Category Archives: Texas (TX)

Siemens NX Lawsuit | Expecting FRCP Rule 4(m) Dismissal Due To a Missed Deadline

Siemens PLM v. Does 1-100 (TX) and missed deadlines.

As many of you know, our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC is representing a number of engineer clients who are accused in a Siemens NX lawsuit of using their Siemens NX Mach 3 software without a valid license.

Siemens as we know is using the lawsuit as a pretext to convert accused infringers into valid license holders.  The name of their lawsuit is the Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:16-cv-03552) case filed in the Texas Southern District Court.

The Siemens NX lawsuit attorneys just missed a deadline to name and serve defendants.

Procedurally, Siemens was under a FRCP Rule 4(m) deadline to name and serve defendants by 4/3/2017.  This deadline was set by the judge, and the judge is the one with the discretion on whether to extend it once, multiple times, or dismiss the lawsuit after a certain time period has elapsed.

As of writing this article, The Siemens NX lawsuit attorneys did not file anything on 4/3, and their deadline has passed.  Further, it has been two days without any activity on the court docket from Siemens NX.  This is not surprising, as copyright cases often miss a deadline such as this, and then they request an extension and the federal judges readily approve them, sometimes weeks later.

What a dismissal means to your case, and how you should proceed depending on your circumstances.

A dismissal of the Siemens NX lawsuit means that you are no longer a John Doe in the case.  However, whether this matter is over or not is based on whether you are before or after the ISP handed out your information in compliance with the subpoena.

If the ISP has not yet complied with the subpoena, your contact information is still hidden from the Siemens lawsuit attorney.

If you are before the due date that your ISP gave you before they comply with the subpoena, you are in luck.  At this point, you are still anonymous, and if you hired an attorney, your attorney will likely offer to return the money you paid to him.  It would benefit you to have him contact the ISP to notify them that the Siemens NX lawsuit has been dismissed and that they should not comply with the Siemens subpoena.

By having the ISP agree not to comply with the subpoena sent to them by the Siemens NX lawsuit attorneys (Robert Riddle & Andrew Bluebond), you will remain anonymous, and your Siemens NX lawsuit plaintiff attorneys will never learn who you are.

If the ISP has already complied with the subpoena, your contact information has been shared with the Siemens NX lawsuit plaintiff attorneys.

If the ISP date has already passed, the assumption is that the ISP already complied with the subpoena, as they told you they would.  Here, you are no longer anonymous, and the plaintiff attorney already knows who you are.

How the 3-Year statute of limitations for copyright infringement cases suddenly becomes relevant.

A dismissal at this point is inconsequential because the plaintiff attorney has already acquired the information he needs to proceed against you out of court.  The statute of limitations to sue someone for copyright infringement is three years from the alleged date of infringement.  That means that they have three years to sue you as a defendant in a copyright infringement case for this same claim*.

*NOTE: There is more on this topic, but it is outside the scope of this article.

Whether your plaintiff attorney is a ‘copyright troll’ or now also becomes relevant.

Depending on whether your copyright holder is a ‘copyright troll’ (meaning that they will just file another lawsuit against a new set of John Doe Defendants), or whether they will continue to pursue claims against you out of court (using the information they obtained from this lawsuit), you have two options on how to proceed.

If the copyright holder is a copyright troll, a dismissal such as this one should give you reason to celebrate.  However, Siemens PLM is not a typical copyright troll, and that is why I wrote this article.

To a Siemens PLM attorney, you are worth $30K-$60K.

Each settlement in a Siemens case is worth $30K-$60K for Siemens.  The goal of the Siemens attorney is to contact defendants to arrange for a purchase of one or more NX Mach 3 “seats” or “licenses” (at roughly $30K/seat).

An engineer who has been caught using the software without a license, and who faces an ongoing $150,000 lawsuit is an easy candidate for Siemens to convert into a paying customer.  This can be done with or without a lawsuit being in play, at it would apply regardless of whether the judge dismissed the underlying lawsuit for missing the FRCP Rule 4(m) deadline, or whether they tire of being monitored by a judge and they dismiss the lawsuit themselves.

After all, they already have the information they need, and they have three years to continue contacting defendants until such a time when they are no longer able to proceed (or until the Siemens clients stops paying their fees).

In sum, the case is NOT yet dismissed.

The Siemens PLM v. Does 1-100 Texas case is not yet dismissed, although I wanted to have this information ready for you so that you will be prepared with your options should a dismissal happen.

 Discuss your Siemens PLM Case With a Cashman Law Firm Attorney


CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  Also, the contents of topics discussed on this site are not meant to be considered legal advice to act upon or not act upon.  Contact your attorney for answers specific to your particular circumstance.

Why would copyright trolls show evidence of ‘other downloaded movies’ if they have evidence of infringement?

ANSWER: Insufficient or non-existent evidence.

Copyright trolls often surprise me by the lengths they will go to prove that a particular “John Doe” defendant downloaded a particular movie. Because the underlying copyright infringement cases likely cannot prove copyright infringement, instead, copyright troll attorneys will spy into the internet connections of their accused defendants and determine what other movies, videos, or content that accused downloader allegedly downloaded. They use those additional downloads as ‘character evidence’ to assert that the defendant downloaded the accused movie. (Next article, I will describe how they are likely doing it.)

By showing character evidence of ‘other downloaded movies,’ copyright trolls prove that the accused “John Doe” Defendant has the personality or ‘character’ of being a habitual infringer (a ‘pirate’).  This character evidence shows that the defendant is familiar with piracy tools and illegal methods of acquiring movies and videos from bittorrent websites (e.g., The Pirate Bay). By demonstrating to the court that “someone from that same IP address downloaded these other movies,” the copyright troll seeks to prove that “the accused defendant must have also downloaded this movie as well.”

Copyright Trolls Use Other The Pirate Bay Downloads to demonstrate character evidence to infringe their movie copyright.

[NOTE TO THE READER: WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ IS A GREAT ARTICLE, BUT IT NEEDS A ROADMAP TO UNDERSTAND THE FLOW OF IT.]

HERE IS THE ROADMAP:

  1. INTRODUCE THE CONCEPT OF ‘CHARACTER EVIDENCE’ (A LEGAL TERM), AND DESCRIBE WHY EVIDENCE OF ‘OTHER TITLES DOWNLOADED’ IS INADMISSIBLE TO PROVE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
  2. INQUIRE WHY PLAINTIFF WOULD TAKE THE EXTRA STEP OF SHOWING ‘OTHER TITLES DOWNLOADED’ IF HE HAS SOLID EVIDENCE OF INFRINGEMENT.
  3. DISCUSS THE NEBULOUS ‘PCAP FILE’ WHICH CAN PROVE INFRINGEMENT, NOTE THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS ACCESS TO THIS FILE, AND YET IT IS MISSING FROM THE PLAINTIFF’S CASES.
  4. SUB-TOPIC: THE EVIDENCE THE PLAINTIFF ACTUALLY HAS IS “SNAPSHOT EVIDENCE.” COURTS REJECTED SNAPSHOT EVIDENCE AS BEING INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
  5. (I RETURN TO THE MISSING PCAP EVIDENCE AND DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY MISDIRECTS THE COURT BY REFERRING TO A SOFTWARE REPORT, BUT GLOSSING OVER THE PCAP EVIDENCE).
  6. END THE ARTICLE BY COMMENTING THAT SHOWING ‘OTHER TITLES DOWNLOADED’ TO A DEFENDANT IS AN EFFECTIVE STRATEGY IN SCARING HIM TO AGREE TO SETTLE THE CASE.

1. EVIDENCE OF ‘OTHER TITLES DOWNLOADED’ IS INADMISSIBLE CHARACTER EVIDENCE.

In the eyes of the law, ANY CHARACTER EVIDENCE OF ‘OTHER MOVIES OR TITLES’ DOWNLOADED BY THE JOHN DOE DEFENDANT IS INADMISSIBLE TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT DOWNLOADED THE MOVIE TITLE FOR WHICH THAT DEFENDANT WAS SUED. Malibu Media, LLC tried using character evidence and failed. For a while, they were listing other movie titles and illegal downloads that accused defendant participated in, and the courts reprimanded their efforts.

Specifically because Malibu Media attempted to admit character evidence into their complaints, in the Western District of Wisconsin, Judge Stephen L. Crocker consolidated each of Malibu Media LLC’s cases.  Here, the judge ruled that character evidence of ‘other titles allegedly downloaded’ was not only inadmissible, but it was prejudicial to the defendant’s case (see attached order).

According to the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”), evidence of a person’s character to prove a consistent act with that character is called ‘character evidence,’ which is inadmissible to prove copyright infringement. (See the Federal Rules of Evidence, §404 on Character Evidence).

