Judge Allows LHF Productions Defendants to Proceed Anonymously

Share

LHF Productions, Inc. the copyright holder for the movie “London Has Fallen” starring Morgan Freeman, Gerard Butler, and Aaron Eckhart is suing internet users in Illinois and other jurisdictions for allegedly downloading the film using file-sharing software over the internet in violation of the US Copyright Act. Right now, LHF Productions, Inc. are issuing subpoenas in Chicago, Illinois and many other jurisdictions.

In our recent post about LHF Productions Inc. v. Does 1-Does 1-24 (click here) in the Northern District of Illinois, one person who received a letter from Comcast about copyright infringement and a copy of the subpoena from LHF Productions, Inc. tried to prevent their identity from being revealed (rather than just their IP address) by filing a motion for a protective order with the court. Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer denied the motion (click here to see a copy of the court order).

We explained that although it was unclear why Judge Pallmeyer denied the motion, we speculated that  since the motion to deny was “without prejudice” we guessed the reason was because the person filed the motion without using their name. Courts ordinarily deny motions filed by people who do not reveal their identity, unless the motion is filed by an attorney.

However, in case number 16-cv-07680 LHF Productions Inc. v. Does 1-28, Judge John J. Tharp, Jr ordered that LHF Productions Inc “may not publish the identities of the Doe defendants in any way without further leave of court” and “Doe defendants may proceed in this case by pseudonym (based on their Doe numbers or IP addresses) until further order.” Click here to see a copy of the court order).

Quite a different view from one judge verses another judge. Other judges would not allow defendants to proceed anonymously unless the film was pornographic in nature.

According to Judge Tharpe, Jr “there remains a substantial possibility that the names turned over by ISPs will not accurately identify the individuals who actually downloaded or shared the copyrighted material” See his  July 2015 opinion in a lawsuit relating to Cobbler Nevada (click here for a copy of that Order), and referenced in his order above in the LHF Productions Inc. order.

In Cobbler Nevada v Does 1-29 16-cv-07680 Judge Tharpe, Jr stated:

there remains a substantial possibility that the names turned over by ISPs will not accurately identify the individuals who actually downloaded or shared the copyrighted material, see, e.g., Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-176, 279 F.R.D. 239, 242 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (noting that the plaintiff there estimated that 30 percent of the individuals whose names were disclosed to plaintiffs did not download the copyrighted material). Balancing these concerns against the public’s interest in knowing the defendants’ true identities, the Court finds that allowing the defendants to proceed by pseudonym is appropriate at this preliminary stage of
the litigation, when no defendant has been put on notice of this suit. Once the defendants have received such notice, the Court will revisit the issue of whether the names of the defendants in this matter may be publicly disclosed.”

Call Antonelli Law at 312-201-8310 if you received a LHF Productions, Inc. subpoena or were served a Summons in a LHF Productions, Inc. lawsuit, or click here to Talk to a Lawyer For Free.  We will explain what a motion to quash the subpoena is about. If you are the account holder for your internet account, your name is linked to an IP address which can be seen and tracked on the internet. We can tell you if the judge in your case will allow LHF productions defendants to proceed anonymously

[contact-form-7 id=”10″ title=”Case Contact”]

Attorney Michael Hierl of the law firm Hughes Socol Piers Resnick Dym Ltd represents LHF Productions Inc and has issued subpoenas to ISPs including Comcast to reveal the names of the accountholders associated with the IP addresses it believes illegally downloaded the film “London Has Fallen” in violation of the US Copyright Act.

RELATED POSTS

LHF Productions Inc. Motion for Protective Order Denied

I received a Comcast letter and Subpoena – Help!

LHF Productions, Inc. to Ask Illinois Judges to Allow Comcast ISP Subpoenas

Illinois Judge Grants Request by LHF Productions Inc Lawsuit to Issue ISP Subpoenas to Reveal Names of People Who Allegedly Downloaded “London Has Fallen” Using BitTorrent

LHF Productions Inc. adds 315 Defendants in Illinois

#LHFProductions #LondonHasFallen

LHF Productions Inc Subpoenas Residents Accused of Downloading "London Has Fallen"
LHF Productions Inc Subpoenas Chicago Residents Accused of Downloading “London Has Fallen”

LHF Productions, Inc – Northern District of Illinois

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-25 16-cv-08403
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-23 16-cv-08408
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-25 16-cv-08410
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-22 16-cv-08411
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-16 16-cv-08412
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-28 16-cv-08413
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-29 16-cv-08415
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-27 16-cv-08416
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-28 16-cv-08417
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-23 16-cv-08419
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-34 16-cv-08422
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-28 16-cv-07673
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-24 16-cv-07674
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-33 16-cv-07675
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-31 16-cv-07676
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-32 16-cv-07677
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-28 16-cv-07679
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-28 16-cv-07680
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-24 16-cv-07681
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-23 16-cv-07684
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-22 16-cv-07687
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-24 16-cv-07690
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-25 16-cv-06796
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-25 16-cv-06797
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-24 16-cv-06798
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-24 16-cv-06799
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-19 16-cv-06800
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-18 16-cv-06801
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-30 16-cv-06802
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-31 16-cv-06803
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-29 16-cv-06805
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-29 16-cv-06806
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-39 16-cv-06808
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-22 16-cv-06811
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-30 16-cv-04730
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-27 16-cv-04731
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-29 16-cv-04732
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-19 16-cv-04733
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-25 16-cv-04734
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-23 16-cv-04740
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-29 16-cv-04741
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-28 16-cv-04742
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-29 16-cv-04743
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-26 16-cv-04744
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-26 16-cv-03903
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-24 16-cv-03904
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-26 16-cv-03892
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-21 16-cv-03902
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-25 16-cv-03896
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-26 16-cv-03899
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-27 16-cv-03907
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-27 16-cv-03897
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-31 16-cv-03905
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-25 16-cv-03887

If you receive a letter from  Comcast and a subpoena from LHF Productions Inc. to reveal your identity, call Antonelli Law at 312-201-8310.

 

Judge Allows LHF Productions Defendants to Proceed Anonymously

Share

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Website Apps