Saturday, November 10, 2012

Court refuses to approve ex parte discovery in Discount Video v Does 1-29


In a Boston, Massachusetts, case, Discount Video Center v. Does 1-29, Chief Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin has entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion for ex parte discovery, due to the plaintiff's failure to set forth a discovery plan that would be calculated to identify the actual copyright infringer, rather than the subscriber to the internet service. Judge Sorokin characterized plaintiff's plan to dismiss without prejudice as to one of the Does and to start a new action against that Doe, without knowing who the actual infringer is, as 'smacking of' a "bad faith effort to harass the third-party subscriber".

November 7, 2012, decision, denying motion for ex parte discovery, Hon. Leo T. Sorokin, Chief Magistrate Judge

Bookmark and Share
Ray Beckerman, PC

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Finally, a judge understands what these . . . lawyers ( and I use that term loosely ) . . . are up to and is holding their feet to the fire.

Now only if this judge sanctions or fines these guys, then I'd bet these crappy litigation sharks would learn a lesson.

Anonymous said...

"Leo T. Sorokin Chief United States Magistrate Judge"
^^ that's another judge I think who "got it".
To explain it In my foreign plain vanilla english: This judge has understood that the plaintiffs and their "pr0n-lawyers" are NOT after the alleged infringers of their copyrights but that they are after the persons who's name is on the ISP records.
NOT necessarilly "pr0n"-copyright infringers but simply internet service provider customers.

Good to see another wise judge on your guys side of the atlantic ocean!

Giving Judge Sorokin's statement/explaination here I wonder if it would not be good to look a bit deeper into the whole sheme that these pr0n-lawyers are playing:
The judge himself mentioned a large number of cases of this plaintiff "collins" where there were no further actions taken after the plaintiffs lawyers allegedly got the 3rd party (i.e. the subscribers)information.
I have the feeling that the courts should look into those cases where they granted the handing over of the subscribers/billpayers information and where the pr0n-lawyer might actually have gotten money from the probably innocent subscribers so that the subscribers just made sure that he would just get away from them.

In my opinion those innocent 3rd parties should get their maybe payed money back and the pr0n-lawyers should be held accountable for their doings.

And I absolutely think the initiation into such matters should be done by the judges "SUA SPONTE" (sp?). Since they were it that gave the pr0n-lawyers the "green light" to go after the persons on the ISP records in the first place!

--
A_F

Anonymous said...

"Leo T. Sorokin Chief United States Magistrate Judge"
^^ that's another judge I think who "got it".
To explain it In my foreign plain vanilla english: This judge has understood that the plaintiffs and their "pr0n-lawyers" are NOT after the alleged infringers of their copyrights but that they are after the persons who's name is on the ISP records.
NOT necessarilly "pr0n"-copyright infringers but simply internet service provider customers.

Good to see another wise judge on your guys side of the atlantic ocean!

Giving Judge Sorokin's statement/explaination here I wonder if it would not be good to look a bit deeper into the whole sheme that these pr0n-lawyers are playing:
The judge himself mentioned a large number of cases of this plaintiff "collins" where there were no further actions taken after the plaintiffs lawyers allegedly got the 3rd party (i.e. the subscribers)information.
I have the feeling that the courts should look into those cases where they granted the handing over of the subscribers/billpayers information and where the pr0n-lawyer might actually have gotten money from the probably innocent subscribers so that the subscribers just made sure that he would just get away from them.

In my opinion those innocent 3rd parties should get their maybe payed money back and the pr0n-lawyers should be held accountable for their doings.

And I absolutely think the initiation into such matters should be done by the judges "SUA SPONTE" (sp?). Since they were it that gave the pr0n-lawyers the "green light" to go after the persons on the ISP records in the first place!

--
A_F