Contact Us Today:
312.201.8310

SPECIAL UPDATE - BT CASE

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 5/30/2013:

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

A Memorandum issued on May 16, 2013:

"[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."

A Draft Order was issued:

"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’ copyrighted material."

Indiana District Court

SDIN Judge Mark J. Dinsmore issues Order:

Return to the main Subpoena Defense-BT Defense page

35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1875
Chicago, IL 60601


Tel (312) 201-8310

Blogs

Torrent Defenders
There was an error retrieving your RSS feed
DieTrolDie
There was an error retrieving your RSS feed

Antonelli Law Copyright Attorneys

Jeffrey Antonelli
Nationwide

Melissa Brabender
Nationwide


Amelia Niemi
Nationwide


Byron Ames
Local Counsel for Nevada & Utah


Tristan Robinson
Local Counsel for Texas


Mark Del Bianco
Local Counsel for Maryland & DC


Leslie Farber
Local Counsel for NY, NJ, Pennsylvania


Peter Glazer
Local Counsel for Virginia
Website Builder