*** 25 Jun 12 Update ***
Thanks Raul for providing the following news concerning 13 Mike Meier cases. On 25 Jun 12, Troll Meier submitted “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of remaining John Does Without Prejudice, Except Those to be Named Individually…” Meier_loss_11Civ7564 Most likely the remaining defendants said or did something that gave Troll Meier reason to go after them.
Plaintiffs now voluntarily dismiss without Prejudice the remaining John Does from the remaining consolidated cases, except for the following John Does to be named individually:
Case Number: John Doe to be named individually:
- 11-CV-09689-KBF [11-CV-7564] John Doe 99
- 11-CV-7564-KBF [11-CV-7564] John Doe 199 [submitted request to remain
- “John Doe 199” in any court filings]
- 11-CV-7999-KBF [11-CV-7564] John Doe 50
- 11-CV-8172-KBF [11-CV-7564] John Doe 166
- 11-CV-9618-KBF [11-CV-7564] John Doe 49
- 11-CV-9703-KBF [11-CV-7564] John Doe 1
- 11-CV-9705-KBF [11-CV-7564] John Doe 83
- 11-CV-9706-KBF [11-CV-7564] John Doe 24
- 12-CV-1077-KBF [11-CV-7564] John Doe 8
- 12-CV-1169-KBF [11-CV-7564] John Doe 87
- 12-CV-129-KBF [11-CV-7564] John Doe 11
The Amended Complaints for the above John Does will be submitted today. Respectfully submitted this 25th day of June, 2012.
————————————————–
This is a follow-on post concerning my 19 Jun 12, Troll Meier posting. It also goes well with Rauls’ 20 Jun 12, posting, “Mike Meier has an audacity to continue fishing in the Southern District of New York. Judge McMahon is not impressed.” Troll Meier must really like the abuse he gets in New York.
Well some initial analysis disclosed the likely reason Troll Meier has been sending out the settlement demands accompanied by a “draft” federal complaint is because some of his NY cases are getting a little stale. Not to mention the judges in NY seem to be taking a notice to his antics.
I have corresponded with a couples Does who have received these settlement offers and they have stated they were initially a party of a previous NY case. One in particular is Digital Sin Inc., v. Does 1-176, case 12-cv-000126, SDNY. Case Docket. Complaint_00126(NY) IP_addresses_00126(NY)
The case was initially filed on 6 Jan 12, and the judge did allow Troll Meier to issue a subpoena for Doe ISP subscriber information. In the 30 Jan 12, Memorandum & Opinion (MO_00126(NY)), Judge Nathan states the following:
The Court is concerned about the possibility that many of the names and addresses produced in response to Plaintiffs discovery request will not in fact be those of the individuals who downloaded “My Little Panties #2.” The risk is not purely speculative; Plaintiff’s counsel estimated that 30% of the names turned over by ISPs are not those of individuals who actually downloaded or shared copyrighted material. Counsel stated that the true offender is often the “teenaged son … or the boyfriend if it’s a lady.” (1117112 Tr. at 16). Alternatively, the perpetrator might turn out to be a neighbor in an apartment building that uses shared IP addresses or a dormitory that uses shared wireless networks. See, e.g., Mot. to Quash Verizon Subpoena, 11-CV -7564 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2012) (Docket #11) (claiming that a Doe defendant did not know how to use a computer and implying that the perpetrator was a neighbor in his condominium). This risk of false positives gives rise to “the potential for coercing unjust settlements from innocent defendants” such as individuals who want to avoid the embarrassment of having their names publicly associated with allegations of illegally downloading “My Little Panties #2.” SBa Pictures, Inc. v. Does 1-3036, 2011 WL 6002620, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30,2011).
Have to love the 30% comment – Plaintiff’s counsel estimated that 30% of the names turned over by ISPs are not those of individuals who actually downloaded or shared copyrighted material.
So with this case, 30% of the people Troll Meier threatens with a federal law suit didn’t do this? .3 X 176 = 52.8 – Round up to 53 ISP subscribers.
This case did have one Doe motion to quash and a letter from a Doe explaining while the public IP address was not a good way to identify the actual infringer. The judge ruled against the Does and allowed Troll Meier to proceed.
On 13 Apr 12, Troll Meier filed an application for more time to serve defendants and a status report. Rule4m_Ext_00126(NY) He requests a 120 day extension claiming the ISP are slow, as well as the need to review all the information once he receives it. On 11 Apr 12, the judge approved the 120 extension to serve Does. This essentially give Troll Meier out to August 2012 to name and serve defendants in this matter.
One thing I noticed in this application was the reference to “Your Truly” in it. In section (ix) concerning the case status:
Troll Meier tries to say that since one Doe didn’t list his IP address, he probably is some sort of “interloper” (not an actual Doe in the case) trying to disrupt the court proceedings by filing a “torpedo.”
“Disrupt” the proceedings???? I don’t think so. Since when is it a disruption to inform the court of these sleazy operations and try to bring some common sense into it. The correct way to write about my efforts is not to disrupt the court, but to make it harder for you and your Plaintiff’s to continue to file these shake-down operations.
Speaking of shake-down operations, the current amount Troll Meier and this Plaintiff are trying for is $3.5K.
OK people, don’t give into this bozo and pay him out of fear. All he has is the public IP address and nothing else. By his own words, 30% of you are not the actual infringer. Can you really see him really going to trial with that? I didn’t need to file a torpedo for Troll Meier. He is his own worst enemy.
DieTrollDie 