2. WHY WOULD COPYRIGHT TROLLS USE CHARACTER EVIDENCE OF ‘OTHER DOWNLOADED TITLES’ WHEN THEY CAN PROVE INFRINGEMENT USING THE PCAP FILE?

Why a copyright troll would resort to using ‘character evidence’ of ‘other titles downloaded’ to prove that the downloader must have downloaded this title is puzzling.  The copyright holders DO have evidence of infringement, don’t they?

3. EVIDENCE OF INFRINGEMENT CAN BE FOUND IN THE PCAP FILE.

Perhaps the reason why the attorney is seeking to find “other titles” an accused defendant downloaded is that copyright trolls do not actually have evidence that the defendant downloaded this movie.

For the technical-minded, this evidence of copyright infringement would be found in a “PCAP file.” Copyright holders have this file, but they will never release to the courts. This PCAP file would indicate whether a downloader merely clicked on a link and connected to a bittorrent swarm WITH THE INTENT* to download, view, or stream a movie, or whether the accused defendant actually copied a substantial watchable portion of the movie. (*NOTE: a defendant who had ‘INTENT’ to commit a copyright infringement cannot be found guilty of ‘willful’ copyright infringement if the download or the viewing never actually took place.)  The PCAP file is hidden from the courts and is never introduced to prove that the defendant downloaded the movie. Instead of documenting actual evidence of infringement, the copyright troll attorneys find “other titles” that the defendant allegedly downloaded.

4. HOW TROLLS REPLACE PCAP EVIDENCE WITH ‘SNAPSHOT’ EVIDENCE.

The omission of the PCAP evidence is relevant to an accused defendant in a bittorrent-based movie lawsuit.  The reason for this is because courts are misled into thinking that a report containing a list of IP addresses of accused downloaders at some ‘snapshot’ or time period by proprietary Peer-to-Peer surveillance software is sufficient to prove infringement.  However, the so-called ‘SNAPSHOT’ EVIDENCE of infringement (described below) might demonstrate only that the accused John Doe Defendant was present downloading a bittorrent file at a particular date and time.  ‘Snapshot’ evidence of infringement has been rejected by the courts as not being sufficient to prove copyright infringement.

Further, the companies that do the ‘snapshot’ tracking of the bittorrent networks — IPP International, and here in the Texas-based cases, MaverickEye UG, all appear to be shell companies of Guardaley.  For those who are new to the site, Guardaley is the German company our firm has been investigating to find the connection between almost every copyright infringement case hitting the US courts.  Guardaley has been the common thread between each lawsuit, regardless of whether the copyrighted material is pornographic (as in the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits), or whether it is a mainstream movie.

For current defendants, the ‘snapshot’ evidence problem as I will describe it below likely applies to each of the “Mechanic:Resurrection” movie lawsuits (ME2 Productions), each of the “I.T.” movie lawsuits (I.T. Productions), each of the “Mr. Cook” movie lawsuits (Cook Productions), and literally every other movie lawsuit filed in the last seven years, as listed on Carl Crowell’s list of Guardaley clients.

Character Evidence of 'Other Movies Downloaded' To Prove The Download of THIS movie.

4A. SUB-TOPIC: WHY “SNAPSHOT EVIDENCE” IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Source: Judge Otis Wright’s 2013 order from the Ingenuity 13 LLC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:12-cv-08333) case in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

RULE 2. A “SNAPSHOT OBSERVATION” OF AN IP ADDRESS ENGAGED IN DOWNLOADING AT THAT MOMENT IS INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Here, all the evidence a copyright troll plaintiff has on a suspected defendant is that at a particular date and time (a “timestamp”), that particular IP address was engaged in the downloading of a particular copyrighted file.

Here, a “snapshot” of an IP address correlated with evidence from the subscriber’s internet service provider (“ISP”) [that it was the subscriber who was leased that IP address during the date and time the alleged activity took place] is insufficient proof that the download actually took place. The defendant could have merely entered the swarm and could be in queue to download his first byte of data. The defendant could be 10% done with the download and could have in his possession an unviewable fragment of the copyrighted video.  This is hardly enough to rise to the level of “SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY” that is required in order to find a defendant guilty of copyright infringement. And, yet at the same time, that same snapshot could refer to a defendant having a download which is 99% complete.

A snapshot of an IP address in a bittorrent swarm is simply not conclusive that the downloader infringed the copyright.

The analogy the judge gives is taking a “snapshot” of a child reaching for a candy bar. In order to find someone guilty of copyright infringement, a plaintiff needs to prove that it is “more likely than not” that activity rising to the level of copyright infringement occurred. A snapshot places the defendant at the “scene of the crime.” It does not convict him for the unlawful act itself, and usually this is all the evidence a plaintiff copyright troll compiles when tracking a bittorrent swarm.

5. RETURNING TO THE OMISSION OF PCAP EVIDENCE IN PLAINTIFF’S DECLARATION. WHY THEY TURN TO ‘CHARACTER EVIDENCE’ OF ‘OTHER TITLES DOWNLOADED’ WHEN CONFRONTING A DEFENDANT

Instead of providing the PCAP file (which can prove or disprove whether actual infringement happened), the copyright holders have some expert witness file some declaration stating that they have viewed the reports generated by the bittorrent surveillance software.   That expert witness declares that they have verified that the IP address list created by that software matches the list of defendants who are accused as “John Doe” defendants in this case.

[Curiously, even copyright troll attorneys list themselves as expert witnesses to show that they viewed the software printout.  I don’t know why an attorney would do this, because this makes the plaintiff attorney a discoverable witness in discovery. Here in the Texas ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does lawsuits, we see plaintiff attorney Gary Fischman’s declaration stating exactly what I have described:

Gary Fischman Declaration Regarding Maverickeye UG (Guardaley) P2P swarm surveillance software report. by Cashman Law Firm, PLLC on Scribd

As a defense attorney, I am puzzled why the plaintiff attorneys often try to prove their case with inadmissible character evidence (“other downloaded titles”).  I understand that copyright infringement in the context of a bittorrent swarm can be proved by the PCAP file (e.g., stating that the movie was 100% downloaded).

Thus, it logically makes sense that the attorney simply DOES NOT HAVE EVIDENCE OF INFRINGEMENT.  This could be why he goes to such lengths to prove that the downloader downloaded the other titles.

6. NEVERTHELESS, SHOWING CHARACTER EVIDENCE OF ‘OTHER TITLES DOWNLOADED’ IS STILL AN EFFECTIVE TACTIC.

From the copyright troll’s perspective, the goal is not to ‘nail’ each “John Doe” Defendant and make them liable for the $150,000 in statutory damages. Rather, a copyright troll seeks to elicit a settlement of a few thousand dollars from each “John Doe” defendant. 

Thus if the copyright troll isn’t interested in proving copyright infringement, but rather wishes to scare the bejeebies out of the accused defendant who actually downloaded those additional titles, then showing that defendant the list of ‘other titles downloaded’ *is* an effective tactic to manipulate them to do whatever the plaintiff demands of them, even if that means paying a multi-thousand dollar settlement.

IN SUM: WHICH ONE IS IT?

So which is it?  Does the plaintiff actually lack evidence of infringement as I have suggested by the missing PCAP file and the misdirection in the declarations filed with the court?  Or, does the copyright troll want to use the so-called ‘character evidence’ of ‘other titles downloaded’ to demonstrate to you (the John Doe Defendant) that you must have been the one who did the download of the movie (and thus you should pay him)?

My opinion: it is both.


CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.


NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together. That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

TX Judge Hughes Disallows I.T. Productions From ‘Suing Does’

Pictographic of the interaction between Gary Fischman and Judge Hughes

I.T. Productions, “Judge, I’m filing this lawsuit against Does 1-10.”

Judge Hughes, “No you are not.  You may not sue Does.”

I am interested to see where this one goes.  One of the cases I am working on in the Southern District of Texas court is I.T. Productions, LLC v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00597).

In this case, Gary Fischman is the attorney, and he filed this case just as he does any of the others (he is currently filing lawsuits against John Doe Defendants for the ME2 Productions plaintiff, and the I.T. Productions plaintiff).  [And, together with Josh Wyde, Fischman is also representing the September Productions plaintiff, the Cell Productions plaintiff, and the Fathers & Daughters Nevada plaintiff.]

In his attempt to convince TX Judge Lynn Hughes to rubber-stamp an ‘early discovery’ authorization to allow Fischman to send subpoenas to AT&T in order to unmask the identities of the 10 subscribers who are John Doe (unnamed) defendants in this case, the judge responded with a prophetic slap across the face.

Judge Hughes I.T. Productions Order (TX)
Judge Hughes tells I.T. Productions attorney that I.T. may not sue Does.

“No you may not sue Does.”

