Massive Copyright Troll Malibu Media/xArt Defies Court Order To Publicly Name Defendant

from the not-a-good-move dept

We've talked a lot about massive copyright trolling operation, Malibu Media (which is also known for providing porn under the name xArt). In some other cases, it's been revealed that Malibu Media is one of many operations that appear to be little more than a copyright delivery system for a series of German companies that are behind the scenes of almost every major copyright trolling operation these days. The company is also somewhat infamous for its shady practices and the way in which it files many questionable lawsuits -- including the use of "Exhibit C" -- totally unrelated films that it claims the accused also downloaded illegally, but over which Malibu Media has no copyright claims. That exhibit clearly served only to try to pressure individuals into settling, so there wouldn't be a public court document insinuating a list of embarrassing films had been downloaded.

Its latest move seems to go seriously over the line in yet another effort to try to force defendants to pay up and settle. In this case, involving a "John Doe" defendant, the court had been clear that any documents involving the name of the defendant needed to be filed under seal. That came after the court had rejected the defendant's attempt to have the whole subpoena thrown out, but was clearly on to Malibu Media's usual tricks pressuring people into settling. As summarized in a new filing from Booth Sweet (the lawyers for the defendant), the court had been abundantly clear that Malibu Media was not to publicly name the defendant:

Here, the Order was sent by the Court to the Plaintiff. The Court's language could not have been more clear.

“If the summons and its return disclose the Defenan[d]t’s name and identifying information, Defendant shall file the same under seal.”

[....]

Nor was the intent of the Court’s Order lost upon the Plaintiff. In its motion to file its summons and return of service, Plaintiff specifically noted:

“To comply with the Court’s Protective Order [CM/ECF 20], Plaintiff seeks leave of Court to file its proposed summons and affidavit of service under seal.”

[....]

In approving the Plaintiff’s request to file its summons and return of service under seal, the Court once again took pains to establish

the following procedure to balance Defendant's privacy interests with the presumption of open judicial proceedings. Simultaneously with filing its proposed summons under seal, Plaintiff shall also file a Reference List and an amended complaint. The Reference List, which shall be filed under seal, must contain Defendant's name and any other identifying information that Plaintiff deems necessary to the prosecution of its case, as well as an appropriate identifier that uniquely corresponds to each item listed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(g). The amended complaint and all subsequent filings shall be publicly filed and must refer to Defendant only as John Doe and use the identifier provided in the Reference List for other identifying information....

So what do you think happened? Well, first, as has happened in many other Malibu Media cases, the company and its trolling lawyers failed to serve the defendant, so Booth Sweet filed for a motion to dismiss. In response... Malibu Media filed another filing (a "summons and reference list") that was not redacted and not under seal. And did so at a time that made it difficult to fix in a timely manner:

On March 13, 2015, Plaintiff, in violation of the Court’s repeated Orders, filed an unredacted summons and reference list with John Doe’s name and address plainly visible. See Docs. 24 & 25. By choosing to file these documents at 8:00 PM on a Friday evening, Plaintiff intentionally chose a time when it would be difficult to correct, and the embarrassment alone might cause John Doe to seek a non-trial disposition just to end the matter. More so, the documents are dated March 12, 2015, further compounding the inference that Plaintiff intentionally waited until Friday evening to file them.

Furthermore, Booth Sweet notes that Malibu Media pulled this same damn trick in multiple other cases as well, including another one done late on a Friday evening:

Malibu Media v. John Does 1-14, No. 12-cv-0764-BAH, ECF No. 35 (D.D.C. 2012)

Plaintiff filed an un-redacted first amended complaint and summons, both identifying the John Doe there by name, in express contravention of the Court’s protective order. Before a sanctions motion was filed, the matter was dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve the complaint.

Malibu Media v. John Does 1-14, No. 12-cv-2084, ECF #37 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 1, 2012)

Plaintiff filed un-redacted notices “in the other cases affected by the October 3 Order, naming all the Doe defendants” on a Friday evening. Id. at n.1. Malibu Media v. John Does 1- 14, No. 12-cv-263, ECF #48 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 14, 2012) Plaintiff’s motion to strike un-redacted complaint it filed in violation of court order, blaming error on paralegal.

In fact, Booth Sweet notes that not only does the unredacted filing late on a Friday seem questionable, the entire filing is questionable as it is entirely inappropriate here:

Plaintiff’s deadline to serve the Defendant was February 28. To date, no extension to effectuate service has been granted—which begs the question why these documents were even filed in the first place. These documents are neither necessary at this point in the litigation nor relevant to opposing Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss. However, they are essential to a Plaintiff, who unable to obtain a quick settlement, is all to happy to act out of spite.

It really is incredible how frequently we see this kind of gamesmanship in copyright trolling cases. I guess when you look on the federal judicial system as a system worth gaming for extortionate payouts from individuals, it shouldn't be that surprising that the lawyers would also look to game other aspects of the system as well.

