Judge Bates “removed” from Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-1,495 case. Potentially bad news for defendants.

Like most of you, we here at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC have been watching the Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-1,495 (1:11-cv-01741) case in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

To our surprise and against the 1+ year trend of the DC Court, earlier this month, Judge Bates went against the trend to remain silent about the validity of these cases and inquired about whether or not John Doe Defendants in the case actually lived in DC. In short, we understand that if the judge came to the conclusion that this is yet one more of John Steele’s mass bittorrent cases (but filed in DC as a result of forum shopping), then the judge would have likely come to the conclusion that the DC court did not have jurisdiction to try the case. As a result, he would have likely SEVERED AND DISMISSED the case, giving Steele|Hansmeier, PLLC (now Prenda Law, Inc., a story in itself) the opportunity to file against defendants in their home states. As you have read in previous posts, as a result of such a dismissal, Steele would have three years from the alleged date of infringement to file these lawsuits in defendants’ home states.

What no doubt concerned Steele (and what caused an overflow of conversations on the various bittorrent forums) is that six days ago, Judge Bates took the extra step and invited Doe Defendants to file motions to quash with the Clerk’s office, stating that they would be put under seal (meaning, hidden from view).

View this document on Scribd

However, in spite of the judge’s invitation, I have not been advising people as to whether they should or should not file the motion to quash — and in fact I have been overly cautious about his invitation to do so — because historically, the District of Columbia Court has typically UNSEALED motions to quash when they deny them, leaving all the formerly sealed motions unsealed and naked for everyone to see.

The DC court has historically been AGAINST accused internet downloaders. Yes, we have certainly had our fair share of victories, but then again, many of the original cases are still alive (and because of this, plaintiffs have added perhaps thousands of new defendants to various DC cases, hence the new subpoena letters for older cases). I do not see why Judge Bates would be bold enough to go against former judges’ orders for essentially identical cases [See, Stare decisis (Anglo-Latin pronunciation: /ˈstɛəri dɨˈsaɪsɨs]) is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions.], and the fact that Judge Bates was willing to go against Judge Beryl Howell and the others made me optimistic, but still cautious.

As much as this invitation to file appeared to signal a victory for the accused internet users, for whatever reason — political pressure, angry judges, etc. — today Judge Bates has essentially stepped down presiding over the case and he has handed the case over to Judge Facciola. This magistrate judge has seen bittorrent cases before, and in my opinion this could be a sad moment for the accused Does. To be clear, I understand that this transfer might not have been done with the permission or consent of Judge Bates. In fact, his order explicitly states, “Consent of the District Judge [him] is not necessary.” So perhaps we can piece together what has happened behind closed doors.

View this document on Scribd

While it remains my opinion that this case suffers from issues of improper jurisdiction and improper joinder, Judge Bates is no longer making the decisions as to whether the case will be dismissed or not. Similarly, it is no longer clear whether it is in Does’ best interests to file the motions to quash, or whether they will suffer the same fate as all the other motions to quash filed in the DC court over the past year.

As for what defendants should do — I would probably wait and see what Judge Facciola does. Will he continue in Bates’ footsteps and kill the case? Or will he deny the motions to quash and move forward? We can only wait and see.

Read Full Post »

West Coast Productions, Inc. Case is DEAD.

With the flick of a wrist and the power a pen, the West Coast Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-5,829 case is dead.

I don’t know whether I should be saying congratulations to the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC clients who are now dismissed from the case, whether I should be writing an obituary on what was one of the longest-lasting monster bittorrent cases, or whether I should be skeptical and cautious at such a simple and eloquent end to such a violent case.

This case had everything wrong with it. Improper joinder, improper jurisdiction, even the content it accused internet users of downloading was distasteful. “I don’t like ugly biker chicks, I’d never download their films,” a Doe Defendant once told me.

On top of everything wrong with it, this case had baggage, namely West Virginia’s West Coast Productions, Inc. lawsuits with Kenneth Ford at the helm, all of which went bust last year.

But it wasn’t jurisdiction or joinder which caused to downfall of this case; it was failing to name and serve defendants within the 120 day limits as dictated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(m). Judge Kollar-Kotelly, realizing that the plaintiff attorneys were using the courts to extract settlement agreements, decided to implement and enforce this rule forcing the case to shut down.