Instead of allowing Fischman to sue the putative defendants as Does (e.g., Doe 1, Doe 2, etc.), it appears as if Judge Hughes wants Fischman to identify them by the last five digits of their [accused] IP addresses.

For example, Doe 1 with accused IP address 193.254.221.683 would likely be identified as “Subscriber 21683.”

What is the relevance?

Unknown.  Judge Hughes obviously titled the order as “Subscriber-Identity Subpoenas,” which means he has thought enough about this case to give it a title which links it to other (likely Malibu Media, LLC) cases he also has in his court.

Either way, a ‘copyright troll’ never likes a judge who questions him, alters his proposed order, or does anything other than rubber stamp his requests and allow him to do whatever he wants in (and out of) the judge’s courtroom.

No doubt, Judge Hughes will likely change all of that, somehow.


CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

Did ME2 Attorney Fischman disclose real Interested Parties?

In the Texas Federal District Court (as of 2017), I am working on defense research for five (5) copyright infringement / bittorrent “John Doe” lawsuits affiliated with the Guardaley / Carl Crowell.  In a ME2 case, ME2’s local counsel Gary Fischman was ordered by Judge Keith P. Ellison to disclose “all interested parties” to the lawsuit, and this is the subject of this article.

Texas cases I am actively working on (filed after 1/1/2017):
ME2 Productions, Inc. v DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00695)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00275)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00501)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 4:17-cv-00404)
I.T. Productions, LLC v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00597)
and, the Siemens PLM v. Does 1-100 software piracy case and multiple Malibu Media, LLC cases (both outside the scope of this article).

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHO HAS A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT?

The reason it is important to know who has a financial interest in these lawsuits is because I need to know 1) whether the corporate entity that is suing has the authority to sue, and 2) whether the corporate entity filing the lawsuit is the same entity that holds the copyright to the movie allegedly infringed in the lawsuit.

If the corporate entity (here, ME2 Productions, Inc.) does not have the authority to sue, or if it is not the true copyright holder (but some entity that licensed the rights to make money for the copyright holder based on the copyright rights granted to the true copyright holder to the “Mechanic:Ressurection” movie), the plaintiff might lose the lawsuit or even get sanctioned for not disclosing the true parties who are interested in the outcome of the lawsuit by alleging in a document like this one (link) that they had the right to sue when in fact they did not.

WHY AM I SUSPECT THAT MAYBE THE PARTY SUING MIGHT NOT HAVE COPYRIGHT RIGHTS TO SUE?

The only way a plaintiff can sue for STATUTORY DAMAGES OF $150,000 FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT is if they have a valid copyright to the movie title allegedly being infringed (or, downloaded using bittorrent or Popcorn Time).  If they do not own the copyright but only the right to monetize, the plaintiff may only be entitled to ACTUAL DAMAGES, NOT STATUTORY DAMAGES.

In a bittorrent “John Doe” lawsuit, the actual damages are really the cost to purchase a copy of the infringed movie (~$30 for the DVD), or perhaps $8 for the movie ticket if the movie is still in theaters.  The law only gives STATUTORY DAMAGES OF $150,000 to plaintiffs who have a valid copyright at the time of the lawsuit.

So here is why I am suspect that maybe ME2 Productions, Inc. might not be the holder of a valid copyright:  We know from the Dallas Buyers Club, LLC lawsuits (when the real Dallas Buyers Club copyright holder sued Voltage Pictures, Inc. for not paying settlement moneys owed to them) that there was an entity (Voltage Pictures) that purchased the rights to monetize Dallas Buyer’s Club’s intellectual property (the right to use the Dallas Buyer’s Club name, the right to sue, etc.)  Voltage then turned around and set up an entity called “Dallas Buyers Club, LLC” and sued hundreds of John Doe Defendants using that name.

Little did we know at the time that the Dallas Buyer’s Club plaintiff was not the Dallas Buyer’s Club copyright holder, and the copyright troll plaintiff entity was merely masquerading as the Dallas Buyers Club copyright holder.

WHY ARE THE DALLAS BUYERS CLUB LAWSUITS RELEVANT TO ME2 PRODUCTIONS CASES?

The common thread behind the Dallas Buyer’s Club lawsuits and most copyright infringement lawsuits filed today is a german company called Guardaley (a.k.a. IPP).  It is not relevant that Guardaley’s bittorrent tracking methods have been ruled not credible by the German courts; they have been wreaking havoc on US courts since 2012.  Guardaley (as far as I understand) has been behind the scenes of each and every ‘copyright troll’ lawsuit filed in the federal courts.  And, after April 2016, they have reportedly signed an agreement with Carl Crowell (a known copyright troll attorney, but more importantly, likely the mastermind behind each of the ‘copyright troll’ lawsuits filed by local attorneys across the US).

Carl Crowell’s connection to ME2 Productions, Inc. is that they are his client.  I can demonstrate this connection by looking at his new DMCA scare letter scheme entity, “Rights Enforcement”.  If you look at the Crowell’s client list (as described by Torrentfreak), you will see that Mechanic:Resurrection (the movie behind the ME2 lawsuits) is one of Carl Crowell’s clients.  (Carl Crowell himself is also a known ‘copyright troll’ where he has filed ME2 lawsuits against John Doe Defendants in Oregon.)

RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com screenshot with ME2 outlined.
Screenshot from Carl Crowell’s RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com website, with Mechanic:Resurrection outlined.

Thus, naturally, I am suspect to each of ME2 Productions, Inc.’s other lawsuits in other states, here, Texas, because as the apparent puppetmaster behind the various ME2 Productions, Inc. lawsuits filed across the US, I must assume he has a financial interest in the outcome of this Texas lawsuit filed by Gary Fischman.

WHO DID ATTORNEY FISCHMAN SAY HAS A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE ME2 BITTORRENT LAWSUITS?

In the filing, Gary Fischman noted that the following three entities has a financial interest in the ME2 Productions, Inc. cases:

  • ME2 Productions, Inc.
  • A&T IP, Inc., and
  • Fischman Law, PLLC

ME2 Productions, Inc. might be the actual copyright owner, or it is possible that they are an entity that was set up for the purpose of monetizing the copyright rights granted to the actual copyright holder, the owner of the Mechanic:Resurrection movie.

A&T IP, Inc. is an enigma to me.  I do not know who they are, where they are incorporated, and who the beneficiaries are of this entity.

UPDATE: DieTrollDie suggests that perhaps A&T IP, Inc. is actually the Anti-Piracy Management Co (APMC).

DTD Twitter Screenshot Suggesting A&T IP, Inc. is APMC.
DieTrollDie suspects that A&T IP, Inc. is really the Anti-Piracy Management Co. (APMC).

Fischman Law, PLLC is curious in and of itself for reasons outside the scope of this article.  Naturally, it could be explained that Gary Fischman as the attorney suing on behalf of ME2 will benefit (e.g., commissions from settlements received, possibly fees from the copyright holder or the Crowell / Guardaley entity itself for time spent prosecuting these cases).  However, I suspect the link goes slightly deeper, as his partner for a number of the Guardaley lawsuits, Joshua Wyde, listed himself as a witness in the lawsuit (something that is generally not done).  So there may be more to the eye here, but not relevant to this article.

Here is a link to the actual document filed with the court:

021017 ME2 417-cv-00404 – Doc6 – Certificate of Interested Parties by ME2

MY FINAL QUESTIONS

Looking at all of this information together, I am left with the following questions.

  1. WHERE IS GUARDALEY (IPP) AS AN INTERESTED PARTY IN THIS CASE?
  2. WHY IS CARL CROWELL NOT LISTED AS AN INTERESTED PARTY IN THIS CASE, OR IS HE [AND GUARDALEY] SOMEHOW WRAPPED UP IN THAT “A&T IP, INC” ENTITY?
  3. IS ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. THE SAME LEGAL ENTITY THAT OWNS THE COPYRIGHT TO THE MECHANIC:RESURRECTION MOVIE, OR ARE THEY SOME OTHER ENTITY THAT IS MERELY MASQUERADING AS THE ME2 PRODUCTIONS / COPYRIGHT HOLDER UNDER SOME LICENSE TO MONETIZE THEIR COPYRIGHT RIGHTS?

Your thoughts and feedback are obviously welcome.


CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

Confirmed: Malibu Media invests $400 filing fees @$20K/month

Malibu Media, LLC (“X-Art”) would not continue filing lawsuits (and paying a filing fee of $400 per lawsuit) unless the settlement numbers were staggeringly higher to justify that upfront outlay of cash. In the last three months alone, I viewed at least 204 cases filed which @$400/case, cost Malibu Media, LLC at least $81,600 in filing fees alone.

