Large P2P copyright lawsuits are usually filed in a single court to aid the                       lawyer in not only needing fewer judgments for multiple targets, but also just                       to keep things straight and give the court a clear idea of what’s going on.
Chicago attorney John Steele has mixed things up and filed at least one                       large pornography lawsuit in each of Illinois’ three federal districts. The                       problem is, for Steele, that this appears to have cast too wide of a net, with                       at least one judge saying that Steele may be running a ”fishing expedition.”
In Illinois’ Northern District, Judge Milton Shadur threw out one of Steele’s lawsuits against 300 anonymous defendants, saying ”I                       don’t see any justification at all for this action.” Shadur threw out the case largely on the grounds that the defendants were coming from                       a wide variety of states, not just Illinois, despite Steele promising that all                       of the accused were Illinois natives.
”The judges in our other cases have, for the most part, sided with our                       clients and dismissed anonymous motions filed by non-parties,” Steele told Ars Technica. ”We                       expect to continue to have a majority of the courts find in our favor and allow                       us to find out who is stealing our client’s content.”
Steele said he relied on geo-location technology to trace IP addresses and                       brought the charges in the appropriate venues that way. Steele also may have                       been hoping for an advantage by spreading out the cases and making them feel                       like local issues.
Federal Judge Harold Baker also threw a large monkey wrench into Steele’s                       plans. Judge Baker called the case ”novel” and said it has turned the concept                       of a class action suit ”on its head,” but that granting quick subpoenas without                       hearing from the accused would be unfair.
The problem for Steele is that the accused are only known by the IP                       addresses, so there are currently no known defendants who would be able to                       represent themselves, which means no subpoenas will be issued under Baker’s                       ruling.
No comments:
Post a Comment