“I downloaded a movie and I should be awarded attorney fees.” AKA: The Worst Motion to Quash

Much is said about BitTorrent litigation, but sometimes it takes an honest defendant, or their counsel, to make things perfectly clear. One such exemplar is a recent Motion to Quash filed by counsel in the New Jersey case of Popular Oaks v. John Doe, 2:14-cv-07901.

To quote the motion:

I do not understand why I am being sued. I simply went online to a website that allows people to share files. I downloaded a movie and suddenly I am being sued in federal court for copyright infringement.

 If you do not understand why you are being sued after this statement, you probably also do not understand where babies come from. The motion goes on to complain:

Essentially, Plaintiff’s theory is that someone who downloads movies from the internet, and makes them available to anyone by way of so-called peer-to-peer software (which enable users to exchange files directly between their computers without intermediary services) has violated both the copyright owner’s right to make copies, 17 U.S. C. sec. 106(1), and the distribution right, 17 U.S.C. sec 106(3).

Yes. That is exactly the theory and the law. Thank you for the citations. As for the requested relief this person seeks:

The Court should order the subpoena quashed, vacate the Order Granting Discovery and dismiss the complaint in its entirety because: 1) An undue burden would be placed upon the Defendant, 2) Defendant’s First Amendment rights to free speech (on the Internet) has not been waived, and 3) Plaintiff has failed to allege facts supporting the existence of personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Additionally, Defendant should be awarded a reasonable attorney’s fee for having to file this motion…

The fact that this is a motion by a party (through counsel no less) that verifies they did in fact download the movie (“I downloaded a movie…”) and accurately recites the law that verifies this is a violation, and they still turn around and asks for their attorney fees defies logic. This demonstrates the fundamental disconnect in BitTorrent litigation, namely, those who fight it by and large simply believe they should be allowed to freely steal movies.

The case is Popular Oaks v. John Doe, 2:14-cv-07901 (D. NJ.)

The relevant motion is:14-cv-7901_Doc.6-Worst Motion to Quash

The opposition filed, which explains the problems with this motion in detail is: 2:14-cv-07901_8-Opposition to Worst Motion to Quash

One Thought on ““I downloaded a movie and I should be awarded attorney fees.” AKA: The Worst Motion to Quash

  1. Mocking this crappy motion (hello, malpractice claim!) is like kicking a dead dog, isn’t it, Emilie?

    Especially sad that there is a low hanging fruit waiting to be picked by defendants for this “plaintiff” — the documented fact that Poplar Oaks was voluntarily dissolved in December, then magically “resurrected” in February (it is a big question if reviving of a voluntarily dissolved entity is at all possible). Even if it was formally feasible, the well deserved verdict in the court of public opinion is unanimous: fraud.



Leave a Reply

Post Navigation