXxccghtuhd says:

    Maybe I’ll learn some day.

  24. Plaintiff’s counsel just filed a singular response to seventeen Does’ motions to dismiss/server/quash in the Conan The Barbarian BitTorrent litigation now proceeding in the Middle District of Florida. I posted a copy on my Web site for your reference at

  25. Justy says:

    Hey all!
    First thank you so much for all this info, its been invaluable and spared me more than one panic attack!

    Case: 2:11-cv-07289-SDW-MCA
    Plaintiff: Baseprotect USA
    Alleged infringed work: “Weekend” (yup, the Polish one)

    I filed my motion about a month ago (docket document #7, “MOTION to Quash, for Protective Order, & to Dismiss by JOHN DOES 1-X”) and I’m seeing some new activity. Looks like the trolls have entered a brief and a cross motion. What’s going on here? Looks like they are making a blatant attempt to shoot down my argument again the joinder, is that correct? Anything I should do or know about this step of the process?

    Thanks in advance everyone!

  26. IndianaDOE says:

    My ISP send me a notice about Malibu Media requiring my info. In the attached subpoena, it doesnt indicate what I downloaded. They just state they require the ISP to provide info for 20 IP addresses. So if I file a motion, can I still say the 20 ip addresses didnt share whatever infringing documents, as a evidence for the judge to dismiss the case?

  27. DTD,
    I’m trying to compile a database of these troll cases so that I can have a reasonably organized way of tracking all this litigation. Would you be willing to contribute to my effort?

  28. AnonDoeFL says:

    I am currently one of the Does in this new case 12-26292 CA 27, Miami-Dade Circuit Court: Patrick Collins, Inc., Malibu Media, LLC., & Third Degree Films vs John Does 1-279. I have just received the notice of subpoena from my ISP and am contemplating hiring a lawyer to file a MTQ.

    After speaking with several lawyers on the matter, it is clear that they are divided on the issue of whether or not actually filing the MTQ is worth it / a smart move. Some said it should be the end of the whole ordeal (no guarantees, however.) Another said it would just piss off Lipscum (this particular attorney knew Lipscum personally) and ultimately be a waste of money as he would just come after me individually, either as a Doe again or after obtaining my identity.

    Another attorney, (who is not liscenced to practice in Miami-Dade & therefore stood nothing to profit from me) advised to let the trolls have my info and when their first demand letter came to just hire a lawyer to notify the trolls I would not settle. He said that sometimes fling the MTQ will put you on the Trolls radar and show you have expendable income and if you wind up being targeted anyway it’s really just a waste of money. I should add that I’d prefer not to edit my own MTQ based on the templates here. I really would rather have a professional do it.

    So my question to all you is this; is a MTQ worth it? Is it even a smart move? How often are these motions successful and actually the end to all this nonsense? In a case with 279 Does, wouldn’t the trolls rather save their money on an appeal to my MTQ and just move on to the other Does whose info they were able to get?


    am I better off letting the trolls have my info and just ignoring their harrassment until if/when they actually serve me with a court summons?

    I really just want this to go away as quickly & cost-efficiently as possible. I do not mind spending some money on a lawyer for this MTQ but I refuse to give a dime to these extortionists in a settlement. Oh, and I REALLY do not want these scumbags to have my personal information. Nor do I really want to entertain the notion of the (rare) possiblity of this going to trial.

    Thoughts, answers, and advice on the MTQ issue are all much appreciated. Good luck to all you other Does out there.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Thank you for posting the question. This one we get here often and it is not easy to give a simple answer. The best answer is usually “It depends” & “you are the best person to make that choice.” A little analysis of the situation will help – so here goes. Sorry it is long. 😉

      1) Merits – This where you should be starting. Does the claim of copyright infringement have any merits – is there any truth to the matter? Did the ISP subscriber do this? Is there any evidence of this on your network? Yes OR No – this is the place to start. You should start here because it will point you to the option giving the best possible outcome.