The last stab to the case was a September 1st, 2011 deadline where the plaintiff attorneys were ordered to name and serve defendants, and to report to the court by the end of today who they have named and served.

I was sure that they would at least name the John Doe Defendants who lived in the District of Columbia, and they would in turn ask the court for more time. But instead, they named NOBODY. They merely packed up their bags, closed up shop, and dismissed the case.

What does this mean? Could it mean that the plaintiff attorneys do not have the resources, the time, the patience, or the energy to take clients to trial? Or, did West Coast Productions, Inc. say “enough is enough; we’ve made enough money in settlements — let’s close up shop.” It cannot be that easy.

Here is my take. Before they sue each and every one of the defendants in smaller groups in the correct courts — a tactic that Steele Hansmeier, PLLC and other plaintiff attorneys have caught onto — they had to kill the big bad monster of a case. After all, it would be bad to sue the same defendant in two cases at the same time for the same alleged act of infringement.

So for now, those of you who were defendants in this case, you are no longer defendants, and I congratulate you on your victory. I would whip out the champagne bottles and celebrate, but be very aware that there is one more West Coast Productions, Inc. v. Does case lurking in this same DC court. West Coast Productions, Inc. (1:11-cv-00055), our case’s little brother is still alive and well. While Judge Kollar-Kotelly has taken the sword to slay the extortion machine that was our West Coast Productions, Inc. case, so far, Magistrate Judge John Facciola has been merely pushing paper on the other West Coast Productions, Inc. case.  Really, nothing of substance has been going on there.

What about the letters and the phone calls you all have been receiving?  Should you ignore them?  Probably not.  For the most part, the plaintiff attorneys at Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC have your contact information, and they plan to use it.  Expect multiple “scare” letters saying, “we plan to sue you unless you pay us $3,500 (or more) by XYZ date.”  Then expect to get additional letters for higher amounts.  As far as whether this is a bluff or not, it is best to be prudent and to watch where they are suing in order to determine where they have hired local counsel.  For example, if you are watching the copyright cases on RFC Express (http://www.rfcexpress.com), and you see that one of Dunlap Grubb & Weaver’s cases — whether West Coast Productions, Maverick Entertainment Group, Call of the Wild, etc. etc. — has been filed in your home court, that should be a red flag that you might be sued yourself.  Lawyering up (e.g., hiring an attorney) at this point if you have not already done so, or even proactively settling might be a wise option.  However, if you see no lawsuits of theirs in your state, my opinion is that there is no need to feed their war chest with your settlement dollars.

I have attached the dismissal letter below for your viewing pleasure. Simple. Voilà!

View this document on Scribd

Read Full Post »

Competing Viewpoints on “Are you guilty if pirates use your internet” articles

I was very impressed to see TorrentFreak.com write two articles entitled, “Are You Guilty If Pirates Use Your Internet? Lawyer Says NO,” and “Are You Guilty If Pirates Use Your Internet? Lawyer Says YES,” respectively.

Up front, I commend both attorneys Randazza and Ranallo for their contributions to these articles. Too many people are falling prey to these bittorrent lawsuits, and it is about time some on each side voice their opinions.

In short, my take on the two articles. Starting with the “NO” article found here, I thought Ranallo’s brief was well written, but it felt, well, brief. As far as I was concerned, while I certainly commend attorney Ranallo for his well written opinion (and for putting himself out there), the article was significantly lacking as far as what is actually going on in these cases. In addition, he COMPLETELY glossed over discussing DIRECT INFRINGEMENT which is what 99.999% of you are accused of. Unlike the 1932 tugboat case referenced in Randazza’s opposing article (“YES”), there has grown some relevant case law in the various severances and dismissals that have already happened BOTH LAST YEAR AND THIS YEAR.

For example, joinder. Many courts have held that it is improper to sue multiple defendants in the same lawsuit (e.g., Plaintiff v. Does 1-500) who did not take part in the same torrent swarm or who did not download the same torrent file. On top of that, EFF.org has been screaming “personal jurisdiction!” since these cases started showing up, and they are correct. For the most part, many (if not most) defendants who are sued DO NOT LIVE IN THE STATE IN WHICH THE LAWSUIT IS BROUGHT, (and bringing a bit of current law from the 2nd District [not binding on other courts] into the mix,) NOR ARE MANY OF THE LAWSUITS BROUGHT IN THE STATE WHICH IS THE PLAINTIFF’S PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS. In short, these cases suffer because plaintiffs sue defendants in the wrong court and thus in a number of cases, there is no personal jurisdiction over the putative defendants.

