from the burnt-by-trolls dept
Another copyright trolling operation appears to be headed off the rails. The spectacular disintegration of the porn trolling Prenda Law firm has been a joy to behold, ultimately ending in federal indictments for Paul Hansmeier and John Steele. Where this one is headed, it’s too early to say, but it appears one lawyer employed by litigious subsidiaries of Voltage Pictures has had enough. (h/t FightCopyrightTrolls)
An attorney who filed dozens of BitTorrent copyright cases on behalf of Voltage Pictures and Millennium Films has renounced the practice, saying he was duped into participating in unethical copyright “trolling.”
James S. Davis filed suit against his former legal partner and his former clients in San Diego Superior Court in July. In the complaint, he says that he was recruited into the BitTorrent litigation by a former law school classmate, Carl Crowell, who told him he had a “good litigation business opportunity.”
As part of trolling operation’s “warm body” legal counsel hiring plan, Davis was plucked from the world of immigration law and put to work filing sloppy complaints against IP addresses on behalf of his new employers. And there are several of those. The complaint [PDF] lists a number of familiar LLCs as defendants, including LHF, Dallas Buyers Club, Cobbler Nevada, and the infamous Guardaley.
The allegations are pretty thin at this point. Davis says the multiple entities withheld information that might have made him reconsider his involvement in the scheme. Thanks to stuff uncovered during recent lawsuits, Davis appears to want out officially and litigiously out before the whole things falls apart.
[I]n the course of preparing his response [to a defendant’s motion questioning the plaintiff’s claims of copyright ownership], [Davis] began asking questions and uncovering facts that undermined “his belief in the value and ethical propriety” of the copyright suits.
In a separate copyright case in San Diego, Davis says he uncovered additional troubling facts in the course of drafting a response to a judge’s threat to dismiss the case. He says he had a meeting in Santa Monica with the key figures on the plaintiff’s side, after which he “concluded that both the legal and factual basis of the Copyright Litigation campaign were unsound, and that each had been misrepresented to him.”
Davis, who had already filed 58 lawsuits on behalf of the companies, sought more info from those above him. According to his complaint, he has been repeatedly stonewalled by the companies involved in the copyright litigation scheme. Davis also alleges he hasn’t been paid for his participation in the litigation — at least not as much as was agreed to. When you start stiffing your legal reps, things tend to get litigious in a hurry.
Two allegations are particularly direct:
Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of Davis rendering services in cases that lacked a valid legal or factual basis and were therefore impossible for Davis to successfully litigate.
Defendants breached their respective covenants of good faith and fair dealing by, inter alia, refusing to appear at or participate in the Copyright Litigation Campaign when their participation was required by necessity or court order.
So, basically like any other large-scale trolling operations: file tons of lawsuits, hope for enough quick settlements to turn a profit, and duck out of any cases as quickly as possible when defendants push back. It’s probably safe to assume any illegal activity by the Voltage Pictures’ subsidiaries isn’t limited to defrauding one of its legal reps.
Davis is seeking at least $300,000 in damages. He may get it too, if the defendants are looking to steer clear of discovery motions that might expose further malfeasance by the involved companies. This is Davis’ second attempt to sue his former employers. The first attempt was filed in federal court but rejected by the judge for a lack of diversity. For now, all the action’s taking place at state level in San Diego’s Superior Court.
Trolling operations are notoriously sketchy. They start with the worst assumptions (an IP address is a person), bundle suits together wherever possible to save on legal fees, and quickly dismiss cases whenever friction is encountered. The only surprise here is a participating lawyer’s opting out via lawsuit before the judicial (or federal) hammer comes down.