On the Cheap v. Does 1-5011 on the Chopping Block

On the Cheap's "film" -- Danielle Staub Raw

On the Cheap's "film" -- Danielle Staub Raw

This upcoming Wednesday, August 24 at 10:00am, there will be a hearing in the case of On the Cheap, LLC v. Does 1-5011 on whether the plaintiff has shown sufficient cause why this case should not be dismissed due to misjoinder of defendants and improper venue.  An Order to Show Cause was issued by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on June 24, 2011 wherein he gave the On the Cheap the opportunity to issue a written brief and to allow for submissions of any opposition briefs in this matter.  On July 14, On the Cheap’s lawyer Ira Siegel (who filed 17 file-sharing cases in the Northern District of California since October 2010) filed a brief attempting to show cause why this case should be allowed to proceed.  The brief contains more block quotes than I have ever seen before in a court filing.  On August 15, The Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) asked for, and was granted, permission to submit an amicus curiae brief (friend of the court brief) explaining the legal reasons why joinder is improper here and outing the tactics of these file-sharing plaintiffs.

If Judge Zimmerman finds that Ira Siegel has not sufficiently shown that this case is properly joined and in the proper venue, then the case may very well be dismissed and the plaintiff could be forced to sue John Doe defendants individually.  It costs $350 to file a case in federal district court.  With 5011 Doe defendants, the cost of merely bringing these suits individually becomes prohibitively expensive for the plaintiffs so a dismissal, even without prejudice, could functionally be as good as a win.

If, on the other hand, Judge Zimmerman allows discovery to continue until all defendants are identified and/or named in the case, then this case could remain on the docket for quite some time and identified yet still unnamed Does could still be subject to threatening demand letters (and possibly phone calls) from Mr. Siegel.  Though, the fact that Judge Zimmerman issued the Order to Show Cause on his own accord and that EFF stepped in to help those threatened yet unnamed Does does give me confidence in the outcome.

I intend to attend the hearing and will bring updates as soon as I possibly can on the tone of the hearing and whether Judge Zimmerman makes a bench ruling in this matter or merely takes it under advisement, issuing an Order later.  Stay tuned to my website and my Twitter feed for the latest on this case and its future.

Extra Note: On Friday, August 19, perhaps in anticipation of the upcoming hearing and its outcome, Ira Siegel DISMISSED 68 Doe defendants from the case with prejudice, meaning he settled with them.  This case may have have already grossed Mr. Siegel and his client perhaps at least $68,000 and perhaps at most $150,000.  These are guesses based on Siegel’s demands but, to get this much money all without ever naming a single defendant shows the business-model aspect of these cases:  1) Accuse, 2) Identify, 3) Send Demand Letters Threatening Litigation 4) Delay Actual Litigation, 5) Settle 6) ???? 7) Profit.

Just my two cents.

This entry was posted in Articles & Resources, File Sharing Defense, News and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Jay

    Great live tweeting today! Hopefully Judge Zimmerman will knee-cap this case, especially after reading the brief Siegel submitted.

    Siegel basically admitted that he does not intend on suing anyone outside of CAND when he said this “if we name 100 here, it’s one thing if we name 5000 it’s another. Let us use our wisdom to decide who to sue.”

    It’s also interesting that he is demanding different amounts from “does” ranging from $1200 to $2500. That should be questionable in itself.

    Again, good work today!

    • Stewart Kellar

      Thank you very much, I am glad to give updates. Please take special note that I do not know if these settlement numbers are an accurate reflection of Mr. Siegel’s actual settlement amounts, I am just ballparking a hypothetical amount for the sake of guessing how much he may have already pulled in from this case.

      • Jay

        My comment regarding settlement amounts is based on what I have read from people that have received the letters.

    • http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com sophisticatedjanedoe

      I double Jays’ words and thank you for the excellent reporting. I watched it real-time today in a coffee shop with friends, they laughed when I read:

      “Zimmerman: “how do I fit 5000 defendants into my courtroom.”

      As a side note, IO Group v. Does 1-138 was closed on Monday by the judge.

  • http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com sophisticatedjanedoe

    Wow, this is priceless:

    3. What is the total amount plaintiff has received in settlements from any of the doe defendants?
    Plaintiff is also ORDERED to provide a copy of any form letter it has sent to any doe defendant offering a settlement.

    Has it happen in the past that a troll was ordered to answer such questions?

    • http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com sophisticatedjanedoe

      Sorry for typos that look like errors: too excited…

  • Pingback: Troll Ira Siegel was ordered to disclose how much money he extorted from Does « Fight Copyright Trolls

  • Fighting Doe

    Congrats on an excellent tweet-cast!

    The Ira Siegal extortion letters are out there.

    I have a copy of one and can gladly send it to you! It’s $2000 before a certain date, and then $3.5k after that date. Total extortion.

  • Jon Doe Between 1-5011

    Excellent Tweeting!!! It gave a very good insight as to the way the hearing was proceeding and the feeling within the courtroom.
    I will be looking forward to updates when the judge has had a chance to look over the articles the judge asked for from the troll.

  • http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com sophisticatedjanedoe
    • Stewart Kellar

      I saw that and mentioned it in my latest post. It is an effort to change the discourse from a case where an attorney beating up on tens of thousands of unnamed defendants via threatening demand letters to one where the plaintiff is the victim who is being insulted by anonymous people on the Internet (who hasn’t?).

      BTW, I also took a look at the CEG websites’ business model page you linked to where it says they are the ones doing the uploading! Good luck to you.

  • http://www.bing.com/ Jacklyn

    If information were soccer, this would be a goooooal!