Once in a while, an overzealous attorney makes an error which is simply funny. Calling an accused defendant a “John Doe Infringer” is such an error. I noticed this when I was compiling the most updated list of Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuits.
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS HAS A NEW APPROACH: CALLING THE DEFENDANTS “JOHN DOE INFRINGER” BEFORE THEY ARE FOUND TO BE GUILTY OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
SHOW ME.
Take a look (below) at the recent list of Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases filed in each court. You will notice that the defendant is typically called “John Doe subscriber assigned IP address [IP ADDRESS]“. Why? Because Strike 3 Holdings, LLC implicates the ISP ACCOUNT HOLDER as the defendant.
Similarly, sometimes the John Doe placeholder defendant is simply called “John Doe“ or “Doe“. This is fine too.
I couldn’t help but to laugh when I saw that various Strike 3 Holdings, LLC attorneys started to sue defendants IN U.S. DISTRICT (FEDERAL) COURTS (which are significantly more strict than state courts) as “John Doe INFRINGER identified as using IP address [IP ADDRESS].”
Who were those Strike 3 Holdings attorneys? Most innocuously, one is Joel Bernier, the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC attorney from the Eastern District of Michigan. Seeing him refer to the defendant as “John Doe Infringer” instead of the conventional “John Doe Subscriber” title initially made me think that he accidentally wrote down the wrong “John Doe Infringer” title in the docket as many plaintiff attorneys refer to defendants as “John Doe infringers” when they speak about them.
Reviewing the list of recent cases, I thought “this MUST HAVE BEEN a Freudian slip, as calling a defendant an infringer in a copyright infringement lawsuit is conclusive.”
It is the purpose of the copyright infringement lawsuit to DETERMINE whether that accused defendant copied Strike 3 Holdings’ copyrighted titles or not. If he did, he’s an infringer. If he did not, he is not an infringer.
The best analogy I can think of here to describe the humor in conclusively giving the title of “guilty defendant” to the defendant is in a murder trial where a defendant is sued as a John Doe placeholder but is not yet known (ok, these don’t exist, but run with this analogy), imagine if the criminal prosecutor charged the defendant by first calling the defendant “John Doe murderer” before the case begins.
“A bit conclusive, don’t you think?”
But, is calling the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC copyright infringement defendant “John Doe Infringer” a Freudian slip? Or is it more malicious than a slip-up?
We know that attorneys from each state are really “spokes on a wheel” for a larger client.
Joel Bernier is a local attorney for his copyright holder clients (if I recall, he represents both Malibu Media, LLC and Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases at the same time). I wrote about the “common troll” theory referencing the same attorneys representing all of the movie lawsuits in a particular lawsuit, and this phenomenon is certainly true here too with the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases.
What got me concerned was that Joel Bernier from Michigan was not alone. The attorneys from New Jersey (John Atkin) and from the California Southern District Court (Lincoln Bandlow) also did the same thing.
Now calling a defendant a “John Doe Infringer” is not a Freudian slip, but someone’s decision.
Seeing both Lincoln Bandlow (the former “boss” [current “boss?”] of the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuits) and John Atkin (I don’t know how to refer to him — “rival boss?”) both start calling defendants “John Doe Infringers,” I now must come to the conclusion that given their history, it was the two of them together who decided on this new strategy.
So, is it possible that the decision by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC to start calling “John Doe Subscriber” defendants “John Doe Infringers” was a “top-down” decision from their lawyers? YES. But why, why, why?!?
Then I started thinking further. Maybe it is worse. Is there some legal reason, implication, or effect I have not yet considered that Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is now executing a strategy to allow them to get around certain states’ federal courts who have been denying them expedited discovery for their cases? How could referring to John Doe Defendants as John Doe Infringers solve this problem of theirs?
Reviewing this article [as written], I thought back to the Miami-Dade Florida state based cases, where they also referred to the defendants as “John Doe Infringers.” [I noticed the change initially but the humor in the Miami-Dade defendants’ “new title” didn’t occur to me until just now. I remember simply thinking that the titles of the parties in the Miami-Dade lawsuits were poorly worded by the Florida attorneys (Rachel Walker and Tyler Mamone) who filed them.]
MIAMI DADE CASES: STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. UNKNOWN INFRINGERS LISTED ON EXHIBIT 1
But now seeing that it is both Lincoln Bandlow and John Atkin who appear to be the ones who are “top-down” making this change from “John Doe Subscriber” to “John Doe Infringer,” I have to sit up and take notice. Why? This is not yet clear to me.
For the moment, let’s just stick to the funny new name for Strike 3 Holdings, LLC defendants. John Doe Infringers.
