Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Oral argument scheduled for June 1st in Malibu Media v. Does 1-13

Oral argument of the motion to quash in Malibu Media v. Does 1-13 has been scheduled for June 1st.

Scheduling order

Bookmark and Share

4 comments:

Ray Beckerman said...

This comment came in from Anonymous Alter_Fritz (I'm posting it because Google seems to have swallowed it before I got to "publish" it):


quote: "Plaintiff’s counsel shall immediately serve a copy of this Order on the moving John Doe"

I'm wondering how is he suppost to do that?
He was ordered to destroy the copies of the subscriber infos he got from this one ISP.
And since the moving doe itself told the court that he does not state which doe number he is out of fear of negative reaction: How does the court/plaintiff's counsel know that the moving doe is not one of the few others from the other ISP that has NOT responded prematurely?

And why isn't the whole rocedure mood at all since plaintiffs lawyer stated in his last paper that plaintiffs don't want to persue the matter any further/does not want to enforce the suppoena anymore?

Just makes me wonder...


...But would be nice if the judge could slap this "copyrighttroll" lawyer at that date for his "business modell" that other judges had already seen for what these cases are; namely not really legitimate judicially responsible warrented legal disputes about copyright but a shady business modell on the backs of the courts.


Alter_Fritz just asking, wondering and saying.

--
A_F

Ray Beckerman said...

Yeah I don't know how he can do it. All he can do is serve it on the pro se clerk, who can, in turn, serve it on Mr. or Ms. Doe.


I wasn't aware of the plaintiff's lawyer saying he didn't want to pursue the matter. He said that he wanted permission to go ahead and use the information he'd obtained.

Ray Beckerman said...

Once again, for reasons unknown, Anonymous Alter_Fritz's comment got swallowed by Google, so here's his followup:

Of course it could be my crappy english knowledge ;-) and i misunderstood what he wrote :-P

but i guess point 3 is easy english level and its meaning means clearly what i was wondering:

"3. Plaintiff will not take any action to further enforce the subpoenas. "

This means what i was thinking it means wasn#T it?

correct me if I was wrong, otherwise consider yourself now being aware :-)


greetings

__
A_F

Ray Beckerman said...

Fritz is talking about paragraph 3 of the "motion for clarification".

The lawyer just said he would not take action to enforce the subpoena (meaning while the stay is in effect).

He never said he wasn't going to pursue the matter.

In fact, a few paragraphs down he asks for permission to go ahead and serve the defendants whose name he already had.

http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/malibumedia_does1-13_120517MotionClarification.pdf