      Example: An unknown person (hacker, neighbor, etc.) abused your WiFi Internet connection. Does your Firewall/Router show this in the logs – doubtful as most logs (even if logging is turned on) from these device are very small and overwritten very quickly. No evidence of BT software/torrent files or the movie(s) in question are on the computers. Nobody in the residence admits to downloading/sharing the movie(s) via BT.

      The merits of their case is that they collected a public IP address while monitoring BT for infringing activity – your public IP address was recorded – that is it! The merits of the case stink! Not that it will stop them from getting discovery to obtain your personal information from the ISP. For the Troll to have a better chance in getting a settlement or taking it to trial, they need you to talk to them and provide an admission or give them the feeling you are scared to fight it out for whatever reason.

      2) Lawyers. Yes, you are going to get a variety of answer from them. Some say get a lawyer right away, while some say ignore it outright. If I had enough money, my personal choice is to hire one to be a “shield” while CLEARLY telling the Troll that you didn’t do it and will not settle. Let the Troll waste his time and money trying to talk to your lawyer.

      3) Will filing a MTQ/D/S piss off the Troll? Most likely, but will the specific Troll do anything to come after you? Each Troll is different. Now back to the “Merits” – does it matter if the troll gets pissed and comes after you as a single JD? Any evidence? Just make sure you have the stomach to deal with their actions? If not, then don’t file one and be prepared to give the Richard Pryor Response when contacted.

      Does hiring an attorney show you have disposable income or make you a better target for the Trolls. IMO – No. For a Troll to think this outright is stupid and makes bad business sense. This is a business – No Doubt. The Troll has to walk a fine line in determining if the ISP subscriber is a good target. Noticed I didn’t say “defendant,’” only ISP subscriber. That is because the Troll doesn’t know for certain that the ISP subscriber is the true infringer. They believe a good percentage of the ISP subscribers are the infringers OR someone else in the residence is. Not that they really care – getting paid a settlement is the bottom line – they don’t care who did it or if they did it. This is exactely why they like to claim that YOU as the ISP subscriber are responsible – so you pay up.

      4) Do Motions Work? Overall the success in getting dismissed/severed/quashed is not the best. It has gotten better in some Federal jurisdictions, but in some it is unlikely at best. Even if not successful, it does help to educate the judges as to how the Trolls are abusing the system for profit. I don’t recall any motions in your type of cases (FL Bill of Discovery) being successful – please correct me if wrong.

      5) Pure Bill of Discovery Cases. As this case is nothing more than a fishing expedition (can’t take you to trial), the Troll will be forced to refile in the proper jurisdiction if they decide to try and force a settlement. If you live in a jurisdiction that the Troll doesn’t have lawyers in, then it is less likely they will come after you.

      DTD 🙂

  29. You are being sued as a “John Doe” for copyright infringement. The plaintiff (the business entity suing you) has assigned your IP address to an arbitrary John Doe number (e.g., Doe 21) that is already named in a lawsuit now proceeding in the Miami-Dade Circuit Court. This is a “pure bill of discovery” state court action. It is unlike the majority of federal court copyright troll actions you may read about on the Internet.

    The stated purpose of a pure bill of discovery is to obtain the disclosure of facts within the defendant’s knowledge, or deeds, writings, or other things in his or her custody, in aid of the prosecution or defense of an action pending or about to be commenced in some other court. In my opinion the plaintiff’s use of the pure bill of discovery process to seek third-party discovery is being improperly used here. I argue, among other things, that the pure bill of discovery has never been a license to conduct a fishing expedition from a third-party that is not named in the pending lawsuit; in this case, the ISPs. I also argue that copyright infringement is the true subject matter of this lawsuit, which lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal courts under the federal Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. §§ 501 et sec. The plaintiff claims its sole intention in the pure bill of discovery is to obtain your name and address so as to include it in a subsequent federal copyright infringement lawsuit in another jurisdiction. This may be so, but I suspect they would contact you first and attempt to provoke settlement prior to naming you in a subsequent suit. There are several other legal arguments available to a John Doe named in a pure bill of discovery action seeking an ISP’s otherwise proprietary information too numerous to mention here.

