Congratulations to Cashman Law Firm, PLLC Clients – Attorneys Suffer Partial FRCP Rule 4(m) Dismissal in West Coast Productions v. Does 1-5,829 Case

[NOTE TO CLIENTS: Regarding the article below, if you are one of those who have been dismissed, I will be sending you a congratulations letter shortly, and I will tell you what the next steps are and what to expect from Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC.]

Congratulations to our clients who have been dismissed in the West Coast Productions v. Does 1-5829 case (1:11-cv-00057-CKK). I must say up front that NOT ALL DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.  In short, this dismissal is merely Judge Kollar-Kotelly enforcing her 5/11/2011 order where she ordered the plaintiff attorneys at Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC to either name and serve the defendants identified in their 4/15 statement by 5/16 or else she will dismiss them on her own.  Like Judge Shadur has done to dispose with John Steele’s CP Productions v. Does case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois a few months back, Judge Kollar-Kotelly is employing the same Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(m) to dismiss these defendants.

The case itself is still alive.

As for what to expect next, there are a series of dates to watch for.  Firstly, Judge Kollar-Kotelly has set a 6/1 deadline for the plaintiffs to give her a status update as to the various Does still pending in the case.  Nothing of relevance will happen here.  Then, by 6/20/2011, plaintiff attorneys must either name and serve the defendants identified in their 6/1 statement or else she will dismiss them on her own just as she has done here.  Since they have a few days to inform the court of what they have done, we will likely see an order similar to the one we see today on 6/28/2011.

I have attached the order below for your viewing.  To those of you who are not one of our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC clients, please use the attached document to view whether your accused IP address is one of the IP addresses which are now dismissed.  If so, I congratulate you on your dismissal.

[scribd id=56243751 key=key-3ptx5nvm9ksp595tiof mode=list]

Last, but not least, on an ethics note.  It has been brought to my attention that it is the practice of some of unscrupulous attorneys to send out what are known as “scare letters” demanding thousands of dollars, even after a dismissal.  While this is obviously not legal advice, if I received such a demand letter after being dismissed from a lawsuit such as this one, I would immediately contact Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s chambers at (202) 354-3340, and I would ask to fax in a copy of the letter I have received so that the court can be made aware should the plaintiff choose to send such a letter.

12 thoughts on “Congratulations to Cashman Law Firm, PLLC Clients – Attorneys Suffer Partial FRCP Rule 4(m) Dismissal in West Coast Productions v. Does 1-5,829 Case”

  1. I hope I see my IP number on the NEXT list. Thanks to the proprietor of this website for this useful information.

  2. So I see there is a new hearing set for this case 1:10-cv-873. What is that all about. Is the judge having seconds thoughts now that 50,000 are being sued?

  3. I’m one of the remaining Does on this case that’s been served an offer for settlement that they won’t paid by June 2nd. Does anyone have any advice on whether I should settle this? $3,500 is a massive amount of money, but $150,000 would basically ruin me financially forever.

    Please someone advise.

  4. In my opinion, any proactive activity by the judge is welcome. All we know is that the docket states, “Set Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 5/31/2011 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 15 before Judge Beryl A. Howell. (cp) (Entered: 05/26/2011).”

  5. How many of the multi-thousand defendant cases can these judges allow before they are forced to rule on the joinder issue? They HAVE to see that all these bottom feeders really want is a mailing list for demand letters. Dont they?

  6. Has the Judge even ever seen a copy of the letter where they are asking for $3,500?? I would think if the Judge had a copy they would then know that the plaintiff is not following the stated purpose of the Subpoena which is for Discovery to see if they want to name the defendant or if more John Does can be found and link. The Subpoena does not imply extertion like tactics for someone that would be harmed defending this case half way across the country

  7. The EFF, lawyers like Mr. Cashman here, or any of the Does….NONE of them have notified a judge about this? I’d find that hard to believe.

  8. has anyone ever brought up the fact that valid IP-addresses can be generated programatically? There are even websites that will generate a list of addresses when given a range.

    It is pathetically easy to outright fabricate what passes for evidence to allow discovery in these cases. Anyone could generate a list of real IP addresses and stick them in a spreadsheet with timestamps and no one would ever find out. They would be able to send out demand letters without even having to bother getting on a torrent or bearshare etc.

    Is there no way to inform all of these judges that the initial evidence presented can be readily and quite effortlessly generated purely by machines?

  9. Why?

    Why would someone deny potential defendants the ability to protect their information when it is a known fact that the holder of that info passes the buck off to the defendant? Such “reasoning” just strikes me as a way to avoid doing paper work.


Leave a Comment