• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

BitTorrent Subpoena & Lawsuit Defense

Call or Text Now

610-466-5644

  • Home
  • F.A.Q.
  • California
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • D.C.
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Hawaii
  • Illinois
  • Kentucky
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • New Jersey
  • New York
  • North Carolina
  • Ohio
  • Pennsylvania
  • Tennessee
  • Texas
  • Virginia
  • Wisconsin

subpoena

November 24, 2020 by Leonard J. French

Strike 3 Holdings Files 23 Cases in Virginia in a Single Day

Strike 3 Holdings, one of the most prolific copyright Plaintiffs in the country, has filed 24 new Federal copyright lawsuits in Virginia, 23 of which were filed on the same day. For any other Plaintiff, this would be a substantial undertaking, but this is normal for Strike 3 Holdings. Each lawsuit is nearly identical, alleging that their investigators observed an IP address committing copyright infringement by downloading Vixen, Tushy, or Blacked films through BitTorrent networks. They then allege that the John Doe internet subscriber behind the IP address must be the alleged infringer, and subpoena the identity from the Internet Service Provider (e.g., AT&T, Comcast, Cox, Spectrum, Verizon, etc.). Virginia is a favorite target for Strike 3, as they often target the cities with a higher than average income, hoping to secure large settlements.

The argument that the person that pays the internet bill must also be the copyright infringer is weak. For example, other people may have had access to the internet through unsecured wifi routers. Yet, the barebones accusation that the subscriber is responsible is usually enough for Federal judges to grant the subpoena. Strike 3 Holdings has weaponized this process to try to extract the largest settlements they can from internet subscribers.

Many people discover the lawsuit after they receive a notice from their ISP, which advises them that the only way to fight the subpoena is through a Motion to Quash (i.e., a motion to cancel or “quash” the subpoena). In fact, many of these cases started out in county court in Miami-Dade, Florida, where people have had success in being dismissed after filing a Motion to Quash. However, Motions to Quash in Federal cases are more complicated, as Strike 3 usually files in the correct jurisdiction, leaving fewer arguments against the subpoena. 

If you’re considering a Motion to Quash, please contact me. I’ve defended over 1,000 people against plaintiffs like Strike 3 Holdings and have significant experience with Motions to Quash. I can help explain when they can be helpful, and when they could be potentially harmful. I work with a legal team from across the country to provide the best defense, regardless of the state you live in.

Strike 3 Holdings is notoriously aggressive in pursuing each case, and each allegation is serious. The Plaintiff sees each infringement as worth at least $750, which they often ask to treble to $2,250 for what they see as “willful infringement”. Strike 3 Holdings cases, if lost in court, could easily cost $10,000s, or even $100,000s. However, the Plaintiff is often willing to settle for less or even dismiss the case when a defendant has an adequate defense. This is why it’s so important to contact an experienced attorney right away.

If you’ve received a notice from your internet service provider, please contact me. I can explain your options for defense and recommend the best way forward for your situation. I’ve represented more than 1,000 people across the country, and I focus my practice on defending against BitTorrent based lawsuits. I’m very familiar with this Plaintiff and can give you individualized guidance for your case.

[Read more…] about Strike 3 Holdings Files 23 Cases in Virginia in a Single Day

Filed Under: Bittorrent, By Plaintiff, Cases, Copyright, Federal, Motion to Quash, States, Strike 3 Holdings, Strike3 Holdings, Subpoena, Summons, Virginia Tagged With: AT&T, bittorrent, comcast, copyright, cox, file sharing, Florida, IP Address, lawsuit, miami-dade county court, motion to quash, Spectrum, strike 3 holdings, subpoena, summons, verizon, virginia

September 30, 2016 by Leonard J. French

Eastern New York Malibu Media lawsuit discovery resumes; Motion to Quash denied

Malibu Media Lawsuit EDNY Stay Lifted

 

Malibu Media Lawsuits Resume on Long Island

Last October, Eastern District of New York Magistrate Judge Stephen I. Locke  stayed all Malibu Media lawsuit discovery pending the outcome of a Motion to Quash filed by one of the defendants.

That Defendant’s Motion to Quash has since been denied and the stay has been lifted as of August 23rd, 2016. Subpoena notices are already making their way to defendants.

Judge Locke cited all the usual reasons for denying Motions to Quash in Malibu Media cases.  The defendant isn’t the recipient of the subpoena, and therefore doesn’t have standing, and even if they did, that the subpoena is not an undue burden, and that defendant’s identity is not privileged or confidential information.

The ruling means that the Eastern District of New York is yet another forum that allows Malibu Media lawsuits to proceed far enough to encourage settlements.

If you have received a notice in one of these cases, please don’t hesitate to call me immediately at 888.801.8681. If calling after-hours, please leave a message; I do return calls after-hours.