There was so much more that was missing from Ranallo’s brief, but I suppose he was most concerned about just stating basic copyright law rather than fighting our side of these bittorrent cases. For example, he completely missed the high likelihood of a defendant succeeding if a digital forensics expert (paid for by the plaintiffs and/or their attorneys) examines a defendants computer and finds 1) no infringing file, and 2) no spoliation [formatting/wiping] of evidence after having notice of the lawsuit. People seem to gloss over that one too. In short, if a defendant didn’t do the crime, they shouldn’t do the time (here, paying the plaintiff their settlement amounts). These topics often don’t get discussed in the context of these lawsuits because so far, they have not been going to trial.

Now for the “YES” article found here. In short, Marc Randazza brought forth a well-written viewpoint that internet users who do not lock down their internet connections (e.g., with WEP or WPA2 encryption) are negligent and they deserve what comes to them through their ignorance. In short, the negligence theory as applicable to these cases states that an internet user 1) has a DUTY to lock down their internet connection [so far not true], 2) the internet BREACHED that duty by leaving his wi-fi router “open” (e.g.,without a password), 3) because the internet user did not lock down his connection, he CAUSED the plaintiff’s damage [again, not true], and 4) whether and how much the copyright holder suffered DAMAGES from the internet user’s lack of a secured wi-fi connection.

In short (and in response), the negligence argument assumes there is a DUTY to lock down your wireless access point (as noted). As a side note, as far as a duty is imputed to internet users, I’ve seen a few plaintiff attorneys argue that some ISP TOS agreements now require users to put a password on their wi-fi routers, but I have yet to see any proof of these myself. Plus, as far as I know, there have been NO court cases indicating that there is a DUTY to lock down one’s wi-fi access point.  As far as imposing a duty where none existed in the statutes, citing back to a 1932 tugboat case is a stretch at best, but point taken. We will see whether the courts impose a duty to lock down an internet user’s connection. Then again, if that ever becomes the case, then routers will come with WPA2 encryption active as the default setting with custom passwords, especially since the older forms of encryption can be cracked by anyone knowing how to look up “WEP cracking” on Google. If this ever becomes the case (and it would be a dark world if we were not permitted to share our connections with others, note EFF’s Open Wireless Movement,) we’ll have a fun time joining the ISPs as defendants because last I checked, it is their technicians and not the computer illiterate subscribers who set up routers in the first place.

In sum, two good and well written articles.  Do either cover the topics which relate directly to the copyright infringement lawsuits currently pending?  Not really.  Copyright infringement has more of a dry way of looking at whether an internet user is guilty of copyright infringement, and neither side addressed those issues.  That being said, it was still fun reading the articles and no doubt they will attract a lot of attention over the coming weeks.

Read Full Post »

Congratulations to Cashman Law Firm “West Coast Productions, Inc. v. Does” clients, now dismissed.

Congratulations to the newest group of clients who have been dismissed in the West Coast Productions v. Does 1-5829 case (1:11-cv-00057-CKK) in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

NOT ALL DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.  THE CASE IS STILL ALIVE.

As we previously discussed, Judge Kollar-Kotelly set a 6/20 deadline where plaintiff attorneys were ordered to either name and serve defendants identified in their 6/1 statement or else she would dismiss them on her own just as she did previously.  In short, the judge is pressuring the dismissal of unnamed John Doe defendants through the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(m), which gives the plaintiff attorneys 120 days to amend their complaint and name the defendants, or else they must dismiss them from the case.  In the past, where judges have blindly granted extensions to this rule (which are to be granted freely according to the rules), there is a slight trend beginning to form where judges are using this same Rule 4(m) to force the plaintiff attorneys to “name or dismiss” John Doe Defendants.

Similar to a criminal who releases hostages in order to improve their bargaining power and good faith with the authorities, on the SAME DAY the plaintiff attorneys at Dunlap Grubb & Weaver dismissed these hundreds of defendants, they asked for yet another extension of time to name and serve defendants.  Until Judge Kollar-Kotelly grants this, her 5/11 Order (Doc. #72) requiring all remaining defendants be named and served or dismissed by June 30th still stands.

