accepts a reasonable settlement for having theirmovies shared over a peer-to-peer network, and someone like John Doe #13 learns that it is not okay to pirate copyrighted ma-terial
om the internet, even though internet piracy is com-monplace and widespread.8.For whatever reason, Doe #13’s previous counsel
decided to ﬁlean ill advised motion to quash rather than engage the plainti
ingood faith settlement negotiations.9.On October 3, 2012, this Honorable Court designated the casefor a “Bellwether Trial.”10.The purpose of the Bellwether Trial was to test the su
ciency of the plainti
’s evidence, because it has ﬁled copyright cases inthis district but never tried one to a jury verdict.11.In doing so, this Honorable Court held that “if Plainti
decidesinstead to continue to ‘pick o
’ individual John Does, for conﬁ-dential settlements, the Court may draw an inference that Plain-ti
is not serious about proving its claims, or is unable to doso.”12.Without the prospect of settlement, the Bellwether Order le
Doe #13 facing at a minimum $22,500 in statutory damages, with potential liability up to $4,500,000 for maximum statu-tory damages, plus having to pay the plainti
’s attorney’s feesunder 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).13.Although some have suggested that a peer-to-peer ﬁle sharing case could never be tried to a verdict, they are wrong.14.
Capitol v. Thomas
Sony BMG v. Tenebaum
two ﬁle sharing copy-right in
were both tried to a verdict and re-
Malibu Media, LLC v. Does #1, #13, #14, and #16
John Doe #13’s Motion in Limine to Testify at Trial Anonymously
Counsel did not enter his appearance, and Doe #13 signed the motion pro se.
Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset
, 692 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. Minn. 2012)
Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenebaum
,No. 07cv11446-NG (D. Mass. Dec. 7,2009).
Case 2:12-cv-02078-MMB Document 157 Filed 05/30/13 Page 3 of 24