What this means is that as of this afternoon, the judge has begun to scrutinize the other Manny Film, LLC cases filed in the Florida Southern District Court (this time, Case No. 9:15-cv-80298). This one is due April 1st, 2015. I would not be surprised if the judge continues to go down the list of “Manny Film” cases filed in the Florida Southern District Court and kills each one, one “order to show cause” at a time.
It is also important to note that in my estimation, the Manny Film LLC lawsuits are “cut-and-paste” lawsuits copied from the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits filed across the United States. Unfortunately for Keith Lipscomb (the mastermind behind each of the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits, and now, the mastermind behind each and every Manny Film LLC lawsuit soon-to-be-filed across the U.S. District Courts), these ‘orders to show cause’ pose an existential threat to not only the Florida-based federal cases, but also to the other Manny Film LLC cases filed in the other federal district courts (upon which these Florida federal cases [when considered by the other federal judges] will be PERSUASIVE).
EDUCATIONAL NOTE: Even if all of the Manny Film LLC cases go away, the “Florida ‘Manny Film LLC v. John Doe’ cases suffer a black eye (FLSD)” article is still helpful to discuss the concept that “an IP address (even one tracked to a particular defendant’s address using “solid” geolocation software) is INSUFFICIENT to identify and sue the account holder as the defendant in a bittorrent copyright infringement lawsuit.” Using the geolocation data alone as their source of “evidence” to support their claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff cannot properly state that the defendant 1) lives in the district for venue purposes, and 2) the plaintiff arguably even “fails to state a claim” against the accused defendant (FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) language) because such geolocation software “evidence” does not prove (or sufficiently state) that the accused defendant is the downloader.
— CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.
NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together. That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.
The ‘Bellwether Trial’ is Malibu Media’s FIRST Case to EVER Go To Trial
Image courtesy of @artur84 / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Much of the bittorrent world is saddened by the leaked news reports of the recent “Bellwether” case in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Malibu Media v. John Does, Case No. 5:12-cv-02088) where at least one defendant is reported to be facing close to $112,500 in damages plus attorney fees for the peer-to-peer downloads he is said to have taken part in. The plaintiff attorneys, along with Keith Lipscomb and others who have a vested interest in seeing bittorrent cases against internet users succeed are drinking champagne and celebrating their victory.
It is both my professional belief and my personal conviction that copyright trolling lawsuits are wrong, and while there is nothing illegal in suing a defendant for copyright infringement, doing so in my opinion is unlawful and morally corrupt. These lawsuits are nothing more than a STAGE SHOW to permit a behind the scenes SHAKEDOWN of accused internet users, whether or not they actually participated in the accused infringement. For G-d’s sake, the “guilty” so-called “criminal” defendant merely clicked on a link, and downloaded a title that was openly shared with thousands of other downloaders. To hit that defendant with a shock lawsuit where they face $150,000 statutory damages for a video that could have been purchased for a few bucks is a disproportionate punishment for the “crime” of downloading copyrighted films. Rather, instead of suing downloaders and letting the piracy continue, why not just end the piracy problem by issuing a DMCA take down notice to the bittorrent tracker? The alternative of sitting in bittorrent swarms and employing tracking software to track the IP addresses of who is downloading to me just seems like an abusive step to what would otherwise be a simple problem of making the torrent files go away so that unsuspecting downloaders couldn’t click on the links.
It is my conviction that copyright infringement lawsuits are wrong because it is simply immoral to shake down EVERY John Doe Defendant (yes, each one) with the threat of having to defend a lawsuit in federal court unless they cough up tens of thousands of dollars for downloads that the John Doe Defendant often did not even take part in. I have personally seen copyright trolls such as Malibu Media, LLC take large sums of money from defendants who did not do the download, but who were pressured into settling simply to avoid being named in a lawsuit. It is no secret that defending a case is sometimes significantly more expensive than settling a case.
Why the Bellwether Trial will not be binding on other courts.