The judge in the case, Judge Timothy Black, has wasted little time in ordering Malibu Media's lawyer, Yousef Faroniya, to explain why he shouldn't be sanctioned for clearly disobeying the court's orders:

Defendant moves the Court to order Plaintiff and its counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned or held in contempt for publicly filing Defendant's name and address in contravention of two Court orders directing Plaintiff to file this information under seal. For the reasons set forth in Defendant's motion, the Court finds that Defendant has established a prima facie case that Plaintiff and its counsel "violated a definite and specific order of the court requiring him to perform or refrain from performing a particular act or acts with knowledge of the court's order." ... Accordingly, Plaintiff and its attorney Yousef Faroniya are ORDERED to show cause in writing by March 20, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. why they should not be sanctioned or held in contempt for publicly filing Defendant's name and address in violation of the Court's Orders dated January 21, 2015 and February 26, 2015. Defendant may file a response by March 24, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. The Court will set this matter for a hearing, if appropriate, after receipt of the written responses. The Clerk is DIRECTED to withhold issuance of the summons until this matter is resolved.

And, in a footnote, the judge makes it clear that Faroniya "shall specifically address Defendant's allegation that substantially similar conduct has occurred in other cases involving Plaintiff."

Given how frequently we see this kind of gamesmanship, it's still somewhat amazing that Malibu Media and its lawyers haven't yet collapsed into a Prenda- or Righthaven-style mess.

Filed Under: anonymous, copyright troll, timothy black, under seal, yousef faroniya
Companies: malibu media, xart

5,000 Domains Seized Based On Sealed Court Filing; Confused Domain Owners Have No Idea Why

from the that-seems-problematic dept

In the past, we'd been fairly worried about governments seizing website domains with little or no notice, but it's perhaps equally, if not more, troubling when it's done by private individuals and companies. This was one of our concerns with the original version of SOPA, which included a "private right of action." But, even though SOPA never became law (and the private right of action was dropped fairly early on), it appears that some courts are still allowing this to happen. Just a couple of months ago, we wrote about a troubling ruling in an Oregon district court that let a Filipino entertainment company seize a bunch of domains, in a process that was done under seal. In the past, we've seen other brands, like Chanel do the same thing. Louis Vuitton has also tried seizing domains.

The latest such example seems especially troubling because no one has any idea what's fully happening, but it appears to involve Chan Luu, a jewelry and clothing retailer. The Internet Commerce Association notes that approximately 5,000 domains appear to have been seized, handed over to a private "receiver" who is now trying to sell those domains -- for no clear reason. One of the victims, Michael Berkens, who lost some of his domains, has explained what little details he's been able to find out:

Overnight I received a notice that several domain names I owned were transferred by a sealed court from Verisign without notice and of course without the court order.

The domain names just were transferred by Verisign to another domain and are now listed for sale at another marketplace.

Another domainer sent me an identical notice he received overnight on domain names he owned.

The Domain names are now all owned by COURT APPOINTED RECEIVER – ROBERT OLEA and have been moved to Uniregisty as the registrar and are now listed for sale at domainnamesales.com

The only information that Berkens received was the following email:

Please be advised that Verisign has changed the registrar of record for certain domain names pursuant to a ***SEALED*** court order.

The domain names identified below were affected by this action.

Alexander the Great, LLC
—————————————————————————–
RETRACTIT.COM

If you have any questions relating to these actions, please contact:

David J. Steele
Partner, Christie, Parker & Hale LLP
Adj. Professor of Law, Loyola School
18101 Von Karman Ave, Suite 1950
Irvine, CA 92612-0163
office: +1 (949) 476-0757
direct: +1 (949) 823-3232
fax: +1 (949) 476-8640
email: david.steele@cph.com

Thank you very much,
The Verisign Transfer Dispute Team””

transfers@verisign-grs.com

Others have tracked down that it has something to do with this case, but with the details under seal, it's all a bit of a mess. Here's Phil Corwin from the Internet Commerce Association:

The only other available facts that we are presently aware of are that a copy of the “Clerk’s Certification Of A Judgment To be Registered In Another District” issued by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in the case of Chan Luu Inc. v. Online Growth, LLC et al is available at the Justia website, and the order was registered in the Florida Middle District Court. The other defendants in the case are “Grant Shellhammer et al”. There was a considerable time lag in this proceeding, with the original judgment entered in California on May 23rd, the certification dated September 8th, and the domain transfers occurring around October 2nd. The damages granted to plaintiff are $200,000 plus interest, court costs and attorney fees; we note that there is a strong possibility that the domains transferred in this case may have an aggregate market value far in excess of that total judgment, and that is likewise disturbing. The California court document covers domains that are identical or confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s CHAN LUU mark – but we’re not sure if the domain cited by Mike in his article, RETRACTIT.COM, or any of the other transferred domains fit in that category. Chan Luu is a retailer of jewelry, accessories, and ready-to-wear clothing based in Los Angeles, and so far as can be discerned makes no commercial use of the term “retractit”, so it is unclear why that domain was covered by the court order.