This $81,600 number itself is a bit interesting to me because in December, I wrote an article expressing my suspicions that “MALIBU MEDIA, LLC APPEARS TO BE ON A $20,000/MONTH FILING BUDGET.” In that article, I estimated that every 90 days, Malibu Media, LLC files roughly 100 new lawsuits, “like the breath of a dragon, or in in the spirit of their name, like the ebb and flow of the waves that crash across the Malibu shores.”

Since the last set of Malibu Media filings were in October 2016 and we have seen NO FILINGS from Malibu in the recent months of November, December, and January (90 days of SILENCE), it only makes sense that in February of 2017, we had a whole slew of lawsuits that flooded the courts.

How did I estimate Malibu Media would spend $20,000/month?

July = 75 filings x $400 per filing = $30,000
August = 59 filings x $400 per filing = $23,600 (-16 cases)
September = ZERO FILINGS. (-75 cases)
October = 109 filings x $400 per filing = $43.600
November = ZERO FILINGS. (-75 cases)
December = ZERO FILINGS. (-75 cases)
January = ZERO FILINGS. (-75 cases)
February = 204 filings x $400 per filing = $81,600

Two items to note:

1) Malibu Media is SLIGHTLY UNDER BUDGET (which means that we should expect to see roughly 20 more cases in their next batch of filings).

2) Since the April 2016 breakup of Malibu Media, LLC and their former ‘mastermind’ Keith Lipscomb (who they sued for not sharing the settlement funds he ‘extorted’ from John Doe Defendants [harsh words, yes, but not the point of this article]), understanding how much money Malibu Media, LLC is spending can help us understand how much they expect to receive for that money.

For the purposes of this short article, it appears as if months later, Malibu Media still appears to be keeping close to a $20,000 monthly budget of filing new cases.  It also appears as if Malibu Media is allocating their funds to file new cases along the NY/NJ/CT Tri-State area, and Texas.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT MALIBU MEDIA, LLC:  Click here for more general information about Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits, their tactics, and their strategies.

FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at [email protected], or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

CONTACT FORM: Alternatively, sometimes people just like to contact me using one of these forms.  If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

2017 Malibu Media – Which Attorneys Filed Cases and Where?

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC APPEARS TO BE FOCUSING MOST OF THEIR FUNDS ON THREE OF THEIR ATTORNEYS WHO ARE FILING A MAJORITY OF THE LAWSUITS. THESE LAWSUITS ARE BEING FILED IN THE NEW YORK ‘TRI-STATE’ AREA (NY/NJ/CT) AND TEXAS.

[FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: Click here for more general information about Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits, their tactics, and their strategies.  To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at [email protected], or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.]

WHICH ATTORNEYS ARE FILING MOST OF THE MALIBU MEDIA, LLC LAWSUITS?

Jacqueline M. James in NY/CT (78), Pat Cerillo in NJ (38) and Andrew Kumar / Michael Lowenberg of the Lowenberg Law Firm in TX (42).

What is the relevance of these three attorneys?

JACQUELINE JAMES (NY, CT)

Jacqueline James (“Jackie”) has been filing lawsuits for Malibu Media, LLC since 2015. She is not one of the “original” copyright trolls (Malibu Media, LLC has been filing lawsuits since 2/20/2012 [based on my first contact with them]). However, Jackie is more than willing to start fights with judges and other attorneys, and she has needed to change how she files her lawsuits and how she interacts with John Doe Defendants and even how she treats other attorneys because she has developed a reputation where the word “harassment” has been thrown around more than a few times.

I am listing Jackie’s information here just so you can recognize her name on the subpoena area of the paperwork you receive from your ISP.  It is almost NEVER a good idea to contact your plaintiff attorney directly:

Jacqueline M. James
The James Law Firm PPLC
445 Hamilton Avenue
Suite 1102
White Plains, NY 10601
Email: [email protected]

ANDREW KUMAR / MICHAEL LOWENBERG (TX)

Andrew Kumar and Michael Lowenberg are a different type of Malibu Media, LLC copyright troll attorneys. Andrew and Mike became one of Malibu Media, LLC’s local counsel at the end of 2016 (“fresh meat,” so to speak), and my best guess is that they were hired by Malibu Media directly, or by Carl Crowell who has taken over the role of managing each and every Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit across the U.S. (I say this because the entity behind Malibu Media, LLC is Guardaley [a german company], and now they are working with Carl Crowell to replace Keith Lipscomb after their relationship with Lipscomb soured in April, 2016). Andrew and Mike both are too “new” to the Malibu Media lawsuits to have gained a reputation yet, but nevertheless, our Texas federal judges have allowed them free reign to file 75+ lawsuits without much of an objection.

Andrew and Mike’s contact information is being listed here so that you can recognize their names as it they found on the subpoena area of the paperwork you receive from your ISP (you will usually find one name, or the other).  Again — it is almost NEVER a good idea to contact your plaintiff attorney directly.

Andrew Darshan Kumar
Michael J. Lowenberg
Lowenberg Law Firm
7941 Katy Fwy., #306
Houston, TX 77024
Email: [email protected]

WHY ISN’T JACKIE JAMES FILING THE NEW JERSEY MALIBU MEDIA CASES?

Although Jacqueline James and Andrew Kumar / Mike Lowenberg each belong to a “new generation” of Malibu Media, LLC copyright infringement attorneys (“copyright trolls”), there are still a set of OLDER, MORE EXPERIENCED MALIBU MEDIA, LLC ATTORNEYS (I call them the “OLD GUARD”), some of whom stayed loyal to Malibu Media, LLC when their relationship with Lipscomb went sour. In New Jersey, Patrick Cerillo (or, “Pat Cerillo”) is one of those older attorneys who remained loyal to Malibu Media, LLC.

PATRICK CERILLO (NJ)

Patrick J. Cerillo is one of the “old guard” of attorneys who stayed loyal to Malibu Media, LLC after they split from Keith Lipscomb.  He resides in New Jersey. So as much as superstar Jackie James would no doubt love to take over the New Jersey Malibu Media, LLC cases, for now, she’s probably locked out of that territory.

Patrick’s contact information is being listed here so that you can recognize his name as it is found on the subpoena area of the paperwork you receive from your ISP.  Again — it is almost NEVER a good idea to contact your plaintiff attorney directly.

PATRICK JOSEPH CERILLO
4 WALTER FORAN BLVD., SUITE 402
FLEMINGTON, NJ 08822
Email: [email protected]

Why is me being licensed in New York relevant to you?

Because these courts are in my home turf. Before moving our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC lawfirm to Houston, TX in 2010, I was (and continue to be) licensed to practice law in New York. I grew up in New York, I went to law school in New York, I know many federal judges in New York, and I understand the way the federal courts operate in that state. I have lived in both New York and New Jersey most of my life, and the “tri-state area” (NY/NJ/CT) is where I have most of my legal contacts.

Why is me being licensed in Texas relevant to you?

Because as of 2010, we moved our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC practice to Houston, TX. Since we opened our doors, we have practiced *ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY* in federal court practice. I took the bar exam here, I have represented possibly hundreds of clients here in Texas exclusively for bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits, and again, I know the federal judges here, how their courts operate, and this is my home turf.

SUMMARY

There is obviously more to go into, specifically about the topic of Malibu Media LLC’s “old guard” (veteran attorneys, some from 2012), and the “new guard” (new attorneys hired slightly before or after the relationship between Malibu Media and Keith Lipscomb soured.  Also, I will shortly be posting a follow-up analysis confirming the initial research that Malibu Media, LLC is on a $20,000/month budget.

For the purposes of this e-mail, Malibu Media is allocating their money to split the new cases among the NY/NJ/CT Tri-State area, and Texas.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT MALIBU MEDIA, LLC:  Click here for more general information about Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits, their tactics, and their strategies.

FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at [email protected], or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

CONTACT FORM: Alternatively, sometimes people just like to contact me using one of these forms.  If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

Here is the breakdown of Malibu Media, LLC cases filed THIS YEAR, 2017! (sorted by attorney/quantity):

Attorney Jackie James Filed Cases (28%)
Connecticut (38 Cases)
New York (40 Cases)

Attorneys Andrew Kumar & Michael Lowenberg Filed Cases (16%)
Texas (42 Cases)

Attorney Pat Cerillo Filed Cases (14%)
New Jersey (38 Cases)

Attorney Joel Bernier Filed Cases (6%)
Michigan (MIED) (16 Cases)

Attorney Mary Schulz Filed Cases (4%)
Illinois (ILND) (12 Cases)

Attorney Jon Hoppe Filed Cases (3%)
Maryland (7 Cases)

Attorney Jordan Rushie Filed Cases (3%)
Pennsylvania (PAED) (8 Cases)

Attorney John Decker Filed Cases (1%)
Virginia (VAED) (3 Cases)

LIST OF MALIBU CASES FILED TO DATE (2017 CASES ONLY)

Cases in the Connecticut District Court (38)
Attorney: Jacqueline M. James (“Jackie James”) of The James Law Firm, PPLC

Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00187)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00188)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00189)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00190)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00195)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00203)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00213)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00219)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00220)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00221)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00223)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00224)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00225)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00227)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00229)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00230)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00232)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00233)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00249)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00250)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00251)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00252)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00253)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00254)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00256)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00257)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00258)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00259)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00271)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00272)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00273)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00274)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00275)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00276)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00277)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00278)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00279)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 3:17-cv-00280)

Cases Filed in the Illinois Northern District Court (12)
Attorney: Mary K. Schulz of the Media Litigation Firm, P.C.

Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 208.59.138.51 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01183)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 24.14.89.147 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01190)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 50.172.197.139 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01195)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 67.175.128.50 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01196)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 73.168.198.228 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01197)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 73.74.242.152 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01200)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 75.27.62.75 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01201)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 75.28.181.87 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01202)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 76.231.75.139 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01206)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.206.219.205 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01210)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 98.227.75.40 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01396)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, subscriber assigned IP address96.95.112.34 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01209)

Cases Filed in the Maryland District Court (7)
Attorney: Jon Alexander Hoppe (“Jon Hoppe”) of the Law Office of Jon a Hoppe, Esquire

Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 8:17-cv-00397)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 8:17-cv-00396)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00402)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 8:17-cv-00401)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00398)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00399)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 8:17-cv-00400)

Cases Filed in the Michigan Eastern District Court (16)
Attorney: Joel A. Bernier of Sheikh Legal Services PLLC
176 S. Main St., Suite 1, Mount Clemens, MI 48043 ([email protected])

MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. John Doe (Case No. 2:17-cv-10422)
MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP ) Address 107.4.109.143 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10426)
MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP ) Address 107.4.109.143 (Case No. 5:17-cv-10426)
MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.32.2.28 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10432)
MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.49.201.228 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10442)
MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.49.243.199 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10443)
MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.49.243.199 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10445)
MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.55.89.28 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10444)
MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.55.89.28 (Case No. 4:17-cv-10444)
MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.56.223.52 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10446)
MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.56.223.52 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10447)
MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.60.174.21 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10448)
MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 98.209.250.195 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10449)
MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 98.224.223.170 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10450)
MALIBU MEDIA, LCC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 99.37.173.71 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10451)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 68.40.27.99 (Case No. 2:17-cv-10441)

Cases Filed in the New Jersey District Court (38)
Attorney: Patrick Joseph Cerillo (“Pat Cerillo”)

MALIBU MEDIA , LLC. v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 24.0.207.93 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01239)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01246)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01251)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.206.172 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01172)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.167.50 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01185)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.5.52.134 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01182)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.53.147.136 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01183)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 108.53.252.54 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01193)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.3.124.255 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01228)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.3.54.44 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01232)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.63.249.136 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01233)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.70.197.251 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01234)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 173.70.93.127 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01236)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.82.37.90 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01252)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.83.64.114 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01271)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 67.83.77.86 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01272)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.117.66.98 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01261)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.118.248.215 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01273)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.122.18.0 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01275)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.141.237.206 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01262)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.82.239.77 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01265)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 72.88.211.121 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01279)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.10.138.235 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01266)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.199.240.186 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01229)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 96.248.95.37 (Case No. 3:17-cv-01268)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER IP ADDRESS 108.35.167.198 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01180)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER IP ADDRESS 108.53.193.228 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01188)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE, SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.8.116.23 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01179)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01237)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01240)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.124.120.156 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01276)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.172.15.229 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01277)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.160.218.175 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01307)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.194.168.244 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01310)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.197.106.118 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01315)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.248.226.136 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01317)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 76.116.108.250 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01319)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC. v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.57.99.138 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01321)

Cases Filed in the New York Eastern District Court (10)
Attorney: Jacqueline M. James (“Jackie James”) of The James Law Firm, PPLC

Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01079)
Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01078)
Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01084)
Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01077)
Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01083)
Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01076)
Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01081)
Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01080)
Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01075)
Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-01082)

Cases Filed in the New York Southern District Court (30)
Attorney: Jacqueline M. James (“Jackie James”) of The James Law Firm, PPLC

Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00983)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00985)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00987)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00988)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00989)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00992)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00994)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00995)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01065)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01067)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01068)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01069)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01070)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01072)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01074)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01075)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01076)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01078)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01088)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01094)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01095)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01096)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01097)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01098)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01099)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01100)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01101)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-01102)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 7:17-cv-00981)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 7:17-cv-00982)

Cases Filed in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court (8)
Attorney: A. Jordan Rushie (“Jordan Rushie”) of Flynn Wirkus Young PC / Rushie Law

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-00662)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-00509)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-00506)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-00510)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-00508)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-00507)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-00512)
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE (Case No. 2:17-cv-00511)

Cases Filed in the Texas Southern District Court (42)
Attorney: Andrew Darshan Kumar (“Andrew Kumar”) and Michael J. Lowenberg (“Mike Lowenberg”) of the Lowenberg Law Firm

Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00413)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00415)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00417)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00418)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00420)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00421)
Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 4:17-cv-00422)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00423)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00424)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00425)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00465)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00466)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00468)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00469)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00470)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00471)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00472)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00473)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00474)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00475)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00476)
Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 4:17-cv-00477)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00478)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00479)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00480)
Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 4:17-cv-00481)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00482)
Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 4:17-cv-00483)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00484)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00485)
Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 4:17-cv-00486)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00487)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00488)
Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 4:17-cv-00489)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00490)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00491)
Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 4:17-cv-00492)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00493)
Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 4:17-cv-00494)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00495)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 4:17-cv-00497)
Malibu Media, LLC v. DOE (Case No. 4:17-cv-00498)

Cases Filed in the Virginia Eastern District Court (3)
Attorney: John Carlin Decker, II (“John Decker”) of the Law Office of John C. Decker II
5207 Dalby Lane, Burke, VA 22015 (John is still using his Verizon e-mail when he files the lawsuits — [email protected])

Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00192)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00193)
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe (Case No. 1:17-cv-00194)

FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT MALIBU MEDIA, LLC:  Click here for more general information about Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits, their tactics, and their strategies.

FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at [email protected], or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

CONTACT FORM: Alternatively, sometimes people just like to contact me using one of these forms.  If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

Siemens Surprises John Does With $50K+ Settlement Requests

UPDATE: I have done further searching, and it appears as if the prices that Siemens PLM is asking for is shockingly accurate.  They appear to be asking from John Doe Defendants the cost of 1-2 business licenses for their NX software, which can be as high as $30,000 per license.  So while for an average internet user spending $30,000 on a piece of software would be obscene, apparently this is what people are paying for this software.  This does not mean that there is no room for negotiation — circumstances as to whether or how the use happened differs for every defendant, and every John Doe Defendant has a different financial situation and personal circumstances.

It usually makes no sense writing about cases once they have progressed quite a bit, but with the Siemens PLM cases, Siemens has ramped up their sales tactics in a way which needs some explaining.

Recent letters that have gone out from Andrew Bluebond of Reed Smith LLP are asking for numbers in excess of “$50,000, plus any applicable sales taxes, legal fees and expenses, to license [to accused defendant]” (emphasis added).  Thus, a Siemens settlement could end up being $55,000 – $60,000 (or more) just for using the software without a license.

I have not yet figured out how they have come to this large number, because each defendant only has a limited number of “infringing uses” of Siemens PLM’s NX software.

WHY HIRING AN ATTORNEY AT THIS LATE STAGE OF THE LAWSUIT IS A GOOD IDEA.

Initially, I stopped taking clients for this case in February, but because no doubt people are being hit with these high numbers (this was an unexpected turn for Siemens), it makes sense to have us represent you to negotiate a settlement price this high down to something that is in more of a “fair” price range.  And yes, I am willing to take on a limited number of new clients simply because Siemens is suing in my state, and I can easily appear and represent clients in the Texas Southern District Court should negotiations go awry.  Also, I am already spending the time to research the cases and review the evidence they have against each John Doe Defendant, so I have already done much of the legwork (which you will not need to pay me for).

It also must be noted that at this price point, it simply makes sense to fight the case in court (especially if you did not use the software).  But before you panic about the $50,000 settlement letter you received, understand what is likely going on.

HOW SIEMENS PLM SALES TACTICS MIMIC THOSE OF SELLING AN EXPENSIVE SUIT.

When you go to purchase a $300 suit, the salesperson will always show you the $2,000 suit first.  Then, he’ll show you an $1,800 suit that is obviously not nearly as nice as the $2,000 suit.  Then, he’ll show you a $1,000 suit that looks even less pleasing than the more expensive suits.  You begin to doubt whether a $500 suit will even give you the quality you thought you wanted.  But then… poof!  The salesperson finds a $500 suit, “in the back, that we just got in stock,” and that $500 suit is more beautiful than any of the other more expensive suits.  Excited that you are getting a good ‘deal’, you proceed to purchase the $500 suit, and while you are at it, you purchase a belt, buckles, an expensive tie and shirt, and spend another $300 in accessories and alterations.  In sum, you walk out of the store having spent $800, but you feel like a million bucks.

