Attorney Steve® Torrent Lawsuit Updates 2019.  Strike 3 Holdings sanctioned in Eastern District of California.

Introduction

It looks like serial copyright infringement filer Strike 3 Holdings (who often asks for 50k per settlement) is having some problems in the Eastern District of California.  Recently, they were hit with sanctions (which essentially means unacceptable court conduct) in the Eastern District of California,  This blog discusses the sanction.

Pleadings from the Court case

In case number 2:18-cv-02643-MCE-CKD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Filed 01/04/19

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 98.208.93.240,

Defendant.

No. 2:18-cv-02643-MCE-CKD

The Court issued an “ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE” why sanctions should not be imposed in regard to issues relating to a status conference was posted.  Here is what it said:

 “The deadline having passed, plaintiff has failed to file a status report in this case, as ordered. Nor has plaintiff requested an extension of time. Moreover, plaintiff has previously failed to comply with court-ordered deadlines in several other nearly-identical matters, and has been explicitly “cautioned to carefully calendar deadlines and follow all future court orders.” (Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, 1:18-cv-00587-MCE-CKD, ECF No. 16 at 2; Strike 3…..

“Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

“Within 14 days of this order, plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE in writing why the court should not impose $250 in sanctions based upon its failure to follow the court's previous order.”

See Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe.  Strike 3 Counsel vehemently protested that sanctions should not be issued and noted:

“Recently, Plaintiff has encountered issues with its calendaring procedure for its cases within the Eastern District of California. As a result, Plaintiff has missed a number of status report deadlines. Recently, this Court entered show cause orders in the following cases: Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. CV 18-00587-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2018) [Dkt. 13]; Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. CV 18-01663-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2018) [Dkt. 10]; Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. CV 2:18-01667-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2018) [Dkt. 9]; Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. CV 18–01677-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2018) [Dkt. 10].

In light of those orders, Plaintiff began working with information technology professionals to address its calendaring procedure and protocol to ensure that it received all alerts for this Court's deadlines. However, it has become apparent that the problem has not yet been resolved. Indeed, as evidenced by the Court's recent show cause orders entered in this as well as other cases, Plaintiff has again inadvertently missed a number of status report deadlines in its cases before this Court.

This was, in part, because of its lack of adequate staff to ensure deadlines are covered over the holidays, coupled with additional technological issues related to receiving emails and notifications regarding calendaring deadlines. Plaintiff assures the Court that it has never intentionally disregarded the Court's deadlines.

To me, it seems they are simply filing too many lawsuits seeking to sue as many people as fast as possible.  Again, we routinely receive 50k demands to settle this case at the threat of litigation.  Apparently, to me, a litigation caseload that they are having a difficult time keeping up with.

At any rate, the court did not buy it and a $250 sanction was imposed, and paid.