Special Updates on BitTorrent Copyright Litigation
January 2014 press release on Antonelli Law affiliation with Maryland and District of Columbia federal attorney Mark C. Del Bianco
Central District of Illinois
December 2013: The Central District Stay has been lifted
The Central District of Illinois appears to be introducing special scrutiny to its Malibu Media cases, and perhaps other BitTorrent copyright infringement cases as well.
We infer this new scrutiny from the following Order dated May 30, 2013 in a case which our firm represents the defendant:
Entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Chief Judge James E. Shadid and Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore no longer assigned to case. All discovery and deadlines are stayed pending further order of the Court.
Wisconsin District Court
Court issues immediate stay and places numerous Malibu Media cases under seal due to Malibu Media adding "surveillance" of other alleged BitTorrent activity notwithstanding the fact it owns no copyrights relating to the other surveilled works.
Click here for a copy of the May 28, 2013 Order by the Western District of Wisconsin federal court.
Court appears to state the matter is "propensity evidence" forbidden by F.R. Ev. 404(b)(1) and indicates Malibu Media may be subject to sanctions under Federal Rule 11.
Maryland District Court
Special Master and Procedures are created for Malibu Media Single Doe cases to oversee Malibu Media BitTorrent Copyright infringement cases.
Click for copies of the Maryland District Court May 16, 2013 judicial Memorandum and Draft Order
"[The] proposed procedures to be followed in these cases to determine whether a plausible claim has been stated, and whether the Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing to warrant obtaining discovery of the identifying information regarding the subscriber associated with any Internet Protocol (“IP”) Address through which a copyrighted work allegedly was downloaded."
"The Court is aware that in similar
cases filed by plaintiffs in other jurisdictions against Doe Defendants,
there have been concerns raised as to the sufficiency of the
allegations of complaints because association of an IP address with a
customer may be insufficient to state a claim. 2 There have also been
reports of plaintiffs undertaking abusive settlement negotiations with
Doe Defendants due to the pornographic content in the copyrighted works,
the potential for embarrassment, and the possibility of defendants
paying settlements even though they did not download the plaintiffs’
Indiana District Court
SDIN Judge Mark J. Dinsmore issues Order:
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1875
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel (312) 201-8310