  30. AnonDoeFL says:

    Thanks for the responses guys. William, is DTD’s claim accurate in that a MTQ has never been successful in one of these FL Bill of Discovery cases?

    Also DTD, I do not know what they are claiming I actually infringed upon, so determining merit is hard at this time. All it says is “Bittorrent Activity” on the notice from my ISP. How can I find out what files they actually want to sue me for?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Try to get a copy of the complaint. The FL state web site may have a copy. As I stated. If there is none of that stuff on the network, then the merits are low. If there is BT on the system, but not the movie or other copyright protected movies, then it isn’t as bad. Still not the ideal.

      DTD 🙂

      • AnonDoeFL says:

        Hypothetical question. Guilty or not guilty (or even unaware of the subpoena,) what is to stop anyone from swapping out their router for a new one and reformatting their hard drive? Or for someone who simply upgrades these devices and gets rid of the old one totally unrelated to the case? How is this plausible evidence for the trolls in the first place? It would seem to me that anyone who actually did infringe would just take these measures to destroy evidence anyway.

        Or is this precisely what the trolls would base their case on if it went to trial?

        I’m having trouble understanding what leverage (besides for recording your IP address) the trolls actually would have in a trial. On top of that, from what I’ve read it seems that the methods used to obtain a Does’ IP (although mostly accurate) is shady at best.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        If it takes place before the ISP subscriber is notified of the pending action (ISP subpoena), then there is little impact as it will be hard for the Troll to claim “Spoliation.” If such action takes places after you are notified of the case, it can come back to bite you in the @#$! Note: Hard drive and other equipment failures do occur at all time and they don’t care if there is an ongoing case. If such a failure does happen, make sure you keep good notes and have a witness (someone no involved in the case) to back you up. Even if the Trolls cannot find anything, they will claim you used some computer programs to destroy evidence and that you had ample time to do such.

        As a majority of these cases never reach this far (Discovery phase), it is an academic discussion. Some defendants have been disposed, but I know of no forensic examinations that have taken place. I know Prenda Law did examine a system that once belonged to a defendant (Prior to official Discovery), but they never said they found the movie in question. All they did was tell the court that there were tools on the system they believed were used to clean-up the system, as well as burn movies to CD/DVDs.

        You do understand – All the Trolls have at first is the public IP address THEY recorded. Yes the technical monitoring companies are shady and in the pocket of the trolls. If it ever goes to a deposition, a defendant can depose them and their operation.

        The only way they can get more ‘evidence,’ is by calling you (Idiot-lutz, etc.), deposing you and other who used the network at the date/time, and by conducting a forensic analysis of the systems involved. The deposition and forensic examination can only happen after you are named and served a summons – cost more money and raises the chance of a counterclaim being filed against them.

        DTD 🙂

  31. AnonDoeFL: I am aware of some successful motions to quash in bill of discovery cases. Many if not most of the motions filed are still pending and have not yet been ruled upon. I expect that some will be granted. It is not unusual to expect different rulings from different judges. As to finding out what files the plaintiff intends to sue you for, I am inclined to share with you that often there are more than one downloading incident that the plaintiff is targeting. Even where they only mention one in the lawsuit, there may be many more that they intend to seek damages on.

  32. DV says:

    I just received a notice from my ISP from MCDaniel Law Firm in New Jersey. This seems to be a new one as I haven’t seen this one anywhere from Century Media, LTD. Is it even worthwhile to file a quash or should I just do nothing and ignore it? Great website reading almost everything you have.

  33. Here is a link to a motion for award of Doe’s attorney’s fees you may want to add.

  34. The Century Media lawsuits filed by Mr. McDaniel in New Jersey are targeted to go down a somewhat different procedural path than the film copyright infringement lawsuits discussed on DTD. Their filings are voluminous and include asking the court to order the subscribers to come forward and show good cause as to why a preliminary injunction should not be granted against them, ordering that the swarm members (cumulatively) be restrained from distribution of Dystopia and be restrained from deleting or destroying discoverable BitTorrent related files. Century Media also requests that it be permitted to conduct immediate, expedited discovery in the form of issuing subpoenas to the ISPs seeking the Doe Defendants’ identification. William R. Wohlsifer, PA is accepting representation in these cases, in conjunction with a New Jersey-based attorney colleague.

