Strike 3 Holdings DENIED early discovery in San Diego Fed Court

http://www.AttorneySteve.com
__________________________________________
November 2019 Update: Click here for the utlimate Strike 3 defense guide: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-you-need-know-strike-3-holdings-llc-copyright-vondran-esq-/

YES YOU CAN SHARE OUR VIDEOS ON YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA NETWORKS.

In this video, torrent litigation Attorney Steve® discusses BitTorrent Litigation update from California Southern District. A judge denied Strike 3 (a prolific filer of federal copyright lawsuits in CA, Colorado and others sates. The judge pointed out a few very important things:

1. They need EVIDENCE (declarations concerning GEOLOCATION) technology to pinpoint a Defendant into the Court's jurisdiction. Mere conclusory allegations do not appear to be sufficient, at least in this court.

2. Plaintiff bears SEVERAL BURDENS when it files an ex parte - one is to prove that it can survive a FRCP Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss (ex. failure to state a cause of action, and lack of personal jurisdiction or improper forum

3. Seeking and being granted "early discovery" is DISFAVORED. Strike 3 and Malibu Media better have good grounds and meet the criteria in the jurisdiction where the case is filed.

Early discovery is NOT a granted. Make sure to SUBSCRIBE to this video. In the next Torrent defense video, I plan to discuss:

1. How to make a special appearance (as a lawyer) on behalf of the John Doe Defendant

2. How to seek to "QUASH" the subpoena on several grounds (depending upon the specific facts of the case):

A. Failure to allow Defendant a reasonable time to response (ex. 30 days minimum - the "last minute rush job"

B. Defendant is NOT THE INFRINGER (thus, seeking the name, address and other information is nothing more than to harass an internet subscriber who they don't even know their name, or their address, or whether they are a group home or a house, or what.

C. Causing an undue burden and invasion of privacy (The Cable Privacy act prevents Cable Operators from simply giving our a subscribers name, address and other personally identifying information without a court order. A torrent Plaintiff on a fishing expedition should not have free grounds to get a subscribers name and work around the act just because they "think" the subscriber is also the infringer. I would argue this is to loose a standard to allow this privacy invasion which is the very reason for the Cable Privacy Statute. This leads to possibilities of harassing and unduly burdening someone who is NOTING MORE THAN AN INTERNET SUBSCRIBER.

D. In some cases, if Plaintiff's overreach, a "modification" to the subpoena may be required. For example, to NOT allow a Defendant to get your phone number so they can call you before you have a chance to speak with an attorney.

E. No consent to release information is given to the ISP under 47 U.S.C. 551

F. No good faith basis to release information exists, as this case provides some valuable insight for this argument - See 47 U.S.C. 551(c)(2)(B) of the privacy act.

G. Defendant is out of the Court's jurisdiction (ex. over 100 miles away from the Court, where defendant resides, works or otherwise transacts business. This might be used in a motion to dismiss for a lack of jurisdiction and/or venue and used to prevent Strike 3 or Malibu from being granted their request for early discovery to attempt to "unmask" a Defendant.

These are some of the main grounds that come to mind. Make sure to SUBSCRIBE to my channel for this next video. This is likely to be a video THEY HOPE YOU (AND OTHER TORRENT DEFENSE LAWYERS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES), SEE.

If you like the video, let me know. Thank you all for watching and supporting our channel over the years. This is general legal information only and not legal advice. Do not rely. Check the laws in your jurisdiction. This is an advertisement and communication.

- Attorney Steve® -