The interesting side note here is that while in the past neither they nor the courts have acknowledged that they were suing people for the purpose of soliciting settlement agreements to the tune of thousands of dollars from each defendant, in their extension request, the plaintiff attorneys casually mentioned that they needed the extension to attempt to send letters to the defendants with the intention of having them settle their cases.  This appears to be the first admission where they admit to the court that they are soliciting settlements, whereas in the past, both the plaintiffs and the judges have been turning a blind eye to the fact that this is happening.

The dismissal letter can be found below.  I congratulate all the defendants who have been dismissed, and I look forward to see what happens on June 30th.

View this document on Scribd

Read Full Post »

“Maverick Entertainment Group” — Minor Case Update

As a follow-up to our previous post, there has been a minor development in the Maverick Entertainment Group v. Does case (Case No. 1:10-cv-00569 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia). In short, the plaintiff attorneys have dismissed 44 defendants.

It appears that all of the dismissals were Verizon customers. Just as with the Call of the Wild dismissals, it appears as if the dismissal was a gesture on the part of the plaintiff attorneys to convince Judge Howell to allow the case to continue. It appears as if she has been moved by their act, as she has granted their request to keep the case alive.

This should be of no surprise to our readers. See here for the list of dismissed IP addresses.

Read Full Post »

Congratulations to the Cashman Law Firm’s “Future Blue v. Does 1-300″ clients, now severed and dismissed.

Congratulations to our clients and to all defendants in the “Future Blue, Inc. v. Does 1-300” case (1:10-cv-06256), dismissed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. See attached order below.

As you can see by the order, the case has been severed and dismissed because of improper joinder.  The interesting caveat to keep an eye on, however, is Judge Conlon’s opening to Steele Hansmeier to file an amended complaint by July 11, 2011. While we have already notified our clients of the dismissal, we will continue to monitor this case to determine whether there is any residual activity that might bring this old dog back to life.

For now, it appears as if the “future” is not so “blue” after all…

View this document on Scribd

Read Full Post »

Congratulations to Cashman Law Firm, PLLC Clients – Attorneys Suffer Partial FRCP Rule 4(m) Dismissal in West Coast Productions v. Does 1-5,829 Case

[NOTE TO CLIENTS: Regarding the article below, if you are one of those who have been dismissed, I will be sending you a congratulations letter shortly, and I will tell you what the next steps are and what to expect from Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC.]

Congratulations to our clients who have been dismissed in the West Coast Productions v. Does 1-5829 case (1:11-cv-00057-CKK). I must say up front that NOT ALL DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.  In short, this dismissal is merely Judge Kollar-Kotelly enforcing her 5/11/2011 order where she ordered the plaintiff attorneys at Dunlap Grubb & Weaver, PLLC to either name and serve the defendants identified in their 4/15 statement by 5/16 or else she will dismiss them on her own.  Like Judge Shadur has done to dispose with John Steele’s CP Productions v. Does case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois a few months back, Judge Kollar-Kotelly is employing the same Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(m) to dismiss these defendants.

The case itself is still alive.

As for what to expect next, there are a series of dates to watch for.  Firstly, Judge Kollar-Kotelly has set a 6/1 deadline for the plaintiffs to give her a status update as to the various Does still pending in the case.  Nothing of relevance will happen here.  Then, by 6/20/2011, plaintiff attorneys must either name and serve the defendants identified in their 6/1 statement or else she will dismiss them on her own just as she has done here.  Since they have a few days to inform the court of what they have done, we will likely see an order similar to the one we see today on 6/28/2011.

I have attached the order below for your viewing.  To those of you who are not one of our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC clients, please use the attached document to view whether your accused IP address is one of the IP addresses which are now dismissed.  If so, I congratulate you on your dismissal.

View this document on Scribd

Last, but not least, on an ethics note.  It has been brought to my attention that it is the practice of some of unscrupulous attorneys to send out what are known as “scare letters” demanding thousands of dollars, even after a dismissal.  While this is obviously not legal advice, if I received such a demand letter after being dismissed from a lawsuit such as this one, I would immediately contact Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s chambers at (202) 354-3340, and I would ask to fax in a copy of the letter I have received so that the court can be made aware should the plaintiff choose to send such a letter.