Yet even with the pending resolution of this lawsuit, accused defendants across the U.S. in their own lawsuits should understand that this ruling will not be binding on other federal courts in other federal districts. Each federal court makes their own rules as to what constitutes copyright infringement, and what evidence is required to prove a defendant guilty when the so-called infringement happens via a bittorrent download. This is our job as attorneys — to know which districts have rules in favor of bittorrent users, and to know which districts have ruled in favor of the copyright holders. No doubt, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will now become a favored spot to sue internet users across the U.S. for copyright infringement.
Why this so-called “trial” will not affect how we see Malibu Media, LLC cases.
Lastly, on a personal note, this case does not change the way a lawyer handles copyright infringement cases. At least in our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC, there is no silver-bullet approach — some defendants choose to settle, and many do not. Considerations as always involve 1) whether the download actually happened and the circumstances surrounding the accused activities, 2) the accused defendant’s willingness to fight and defend a copyright infringement lawsuit, 3) the accused defendant’s aversion to risk of having their name become public knowledge in a court proceeding, and 4) the accused defendant’s financial ability to take each of the various pathways we suggest.
In summary, determining how to proceed is a question of RISK.
In sum, not all guilty defendants settle, and not all non-guilty defendants fight. It is simply a calculation and a risk assessment that is based on the client’s desires, the federal district in which the lawsuit is filed (taking into consideration past bittorrent cases filed in that jurisdiction), the judge who assigned to the case (taking into consideration his past rulings), and the plaintiff attorney (or more frequently, the local counsel’s) proclivity towards naming, serving, and taking defendants to trial balanced with their willingness to negotiate an amicable settlement should we decide to go that route.
Bittorrent cases [in their current form] have now been around for three (3) years, and now we have a verdict where a case has been taken to trial — by Malibu Media, LLC surprisingly enough. When we started, there were no cases taken to trial, and now there is one. Before the appearance in 2010 of the bittorrent cases, all we had to go on were the old Napster and Grokster cases, combined with the various lawsuits filed by the RIAA / MPAA and miscellaneous copyright infringement files dealing with the internet. Up until now we have been developing case law surrounding peer-to-peer downloads as each case matures. Now we are starting to get some clarity as to the law surrounding bittorrent use.
What else can you tell me about the Malibu Media cases?
[2017 UPDATE] The best way to learn about Malibu Media, LLC is to read what happened to them as it happened. The list of stories below (in the order I listed them) tell the Malibu Media story in a way that you will understand them.
— FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT MALIBU MEDIA, LLC:Again, if you have been implicated as a John Doe defendant in a Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, there are TWO (2) main articles you should read immediately:
CONTACT FORM: Alternatively, sometimes people just like to contact me using one of these forms. If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.
NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together. That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.
Is Malibu Media, LLC using geolocation tracking to target the wealthy in their settlement scheme?
In one word, yes. Malibu Media is using geolocation tracking services to identify which neighborhoods are considered “wealthy.” They take this geolocation tracking data and they use it to decide which defendants to sue.
Malibu Media, LLC has been filing lawsuits across the U.S. with a fervor with one change — most of them appear to be “Single John Doe” lawsuits against defendants whom they believe have deep pockets.
NOTE: BEFORE READING THIS ARTICLE: If you have not already done so, and you are implicated as a John Doe in a Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, read these first:
Yes, Malibu Media, LLC appears to be suing those defendants with deep pockets. How?
It appears that Malibu is using geolocation tracking services to at the geolocation data of the various IP addresses of the so-called downloaders. They then focus their lawsuits to target defendants who live in towns which have high value residential homes. I know this because based on the individuals who call our office, a disproportionate number of them have commented that they have multi-million dollar estates, and they were wondering whether it was ethical to target high value individuals in their copyright infringement lawsuits.
Malibu Media Incentives to Local Counsel??
To make matters worse, Malibu Media, LLC appears to have incentivized their local counsel with financial rewards for bringing in higher settlements. In the olden days, I could have called one of their contacts directly, and within a few phone calls, I knew what kind of settlement a defendant could get based on how many “titles” or alleged instances of infringement they were accused of downloading. From there, the client and I would decide whether it made more financial sense to fight the case by waiting to be named and filing an answer in court, or whether it made more financial sense to settle the case. Malibu has complicated this process in order to provide the appearance of legitimacy for the courts. Now, they are having their local counsel negotiate the settlements themselves.This would be okay, but it is my experience that local counsel are asking for higher numbers than I know Malibu would have settled for just a few months ago. “The old settlement numbers you used to have with Malibu are no longer in effect,” one local counsel told me as she pushed for higher numbers. “We are doing this ourselves now.”