  35. I posted a copy of Century Media’s proposed Order to Show Cause at the bottom of

  36. DV: The proposed order is way on the bottom of the linked-to page. That page loads very slow. (We are going to split it into three pages.) In my opinion, a challenge to personal jurisdiction is always a sensible place to start. I would not necessarily use a MTQ to present it. Unless, until, and how the court rules on the motion for preliminary injunction and show cause order it is too early to strategize the best course of action to take.

  37. ME says:

    how do you file a signature block on motion to say anonymous?

  38. ME says:

    I filed to stay anonymous and the judge sent this in reply: Therefore, if Doe wishes to re-file her motion in accordance with this order and all applicable local and federal court rules, she must first (or contemporaneously) file a motion to proceed anonymously and provide to the Court her name, address, telephone number and email address in accordance with Rule 11(a) and D.C. Colo. LCivR 10.1K. If Doe #17 wishes to keep her identifying information confidential, she may file her Signature Block separately, and may request that the document be maintained under Restriction Level 2 pursuant to the procedure set forth in D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.2. The Court may strike any motion or other filing that deviates from the requirements of this order or from those set forth in the applicable local or federal rules.

    So how do I file a signature block and does that mean they can not reveal my info once i file the new motion this way? Also the judge said i need to file my motion the the state where the subpoena is from bc the subpoena says New Jersey on it but he was the one who said it was okay for them to file a third party subpoena this judge is in Colorado to Comcast in New Jersey??

  39. skered says:

    I have received a lawsuit on 11/07/12 Openmind v. John Doe (my IP address) Tim Anderson filed it in Western District VA court. I have been stressed out for a year now since Prenda first sent their extortion letters, thankfully I had no cell phone # for them to harass me at. So now I have this case pending and a deputy clerk signed it. What should I do?

  40. TrollSucks says:

    Hi i got a letter from comcast stating that they will release my info to Guava LLC before i file MTQ by January 2013. the case is 12-MR-417 st clair county. does any one filled the MTQ in same or simillar cases and are they are good templates for MTQ to be filed? please help me as i just got back from vacation and have little less time in hand to file a MTQ. spoke to couple of lawyers and they are charging high fees to file MTQ and they are leaning towards Settlement as they are saying Settlement is cheaper than fighting a case in court. Please help me here asap as i have to act fast towards this.

  41. Anonymous says:

    Are there examples of people that have filed a successful motion to quash in cases not involving joinder?

  42. Trollvictim99 says:

    I have just received an ISP letter from Comcast informing me that my ISP has been identified in the TCYK LLC case in District Court of Central Illinois. Anyone else received this? Please respond and we can help out.

    Also has anyone edited the available MTQ templates here and filed the modified MTQ in this case? Let me know

  43. chimhaiyen says:

    Can someone please explain to me what is this order meant “ORDER LIFTING STAY AND EXTENDING SERVICE DEADLINE” is it meant that the plaintiff can now get my information from my ISP provider. My case number is Voltage picture 2:13-cv-00461-RAJ-RSL. Thanks..

  44. The order lifting stay means that the case may now move forward again. The burden of moving the case forward is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff initially has 120 days to personally serve its summons and complaint on each defendant. That burden includes identifying the name and physical location of the defendant. In this case the plaintiff seeks to discover the defendant’s identity and whereabouts through the defendant’s ISP. The defendant, as an Internet subscriber, is subject to certain protections available under the Cable TV Privacy Act, including the right of notice and an opportunity to object (through the court) to the release of such private information prior to disclosure. It is possible that your identity and address is already known to the plaintiff and that for some reason they have not yet attempted personal service. The plaintiff now has an extension of time to “perfect” service of process by personally serving its summons via a process server or sheriff.

