Tag Archives: Ellis Bennett

DGW finds troll-friendly judge in their THIRD WORLD MEDIA, LLC case.

I am getting phone calls about “scare” letters that plaintiff attorneys Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC have been sending out using the name “Media Law Group” on their letterhead.  Again, this is Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC (particularly in this case, Ellis Bennett).

There is no overly exciting news here — the case for which these letters are now being sent out is “Third World Media, LLC v. Does 1-4,536” (Case No. 1:11-cv-00059) filed on 1/10/2011 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  The number of the Doe Defendants has changed, as the case name used to be “Third World Media, LLC v. Does 1-4,171.”  Quite frankly, this is just another “me too” production company trying to make a few bucks shaking down people who allegedly downloaded their adult films.

What is noteworthy in this case is how it was literally ignored by Judge Richard Roberts for almost 10 months before it was thrown over his shoulder on 11/15/2011 to Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson for her to deal with it.  During this time, Judge Roberts never replied to any of the motions, and he completely ignored the plaintiff attorney’s request to serve subpoenas on the ISPs in order to gain access to the John Doe Defendant’s contact information.

However, as soon as Judge Robinson took over the case, no doubt champagne bottles were brought out and the bubbly started flowing.  “Cheers!” probably came from the halls of Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC’s office.  Why? They found themselves a patsy judge.

Immediately after receiving the case, Judge Robinson not only rubber-stamped the order essentially handing 4,000 subscribers into the hands of Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC (one of the original copyright trolls from the mega cases of 2010 and 2011), but she gave them more leeway than I have ever seen a judge give a copyright troll.  I have seen orders giving plaintiffs 120 days (in accordance with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which gives a plaintiffs 120 days to name and serve or dismiss [John Doe] defendants), however, in her order, she gave them 270 DAYS!

Quite frankly, I’m not one to call a judge corrupt, or to claim that a judge is in the pocket of one party or another, but giving a copyright troll 270 days (where the rules allow for a MAXIMUM of 120 days) seems fishy to me.

But then, it doesn’t stop there.  Immediately after her 11/29/2011 order giving the plaintiff attorneys carte blanche for the next 9 MONTHS (FYI, that’s until the end of August, 2012), on 12/6/2011 the plaintiff attorneys amended their complaint adding new defendants (consequently adding 110 pages of IP addresses to the docket).

The funny thing, however, is that none of us have heard a PEEP from defendants, which indicates to me that the ISPs they targeted have given them a hard time and have not released the contact information of the accused Doe Defendants… until now.

As of this week, a number of defendants have started calling our office about this case.  Apparently the ISPs have begun complying with the subpoenas.  Let the games begin!

Which will be the bittorrent lawsuits of tomorrow?

With the larger cases from Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC heading off into the bittorrent litigation graveyard, the plaintiff attorneys have not yet learned their lesson about the dangers of filing John Doe lawsuits with thousands of Does sued together. Below are just a few cases filed by the same plaintiff attorneys — newer cases — which thus far have not achieved much traction. No doubt we’ll be seeing more of these in the coming months.

First and foremost, Ira Siegel’s new case, Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-5,698 (Case No. 4:11-cv-04397-LB) filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Apparently it did not occur to his client that suing 5,698 defendants is the easiest way for a case to achieve scrutiny.

Also by Ira Siegel is his SRO Pictures, Inc v. Does 1-3036 (Case No. 5:11-cv-04220-PSG) case, his Discount Video Center, Inc. v. Does 1-5,041 (Case No. 5:11-cv-02694-PSG) case, his Zero Tolerance Entertainment, Inc. v. Does 1-2,943 (Case No. 3:11-cv-02767-EDL) case, each filed in the same California court as Digital Sin.

We are already hearing from Doe Defendants on Ira Siegel’s Third Degree Films, Inc. v. Does 1-3,577 (Case No. 4:11-cv-02768-LB) and most notorious, his Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-2590 (Case No. 3:11-cv-02766-MEJ) case, also in the same California court.

Next, filed by Thomas Dunlap himself (of Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC) is CineTel Films, Inc. dba Family of the Year Productions, LLC v. Does 1-1,052 (Case No. 8:11-cv-02438-JFM) filed in the US District Court for the District of Maryland. This one should be fun. This same plaintiff has had Dunlap sue in his home US District Court for the District of Columbia, the Cinetel Films Inc. et al v. Does 1-1,951 (Case No. 1:11-cv-01334-RLW) case. Same plaintiff, different jurisdiction. My guess is that Ellis Bennett or Nicholas Kurtz will be the on the paperwork for these since they have to date handled Dunlap Grubb & Weaver’s older cases.

In the District of Columbia (where most of Dunlap Grubb & Weaver’s cases are filed,) to everyone’s surprise is the AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-1,140 (Case No. 1:11-cv-01274-RBW) case, apparently using Timothy Anderson of Anderson & Associates, PC as the local counsel. The funny thing about this one is that AF Holdings, LLC is John Steele of Steele Hansmeier PLLC’s clients (where Steele Hansmeier has sued a bunch of AF Holdings, LLC v. Does smaller cases across the country already), so this Tim Anderson guy is probably another one of Steele’s local counsel puppets (sorry Tim).

Then, there is Evan Stone’s FUNimation Entertainment v. Does 1-1,427 (Case No. 2:11-cv-00269-DF) filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. I haven’t heard much about this case yet, but Evan Stone is the attorney who was the plaintiff attorney over the LFP Internet Group, LLC v. Does [LFP a.k.a. “Larry Flint Productions”] lawsuit that had over 6,000 defendants in total dismissed last year. Maybe he’s back in the game with a case that won’t be immediately dismissed.

Last, but not least, there is a set of triplet lawsuits filed by an unknown McDaniel Law Firm plaintiff (probably a copycat attorney who has watched these bittorrent cases develop and now has decided to try his hand and sue) in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey. Both of them go by the same name, Baseprotect UG, Ltd. v. John Does 1-X (Case No. 2:11-cv-03621, Case No. 2:11-cv-02021, and Case No. 2:10-cv-06806 respectively). The deceptive part is that the “Does 1-X” title appears to suggest that there are just a few defendants, so the case is hoped to stay under the radar. Nope. In one case, I believe there are over 300+ John Doe defendants implicated, and in the other case, I believe there are over 1,500 John Doe defendants. Funny enough, I hear that Baseprotect does not even own the Polish copyrights they assert, and that they have merely questionably acquired a limited right to sue on these copyrights. This will be fun to watch.

So in short, with the demise of the famous DC cases (Maverick Entertainment, Call of the Wild, and now West Coast Productions, Inc.), there are a whole new generation of cases who hope to achieve exactly the same purpose as their predecessors. Make a profit before getting dismissed into oblivion.