What is going on in the District of Columbia (DC) with their bittorrent cases?

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA — Everyone knows by now that DC is not a friendly jurisdiction to be sued in. Like Washington D.C., the judges do not follow one another, and each judge does what he or she feels should be policy. Two examples — Judge Beryl Howell, a copyright lobbyist turned federal judge, and Judge Bates — friendly towards downloaders (but subsequently removed by other judges from the Hard Drive Productions, Inc. case).  As far as I am concerned, this court is wrought with as much politics as Washington D.C. is in general.

So let’s go through some case updates, sorted by plaintiff attorney.


Imperial Enterprises v. Does 1-3,545 (Case No. 1:11-cv-00529) [at one point it was Imperial Enterprises, Inc. v. Does 1-3,145] — dead. On 9/26, Judge Reggie Walton ordered the plaintiffs to name and serve or dismiss defendants or dismiss them [according to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.R.C.P.”), Rule 4(m)] by 12/20/2011. Instead of naming defendants, Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC (who sends out settlement demand letters under the name “Media Law Group” or “MLG”) decided to dismiss all defendants. Case dismissed; congratulations to all Cashman Law Firm, PLLC defendants (and all others) who were Doe Defendants in this case. See order here.

Voltage Pictures, Inc. v. Does 1-24,582
, a.k.a., “the Hurt Locker case” (Case No. 1:10-cv-00873) [at one point it was Voltage Pictures, Inc. v. Does 1-5,000]dead. This one was actually funny. On 11/4, Judge Beryl Howell got tired of this case being on her docket. So she gave Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC (“DGW”) until 12/5 (extended to 12/12) to name and serve defendants or to dismiss them (again, the judge invoked F.R.C.P. Rule 4(m) to wipe what became a stale case off her docket).  However, DGW missed the deadline, and instead of having the judge dismiss the case, they dismissed it themselves to save themselves the embarrassment of having yet another case dismissed for them failing to move forward against defendants.

Regarding this plaintiff attorney, I received word that they were gearing up to sue individual defendants in their home states. This is nothing new as they have already started “naming” defendants for their older dismissed cases. More recently, I received word that they are hiring local attorneys and following the Patrick Collins, Inc. model of stating to dismissed defendants, “we have hired XYZ attorney in your state — unless you settle with us, we will name you in a lawsuit in your state.” The problem here is I have reason to believe they’ll follow up with the lawsuits.

There are some other “conspiracy” issues regarding this plaintiff, namely that they sent subpoena letters demanding names and contact information for various John Doe Defendants *AFTER* dismissing their IP addresses and releasing them from the case. This was written up by Torrentfreak.com, and you can read up about it here.  (NOTE: After the ISPs refused to hand over subscriber information, they added the IP address back into the lawsuit — something I don’t think they were allowed to do — but these Doe Defendants have since been dismissed as well and now they are receiving “scare” letters now as we speak.)


As we know, a few months back, Steele Hansmeier, PLLC (now Prenda Law Inc.) ventured into the DC District doing some “forum shopping” with their Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-1,495 (Case No. 1:11-cv-01741) and their AF Holdings, Inc. v. Does 1-1,140 (Case No. 1:11-cv-01274) cases — having been essentially locked out of their own Illinois jurisdiction, they were looking for a few favorable rulings based on DC’s “plaintiff-friendly” reputation in the bittorrent cases of the past year (they have since found a happier home filing suits in the Florida / Miami Dade state courts). In these cases was the first appearance of Paul Duffy who has since taken over Steele’s position in the firm (yes, it appears as if he is out).

AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-1,140 (Case No. 1:11-cv-01274) has survived scrutiny without a hiccup as Prenda has been “pretending” to search and see which defendants lived in DC. To make their searches appear valid, they immediately started dismissing a bunch of defendants a few at a time (“NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal re Does 1-8,” “…Does 9-15,” “…Does 16-35,” “…Does 36-65” — what I do not understand is, “Hasn’t Judge Reggie Walton figured out their game yet?” After all, it appears to me as if none of the defendants [so far] live in DC. And, they filed the complaint in JULY 2011! Did it REALLY take them 5 MONTHS to figure out that the first 65 defendants did not live in DC? I could have done this in just a few minutes using known geolocation tools). In short, Judge Reggie Walton is allowing this to move forward for now, but he is not stupid. My prediction is that he is going to bust this case using FRCP 4(m) any time now.

Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-1,495 (Case No. 1:11-cv-01741) is the case that is filled with controversy. It was in this case where Judge Bates figured out that most of the defendants did not live within the jurisdiction of the DC court. He invited Doe Defendants to file motions to quash and promised that he would keep their information sealed and private. My first inclination when I saw this was “watch out! — DC does not keep sealed documents as private — as soon as they deny the motions to quash, they expose the defendants’ information when denying the motions.”  Then a few days later, as we wrote about here, whether for political reasons or from pressure from the other judges, Judge Bates was removed from the Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does case and he was replaced by Judge Facciola, someone who in my estimation was not friendly towards bittorrent defendants. For weeks, we saw nothing from him — no indication as to whether he would honor Judge Bates’ offer to submit motions to quash anonymously, or whether he would summarily deny them. I suspected he would deny them in line with DC’s past strong stance AGAINST motions to quash.

Well, I am sad to share that Judge Facciola ended up being exactly who I thought he was. In his 12/21 ruling, he reversed everything Judge Bates was trying to do when he wrote in his order that “I will not consider any motion unless it is publicly filed.” In other words, unless you use your real information in your motion to quash (e.g., your real name, address, phone number, etc. — the exact information the plaintiff attorneys are looking for in order to start sending you “scare” letters and calling you with the effect of scaring you into a settlement), Facciola’s court will not consider your sealed motions to quash as Bates promised they would.  It need not be said that when you file a motion to quash, everybody can see it as the filing is a public document. However, Judge Facciola does not care about your privacy interests, nor does he care if plaintiff attorneys receive your private information, because according to him, “[i]ndividuals who subscribe to the internet through ISPs simply have no expectation of privacy in their subscriber information.” (emphasis added) I wonder when the last time an ISP allowed a subscriber to open an account without the subscriber’s personal information.

In sum, expect this case to move forward like all the others. We appear to have a copyright-troll friendly judge here, so please prepare yourselves to have your private information handed out to your plaintiff attorneys by your ISPs; until now, I expect that they haven’t done so. I would love to give you good news here, but so far there is no indication this is going away any time soon — at least not until Prenda Law Inc. gets its payday.

5 thoughts on “What is going on in the District of Columbia (DC) with their bittorrent cases?”

  1. Very comprehensive review. When you wrote about political motives behind removal of judge Bates, I hoped it was just a plausible theory (no offense, I believe that your every word has a weight of thought and experience, but in my perception you tend to see things a little bit darker than they are — maybe I’m mistaken, and it’s just me who sees things brighter than they appear :) ). Now I see that you were right…

    One bad thing about Faciolla’s order is that he set a deadline and by default, in a case of non-response, motions will be unsealed. I don’t understand that, it could be done the other way around.

    At this moment there are four brave souls who decided to go forward and fight openly. One of the pro se motions is short and very well written.

    Also, to add to Prenda cases: Duffy dumped two lawsuits assigned to judge Wilkins, who is one of few not troll-friendly judges in DC.

    I heard rumors about some big politics involved in Hurt Locker cases, but I don’t know the details, looking for information…

    • …dark. :) Your comment made me smile because I try to tone down the darkness and cynicism when I write these things up. I was about to call Judge Facciola corrupt in the last sentence but there really was no support for that and so I left it out. I keep telling myself that these are ethical judges and ethical attorneys, even though it baffles me that the judges are allowing these shakedown cases to proceed. I wouldn’t mind if the ISPs handed information directly to the judges. It just blows my mind that they let personal subscriber information fall into the hands of those who have been known to misuse that subscriber’s information in what is no doubt an elaborate extortion scheme. So yes, I see things darkly with these cases. Putting on a smile and pretending that all parties are acting ethically bugs me because it feels like I am the one that is pretending everything is alright.

      • Rob, I have begun to appreciate your darker take on these cases. I think it only helps us Does to have a wide array of different opinions and expertise on these cases. I hate to hear that these trolls have found refuge in Florida and D.C. It kind if counters all te progress that has been made in states like California.

      • I was about to call Judge Facciola corrupt in the last sentence but there really was no support for that and so I left it out.

        Although the development I want to draw your attention does not support that claim either, I’m very troubled:

        Openmind Solutions , Inc v. Does 1-565, 11-cv-1883-EGS.

        Cablevision refused to comply with subpoena claiming that it was not properly submitted (did not have time to dig the details). Duffy complained and asked judge for a clarifying order. Instead of simply signing a prepared proposed order, Facciola ordered Cablevision to show cause why it shouldn’t be held in contempt. Unnecessarily harsh. Going extra mile by writing a 2-page order for what reason? To show that trolls freely rule in DC? It’s Duffy who should be sanctioned for judge shopping.

  2. I was troubled when I saw Bates off the case and it was assigned to a 68 year old who was/is considered by his peers to be an “expert” in areas of electronic law. Fear shot through me. At least Bates seemed reasonable, whereas Facciola is set in his opinion before the case even gains traction.

    I’m *shocked* that a Clinton appointee could EVER be corrupt.

    That being said, the appearance of John J. Michels, Jr as the Doe defendant is an interesting turn of events. I think I’m in for one hell of a ride.


Leave a Comment