Fox Rothschild Partner Faces Sanctions Hearing Over Porn Copyright Cases
Lincoln Bandlow is scheduled to argue Wednesday that he should not pay sanctions for missing deadlines in roughly 25 cases in which he represents pornography producer Strike 3 Holdings Inc.
February 21, 2019 at 10:21 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
A Fox Rothschild partner is taking heat again over his work for a porn maker that's been dubbed a ”copyright troll.”
Lincoln Bandlow is scheduled on Wednesday to argue in a Sacramento federal court that he should not pay sanctions for missing deadlines in roughly 25 cases in which he represents pornography producer Strike 3 Holdings Inc.
Los Angeles-based Bandlow has represented Strike 3 Holdings in roughly 2,500 copyright infringement lawsuits the company has filed since late 2017. The lawsuits accuse unnamed internet users of stealing Strike 3's videos through the online platform BitTorrent. The vast majority of cases settle.
In large part thanks to Strike 3 Holdings, more copyright lawsuits were filed last year than any year since 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.
The litigation campaign has come under judicial scrutiny before. A Washington, D.C.-based federal judge in November tossed a Strike 3 lawsuit and said Fox Rothschild was overseeing a “high-tech shakedown” that “treats this court not as a citadel of justice, but as an ATM.” Fox Rothschild has filed an appeal in that case.
In another case in Washington state, Bandlow and Strike 3 are fighting a counterclaim that alleges they file lawsuits “with no intention to litigate” and are engaged in “extortion through sham litigation.” That case is set for trial in September.
The most recent sanctions hearing in Sacramento came as a result of Bandlow and Strike 3 failing to provide a status report related to at least 15 cases within a 45-day period. On Jan. 2, Magistrate Judge Carolyn Delaney ordered Strike 3 to explain why it shouldn't be sanctioned $250 for missing those deadlines. At least 25 Strike 3 cases are at issue on Wednesday, according to a search of Strike 3's court dockets.
Bandlow said in court filings that Strike 3 failed to file the status reports because it had “encountered issues with its calendaring procedure” for cases in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. He also said the filing mistakes were in part due to a lack of staff during the holidays and an inability to receive emails from the court.
In an interview, Bandlow said those status reports would not have had much information to share, since the first 45 days of these cases are often uneventful. After the cases are filed naming IP addresses as defendants, Strike 3 asks judges to issue subpoenas to internet service providers such as Comcast demanding they turn over the identity of the subscriber that Strike 3 says stole its content. That process can take longer than 45 days, Bandlow said.
He also said a number of the court's docketing emails were caught in his assistant's spam filter, and he had technical issues with the federal court docketing software DocketBird. He said those issues were confined to the Eastern District of California and also confined within Fox Rothschild to his practice.
Bandlow voluntarily dismissed the cases in which he missed a deadline and told the court he would not file new cases in the Eastern District of California until he was able to fix the technical problems he was experiencing with the court.
“In essence, we've sort of sanctioned ourselves in a weird way because that is $400 per filing, and all of that is down the drain,” Bandlow said.
While Strike 3 has stayed away from Sacramento's federal court recently, it is still filing copyright infringement claims at a furious pace. In February alone, it has filed 60 cases, including four on Monday in the Southern District of New York. In total, the producer of pornographic brands that include Vixen,” “Blacked” and “Tushy” is a plaintiff in 2,617 federal cases, according to a search of federal court records.
More Reading:
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 AllWhy Is It Becoming More Difficult for Businesses to Mandate Arbitration of Employment Disputes?
6 minute readEuropean, US Litigation Funding Experts Look for Commonalities at NYU Event
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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