  45. Yes. A defendant may waive personal service of process when they want to either: 1) expedite the process; or 2) avoid a law enforcement officer from coming to their home or place of business.

  46. Silver_Doe says:

    Anyone have any experience on what generally happens after the judge puts out an Order lifting stay and sets a time limit? Are the Trolls good enough to get the job done within the time limit?

    Thanks for your help.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      It is pretty straight forward. PLaintiff/Troll has to name and serve any Doe it decides to take to trial (an unlikely scenario IMO). As this order affected multiple cases/Does, it is highly doubtful there will be many Does who are named and served (if any). They will most likely keep pushing for settlements and telling the Does they will be sued while NOT mentioning the time crunch they are under. It is extremely possible for them to name and serve many of the Does, as all it requires is to pay a process server to do it. As they already have the ISP subscriber information, majority of the Does can be easily found. Even if a Does moves, a Lexux/Nexus type search is going to disclose lots of info on the Doe. The fact is that the Troll does not have the man-power or money to take everyone to trial. It was a huge effort for Troll Lipscomb/Malibu Media to take the 3 Does to trial in PA. It will be no different for the other Troll/Plaintiffs. As this is a business to generate settlements on a repeat basis, taking people to trial is generally a money-losing option. It doesn’t mean they will not, just that it is unlikely unless forced to AND/OR they have some evidence other than the public IP address collected by their technicians.

      DTD 🙂

  47. Silver_Doe says:

    In this case the Judge quashed the ISP subpoena at the start of the case. The trolls didn’t get any personal information. Now that the judge has lifted the stay the Trolls can get the names and addresses. I’m curious how long the ISP provider can drag out the request.
    If it takes a few weeks to get the personal info for 194 people than that cuts there time limit down even more.

    Thanks for your response to my question. All the hard work you do with this website is really helpfull.

  48. jdoe says:

    I’ve received a letter from my ISP (advicing me to contact Jon Hoppe… So nice of them) regarding a subpoena revealing my ID, etc. The letter doesn’t mention the court case number at all, it’s quite scandalous. I’m a foreigner, not used to law vocabulary, and that Troll business is really freaking me out.

    Apparently, Hoppe (for Malibu Media) has only filed indivual Does, according to this website :
    There are several cases, like this one filed the same day.
    It seems to me that sending a motion to quash is even less likely to be fruitful, since I can’t even argue that such a subpoena shouldn’t be grouped.

    In my particular case, Hoppe is asking the ID corresponding to an IP at the very precise time I was boarding an airplane. I’m thinking of scanning my boarding pass, censoring my name and seat and attach it in the motion. Do you think such a anonymous “proof” could have any impact on the judge decision?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      You could send the boarding pass, but Troll Hoppe will likely make the point that “Anyone” could mail in the boarding pass and it isn’t from the true defendant. Also, it would have your name on it. They don’t care if you were on a plane at the time. They can just say that BT can be running at any time and you likely had it up and running when you departed. Also the date/time is only date/time of when THEY downloaded the bits from you public IP address.

      DTD 🙂

  49. Nikolai says:

    I’ve been told that filing a motion costs money? The last lawyer I talked to said it costs $2,000 to file a motion to quash the subpoena.

    I am trying to

    • Nikolai says:

      *be prepared for the 2nd step because I am set on not paying their settlement fine.

      Besides an attorney, who can I go to when this escalates to subpoena my internet provider? Local courthouse?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      If you hire an attorney and ask him to file a motion, that of course will cost money – rates do vary. If you are still talking about CEG, then a motion is pointless. CEG does not open real copyright infringement cases. Note: Filing a motion Pro Se (no lawyer) is free; It has to be filed in the Federal court that it was filed in – not a local/State court. The problem you will have is if you are filing as “John Doe,” some courts will not allow an anonymous filing without pre-approval OR the Troll will simply make a motion to dismiss the motion as there is no way to verify you are the actual John Doe associated to this IP address.

      DTD 🙂

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