I have a ton of experience defending file-sharing lawsuits and can help you achieve the best outcome possible. I have defeated several copyright plaintiffs around the U.S. and I fought Malibu in their first trial. I’ve represented over 500 defendants in both settling and litigating Malibu Media lawsuits. I’ve written a subpoena defense guide for your information, as well.

I look forward to speaking with you and helping you put this matter behind you. Please don’t hesitate to call. 888.801.8681.

Yours,
Leonard French

The 62 Malibu Media lawsuits in the Eastern District of New York are:
  • 2:15-cv-01855-SJF-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 04/06/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-01861-LDW-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 04/06/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-01863-JS-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 04/06/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-01864-JFB-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 04/14/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-01865-DRH-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 04/06/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-01866-JMA-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 04/06/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-01867-JMA-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 04/06/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-02702-LDW-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 05/12/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-02719-SJF-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 05/12/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-02720-JMA-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 05/12/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-02721-JS-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 05/12/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-02729-ADS-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 05/12/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-02732-JFB-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 05/12/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03299-SJF-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 06/05/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03300-JFB-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 06/05/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03301-ADS-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 06/05/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03303-LDW-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 06/05/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03305-JMA-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 06/05/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03306-SJF-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 06/05/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03463-LDW-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe filed 06/16/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03478-JS-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 06/16/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03480-JMA-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe filed 06/16/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03481-ADS-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe filed 06/16/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03485-DRH-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe filed 06/16/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03486-ADS-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe filed 06/16/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03488-SJF-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe filed 06/16/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03489-ADS-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe filed 06/16/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03491-JFB-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe filed 06/16/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03492-DRH-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe filed 06/16/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03494-JMA-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe filed 06/16/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03496-ADS-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe filed 06/16/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03497-LDW-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 06/16/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03498-SJF-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 06/16/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03499-JFB-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 06/16/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03500-LDW-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 06/18/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03503-JMA-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe filed 06/16/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03504-JFB-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe filed 06/16/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03505-JFB-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe filed 06/16/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-04787-JMA-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 08/17/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-04788-JS-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 08/17/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-04789-JMA-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 08/17/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-04796-JMA-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 08/17/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-04800-JS-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 08/17/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-04802-SJF-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 08/17/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-04803-LDW-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 08/17/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-04804-ADS-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 08/17/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-04805-LDW-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 08/17/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-04806-SJF-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 08/17/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-04807-DRH-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 08/17/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-04808-JS-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 08/17/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-04812-JS-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 08/17/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-05295-LDW-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 09/14/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-05298-ADS-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 09/14/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-05299-JFB-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 09/14/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-05300-JMA-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 09/14/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-05301-LDW-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 09/14/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-05302-LDW-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 09/14/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-05303-LDW-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 09/14/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-05305-JFB-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 09/14/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-05306-JFB-SIL Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe filed 09/14/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-01856-ADS-SIL Malibu Media, LLC. v. John Doe filed 04/06/15 820(Copyright)
  • 2:15-cv-03495-SJF-SIL Malibu Media, LLC. v. Doe filed 06/16/15 820(Copyright)

Filed Under: Bittorrent, Cablevision Subpoena, Comcast Subpoena, Malibu Media, New York, Subpoena, Summons, Time Warner Subpoena, Verizon Subpoena Tagged With: bittorrent, isp letter, john doe, malibu media, notice to isp, subpoena, subpoena defense, subpoenas, summons

April 7, 2016 by Leonard J. French

15 Malibu Media lawsuits dismissed in California due to untimely filings

J. Alsup denies subpoenas in 3:15-cv-06075-WHA and others
J. Alsup denies subpoenas in 3:15-cv-06075-WHA and others

FightCopyrightTrolls.com reports that Malibu has recently lost fifteen lawsuits in California due to untimely filings. Malibu has filed over 433 lawsuits so far this year (2016).

You may know that Judges often have discretion to allow parties some leeway in the procedural execution of a court case. Malibu’s cases are numerous, and Federal Civil Procedure is well established.

Malibu Media’s attorneys, some of whom seem to be responsible for hundreds of cases at a time, filed motions for time extensions just a little bit too late.

J. Alsup denies subpoenas in 3:15-cv-06075-WHA and others
J. Alsup denies subpoenas in 3:15-cv-06075-WHA and others

Judge William Alsup, of the Northern District of California, exercised his discretion. He denied the extensions of time to serve summons on the defendants. And, since there is now no way to comply to with the service rules, he dismissed the cases.

As an added bonus, Judge Alsup also set some local precedent, which may be good form for future filings: “Counsel should have acted promptly and diligently, and going forward, plaintiff must seek leave to serve such subpoenas within the first thirty days after a case is filed.”