Obviously there is ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION between buying a suit and being hit in the face with a $150,000 copyright infringement lawsuit for tinkering with software that is being shared on the piracy bittorrent websites, supposedly for free (and what company monitors and sues on the piracy and unlawful USE of that software, anyway).  But there is something to say of this tactic.  No doubt if you end up paying $7,500 for their base software after being initially asked for $50,000, you’ll think you are getting a great ‘deal’. 

WHAT IS THE TRUE RETAIL PRICE OF SIEMENS PLM SOFTWARE?

I mentioned $7,500 as the guesstimate of the base price for the Siemens software, and really, I do not know what the base price actually is.  I have seen websites advertise the sale of that software from $7,500 – $12,500.  I have also seen ‘less credible’ sell ‘valid’ licenses for $2,500, so who really knows.

UPDATE: Siemens PLM business licenses (“seats”) can easily cost $30,000+ for each license.  There are various levels, e.g., Mach 1, Mach 2, Mach 3, and Mach 4, and the higher-level business licenses mirror the amount they are asking for from John Doe Defendants in their lawsuits, “in order to turn infringing users into genuine customers.”

As my general understanding goes (from speaking to various individuals at Siemens), Siemens NX software ranges in price from $7,500 – over $20,000 depending on the various modules, licenses, or versions you are purchasing.  And, business licenses are significantly more expensive than student licenses, which can be purchased for $99 (and on those student licenses, the receipt will often say, “you just saved yourself $9,999 on this software!” which suggests that the software itself costs over $10,000.

Most “John Doe” Defendants are being accused of using a pirated copy of the “NX Mach 3 Product Design” software.  You MUST assume that any Siemens PLM software is being similarly tracked; the list of software owned / provided by Siemens can be found at http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/

SHOULD I HIRE AN ATTORNEY AT THIS LATE STAGE OF THE LAWSUIT?

At this point, three methods of handling your lawsuit are flowing through your mind.

1) Paying the $60K and taking the hit (likely a bad move because I believe this price can be negotiated).

2) Ignoring this (who gets named and served anyway?) and risking the $150,000 judgment.  After you, you think you can’t pay $60K, so you can’t pay $150K either.  You’ll just take the loss and file for bankruptcy.  (Again, bad move because you would have exacerbated the situation.  Even if you are named and served as a defendant, it is not too late.  There are still ways to salvage the case and get you out of this, minimizing the damage to you).

3) Maybe you can hire an attorney, and he can negotiate this down to something that you feel comfortable paying.  And if not, at the very minimum, he can represent you in court with the best result of getting you dismissed from the lawsuit, and the alternative goal of forcing a lower settlement amount.  Realistically, your attorney can speak to your plaintiff attorney and negotiate a price that you can pay, or at a minimum come to some resolution to satisfy Siemens PLM’s claims against you.

So in sum, there are two BAD options, and two GOOD options.  The two BAD options are  1) PAY THE ASKING PRICE, 2) IGNORING THE LAWSUIT COMPLETELY.  The two GOOD options are either 1) hiring an attorney to NEGOTIATE YOUR SETTLEMENT, and 2) (if settling is not an option, OR if you simply did not do what Siemens claims you did), have that same attorney FIGHT THE LAWSUIT and minimize the damages, or get you dismissed altogether without paying any settlement.


CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

LIST OF ACTIVE SIEMENS PLM CASES
(as of 3/12/2017)

Cases Filed in the Texas Southern District Court:

Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:16-cv-03552)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:16-cv-01422)

SPEAK TO US (or ask me something).

No doubt you want to speak to a lawyer about the bittorrent lawsuit / ISP subpoena that you have received.  *I get that*, and I will do whatever I can to at a very minimum give you a speedy response, even if I cannot take you as a client.

Our law firm (meaning, “I”) will do my best to answer your call, and I will spend as much time with you on the phone as you need so that you at least do not panic about the case which is allegedly trying to take $150,000 (or some $10,000+ settlement) out of your pocket or home.

I have a pretty terribly-written web page at http://www.cashmanlawfirm.com/, but on there are links to reviews and comments people have written about how I have helped them whether or not they ended up being my client:

REVIEWS POSTED ON GENBOOK

REVIEWS POSTED ON GOOGLE

I am not committing to take you as a client; I do not charge for our phone appointments.  So, consider this as a “free consultation,” (or more as a friendly voice from someone who gets bored and enjoys talking to people,) but be aware that I might be working on a case while I am speaking to you, or that there might be interruptions which might pull me away from a call.

I am currently actively working on the following cases (filed in multiple states across the U.S., so while there are tweaks to be made from one federal court to another [different judges, different local rules], the copyright holder remains the same entity).

SCENARIO 1: IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN, OR IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO ME ABOUT YOUR MATTER, I INVITE YOU TO USE THE CONTACT FORM BELOW.

CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

SCENARIO 2: ASSUMING YOU WANT ME TO REPRESENT YOU IN THE CASE OR NEGOTIATE A RELEASE AND DISMISSAL FROM THE CASE, NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT (OR AN ANONYMOUS SETTLEMENT), OR HAVE ME REPRESENT YOU IN THE COURTROOM.

Follow these three steps below to have me represent you in your lawsuit (again, I do limit the number of clients I take (and here is why), and I do limit the number of time slots I make available each day):

1. Schedule a phone appointment for us to have a few minutes to speak about your lawsuit, your plaintiff ‘copyright troll’, what we know about them, and what we have achieved in the past with other clients.

2. Get, sign, and return retainer agreement (either I or one of my assistants would need to e-mail this to you after our call.  I do not make them readily available so that hundreds of John Doe defendants can hire me at the same time — I just don’t work that way, and this is a good thing).

3. Sit back, relax, and let us work on your behalf to get you the results you need.

After scheduling your appointment online, you will be contacted by phone at the specified date and time by a Cashman Law Firm, PLLC attorney.

SCENARIO 3: IF ALL ELSE FAILS AND YOU CANNOT REACH ME THROUGH THE WEB FORM, OR IF YOU CANNOT FIND AN OPEN TIME-SLOT ON THE GENBOOK APPOINTMENT PAGE,  I’M PROVIDING MY CONTACT INFORMATION. USE IT SPARINGLY.

Obviously I don’t want you calling me while I am in court, and I don’t want you e-mailing me without first reading the relevant articles about your case.  I’ll get you where you want to go in order to get out of trouble, but I won’t do it for you.  In other words, I’m not teaching you about this case from scratch or doing some dance in order for you to decide to retain me as your attorney.

But I am providing my phone number to you and my e-mail to you — these will break through all the barriers and you will reach me this way.  But respect this information and use it sparingly.

713-364-3476

[email protected]

[And as silly as this sounds, I have written SEVEN YEARS worth of blogs without referencing myself once.  That sounds self-deprecating, but really, I am simply trying to get resources and information in your hands.  So my name is “Rob Cashman.”  Please don’t call me Ron, or some other name, because that does annoy me.  Take the time to pay attention to learn my name if you want to speak to me.] 🙂

Lastly, I know I often have 100+ people contacting me, and I only provide a handful of phone consultations or appointments.  If you need my help, whether or not I become your attorney, *I WILL HAPPILY TAKE THE TIME TO SPEAK TO YOU, AND EVEN SPEND WHATEVER TIME IS NECESSARY (TIME PERMITTING) TO HOLD YOUR HAND.*

So if you need to speak to me after-hours or outside my set schedule, that’s ok too.

-Rob

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending a web form or an e-mail, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share with confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

ME2 Productions Inc. Subpoenas FAQ | What You Need to Know

While our law firm represents ME2 Productions, Inc. defendants as clients in a number of states (specifically, those states in which we can ‘pro hac’ into and represent a defendant should settlement negotiations go awry), I simply cannot track every single bittorrent-based lawsuit that is filed across the U.S.   However, I do know of subpoenas received by John Doe Defendants in a number of cases are due today.

This article should be a simplistic “what do I do” article.  Nothing new will be introduced here for those of you who have read my blog in the past.  At best, this will be a quick refresher of what happens at the pretrial stages of a copyright infringement lawsuit before a John Doe Defendant is named and served.

Because I am neck deep in cases, instead of writing out this article, I am dictating it into a recorder and am paying someone to transcribe it for me. Thus, pardon the conversational tone.  This is really the way I speak.