And now Malibu Media is tracking their targets’ other downloads?
To make matters worse, when Malibu Media, LLC identifies a downloader by his IP address, they track that IP address and monitor that defendant to see what other bittorrent files that defendant is downloading (wiretap?). They continue to monitor that defendant downloading non-Malibu Media titles such as “The Walking Dead,” “Homeland,” “Breaking Bad,” often creating a list multiple pages long of “other” infringing activities that defendant has taken part in. Their logic is that because a particular defendant downloaded those other titles, he is a “serial downloader” and thus it is more likely that he downloaded their titles as well. A number of us attorneys have explained to their local counsels’ deaf ears that just because a particular IP address downloaded a number of bittorrent titles does not mean that the accused defendant is that downloader. However, even the best attorney’s understanding of the law can be clouded when money influences that attorney’s understanding of it.
Good news, the “other downloads” are inadmissible character evidence.
On a positive note, in just a few weeks, we have seen judges rule that the “other” BitTorrent activity listed in their complaints [for works not owned by Malibu Media] is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”), specifically Rule 404 on “Character Evidence.” The reason for this is because “Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.” In other words, proving that a particular defendant is a “serial downloader” is not admissible to prove that on a particular date and time, that defendant downloaded Malibu Media’s copyrighted titles. Shame on Malibu attorneys for not knowing this.
Further, judges have ruled that introducing evidence of “other” downloads is not relevant and is actually prejudicial to the defendant, and thus that so-called evidence is not admissible to prove that the defendant downloaded Malibu Media, LLC’s titles. As one example, Judge Stephen Crocker has frozen all of Malibu Media, LLC’s cases in the Western District of Wisconsin for this very purpose (link).
In summary, these aggressive missteps will hurt Malibu cases.
In sum, messing up on the Federal Rules of Evidence and doing so on each of their “Single Doe” upper-class cases was a big mistake which they might not be able to undo. And also on a positive note, because they have filed so many “Single Doe” cases across the country, judges across the U.S. are looking deeper into their tactics and their evidence of infringement. See @Ddragon229’s article on the FCT website, “Winds of change begin to blow on Malibu Media” for details on the character evidence issue.
Despite this, Malibu Media, LLC continues to file lawsuits across the U.S. in alarming numbers, and in each case, they continue to file this prejudicial information of “other” downloads as their “Exhibit C” in each case. A snippet of cases filed in just the last few weeks is pasted below:
Cases filed by Chris Fiore in the Pennsylvania Eastern District: Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02858) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02859) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02867) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02868) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02854-JP) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02855-MMB) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02856-JD) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02857-SD) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No.2:13-cv-02863-PD) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02864-HB) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02765-MSG) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02766-MSG) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02767-WY) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02768-PD Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02769-RB) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02770-CMR)
Cases filed by Mary Schulz of Schulz Law PC in the Illinois Northern District: Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03726) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03699) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03700) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03703) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03704) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03705) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03706) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03707) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03710) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-03711)
Cased filed by Paul J. Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC inn the Michigan Eastern District: Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.238.205.92 (Case No. 4:13-cv-12231-MAG-MAR) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.42.185.159 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12210-RHC-MJH) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.43.4.96 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12213-SFC-DRG) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.43.84.236 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12214-AJT-MKM) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.60.140.87 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12216-PDB-RSW) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.62.41.133 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12217-VAR-RSW) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.14.181.108 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12218-NGE-DRG) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.246.89.172 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12220-AJT-DRG) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.149.158.6 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12197-GAD-PJK) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.149.89.224 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12198-PDB-MKM) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.40.123.7 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12200-GER-MKM) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.40.46.12 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12201-DPH-DRG) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.43.35.2 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12202-PDB-DRG) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.41.170.197 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12204-GAD-RSW) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.41.19.221 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12206-DPH-LJM) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.41.86.4 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12208-MOB-RSW) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.42.172.154 (Case No. 2:13-cv-12209-SJM-MKM)
Cases filed by Paul J. Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC in the Indiana Northern District: Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe 12 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00166-PPS-RBC) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe 5 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00164-PPS-RBC) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe 9 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC)
PERSONAL NOTE: Even with all these cases, I have only listed 46 cases having 46 defendants. With the hundreds of filings, it becomes impossible to track and report on each case. The more I look at each of these cases, the more I feel as if they have succeeded in preventing attorneys like myself from tracking and reporting on each of their hundreds of cases. Obviously I am still here, and I am still reporting on these cases. My list of cases to track has just gotten a bit larger.
