I was reviewing the various New Sensations, Inc v. Does cases in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, and one of them caught my attention.
In the New Sensations, Inc v. Does 1-1745 (3:10-cv-05863-WHA) case, I noticed that Judge William Alsup has taken over this case. This can only be good news for you and bad news for your plaintiff attorney, Ira Siegel. In short, Judge Alsup has the reputation for being known as “Mr. Rocket Docket”. Why? Historically, he has no patience for plaintiffs who sue and then sit around for months and months doing nothing (while they pressure defendants to settle). I have seen already a few cases where he gets tired of a case and on his own, he dismisses them for lack of prosecution. No doubt, if Mr. Siegel is paying attention, he’ll be paying attention to this case over the others or else he’ll have the case snatched from him.
To date, the other New Sensations, Inc v. Does cases in the US District Court for the Northern District of California are as follows:
New Sensations, Inc v. Does 1-1745 (3:10-cv-05863-WHA)
New Sensations, Inc v. Does 1-1474 (3:11-cv-02770-MEJ)
New Sensations, Inc v. Does 2-1768 (4:11-cv-02835-CW) <– severed from New Sensations, Inc v. Does 1-1768 (5:10-cv-05864-PSG) by Judge Paul S. Grewal.
21 thoughts on “Judge Alsup takes over “New Sensations, Inc.” case”
I’m a (potential) defendant on one of the Judge Alsup’s cases. So far I have rather positive opinion on him. Yes, he struck my anonymously filed motion, but of course I did not take it personally: a serious, experienced judge can’t allow blatant violation of the court rules. I just hope that he took time to read my motion before striking it, and that was my ultimate goal.
I did not read the docket you’ve mentioned, but I guess that by “taking over” you meant “was randomly assigned”. Recently judge Alsup announced that he has a difficult criminal case in front of him and ordered suspension of new motions. So, it seems that not only he is annoyed by slow-moving plaintiffs, but thinks that those shake-down copyright cases don’t worth his time.
In my case, he ordered that all the defendants should be served and prove of service should be filed by 7/14: this date is already passed with no filings, so I expect this case will be thrown soon. Do my speculations make sense?
Good seeing you here on my blog. I am fully familiar with your case, and I saw your motion and his response some time back. I’ve also been enjoying your writings on your website. It is nice to see others give candid and educated thoughts about what is going on in these cases. You’ve focused your blog on Gill Sperlein; I understand why. In short, I expect that his order will be carried out. The fact that his deadline passed is irrelevant. If proof of service has not been filed (which I understand it has not been), then his order stands. He is not one to change his mind on the issues or flip flop like some of the DC judges do. I look forward to seeing you dismissed from the case. I hope you will continue blogging on these cases long after you’re released from the threat of being sued.
Thank you. Yes, I will continue blogging, although not as often as now.
I just received a notification about new filings.
Sperlein did file the proof of service for two defendants, albeit 4 days past deadline, and he requested default for those two.
PS – Yes, “taking over” means “was randomly assigned,” however I am referring to the proactive activity in the case which Judge Alsup is known for rather than his predecessor who appeared to be sitting around and letting the case do whatever it wanted to. In these bittorrent cases, I prefer a judge that not only sits idly in the boat as it goes downstream, but one who takes the oars and starts paddling. Better yet, I like one who straps an engine to the back and lets revs it up a bit.
I have looked through most of Siegels’ cases. Almost half of them seem to have long gaps between activity. Hopefully Judge Alsup will hammer him.
Also, it is interesting to read his response on order to show cause. On more than one occasion he references research on internet usage for Europe, bittorent usage, etc.. The research indicates very clearly that “data does not include United States.”
How in the world does a judge just not laugh at him?
I too got this letter today from my ISP for case 1745. What is the best way to move forward, send a motion to quash? How would one go about this and on what grounds?
I saw the judges rulings on your motions to quash. Have you considered including in the motion to quash that the court is out of the jurisdiction of the ISP as well (since the ruling was that it was premature for yourself). Also, what about including in the motion that an ISP is not a person, so they cannot subpoena the personal info ( VPR Internationale v. Does 1-1017).
I guess this doesn’t likely matter anyway since we are not from Cali and will eventually be dismissed.
These motions to quash that you refer to have no affiliation to our law firm. The motions to quash for many months now have not been an effective defense because 1) John Doe defendants who file motions to quash reveal their identity — the exact information plaintiff attorneys are looking for — to the plaintiffs just by filing (and even in certain courts when they file it under seal, the courts (e.g., particularly, DC) have unsealed and revealed that John Doe information when denying those motions, and 2) as plaintiffs state and courts agree, the subpoenas were issued to the ISPs, not to the John Doe defendants. These ISP subscribers according to the courts DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO FILE A MOTION TO QUASH because they are not defendants [yet] in the case, and they are not parties to the action. BTW, correctly, you’ll often see ISPs served in the state in which their place of business is rather than where the defendant resides or where the plaintiff is.
Are the judges in these cases just allowing them to carry on to set precedents? As a lawyer, does scoring a victory in a precedent-setting ruling rank high on a list of personal accomplishments? I may simply not be well read, as I take more of an interest in semantics than law, but it seems like if any of these cases really got down to the nitty-gritty (and maybe they have, but I can’t find any examples), that there would be an abundance of fundamental flaws from which verdicts would/could curb most of these seemingly erroneous and doomed lawsuits in the future.
Are there any precedents that state whether or not an ISP equals a person? That responsibility for copyright infringement extends beyond the actual person committing the crime to the person who facilitates it with his or her network account?
What percent of a piece of media equals that media? If a song is an organization of notes and sounds, not simply the sound of a piano playing an E chord, how can they prosecute bittorrent users with data that only incriminates them as having a completely unusable and indiscernible chunk of incomplete raw data, that in no way (yet) resembles the media that is being claimed to be infringed upon?
Further, how can they establish a class status with the only factual link being a specific piece of shared media, when none on the list necessarily share the exact same file? Even if it’s the same torrent, the system works by grabbing bits from others that you don’t have, and giving bits to people that do. On a fundamental level, everybody has a different hand of baseball cards.
“I guess this doesnt likely matter anyway since we are not from Cali and will eventually be dismissed.”
Could you please elaborate?
what happens if you do nothing
will they dismissed case because you don’t live in Cail. or will they come after you come to your house ans search your computer
It appears that all defendants in this case have just been dismissed.
I’m disappointed with judge Alsup…
The link did not go through for some reason: http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2011/10/07/judge-alsup-grants-20k-default-judgment-against-two-alleged-file-sharers/
any new developments on the vs. 1474?
There is a order from judge for the plaintiffs to re jurisdiction on all 1474 John Does by December 14th.
It looks alot like it might get dismissed but as of now there is a document 90 you can look at it if you want. This is an adress for it:
That is GREAT information! Thank you for sharing. -Rob