First Time Videos, LLC v. Does 1-76

Filing 35

REPLY by Does 1-76 to response in opposition to motion 29 , MOTION by Defendant Does 1-76 to quash on behalf of one of the Does 25 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Mirsafian, Masoud)

I THE U ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
ORTHER DISTRICT OF ILLI OIS
EASTER DIVISIO

FIRST TIME VIDEOS, LLC
Plaintiff,
v.
DOES 1-76,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

11-cv-3831
Judge Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo
Magistrate Judge: Hon. Michael T. Mason

___________________________________________________________________________________
REPLY I SUPPORT OF MOTIO BY JOH /JA E DOE 98.215.224.86 TO QUASH
SUBPOE A, FOR SEVERA CE, A D FOR COST A D FEES PURSUA T TO 17 USC § 505

Movant, John/Jane Doe, identified by IP Address number 98.215.224.86 (hereinafter referred to
as "Doe" or "Movant"), by and through his/her attorney, Mirsafian Law Group, LLC, on behalf of this
Movant only, offers this Reply In Support of his/her Motion and states as follows:
1. Movant adopts and incorporates by reference herein the arguments set forth in "Reply In
Support Of Motion Of Does 71.239.21.116 and 24.15.217.106 To Quash Subpoena, Dismiss This
Defendant For Improper joinder, And Recover Attorney's Fees And Costs" (Document number: 34,
filed 08-10-11 by attorney Jay Hoffman).
2. Further, it should be noted that this case is NOT the first of its kind filed by Plaintiff's
counsel. Numerous matters, similar to the case at hand, are currently pending in the Northern District
of Illinois and other Federal District Courts. This fact is brought to the Court's attention to show that
Plaintiff's counsel is well aware of his improper filings, particularly with respect to the issue of Joinder.
On multiple occasions, various Federal District Courts have dismissed these cases filed by Plaintiff's
counsel due to improper joinder. (See the Court Order entered by Judge Balche M. Manning attached
hereto in Exhibit A).
1 of 3

3. The above mentioned filings by Plaintiff's counsel should be of concern to this Court
because Plaintiff's Counsel is blatantly and intentionally filing suits, with knowledge of improper
joinder, against multiple unknown defendants in an effort to circumvent the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
4. By improperly and advantageously filing suit against multiple unknown defendants,
Plaintiff's Counsel is able to then file ex parte discovery motions followed by subpoenas to Internet
Service Providers ("ISP") to ascertain the names and contact information of the unknown defendants
based on IP addresses.
5. As already noted in the Reply In Support filed by Jay Hoffman, Plaintiff's Counsel then
contacts these individuals and demand money in what should be considered an unethical shakedown of
unknown defendants.
6. This is quite troubling since most of these unknown defendants are not able to obtain counsel
due to financial reasons and are therefore forced to accept an unreasonable settlement to avoid costly
litigation. In fact, twelve (12) of the unknown defendants in this matter have already been dismissed
from this suit by Plaintiff's counsel, presumably through settlement because of the intimidation and
extortion addressed above.
For all of the above-mentioned reasons, Movant's Motion To Quash Subpoena, For Severance,
And for Cost and Fees pursuant to 17 USC § 505 should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN/JANE DOE 98.215.224.86
By: /s/ Masoud Mirsafian
Attorney of Record
Masoud Mirsafian
MIRSAFIAN LAW GROUP, LLC
22 W. Washington St., Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60602
2 of 3

[phone] (ph)
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION BY JOHN/JANE DOE
98.215.224.86 TO QUASH SUBPOENA, FOR SEVERANCE, AND FOR COST AND FEES
PURSUANT TO 17 USC § 505 was filed with the Clerk of Court using the ECF system on August 11,
2011, and thereby served on all counsel of record.
By: /s/ Masoud Mirsafian
Attorney of Record

3 of 3