copyrightclerk

On issues of internet copyright law

A look at R&D Film 1 in Illinois

with 2 comments

R&D Film 1, LLC, has a number of cases going on in a couple of jurisdictions. Let’s turn our eye to the Illinois Northern District Court first. These cases are litigated by Todd S. Parkhurst. R&D has had some success there; some defendants appear to be settling. In other cases, the judges seem skeptical of allowing discovery, or are requiring further basis beyond the initial complaint before granting it.

R&D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-57, 1:12-cv-05821
This suit was filed back in July. Judge Chang seemed skeptical of of Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery and asked for a memorandum:

Plaintiff shall file a supplemental memorandum, supported by under-oath affidavit(s), with the following additional information: (a) what is the “geolocation technology” that Plaintiff used to trace each IP address to the State of Illinois, and how does it work, Compl. Par. 5; and (b) if BitTorrent is simultaneously infringing, Compl. Par. 4, then why are the dates and times on Exhibit B of the Complaint (and Gorfein Exhibit A) not all simultaneous or contemporaneous.

After R&D Film filed their memorandum, early discovery was granted. Defendants are fighting back, and presently on the docket are several MTQ’s.

R&D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-62, 1:12-cv-05822
Early discovery was granted without any hiccups, and certain defendants were recently dismissed.

R&D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-62, 1:12-cv-05823
Again, early discovery granted, and some defendants have been dismissed.

R&D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-103, 1:12-cv-09041
Plaintiff’s motion for discovery was denied on 12/05 by the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman.

Plaintiff is directed to file no later than December 21, 2012 a memorandum detailing why the John Doe defendants in this case are properly joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. See, e.g., Lightspeed v. Does 1-1000, No. 10 C 5604, 2011 WL 8179131 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2011); DIRECTV, Inc. v. Collins, 244 F.R.D. 408 (S.D. Ohio 2007).

Plaintiff responded with a memorandum, signed by attorneys Michael A. Hierl and Todd S. Parkhurst. The judge has yet to rule further.

R&D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-66, 1:12-cv-09043
A motion hearing was held on the Motion for Discovery. The court asked for a supplemental affidavit, which was filed on 12/19: Declaration of Darren M. Griffin regarding memorandum in support of motion. A ruling on the motion is set for 1/3. Note, virtually the same sequence of events has ocurred in R&D Film 1, LLC v. Does 1-37, 1:12-cv-09036.

Note: TorrentLawyer has a page dedicated to R&D Film 1, LLC lawsuits.

Written by copyrightclerk

December 31, 2012 at 12:12 pm

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Is there a way to see how defendants are being dismissed? Is it due to settling?

    steve

    December 31, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    • Steve, if a defendant settles they’ll be dismissed “with prejudice”. If the Plaintiff gives up on the case for any reason, usually they dismiss “without prejudice”, which leaves them the option to file suit again.

      If a Plaintiff dismisses only certain defendants, it’s likely those defendants settled, especially if it’s with prejudice.

      copyrightclerk

      December 31, 2012 at 5:45 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers

%d bloggers like this: