Copyright troll's lawyer wants record sealed so we won't make fun of him

Remember Jacques Nazaire? He's the lawyer who represented notorious, disgraced copyright trolls Prenda Law (who victimized thousands of Americans by threatening to link them to spurious lawsuits over downloads of pornography with embarrassing titles unless they paid hush-money). He got written up here when he told a judge in Georgia that a California judge's rebuke of Prenda should not be taken into consideration because California is a horrible, strange place where gay people get married.

Now Mr Nazaire has asked the court to seal the rest of the proceedings from the case, because he's worried that people might make fun of him on message boards. Because someone who thinks ZOMGCALIFORNIAGAY is a legal argument clearly has something to worry about on that score.

By the way, lawyers for one of Prenda's victims are fundraising to get the money to depose the Prenda team. I pitched in.

That case has continued and there was a hearing back in January that didn't go particularly well for Nazaire. Andrew Norton attended and wrote about it. Anyway, the latest in the case is that Nazaire is asking the court to seal all future filings in the case, mainly because the comments here on Techdirt, along with a few other blogs, have been really really mean about Nazaire. The main purpose of the filing is to try to stop the discovery efforts opened up by the defendant in the case, Rajesh Patel, represented by Blair Chintella, as they're seeking attorneys' fees from Nazaire and Prenda -- and, as part of that, are trying to do detailed discovery to reveal more about the Prenda scam. Nazaire throws a bunch of excuses at the wall for why this shouldn't be allowed. But the request to seal the records is much more interesting to us:

Additionally, the Plaintiff is respectfully requesting that any future filings in this case may be filed under seal. This case has generated much unneeded attention on the internet. Please see Exhibits N-S. While the writers listed in exhibits N-S have the right to post these articles, unfortunately, these articles and blogs have created an embarrassment, misleading characterizations and perhaps an unsafe environment for plaintiff's counsel and third parties. As such, plaintiff is respectfully requesting that all future filings be permitted to be made under seal.

Plaintiff 1) understands that the articles attached hereto have not been authenticated and apologizes to this Court for the same. In such a short notice of time, it is difficult to authenticate these press releases and postings; however, a search on any search engine will prove these articles and postings to be real; and 2) Plaintiff is not criticizing the authors of the press releases and postings and realizes that the attached postings were meant to be humorous and not spiteful; nevertheless, those not familiar with this case may misinterpret said postings. This may lead to anger by those not quite familiar with the case but yet familiar with the captions. As such, it may be best for the court to allow sealing further filings (which may include addresses and personal information of the parties and counsels herein)

Prenda Lawyer Would Like Future Documents Sealed Because Techdirt Commenters Said Mean Stuff About Him

Notable Replies

  1. Ah, how cute. Pining for the days when the relative inaccessibility of court paperwork allowed petty nobility such as himself to lord it over the courtroom without fear of derision by the lower orders.

    Mr. Jacques Nazaire didn't graduate from a Fine Institution like the New York Law School just to take shit from internet kids. He's above that sort of thing now.

  2. So, he feels he is too good to be dragged through the mud, after dragging others through the same.

    Drag away, I say. Just make sure the rope is securely tied around his neck first.

  3. Interestingly enough, the picture chosen to illustrate the nefarious copyright troll is a satirical cartoon attacking someone who probably be held in much greater esteem by the average Boinger.

    It's an attack on Charles Bradlaugh, noted 19th century freethinker, secularist, contraception pioneer and promoter of universal suffrage. This earned him this charming caricature by Punch magazine.

    When he was elected to parliament by the people of Northampton, he was barred from taking his seat when he refused to take the religious oath of allegiance, asking instead to affirm, as was allowed in court. Parliament refused and ordered a by-election. Which he won. So they barred him again.
    He went on to win a further four elections in quick succession before parliament relented.

Continue the discussion

5 more replies