[Lastly, some of you have e-mailed me asking why I am only making 2-3 time slots available each day on the http://torrentlawyer.genbook.com scheduling site when there are literally hundreds of John Does affected by these lawsuits.  The simple reason is because I am managing the firm’s inflow of clients (I will not take every client I speak to, but I will hold your hand until you find an attorney), and I do not believe in flooding our firm with 100+ new clients for one copyright holder and treating them all the same way in a turn-key fashion.  I used to think that this could save our clients money, but my experience after representing clients is that if I am able to take each client separately and negotiate each client the best I can, I am often able to get the client released from liability without paying any settlement (if the client did not do the download), and if they did the download, I am able to negotiate significantly lower settlements when I handle client circumstances individually rather than as a group.]

ME2 LAWSUIT SUBPOENA Q&A:

Question: “I received a subpoena from my ISP about the ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does lawsuit.  What do I do?”

Answer: Chances are the lawsuit was filed in the state in which you live.  If you live outside of the state in which you were sued, that federal court likely does not have “personal jurisdiction” over you.  For circumstances like this, you may consider filing a motion to quash.

SHOULD I FILE A MOTION TO QUASH?

Question: “Should I file a motion to quash even though I have been sued and I live in the state?”

Answer: If you file the motion to quash, the court will set a hearing in order to determine whether they have personal jurisdiction over you.  The judge will ask whether you live in the state.  If the answer is “yes,” then motion to quash will likely be denied.  I’m simplifying, but this is the point.

NOTE: For accuracy, you were not sued.  You are at this point merely implicated as a “John Doe” Defendant, which means that your Comcast ISP (or whatever ISP you have) has identified you as being the account holder who was assigned an IP Address (e.g., 123.848.245.163), and that IP Address was ‘seen’ or ‘caught’ participating in a bittorrent swarm where the download allegedly happened.

Question: “ABC Lawyer told me that even if I live in the state where I was sued, I can still hire an attorney who will file a motion to quash for me for $2,500 where he will expose the copyright trolls’ scam and maybe cause the judge to dismiss the case.  Should I pay for one of these?”

Answer: The motion to quash is not the proper place to raise issues relating to the actions of the copyright holders.  Filing long-winded motions to quash will simply prompt the judge to ask, “yes or no, does your client live in this state?”  When the answer is yes and your lawyer turns to you and informs you that “your motion to quash failed,” you’ll realize that you wasted your money.

There are other procedural times to fight your case, especially if you did not do the download.  Fighting your case in the motion to quash is generally a really bad idea.

Question: “Who cares if I was ‘seen’ downloading?  Doesn’t everyone use bittorrent anyway? Why is this illegal?”

Answer:  The short answer is that downloading and piracy is socially acceptable as a ‘tolerable evil’, but it is still nevertheless illegal.  It took me a few tries to answer this question, and in trying, the following two blog articles came of it:

1. ‘The boot of government crushes the skull of its citizen’ when it comes to encryption and anonymity, and

2. The Evolution of Piracy and the ‘coincidence’ that early copyright cases were rooted in pornography-based content.

In sum, copyright holders are finicky about whether, how, and in which way they will allow their copyrighted film to be shown.    Copyright law, as encoded in 17 US Code § 106 describes a number of exclusive rights given to a copyright holder (which means that the copyright holder is given authority to legally sue and destroy the financial futures of anyone who violate and/or infringe those rights).  Of those exclusive rights (the right to make copies (download), the right to distribute copies (share/upload), the right to display (stream), if any of these are infringed, the copyright holders get antsy because each violation of these rights stops them from being able to profit from the movie (or ‘work’) they created.

The peer-to-peer networks have been a source of angst for the copyright holders because until now, each of these ‘exclusive rights’ are taken out from the control of the copyright holder, and are given to the internet users.  When movies are listed on a bittorrent website and are downloaded, the copyright holders do not profit from the piracy, and while there has been some considerable debate of whether movie companies actually lose money from piracy (I am on the side that their ticket and DVD sales and licensing fees are hurt by piracy, but the damage is not as exaggerated as they claim it to be), but as a result of the loss (perceived or not, real or not), today copyright holders to consider it ethical to sue end user downloaders for the full $150,000 statutory damages for the download of one movie.

My opinion is that suing downloaders is misguided solution to the piracy problem, and that a better solution would be either compulsory licensing from the ISP, or simply providing better competitive solutions to give internet users the ability to PAY for access to cable TV and traditional TV networks (without paying the inflated cable bill prices they are still trying to charge).

Question: “Before Comcast hands out my information, am I still anonymous?  If as a John Doe I am not yet a defendant in the case, at what point do I become a defendant?”

At this point, your plaintiff attorney does not have your name, and neither does the court.  At this point, you are also still anonymous, which means that other than the filing fee, the plaintiff attorney has not yet spent any money or time investigating you or your involvement in the lawsuit.

You do not become a defendant until you are ‘named and served.’ This would happen later on in the lawsuit after the plaintiff copyright attorney tries to 1) convince you to settle, or 2) they are unable to contact you, or 3) they have formed a belief that you (the ISP subscriber) are the downloader.

Once someone knocks on your door and serves you with a copy of the complaint (or once you are served by a number of other methods), only then do you become a defendant in the lawsuit.

IS COMCAST (OR MY ISP) FORCED TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENA?

Question: “Can I call Comcast (or my ISP) and tell them I object to them sending out my information?  Isn’t giving out my information a crime?”

Answer: Comcast is under a duty to comply with the subpoena, which was ordered and signed by the federal judge for your case.  The ISP can and does often ignore the deadline set by the attorney in the subpoena sent to the ISP [they comply whenever they decide to comply, and if the plaintiff attorneys don’t like it, they can sue them or bring them into court, but they almost never do], but the ISPs almost always comply.

Even if you call your ISP and complain, and even if you object to them sending out your information, they will tell you that they must comply and that they WILL comply unless you file an objection with the court.  This objection is the motion to quash we discussed before.

There was a time when these bittorrent-based ‘copyright troll’ lawsuits were new (back in 2010), and there was a time that I researched whether a subscriber can sue his ISP for sharing his information with the copyright holders over his objection.  I even considered representing John Doe Defendants at the time as a class action lawsuit against the ISPs, however, the case law was horrible, and the damages weren’t worth the time or money the clients would have paid in order to sue their ISPs.

100% ANONYMOUS SETTLEMENTS BEFORE ISP COMPLIES WITH SUBPOENA?

Question: “Should I have my attorney contact the plaintiff attorney before he gets my identity from my ISP?  Can I settle with the plaintiff attorney and stop my Comcast ISP from divulging my identity to the plaintiff attorney?”

Answer: Generally, this is not required.  I have had circumstances that the defendant ABSOLUTELY wanted to keep his involvement in a lawsuit ANONYMOUS, and in cases such as this one [where the defendant had something to lose if the plaintiff attorney learned his identity], then yes, I could negotiate a 100% anonymous settlement before the ISP hands out the John Doe’s information to the plaintiff attorney.  I can even stop the ISP from complying with the subpoena.  How??

I have been successful asking various plaintiff attorneys to write or transmit a letter to the ISP and cancel the subpoena as to that particular John Doe Defendant, and both the paid attorney and the ISP happily complied, and my client remained 100% anonymous.  Win-win.  The client remained anonymous, the ISP had one fewer infringement file to take care of, and the pocket-filled plaintiff attorney saved an extra few bucks because he did not have to pay the ISP for the IP address lookup for that John Doe Defendant (sometimes ISP charge plaintiff attorneys large sums of money to lookup and handle the files of each of the John Doe Defendants).

However, one thing that is LOST when negotiating BEFORE the ISP hands over your information is LEVERAGE.  If the John Doe approaches the attorney asking to be anonymous, the plaintiff will want to know, “what does he have to hide?”  In addition, because any anonymous negotiations will arouse suspicion in the eyes of the plaintiff attorney, they might be less willing to negotiate down the price in a settlement negotiation when they sense that the other side has something to lose by having their name exposed to him/her.  We can still do the settlements anonymously and clients still do request this, but be aware that leverage is lost when premature negotiations are made, and thus the cost of the settlement to the copyright holder may be higher than the ordinary negotiation.

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER COMCAST COMPLIES WITH THE SUBPOENA?

Question: “Do I become a defendant in the case after my ISP complies with the subpoena and hands out my information to the plaintiff attorney?”

Answer: Again, no.  As far as the court is concerned (and as far as the world is concerned), nobody except you, your ISP, your attorney, and the plaintiff attorney know your name.  Robots and spiders who like to ‘spider’ legal sites and post information on the parties of the cases also cannot know who you are, even after the ISP complies with the subpoena.

