Is viability of the Motion to Quash increasing?
Any experienced BitTorrent litigator will usually tell you that the days of Motions to Quash have passed. In many places, that is still the case. In fact, I recently had a Motion for Reconsideration denied. It only sought to have the Court look at developments in BitTorrent litigation since it instituted a blanket denial on Motions to Quash. The Northern District of Illinois denied my Motion.
That said, there are a smattering of Courts that are granting Motions to Quash. It is always worth determining whether it is an option in your case.
District of Connecticut provides a zinger
The District of Connecticut recently denied a motion to quash. So, why am I writing about it?
This Court is sensitive to the fact that the sheer volume of cases commenced by Strike 3 Holdings, and their brief procedural history – commencement of the action, receipt of permission to serve a third-party subpoena on an ISP provider prior to the 26(f) conference, and voluntary dismissal of the actions weeks or months thereafter – is suggestive of coercive settlement practices that this Court does not condone.
This, emphasis added, portion of an opinion shows that another Court is concerned about Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s practices. Will Connecticut be another jurisdiction where Motions to Quash are a viable option?