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN CALIFORNIA
Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the California Central District Court
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 8:19-cv-02431)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.49.233.148 (Case No. 2:19-cv-10673)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 75.84.181.123 (Case No. 2:19-cv-10674)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:19-cv-10671)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:19-cv-10672)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:19-cv-10677)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.35.148.0 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01436)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 45.48.102.254 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01438)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.173.187.226 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01730)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.91.221.26 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01736)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:20-cv-00042)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.117.191.225 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00034)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 172.250.65.102 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00024)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 47.151.151.253 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00238)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.85.39.241 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00975)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.174.248.45 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01003)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.80.177.217 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00998)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.84.62.40 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01001)
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >
Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the California Northern District Court
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.130.70.230 (Case No. 4:19-cv-08231)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.102.26.213 (Case No. 3:19-cv-08239)
Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the California Southern District Court
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:19-cv-02452)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:19-cv-02488)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 68.101.221.150 (Case No. 3:20-cv-00309)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00308)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00068)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00067)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00209)
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN CONNECTICUT
Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Connecticut District Court
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:20-cv-00100)
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN FLORIDA*
*Florida is where Tyler Mamone and Rachel Walker (the plaintiff attorneys from the Miami-Dade County lawsuits) are licensed.
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >
Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Florida Middle District Court
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 35.138.167.172 (Case No. 8:19-cv-03100)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 8:19-cv-03143)
Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Florida Southern District Court
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20499)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20503)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20506)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20516)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20517)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-20647)
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN ILLINOIS
Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Illinois Northern District Court
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:19-cv-08148)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:19-cv-08163)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (Case No. 1:20-cv-00773)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (Case No. 1:20-cv-01243)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (Case No. 1:20-cv-01301)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber assigned IP address 205.178.124.205 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00161)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP address 108.225.112 (Case No. 1:20-cv-00482)
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN MICHIGAN
Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Michigan Eastern District Court
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP Address 108.244.198.157 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10098)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe infringer identified as using IP Address 99.188.204.18 (Case No. 2:20-cv-10143)
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN NEVADA
Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Nevada District Court
- Strike 3 Holdings v. JOHN DOE IP Address 70.170.50.85 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00372)
- Strike 3 Holdings v. JOHN DO IP Address 72.193.217.207 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00373)
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN NEW JERSEY
Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the New Jersey District Court
- STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE infringer identified as using IP ADDRESS 73.193.240.189 (Case No. 2:20-cv-01616)
- STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE infringer identified as using IP address 69.112.9.128 (Case No. 2:20-cv-00778)
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN NEW YORK
Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the New York Eastern District Court
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 67.245.246.132 (Case No. 1:19-cv-07256)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00526)
Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the New York Southern District Court
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:19-cv-11466)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:19-cv-11464)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-01435)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC et al (Case No. 1:20-cv-01528)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-01529)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-01525)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00554)
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00819)
Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the New York Western District Court
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 6:20-cv-06113)
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN PENNSYLVANIA
Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court
Strike 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 5:19-cv-06010)
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC CASES FILED IN VIRGINIA
Strike 3 Holdings Cases Filed in the Virginia Eastern District Court
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:20-cv-00171)
Current List of Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami Dade Florida-based lawsuits.
Here is the current (updated) list of Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami-Dade Florida lawsuits:
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. UNKNOWN INFRINGERS LISTED ON EXHIBIT 1
Local Case Numbers: 2019-027829-CC-05, 2019-027599-CC-05, 2019-026368-CC-05, 2019-026371-CC-05, 2019-025653-CC-05, 2019-025655-CC-05, 2019-025662-CC-05, 2019-024463-CC-05, 2019-024467-CC-05, 2019-024647-CC-05, 2020-001616-CC-05, 2020-001652-CC-05, 2019-032919-CC-05, 2019-032825-CC-05, 2019-032439-CC-05, 2019-032122-CC-05, 2019-031035-CC-05, 2019-030496-CC-05, 2019-030040-CC-05, 2019-028802-CC-05, 2019-028412-CC-05, 2019-028410-CC-05, 2020-002968-CC-05, 2020-002021-CC-05, 2020-002024-CC-05, 2020-002019-CC-05, 2020-003890-CC-05, 2020-003891-CC-05, 2020-003737-CC-05.
State Case Numbers: 132019CC027829000005, 132019CC027599000005, 132019CC026368000005, 132019CC026371000005, 132019CC025653000005, 132019CC025655000005, 132019CC025662000005, 132019CC024463000005, 132019CC024467000005, 132019CC024647000005, 132020CC001616000005, 132020CC001652000005, 132019CC032919000005, 132019CC032825000005, 132019CC032439000005, 132019CC032122000005, 132019CC031035000005, 132019CC030496000005, 132019CC030040000005, 132019CC028802000005, 132019CC028412000005, 132019CC028410000005, 132020CC002968000005, 132020CC002021000005, 132020CC002024000005, 132020CC002019000005, 132020CC003890000005, 132020CC003891000005, 132020CC003737000005.
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >
—
[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about being referred to as a “John Doe Infringer,” you can e-mail me at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Strike 3 Holdings, LLC case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].
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.