Judge Shuts Down Copyright Troll's Cut-And-Run Effort; Hits It With $40K In Legal Fees

from the striking-three-to-a-match dept

The art of copyright trolling is completely artless. There’s no subtlety to it. Flood federal courts with filings against Does, expedite discovery requests in hopes of subpoenaing a sue-able name from a service provider, shower said person with threats about statutory damages and/or public exposure of their sexual proclivities, secure a quick settlement, and move on.

It doesn’t always work. At the first sign of resistance, trolls often cut and run, dismissing lawsuits as quickly as possible to avoid having to pay the defendant’s legal fees. This isn’t anything new. And there are very few courts left that treat the rinse/repeat cycle as novel. Judges are calling trolls trolls with increasing frequency and more than a few trolls and their legal representation have turned to theft and fraud to make ends meet.

Via Fight Copyright Trolls comes another decision where a porn-based copyright troll is getting its financial ass handed to it by a federal judge. Strike 3 tried to dismiss a lawsuit when it became obvious it couldn’t prove infringement, opting for a voluntary dismissal without prejudice in hopes of dodging a bill for legal fees. It didn’t work.

After some discussion of the technical aspects of Strike 3’s aborted discovery attempt — which involved Strike 3’s experts failing to find evidence of infringement on the defendant’s hard drive — the court gets down to the business of cutting the troll off at the knees to prevent it from escaping the costs of its bogus litigation.

The court [PDF] says Strike 3 can’t have everything it wants — the cake, the celebratory disposable plate, the opportunity to consume the cake at its leisure, etc. Arguing that this is cool because some other troll tried it doesn’t impress Judge Thomas Zilly.

Unlike in LHF Productions, in which an alleged BitTorrent user’s counterclaim for a declaration of non-infringement was dismissed as moot in light of the plaintiff’s dismissal with prejudice of the underlying copyright infringement claim, in this matter, Strike 3’s voluntary dismissal was without prejudice, see Notice (docket no. 53), and in contrast to the plaintiff in Crossbow, Strike 3 has not provided any covenant not to sue. Indeed, not only has Strike 3 preserved its ability to pursue further litigation against John Doe, it has indicated that it will not consent to a declaration of non-infringement unless John Doe is precluded from receiving attorney’s fees and costs and Strike 3 is explicitly permitted to bring copyright infringement claims against John Doe’s son.

Then the court quotes another case involving yet another copyright troll (Malibu Media) to shut down Strike 3’s “heads we win, tails you lose” exit strategy.

In essence, Strike 3 is attempting to thwart John Doe’s efforts to obtain attorney’s fees and costs by, on the one hand, refusing to dismiss its Copyright Act claim with prejudice and thereby denying John Doe “prevailing party” status, while on the other hand, deploying its dismissal without prejudice as a jurisdictional shield against John Doe’s declaratory judgment claim. The Court will not permit Strike 3 to use such “gimmick designed to allow it an easy exit… [now that] discovery [has] reveal[ed] its claims are meritless.”

The court is going to hand the defendant the victory, as well it should. The burden of proof for infringement rests on the accuser and Strike 3 failed to show any infringement occurred. Since Strike 3 can’t prove this — and its attempt to dismiss the case makes it clear it has no intention of proving infringement occurred — the defendant’s declaration of non-infringement is the default winner.

Consistent with Strike 3’s lack of proof of copying, John Doe’s expert has indicated that John Doe’s computer does not contain any of the motion pictures described in Exhibit A to the Complaint. No genuine dispute of material fact exists, and John Doe is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. John Doe’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and a declaratory judgment of non-infringement will be entered.

Since Strike 3 lost — and engaged in a bad faith dismissal to dodge paying Doe’s legal fees — the defendant and his representation are getting almost everything they’ve asked for. That’s $40,000 in legal fees and $7,000 costs Strike 3 will have to pay for two years’ of failed litigation. But mostly Strike 3 paying because it tried to forfeit rather than take the L.

As the court notes, the tide of trollish litigation may be slowing, thanks to the Ninth Circuit’s Cobbler Nevada decision. It’s not over yet. This isn’t the last time we’ll see a troll light itself on fire in its haste to escape a losing lawsuit. But it’s enjoyable all the same.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: strike 3

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Judge Shuts Down Copyright Troll's Cut-And-Run Effort; Hits It With $40K In Legal Fees”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

It seems to be moving that way, thankfully.

It’s very easy to be pessimistic with all the awful laws and rulings that are made and hit the headlines, especially when the judicial system has a worrying level of corruption at both ground level and from the top down, but when you have, on average, over 1,000 federal court cases being closed every day, there’s always going to be a few that get it wrong for some reason. Judges are human, too.

There are plenty that quietly get it right on important topics. And quite a few that loudly get it right on important topics, too — the recent Supreme Court decisions curtailing asset forfeiture and removing limitations on "scandalous" trademarks, for a couple notable examples.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Hard to run away when you've been nailed to the floor

And that is exactly what judges should be doing to copyright extortionists, not only cut off the ‘we might sue you later’ threat of dropping a case without prejudice when it goes bad for them but also making them pay their victim’s legal fees and extra for abusing the court system.

The entire scam depends on getting people to pay out without having to pay anything more than pocket change themselves, make it so they actually face a risk of having to pay their victims and suddenly it becomes a lot less tempting a scam.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

online bullshit

The next time I read a weblog comment, I hope that it doesnt disappoint me as much as yours. I imply, I do know it was my choice to read, however I really thought youd have something to contribute. All I saw is a bunch of whining about something that you know little and you were looking for acceptance of your ridiculous opinions.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Bobvious says:

Re: Re: Pay heed, gentlemen!

"dope-smoking Hillary" link

Don’t you remember where Bill said he tried dope but didn’t inhale. Well that’s because he got Hillary to inhale for him. Simple. Draw in a mouthful, kiss your loved one and they inhale it instead as you exhale.

And don’t forget that Hillary HRC changed her name from ROSWELL to Rodham at a special ceremony at Area 51.

It’s all here in this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj1ykZWtPYI

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:


The suits are frivolous. That judges don’t/have yet to deliver monetary damages to the defendants once the suits have been dismissed is hardly a sign that the suits are on solid ground. And if you want proof, look at Shiva Ayyadurai’s lawsuit: Both Techdirt and Shiva settled his particular pile of excrement disguised as a lawsuit without money changing hands.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...