BT Case Openings Database

Jan 2016 – I keeping the page up for historic purposes, but it is not current.


Sorry but I haven’t been able to keep up with this database.

I’m going to try something new here at DTD.  The following running database will consist of BitTorrent Copyright Infringement cases I get from RFC Express.  The database is unlikely to be 100% up to date all the time, so use it as a starting point and make sure to verify the information.  Note: Sorting and filtering the data will give you more tailored results.  For now I will keep it strictly to case openings.  Please drop me a comment, email, or Twitter concerning this database.

BT Cases Running 2015

BT Cases Running 2014



Since 11 Jul 13, the following jurisdictions have had BitTorrent copyright infringement law suits filed.  Note: this does not mean if you reside in another jurisdiction, you cannot be sued.  The chance of this happening is just less, as there is no recent history and/or no copyright troll local counsels for that jurisdiction.

  • Colorado District Court
  • Delaware District Court
  • District Of Columbia District Court
  • Florida Middle District Court
  • Florida Southern District
  • Georgia Northern District (*** New as of 5 Dec 13 ***)
  • Illinois Northern District Court
  • Illinois Central District Court
  • Indiana Northern District Court
  • Indiana Southern District Court
  • Iowa Northern District Court
  • Louisiana Eastern District Court
  • Maryland District Court
  • Michigan Eastern District Court
  • Michigan Western District Court
  • Minnesota District Court
  • Missouri Eastern District Court
  • New Jersey District Court
  • Ohio Southern District Court
  • Pennsylvania Eastern District Court
  • Pennsylvania Middle District Court (*** New as of 31 Jan 14 ***)
  • Tennessee Western District Court
  • Texas Northern District
  • Texas Southern District
  • Wisconsin Western District Court
  • Wisconsin Eastern District Court


13 Responses to BT Case Openings Database

  1. Anonymous says:

    What is going on with all of the multiple Doe cases in EDPA (pre-bellweather trial)? I don’t see them listed here?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      No, they will not be listed in this database right now. I started compiling this DB at the end of June 2013. This DB will only be case openings for now – not status. Checking PACER and RECAP may be the best bet for that information.

      DTD 🙂

  2. Anonymous says:

    Thanks. There has not been much activity on the multiple Doe cases since before the bellwhether trial. Just curious as what will happen with those cases.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      I expect that for any of those old cases that are still “open,” the courts will eventually dismiss them or tell the troll to do it. Dismissing these cases does not make them any money, so they often languish around.

      DTD 🙂

  3. Pingback: Operational Security Reminder | DieTrollDie

  4. Totes Anon says:

    So Malibu Media LLC is filing all the lawsuits, but what copyright holders do they sue for? Because there’s an awful amount of lawsuits by them so there must be a ton of videos going around that they find. Plus, if I were notified by CEG-TEK with a dmca takedown notice, can Malibu Media also sue me? How does it work? Does one company find you/threaten you/etc, or if you torrent something bad, is it anyone’s game to sue you? Sorry for all the questions but I’m pretty confused, and a little worried for myself. My situation makes it seem as if nothing will happen because CEG-TEK was the one sending the notice, but I’m scared some other company will still sue me.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Malibu Media is the Plaintiff and can only sue for movies that they hold the copyright for. MM cannot sue you for anything that CEG-TEK is representing. Now CEG-TEK could try to contact MM if there was some of their movie being shared via BT on your public IP address, but I HIGHLY doubt this.

      My point with saying that “CEG-TEK is joke, BUT not to ignore it” – If illegal file sharing is happening on your public IP address, there is a chance that a more serious Troll/Plaintiff may see that some of their client’s movies are being shared. Best this is not to do any illegal file sharing and/or make sure your WiFi Internet connection is secure and nobody (authorized OR unauthorized) is doing it.

      DTD 🙂

      • cdbvx8 says:

        I got my CEG-TEK notice. They double charged me with a video file I didn’t even D/L. It was some porn video. I have noticed my wifi hasn’t been working and I have found out why. They want to settle for $400 bucks. They have only contacted me by e-mail. What a joke. I spoke with them without giving up any information on a random gas stations phone and they gave me the run around and would not let me speak with somebody in charge. I am debating if I should take them serious or not. Gonna talk to a lawyer on Monday.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        I would not contact them further. You will see me repeatedly state that CEG-TEK is a joke. Resecure your WiFi Internet connections and make sure nobody is file sharing copyright protected works over your IP address. The real risk with this is that the person using your Internet connection could download some movie from a Plaintiff who actually will open up a Federal case on you.

        DTD 🙂

  5. DoelaDoe says:

    What, in your opinion, is the general amount of time that lapses before the alleged downloading that occurred with MM movies and when they decide to sue? In your article that you just posted, you said that they monitored for about 8 months? So, what you’re saying is that someone could have had their internet used without authorization 8 months ago and still not know of an impending case that is about to be brought against them?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Yes. There is a fine line that a Plaintiff (AND the GOV for a criminal case) has to walk when monitoring these activities. Take too little time and you are not getting all the information/evidence you want/need. Take too much time and you essentially become an active participant in the infringing activity. As I pointed out, by day 30, they had recorded 5 MM movies that were being shared. But to watch for another 6+ months is stupid IMO. At that point you (as a Plaintiff) are not taking the the necessary actions to protect your content. IMO you are encouraging the continued infringement beyond any REASONABLE investigative action and will have a hard time justifying these actions if someone makes an issue of it. I certainly would make an issue of it if I was a Doe/Doe Defender. Hint Hint wink wink. I’m sure this area will be examined in detail for all pending Malibu Media/X-Art cases – How long did they monitor and NEVER sent any DMCA take-down notices to the ISPs???

      DTD 🙂

  6. Pingback: New Troll Plaintiff – Countryman Nevada LLC, AKA: Nicolas Chartier & Voltage Pictures LLC, 1:14-cv-00040 (ILND) | DieTrollDie

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s