J. Alsup denies subpoenas in 3:15-cv-06075-WHA and others
J. Alsup denies subpoenas in 3:15-cv-06075-WHA and others

I’m marking this post for all jurisdictions because it highlights the importance of experienced legal counsel. Your defense attorney must understand all the opportunities which may increase the chances of your case being dismissed. Plaintiff’s mistakes can mean thousands of dollars of savings in liability.

If you or someone you know has received notice of a Malibu Media of other file-sharing lawsuit, please don’t hesitate to call, even after-hours, at 888-801-8681. I have a ton of experience against Malibu Media, including defending one of the first defendants in the first trial in the country.

Please read this subpoena and summons guide for some clarity on some basic information. I will be able to help you understand exactly what’s going on so that you can move forward.

Yours,
Leonard French

Filed Under: Bittorrent, Cablevision Subpoena, California, Cases, Comcast Subpoena, Copyright, D.C., Federal, Florida, Illinois, Malibu Media, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Subpoena, Time Warner Subpoena, Verizon Subpoena, Virginia Tagged With: denied, malibu media, subpoena

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 57
  • Page 58
  • Page 59

Primary Sidebar

Subpoena or Summons?

Received a notice of a subpoena to your ISP? Received a federal court summons? Attorney & Counselor Leonard J. French can help.

You can talk to me directly. Call or text me now at 610-466-5644.

Read more in my subpoena defense guide…

Schedule a Free Consultation

Motion to Quash

Your Notice from your ISP may tell you to file a “Motion to Quash”. I can tell you what that is and whether filing a Motion to Quash is the right decision for you.

CALL/TEXT NOW: (610) 466-5644

These cases are serious. I can answer your questions. I can help you sleep again.

I handle your case – personally – from start to finish. See for yourself: call and talk to me now.

Experience & Full Service

I have personally represented over fifteen hundred defendants in bittorrent-based copyright lawsuits around the country, including Malibu Media’s first trial, the ‘bellwether’ trial, and Strike 3’s first jury trial (settled on the eve of trial).

Call me at (610) 466-5644 anytime. If I can’t answer, please leave a message and I will call you back as soon as I can – even nights and weekends.

I offer reasonable, flat rates for most circumstances. Most rates range from $1,200 to $2,500 depending on the complexity of the case.

Contact me now:

    “really helped me understand”

    "It was an awesome decision to ask for help regarding copyright defense from Leonard J French. His insight and advice helped me through the situation with no bumps in the road. His services are very fairly priced, and his initial, free phone consultation was much longer than I expected, which really helped me understand the situation at hand before we even began to talk money. I would highly recommend Mr. French for any legal matters his firm covers."
    - a Copyright client

    "If you are in need of a Lawyer, do not hesitate to hire Mr. French. Kind, Compassionate and Knowledgeable."
    - Andrew

    More Testimonials

    Notice of subpoena to ISP?

    If you have received a notice that your internet service provider has been subpoenaed in a lawsuit, you may still have time to protect your identity and keep your anonymity.

    Many defendants have to make the tough decision about fighting or settling their case. There are many details which determine the outcome of one of these cases.

    Call me now and I will help you understand where you are and how to best proceed.

    (888) 801-8681 anytime.

    Most Recent Updates

    • Received a Strike 3 Holdings notice? February 13, 2026
    • Strike 3 Holdings hits California internet users with 61 new lawsuits January 23, 2025
    • Understanding Strike 3 Holdings, LLC Lawsuits: What You Need to Know January 14, 2025
    • What to Do If You’ve Received a Copyright Infringement Notice from Strike 3 Holdings January 8, 2025
    • Received a subpoena? Please read this guide. January 8, 2025
    • Strike 3 Holdings files 11 new cases in Kentucky. November 18, 2024
    • Strike 3 Holdings files 19 new cases in the Eastern District of Texas. November 18, 2024
    • Strike 3 Holdings files 9 new cases in Tennessee. November 18, 2024
    • Strike 3 Holdings files 14 new cases in the Eastern District of North Carolina. November 18, 2024
    • Strike 3 Holdings files 9 new cases in the Middle District of Pennsylvania November 18, 2024

    Case Update Calendar

    March 2026
    M T W T F S S
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    3031  
    « Feb    

    Footer

     
    Call now: 888-801-8681

    This is Attorney Advertising
    • Home
    • F.A.Q.
    • California
    • Colorado
    • Connecticut
    • D.C.
    • Florida
    • Georgia
    • Hawaii
    • Illinois
    • Kentucky
    • Maryland
    • Massachusetts
    • Michigan
    • Minnesota
    • New Jersey
    • New York
    • North Carolina
    • Ohio
    • Pennsylvania
    • Tennessee
    • Texas
    • Virginia
    • Wisconsin

    Copyright © 2026 · Executive Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in