D*sh Network v. Robert Kliver, Leona Broda (Currentbins)

[BROWNNOSE]

This is DishTester a.k.a. Robert Kluver. I have just received an alarming set of new legal documents in the mail as they are required to be sent to me.

Last month, they filed for Leave to Expedite Discovery...

Today I have received copies of a number of subpoenas for identifying information for a number of websites they suspect that I own. This is the largest fishing expedition I have ever seen, where as they are attempting to throw in just about every major fta related website into one lawsuit and doing their best to pin everything on one person or simply using it as a platform to issue subpoenas that go far beyond anything I have ever heard of.

The subpoenas have been issued against domain name registrars to discover the ownership information of these domains, which will prove of course that I do not own them, however the information could be used in additional suits against other FTA related website owners who thought their information was secure and private.

Subpoenas served on eNom, Dotster, GoDaddy and Domains by Proxy.


Quote:
Domains involved:
aaafta.com
dssfeedback.com
dssrookie.com
dsstester.com
ftabins.net
ftaforall.info
ftasatellitesource.com
ftasolutions.com
ftatalk.com
marketrealm.com
nfusionforum.com
satnow.info
tvkeyzforums.com


Never in my life have I seen such a mockery of the law to be used in such a fashion and I am completely disgusted with the chain of events we have seen from these guys. This may not be the last round of subpoenas to be issued, unfortunately I do not have the funds to fight this legal battle against me - but I am worried that they will walk all over the law here to use my inability to fight them as a weapon against others..

wow !! look at the last site LOL!! what a bunch of crap LOL..

lit bil

 

[BROWNNOSE]

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

Plaintiffs D*SH Network L.L.C., E*hoStar Technologies L.L.C. and N*graStar LLC (collectively referred to as “D*SH Network”) filed suit on March 10, 2010 seeking an ex parte temporary restraining order and writ of civil seizure and impoundment under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The court granted plaintiffs’ motion (Dkt. #11), and on March 23, 2010 the United States Marshals Service and plaintiffs executed the seizure order against defendants. Plaintiffs and the U.S. Marshals Service seized from defendants one of the largest collections of functional illegal satellite signal theft devices and software ever seized. At the time of the civil seizure, defendants had an entire room filled with racks of televisions and pirate satellite receivers, each displaying D*SH Network programming that was being decrypted by use of defendants’ varied signal piracy devices and software. At the same time, defendants were operating at least 50 internet websites dedicated to piracy of D*SH Network television programming.

On March 29, 2010, defendants consented to entry of a preliminary injunction against them as set forth in the filed joint stipulation. (Dkt. #17.) The preliminary injunction order was entered the next day. (Dkt. #18.) Defendants have appeared pro se through their consent to the stipulated preliminary injunction and do not have an attorney of record, however, defendants did state that they had an attorney friend who reviewed the stipulation for them and plaintiffs have the attorney’s facsimile number.

Defendants initially agreed to cooperate with D*SH Network and D*SH Network initiated settlement discussions with the defendants. However, defendants have inexplicably ceased communicating with D*SH Network and are believed to have moved out of the State of Maryland without providing the court or plaintiffs with a forwarding address, in contravention of Local Rule 102(b)(iii). Although defendants have been served (Dkt. #19), defendants have not filed an answer.

It is not possible to conduct a Rule 26 conference with defendants or reach a stipulation to commence discovery because defendants have ceased communicating with plaintiffs.

However, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize courts to order the commencement of discovery, or expedite discovery, without a Rule 26(f) conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d) (“A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except . . . when authorized . . . by court order.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2) (“A party must obtain leave of court . . . if the parties have not stipulated to the deposition and the party seeks to take the deposition” before the time specified in Rule 26(d)).

Defendants’ lack of communication and apparent decision to move to another state without informing plaintiffs or the court gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that defendants are simply ignoring this lawsuit, or have possibly even resumed the conduct enjoined by the court, albeit in a new location.

Furthermore, D*SH Network has identified several additional websites that appear to be offering software and devices that are in many instances identical or substantially similar to the software in which defendant was trafficking. It is unclear what level of involvement, if any, defendants have in these discovered websites. If defendants are involved in these websites, then they are undoubtedly in violation of the court’s preliminary injunction. If defendants are not involved, then it may be appropriate to amend this suit to add the website owners as additional defendants, or otherwise pursue claims against the websites. Discovery is necessary in order to resolve these questions.

Therefore, D*SH Network respectfully requests leave to commence discovery. D*SH Network’s intent would be to notice the deposition of defendant Robert Kluver to, among other things, ascertain his compliance with the preliminary injunction and question him about the additional websites D*SH Network has identified and the software that defendant was trafficking. D*SH Network would like to serve narrowly tailored subpoenas to, among other things, identify the owners of these certain pirate websites that are trafficking in software and devices remarkably similar to the devices and software that are the subject of the preliminary injunction order.

Based upon these circumstances, it would be reasonable for D*SH Network to pursue limited discovery before determining whether to proceed with a request for a default judgment or an amendment to the complaint. This motion will be served upon defendants at their original home address in Maryland, to what is believed to be defendants’ new address in Meyersdale, Pennsylvania, by e-mail to defendant Robert Kluver, via facsimile to the attorney whose name defendants previously mentioned to plaintiffs, and via CM/ECF.



Filed & Entered on May 21, 2010