Read Full Post »

Thousands of John Doe Defendants Quietly Dismissed!

In a flick of the wrist and a slight of hand letter to the court, plaintiffs Dunlapp, Grubb, & Weaver (“DGW”) have possibly dismissed more accused John Doe defendants than ever before in the history of these bittorrent lawsuits. In a letter to the court titled a “Consolidated Status Report Pursuant To The Court’s Direction of 3/1/2011,” the plaintiff attorneys have dismissed* almost every defendant in almost every one of their mass copyright infringement lawsuits.

*I will explain below what I mean by dismissed, because I am not using the term in its conventional use. A more proper term for what they have done is that they have “dumped” these defendants rather than having them dismissed and released from the lawsuit.

The cases in which John Doe defendants have been affected are:

Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does 1-1,062 (1:10-cv-004455-BAH)
Maverick Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Does 1-4,350 (1:10-cv-00569-BAH)
Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-5,000 (1:10-cv-00873-BAH), and
Donkeyball Movie, LLC v. Does 1-171 (1:10-cv-01520-BAH).

- NOTE: the “BAH” at the end of the case names is a recent change in the case names. When checking your case to determine whether this applies to you, just look at the 1:10-cv-”XXXXX” number and compare it to the case number you received from your ISP to determine whether this is your case.

This is a huge victory to our clients and those of the 10,000+ defendants that have been dismissed. No doubt we will be sending letters of congratulations to our clients in these cases in the coming days.

Now a little about these cases. These were what I like to call the initial “monster” cases, filed by DGW. They were the cases where thousands of John Doe defendants were sued, regardless of whether the courts had jurisdiction or not. These cases were also filed prior to the 6,000 Larry Flint Productions (LFP Internet Group, LLC) cases in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas and other cases (e.g., Far Cry) were severed and dismissed for improperly joining defendants in one John Doe lawsuit. In addition, these cases were more famously known as “the Hurt Locker” case, “The Call of the Wild” case, among other more famous titles.

As you can read by the filing, the plaintiff attorneys have determined that there is nobody to name in these cases, and thus they have determined to dump the defendant pool as a whole and rethink their strategy.

If you are a former defendant in this case, firstly we congratulate you. This is a big victory. However, with every victory comes a bit of bitterness. Here, the plaintiffs have determined on their own to not proceed with the current pool of defendants, which means that they have a few years from the alleged date of infringement to sue these defendants individually or as smaller groups in their home states.

On top of this, this is not an explicit dismissal, as a voluntary dismissal of all defendants would be. Here, the plaintiff attorneys have simply mentioned that they are not going to “name” defendants (see our article here to understand what it means to be “named”). In addition, it is not an order of severance by the judge dismissing all defendants. It is simply a “heads up” letting the court know they won’t be going after the various defendants.

This is good, with three caveats:

Firstly. Their note only refers to defendants where the ISP has handed their subscriber information over to the plaintiff attorneys. Defendants whose information has not yet been shared (e.g., my more recent clients in the past few weeks) are likely not included in this declaration of theirs because the ISPs have not yet given over their information to the plaintiff attorneys.

Secondly. The plaintiff attorneys can still sue all of these defendants in the US District Courts for the district where the defendants live. (You can read more about the likelihood of them doing this in this article.)

Thirdly. These cases are still alive! After filing this memo, the plaintiff attorneys proceeded to file a memo why a number of motions to quash the subpoena should be denied. They also filed an opposition motion asking the judge to deny these motions to quash. So the cases themselves are still alive and for the time being, well.

In closing. To those John Doe defendants and the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC clients who have been sitting around for months, feel free to breathe easy for now. I will continue monitoring these cases for changes, but you should feel comfortable considering yourselves dismissed. The numbers are certainly on your side and while the risk of being sued individually is always present, the likelihood of hearing from the plaintiff attorneys ever again is very low.

Read Full Post »

Q&A: When is an accused torrent user ‘named’ in a copyright infringement lawsuit?

QUESTION:
At what point is an accused torrent user ‘named’ in a lawsuit? Is it once the ISP turns over his information to the attorneys? What do I do if I am named in such a lawsuit? Can your firm still represent me if I am named in a lawsuit? What if I am named in a jurisdiction in which you are not licensed?