What else can you tell me about the Malibu Media cases?
[2017 UPDATE] The best way to learn about Malibu Media, LLC is to read what happened to them as it happened. The list of stories below (in the order I listed them) tell the Malibu Media story in a way that you will understand them.
— FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT MALIBU MEDIA, LLC:Again, if you have been implicated as a John Doe defendant in a Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, there are TWO (2) main articles you should read immediately:
CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.
NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together. That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.
Malibu Media, LLC has been one of the worst offenders in these copyright trolling cases. Instead of waiting for a full download to be complete, it has been reported to me that IMMEDIATELY UPON CLICKING ON THE BITTORRENT LINK (or in other words, as soon as an internet user “joins” the bittorrent swarm, EVEN IF NOT A BYTE OF DATA HAS BEEN DOWNLOADED), ***WHAM!*** Downloaders are tagged and are sued for copyright infringement.
To make matters worse, Malibu Media, LLC is known to sue based on what is called a “Siterip” (essentially meaning that someone ripped a large set of videos from their http://www.x-art.com paid website, and posted a huge number of them into one bittorrent file). We won’t ask 1) if they’ve known about the Siterips, why they have not filed DMCA takedown notices for those Siterips, and 2) whether they were involved in the “leaking” of the various siterips (in my opinion, it is too convenient to have “Siterip #1… Siterip #2… Siterip #12…”). In sum, clicking on the wrong torrent file link with Malibu Media, LLC as your plaintiff production company can get you sued for 25+ titles, or “hits” as they like to call them.
MALIBU MEDIA ASKING FOR UNUSUALLY HIGH SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS
Now what makes these cases particularly offensive is that unlike the traditional copyright trolls who will only ask for $3,400 and settle for whatever they can get, Malibu Media, LLC will likely ask for at least a $10,000 settlement from each defendant. You see this by looking at the case names below that there appears to be only ONE defendant in each case. The reason for this is that their attorneys will tell the defendant that he’s the only one in the case, and that they’ll amend the complaint, “name” him as a defendant, and serve him with process if he doesn’t settle.
MALIBU MEDIA LAWSUITS SUE ONLY ONE “JOHN DOE” DEFENDANT
While I am against the concept of suing downloaders for the piracy of a film, I want to note that filing ONE LAWSUIT FOR ONE DEFENDANT is the proper way to do these lawsuits (and the courts will be much more forgiving based on the many filing fees paid to the court, especially since the court will not need to deal with rote procedural issues that have plagued these cases since their inception [e.g., improper jurisdiction, improper joinder]). In sum, in a case such as this one, a defendant must answer for himself the simple questions of 1) can I fight this (the answer is likely yes considering the “snapshot” methods in which they track the IP addresses relating to the downloads, along with the likely-present issues of late copyright filing dates), and 2) how would I like to proceed based on what I know about their evidence against me (based on my own network router setup and/or downloading habits)? X-art films have a very specific style and theme to them, and they attract a very specific genre of married men, one step up from those who enjoy classy soft porn. On top of this, the Keith Lipscomb IP enforcement company representing Malibu Media, LLC as their client does research on most defendants (note their mention below as “Dr. John Doe” in one of their cases to signal to the defendant that they know he has financial resources to pay a large settlement). For these reasons, it is often a simple question of EVIDENCE in determining whether to move forward with what is usually a very good defense, or whether to use that evidence we gather in your favor while attempting to negotiate a deeply discounted settlement on your behalf.
WHO ARE MALIBU MEDIA’S ATTORNEYS IN EACH STATE?