This is problematic on many, many levels -- and is exactly why we've been so concerned about any process that allows for domain seizures without any sense of due process. In this case, with all the details under seal and the domain owners having their websites simply ripped away from them with no explanation at all, it should raise serious questions about why courts are allowing this to occur. To take domain names away from people who aren't even parties to a lawsuit, based on a sealed document, and then to immediately put them up for resale seems sketchy beyond belief.

Filed Under: domain seizures, domains, due process, michael berkens, secrecy, trademark, transparency, under seal
Companies: chan luu, verisign

DOJ Falsely Claimed That Reporter James Rosen Was Involved In Bombings In Trying To Hide Fact It Spied On Him

from the whoa dept

Okay, here's one that's just crazy. A few weeks ago, lots of folks, including us, covered the story of how the Justice Department claimed to a court that reporter James Rosen was "an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator" in a leak of some State Department info concerning North Korea. He was none of the above. He was a reporter, but the DOJ was abusing its power in order to spy on his email and phone records, to try to find the source of the leak. Soon after that, it came out that the DOJ had been working overtime to make sure that the details of the surveillance of Rosen's communications was held under seal.

However, some are noticing an odd statement in the DOJ's filing to try to keep the case under seal. In what is likely a case of an overworked DOJ lawyer just cutting and pasting from a different attempt to keep some surveillance a secret, one of the motions to keep the search warrant sealed falsely claimed that Rosen was involved in a bombing, rather than just disclosing information on North Korea. Somehow, if the DOJ can't even read its own motions to seal that carefully, you have to question if they really "considered alternatives less drastic than sealing," or if they were happy that throwing in key words like "responsible for the bombings" despite the case having nothing to do with bombings, only helped to keep it secret that they were spying on a the communications of a reporter, almost certainly in violation of the DOJ's own guidelines, and potentially in violation of the Constitution.

Filed Under: bombing, cut and paste, doj, james rosen, lying to court, prosecution, reporting, typos, under seal

Why Are Rosetta Stone & Google Hiding Details In Court Case... And Why Is The Judge Allowing It?

from the redact-this dept

Paul Levy has been staying on top of a rather important aspect of the ongoing Rosetta Stone/Google lawsuit over whether or not Google is liable for trademark infringement over keywords ads that might point to counterfeit copies of Rosetta Stone software. So far, Rosetta Stone has lost badly and it seems likely that will continue. However, what caught Levy's attention is that in the appeal, both sides worked out an agreement to file certain aspects of their briefs "under seal" thus hiding from the public large segments of the facts related to this case that will surely set an important precedent one way or the other. That's hugely problematic and Levy complained about it. Both companies agreed to unseal their briefs, though Google has not yet done so, and Rosetta Stone only did so at the last minute, leaving little to no time for potential amici to make use of the unredacted filings in making their own arguments. However, once Rosetta Stone's brief was released unredacted, it was quickly realized that the redacted sections had no reasons for the redactions in the first place, as they did not contain confidential information at all.

And now it's looking even more ridiculous, because while the briefs have been (or will be) released in unredacted form, the 15 volumes of Joint Appendix is still mostly (13 of the 15 volumes) being filed under seal. Lawyers Eric Goldman, Marty Schwimmer and Levy have filed motions to intervene and to have the entire Joint Appendix unsealed. In explaining why, Levy notes:

For more than three decades, the courts have recognized a general policy under both the common law and the First Amendment under which judicial records -- both briefs that argue how judges should resolve vases, and the evidence submitted in support of those arguments -- should be open to the public unless there are very good reasons why particular pieces of evidence should be kept secret. That is the best way for consumers to understand how their courts are operating and why judges reach their decisions, as well as to monitor the activities of the parties to litigation. But Rosetta Stone and Google have flagrantly disregarded these rules in the course of litigating their trademark dispute in federal court in Virginia, and more recently in the Fourth Circuit....

The pressures of commercial litigation have created an increasing tendency for private litigants and judges alike to ignore the requirements for public scrutiny by entering joint agreements in which each side gets to keep its own information secret. To save time and expedite discovery, particularly in "rocket-docket" jurisdictions that put a high premium on expedited resolution of cases, parties agree that each side can designate documents as "confidential" subject to the later right to challenge the need for confidentiality. The agreements typically further provide that, when discovery materials are used in support of dispositive motions, anything designated as confidential must then be filed under seal.

As he notes, in theory each side can challenge this, but they rarely do, since they tend to both agree to keep each other's info secret -- and it's the public that loses out. Hopefully the court pays heed to this and pushes Google and Rosetta Stone to unseal the full filings in the case.

Filed Under: redacted info, secrecy, trademark, under seal
Companies: google, rosetta stone