ANSWER:
All of the proceedings that have been taking place with these copyright infringement cases have been in the pretrial stages while the defendant is still a John Doe represented merely by his accused IP address. Even after the internet service provider hands over the defendant’s identifying information, he or she remains a John Doe Defendant until the plaintiff attorney decides whether to name the defendant or dismiss him or her. If he names the defendant, the named defendant ceases to be a John Doe and must immediately file any motions (e.g., motions to quash if still relevant, motions to dismiss, etc.). Upon being named, the plaintiff attorney must serve defendant with the complaint filed against him, and the complaint must conform to both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s local rules. The defendant is advised if he has not already done so to hire local counsel (or if he is already represented by an attorney, to have his attorney hire local counsel to file motions on his behalf) to defend the case. In short, upon being named, the defendant’s attorney (or local counsel) must file an answer to the complaint with the court, send a copy to the plaintiff, and must start evidentiary proceedings (e.g., discovery) if he is to properly defend his client.

Our firm has been gearing up for full-fledged copyright infringement lawsuits since September of last year, but so far the cases have not moved past the John Doe stages of the lawsuits. It just seems to me as if the plaintiffs are nervous that if they start suing, then we will start defending the cases diligently and we will start creating bad case law for them (which is exactly what they have been trying to avoid). If they move the case down this road of naming defendants and we start winning on the merits of the case rather than having them dismissed based on procedural defects (as has been the case in most of the dismissals to date), we will shut down their operations and will make it almost impossible for them to continue their cash machine of suing John Doe Defendants without naming the underlying defendants and scaring them into settling, only to dismiss and repeat with a whole new set of defendants.

Warm regards,
Rob Cashman, Owner
Cashman Law Firm, PLLC

Read Full Post »

DIGIPROTECT CASE ORALLY DISMISSED!

UPDATE (2/2/2011): While it is generally not the policy of the blog author to update articles, I have been asked to update this article to keep the information up to date. Since writing this article, the hearing which was the subject of all the controversy has been posted on the PACER website and hopefully soon will be made available for us to view. Also, contrary to what was said about the oral dismissal at the hearing, there have been no orders of dismissal issued. Whether the judge decides to dismiss this case or not is soon to be determined.

Last week and to my surprise, the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC received a settlement request from the Digiprotect attorney regarding this case. This seemed strange to me since the settlement arrived without any prior discussion of evidence or guilt, and it raised a red flag for me that something was wrong with the case.  The last time something like this happened was when John Steele went on a settlement rampage days before he dismissed 99 defendants in his Lightspeed Media Corporation lawsuit.

Anyone about to settle the case may want to hold off, because I have received word that the Digiprotect case (Digiprotect USA Corp. v. John Does 1-266; 1:10-cv-08759-TPG) has been orally dismissed.

As soon as I received the attorney’s solicitation for settlement, I did some investigatory work, searched the PACER records, and called a few attorneys. This morning, I received a call from John Seiver, an attorney for Comcast who intervened in the case because the plaintiff attorney was giving him problems and pressuring him to disclose names faster than he was able to. He petitioned the court and showed up in front of the judges for both Digiprotect cases (1:10-cv-08759-TPG, 1:10-cv-08760-PAC). I have heard that one judge (Judge Thomas P. Griesa) got upset with the plaintiff attorney based on the jurisdiction, joinder, etc. issues with the case, dismissed it, and walked off the bench. The other Digiprotect case with Judge Paul A. Crotty (1:10-cv-08760-PAC) was not dismissed, but the judge was upset about what he heard. I believe Judge Crotty gave the plaintiff attorney a number of days to respond to the issues this attorney brought before the court.

To double check my information, this morning, I called the clerk’s office today, and they told me they did not have any information regarding this event. In short, “if it is not on PACER, it does not yet exist.” However, I did receive confirmation from the judge’s chambers that the case was orally dismissed, however the order has not yet been written and thus it is not yet on PACER.

Thus, I would advise anyone considering a settlement offer with plaintiff attorney on the Digiprotect cases to hold off on signing the agreement, since they might have been severely compromised.

On a personal note, the Digiprotect case was one which was concerning to myself and my clients, because this was one of the cases where the attorneys have smartened up their procedural practice and have sued our clients in the jurisdictions in which they live.

Congratulations to our clients, and to all the other Digiprotect defendants out there!

Warm regards,
Rob Cashman

Read Full Post »