Up front, the local counsel you will read about below — Mary Schultz, Paul Nicoletti, Jon Hoppe, Leemore Kushner, Jason Kotzker, and Patrick Cerillo — are merely paid to file and fight these cases according to the instruction of Keith Lipscomb. They are merely cogs in Lipscomb’s IP enforcement machine, and in my opinion, there is no reason for anyone to be talking to them since they likely do not have authority to do anything but gather evidence, argue the cases and move them forward.
MARCH 2013 – 19 NEW CASES
Illinois Central District Court Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01096) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01099) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01100) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01101) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01102) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02058) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02059)
Wisconsin Eastern District Court Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00226) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00236) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00238) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00239)
Indiana Northern District Court Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC Malibu Media LLC v. Joe Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00085) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00162) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00163) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00164) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00165)
District Of Columbia District Court Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00268) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00269) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00270)
FEBRUARY 2013 – 103 NEW CASES
New Jersey District Court Patrick J. Cerillo – Attorney at Law Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-01179) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.32.191.163 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01176) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.142.2.132 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01178) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-01180) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00214) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-01159) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.35.11.132 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01104) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.70.130.138 ( 2:13-cv-01106) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-01105) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00971) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 173.54.255.28 (Case No. 2:13-cv-00972) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00973)
Wisconsin Eastern District Court Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00217) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00213)
California Southern District Court Leemore L Kushner of Kushner Law Group Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00433) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00434) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00435) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00436) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00437) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00438) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00440) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00442) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00443)
Florida Middle District Court M. Keith Lipscomb (a.k.a. Michael K. Lipscomb) of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PL Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00467) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00468) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00469) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00470) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00471) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00472)
Florida Southern District Court M. Keith Lipscomb (a.k.a. Michael K. Lipscomb) of Lipscomb Eisenberg & Baker PL Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 9:13-cv-80178)
Colorado District Court Jason Aaron Kotzker of Kotzker Law Group Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 97.121.170.141 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00428) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.29.143.104 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00424) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.218.22.157 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00426) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.171.198.44 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00427) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 97.121.170.141 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00428) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 69.29.143.104 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00424) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 63.225.246.31 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00423) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.212.197.251 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00425) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.218.22.157 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00426) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.171.198.44 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00427)
Maryland District Court Jon A. Hoppe of Maddox Hoppe Hoofnagle & Hafey LLC Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00352) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00353) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00354) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00356) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00357) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00358) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00359) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00363) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00366) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00350) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00351) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00355) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00360) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00361) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00362) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00364) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00365) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00506) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00507) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00508) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00509) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00510) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00511) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00517) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:13-cv-00518) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00512) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00513) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00514) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00515) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00516)
Illinois Central District Court Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01072) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-01073) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-02043)
Illinois Northern District Court Mary Katherine Schulz of Schulz Law Firm, PC Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00863) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00878) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00880) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00883) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00884) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00885) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00888) Malibu Media, LLC v. Dr John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00891) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00913) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00915) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00934) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00935)
Michigan Western District Court Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00158) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00162) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00163)
Indiana Southern District Court Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00201) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00203) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00204) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00206)
Indiana Northern District Court Paul Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:13-cv-00055) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00071) Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 3:13-cv-00072)
Colorado District Court Jason A. Kotzker of Kotzker Law Group Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.51.234.104 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00307) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.51.250.8 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00308) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.8.161.234 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00309) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.8.34.85 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00310) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:13-cv-00311) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.176.40.151 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00316) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.71.30.155 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00317) Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.245.154.142(Case No. 1:13-cv-00318)
P.S. – For those of us who follow these cases as enthusiasts, did you notice that there was no mention of Chris Fiore in this long list of cases? Perhaps he still has his hands full with the bellwether case.
What else can you tell me about the Malibu Media cases?
[2017 UPDATE] The best way to learn about Malibu Media, LLC is to read what happened to them as it happened. The list of stories below (in the order I listed them) tell the Malibu Media story in a way that you will understand them.
— FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT MALIBU MEDIA, LLC:Again, if you have been implicated as a John Doe defendant in a Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, there are TWO (2) main articles you should read immediately:
CONTACT FORM: Alternatively, sometimes people just like to contact me using one of these forms. If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.
NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together. That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.
