Judge Sanctions Fox Rothschild Partner in Porn Copyright Cases
In one set of cases, Fox Rothschild's Lincoln Bandlow owes $750. In another, the head of his uber-litigious, pornography-producing client seeks to avoid a deposition.
February 28, 2019 at 12:48 PM
6 minute read
Fox Rothschild partner Lincoln Bandlow, who has led a nationwide copyright infringement litigation campaign on behalf of a pornography producer, was sanctioned $750 by a federal magistrate judge in California this week.
The sanctions were related to Bandlow's failures to meet court deadlines in at least 24 nearly identical cases in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. In a separate case, Bandlow has been fighting to keep the leader of client Strike 3 Holdings from being deposed leading up to a scheduled trial.
Los Angeles-based Bandlow, whom the judge said had never before been sanctioned in his 25-year law career, has filed more than 2,500 copyright infringement claims on behalf of Strike 3, helping to make last year hit a record for the most copyright claims brought across U.S. federal courts in at least a decade.
The company's cases accuse Internet IP addresses of stealing the pornography Strike 3 produces under brands such as “Vixen,” “Blacked” and “Tushy.” The cases typically settle before the defendants are named in court.
In the cases for which Bandlow was sanctioned, he failed to provide status reports in a timely manner. Those status reports were due after a typical step in Strike 3's litigation campaign: asking, and usually receiving, permission from a court to obtain the name and contact information for Internet subscribers who allegedly stole its videos over a program known as BitTorrent.
Bandlow had argued that the missed status reports were inadvertently caused by short staffing during the holidays as well as technical problems calendaring cases from Sacramento's federal court. In an interview prior to his Feb. 20 sanctions hearing, he said those problems were limited to his practice and to the Sacramento federal court system.
Bandlow voluntarily dismissed the cases in which he'd missed the filing deadlines and also told U.S. Magistrate Judge Carolyn Delaney that he would not file any more cases in the Eastern District of California until his technical issues with the court were fixed.
But Delaney held in her Feb. 26 order that Bandlow's failure to file the reports was not “mere inadvertence or recklessness.”
She noted that Bandlow's choice to file such a large number of cases did not absolve him of responsibility to handle them properly: “Mr. Bandlow has a professional responsibility to refrain from acting as counsel in more cases than he can handle at one time,” Delaney wrote.
She added that that technology problems were no excuse, writing, “The practice of law predates the computer.” And she said it is “inexcusable” that Fox Rothschild, a 900-plus lawyer Am Law 100 firm, would have staffing problems around the holidays. Bandlow also had been warned previously about missing filing deadlines and had largely used the same excuses, Delaney said.
“Mr. Bandlow's conduct constitutes willful disobedience of court orders, which is tantamount to bad faith,” Delaney concluded.
Still, Delaney tempered the sanctions she had been considering, which could have amounted to $6,000. She said she believed Bandlow's apologies were “sincere” and that his bad faith “was not the most egregious kind.”
The sanctions order does not mark the first time Bandlow's porn client has come under fire from a federal judge.
Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said in a November opinion that Strike 3's cases “smacked of extortion.”
Strike 3 ”treats this court not as a citadel of justice, but as an ATM,” Lamberth wrote. “Its feigned desire for legal process masks what it really seeks: for the court to oversee a high-tech shakedown. This court declines.”
The developments this week were not all negative for Strike 3. In another case before Delaney in Sacramento's federal court, Bandlow defeated an effort to quash Strike 3's subpoena to AT&T to hand over its internet subscribers' contact information. In her ruling, Delaney said the D.C. opinion written by Lamberth “is of limited persuasive value.”
In a statement, Bandlow said he was “very pleased” with Delaney's ruling to deny the motion to quash, saying that it “rejected a motion that attacked the merits of Strike 3 lawsuits, holding in favor of Strike 3 that the lawsuits are proper under controlling Ninth Circuit authority.”
Regarding the sanctions, Bandlow said Strike 3 would “immediately” send the $750 payment to the federal court in Sacramento.
|First Trial Ahead
In large part thanks to Strike 3 Holdings, more copyright lawsuits were filed last year than any year since at least 2009, according to Lex Machina. Strike 3 filed 2,185 of the 6,516 copyright lawsuits filed nationally last year, Lex Machina data show. The second most copyright complaints were filed in 2015, when 5,219 were brought.
Of the 2,786 copyright cases Strike 3 had filed as of Wednesday, according to data from Lex Machina, zero had gone to trial, and hardly any have been actively defended.
At least one case is scheduled for trial, and it has been causing a different kind of headache for Bandlow and his team of Fox Rothschild lawyers.
The defense team in that case has filed a counterclaim against Strike 3 for abuse of process and is seeking to depose Greg Lansky, the flamboyant owner of Vixen Media Group. Lansky is the face of Strike 3's porn brands, and he files a declaration in each of its lawsuits attesting to the company's struggles with internet theft.
In court filings last week in Washington State, Fox Rothschild partner Bryan Case wrote that Lansky should not be deposed because he has no direct knowledge of Strike 3's national litigation campaign, other than green-lighting it.
“The fact that Mr. Lansky, as head of Strike 3, approved the company's policy to enforce its copyrights by suing individual infringers, like defendant, does not warrant Mr. Lansky's deposition,” Case wrote.
On Thursday, Judge Thomas Zilly ruled that Lansky can be deposed and that Strike 3 will have to pay $700 in attorney's fees for fighting efforts to depose him.
UPDATE: This story has been updated to reflect that a judge ruled Lansky could be deposed and ordered Strike 3 to pay $700 in attorney's fees for fighting his deposition.
|Read More
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Further Investment in Power' Will Drive Big Law Business—But What About Clean Energy Projects?
6 minute readLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readAs Profits Rise, Law Firms Likely to Make More AI Investments in 2025
Trending Stories
- 1As 'Red Hot' 2024 for Legal Industry Comes to Close, Leaders Reflect and Share Expectations for Next Year
- 2Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 3Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 4Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 5Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250