Rather, when the ISP complies with the subpoena, likely, they will send over a spreadsheet 10-20 lines long (depending on how many John Doe Defendants there are in the case), and you will be one of those ‘lines’ on the spreadsheet.  The plaintiff will learn who you are, but you will remain an anonymous John Doe Defendant until the plaintiff attorney decides to name and serve you.

When the plaintiff attorney receives the list of names and contact information for each John Doe Defendant, he will separate that pile of names into two piles: 1) subscribers that are represented by attorneys (where their attorneys sent a ‘notice of representation’ to that attorney), and 2) subscribers who are not represented by an attorney.  The experience of the ‘Subscribers who are not represented by attorney’ has best been described to me like ‘being called by a horrible creditor for a debt; only that creditor is an attorney and could ruin my life.’

Question: “Will the ‘copyright troll’ attorney contact me to extort a settlement?”

Answer: Funny enough, likely not.  Attorneys have gotten reprimanded by the courts in recent years for abusive practices such as sending settlement demand letters (I used to refer to them as ‘scare’ letters because their purpose was to frighten and scare the defendants into paying the requested settlement amount).  So rather than saying, “we want $6,000 for so-and-so title (or whatever they are asking),” the plaintiff attorneys will simply state that they have every intention of moving this case to trial, and if the defendant or his/her attorney wants to discuss settlement options, they are more than willing to cooperate.

So no, they will likely not try to contact you.

Question: “If they do not contact me, should I just ignore and do nothing until they name and serve me?”

Answer: Waiting to be named and served is a DANGEROUS legal strategy, for the simple reason that you are thrust into the “fight” option where you are forced to either spend tens of thousands of dollars to some defense attorney to litigate the case for you, or you have committed yourself to become a legal expert unrepresented “pro se” defendant.

If you have any intention of keeping your identity private, it is best to have your attorney negotiate the release of your “John Doe” placeholder entity WHILE YOU ARE STILL A JOHN DOE.  As soon as you are named and served, your identity as being involved in a copyright infringement lawsuit will become public, even if your attorney convinces the other side that you are not the downloader.  And, even if you ended up paying a settlement amount in lieu of litigating the claims against you, if you do so after you are named and served, your identity will become public knowledge and ‘there is no way to put that genie back in the bottle once it’s out.’

Point in sum. It is *almost ALWAYS* better to have your attorney proactively contact the plaintiff attorney before you are named and served.  That way, if a release based on non-guilt is negotiated, it will be done anonymously.  If a settlement is reached, then it will be done without the world learning that you were part of a copyright infringement lawsuit.

WHO IS THE ATTORNEY SUING ME?

TEXAS CASES: Gary Fischman (Fischman Law PLLC)

NOTE: Gary Fischman is the same attorney who is suing defendants in the I.T. Productions LLC cases, the September Productions cases, Cell Film Holdings cases, and Fathers & Daughters Nevada cases.  He is often seen filing lawsuits in conjunction with Josh Wyde.

(I will obviously update this for other states.  For the moment, I have been representing clients in the Texas Southern District Court (TXSD) because our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC practice is physically located in Houston, Texas.)

SUMMARY: ME2 SUBPOENAS DUE TODAY.

I could go on forever with these questions and answers, but the point is that your plaintiff attorney will likely be getting your contact information today for a number of the ME2 Productions, Inc. lawsuits in various states, and the reason for this is because your ISP (primarily, Comcast) is coordinating the compliance with the subpoena by bunching the various subpoenas together and handling them all at the same time.

Thus, expect that tomorrow, your respective ‘copyright troll’ plaintiff attorney will begin calling you, and from there, the process continues as I described above.


CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

RECENT CASE HISTORY OF THE ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. CASES:

Cases filed in the Texas Southern District Court [2017 cases]:
Attorney: Gary Fischman (Fischman Law PLLC)

ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00501)
Filed: Feb 15, 2017, Judge: TBA

ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 4:17-cv-00404)
Filed: Feb 09, 2017, Judge: TBA

ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00275)
Filed: Jan 27, 2017, Judge: TBA

ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 4:17-cv-00143)
Filed: Jan 17, 2017, Judge: TBA

Cases filed in the Nevada District Court:
Judges include Judge Andrew Gordon, Judge James Mahan, Judge Jennifer Dorsey, and Judge Richard Boulware II — Judge Mahan and Judge Gordon have most of the cases:

ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 2:16-cv-02783)
The following cases also filed as ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does:
Case No. 2:17-cv-00114
Case No. 2:16-cv-02563
Case No. 2:16-cv-02513
Case No. 2:16-cv-02799
Case No. 2:17-cv-00121
Case No. 2:17-cv-00126
Case No. 2:17-cv-00122
Case No. 2:16-cv-02657
Case No. 2:16-cv-02384
Case No. 2:16-cv-02520
Case No. 2:17-cv-00124
Case No. 2:17-cv-00123
Case No. 2:16-cv-02662
Case No. 2:16-cv-02788
Case No. 2:16-cv-02875
Case No. 2:16-cv-02660
Case No. 2:17-cv-00049

Cases filed in the North Carolina Eastern District Court:
Judges include Judge Louise Wood Flanagan, Judge Terrence Boyle, Judge W. Earl Britt — Judge Flanagan is the lead, as she has most of the cases and is in charge of the 5:16-cv-914 case into which the others have been consolidated, so watch her rulings to understand how ‘bittorrent’ law is about to evolve in North Carolina:

ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1, et al (Case No. 5:16-cv-00881)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1, et al (Case No. 5:16-cv-00885)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1, et al (Case No. 4:16-cv-00273)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1, et al (Case No. 5:16-cv-00896)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-8 (Case No. 5:16-cv-00914)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-9 (Case No. 7:16-cv-00385)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES 1-10 (Case No. 7:16-cv-00386)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-8 (Case No. 7:16-cv-00384, CONSOLIDATED into 5:16-cv-00914-FL)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 7:16-cv-00394)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 4:16-cv-00279)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-9 (Case No. 5:16-cv-00875)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe (Case No. 7:16-cv-00383)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:16-cv-00278)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 5:16-cv-00917)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 5:16-cv-00920)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 5:16-cv-00922)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 5:16-cv-00202)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 5:16-cv-00206)

Cases filed in the Colorado District Court:
Judge Wiley Y. Daniel has ALL of the bittorrent cases. Watch his ruling because the ME2 cases might affect Colorado ‘bittorrent’ law.

ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00170)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02978)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. John Does 1-20 (Case No. 1:16-cv-03005)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-03069)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. John Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:16-cv-03128)
ME2 Productions, Inc. . v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00301)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00387)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00033)
ME2 Productions, Inc v. John Does 1 – 11 (Case No. 1:16-cv-02770)
ME2 Productions, Inc v. John Does 1-21 (Case No. 1:16-cv-02788)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02827)
ME2 Productions, Inc v. John Does 1-10 (Case No. 1:16-cv-02891)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02580)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02629)

Cases filed in the Washington Western District Court:
Judge Robert Lasnik appears to be in control of all of the bittorrent cases thus far (a number of them are still ‘TBA’, but I suspect they will go to Judge Lasnik). Watch his ruling on any of these cases, because a ruling on one of these cases will likely affect ALL of the other bittorrent cases in the Washington Western District Court.

ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:16-cv-01882)
ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:16-cv-01881)
ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:16-cv-01953)
ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:16-cv-01955)
ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:16-cv-01950)
ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:16-cv-01776)
ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:16-cv-01778)
ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-00181)
ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-00182)
ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-00099)
ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-00100)

Cases filed in the Indiana Northern and Southern District Courts:
These cases appear to be assigned to judges in a rotating fashion, and thus, while Judge Theresa Springman (in the Indiana Northern District) and Judge Larry Mckinney (in the Indiana Southern District) each appear to have three (3) cases each, there appears to be no leadership by either judge as to directing the Indiana court as to how or whether these cases will affect ‘bittorrent’ law.

ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-8 (Case No. 1:16-cv-00390)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-9 (Case No. 3:16-cv-00764)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 3:16-cv-00695)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-9 (Case No. 2:16-cv-00468)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 2:16-cv-00478)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 3:16-cv-00697)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOE 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-03020)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOE 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02757)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOE 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02758)

Cases filed in the Arizona District Court:
These cases also appear to be assigned to judges in a rotating fashion, however, it is appearing that Judge Diane Humetewa is taking on more bittorrent cases than any of the others. So watch her court for leadership moving forward.

ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:17-cv-00210)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:16-cv-04039)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:16-cv-04075)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:16-cv-04114)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:16-cv-04112)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:16-cv-04123)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:17-cv-00216)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:17-cv-00217)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:17-cv-00218)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:17-cv-00222)

Cases filed in the New York Eastern and Southern District Courts:
NOTE: Single “John Doe” cases are being filed here. Warning!

ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe – 24.44.105.211 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-06161)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe – 68.194.38.87 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-06160)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe(s) – (Case No. 1:17-cv-00929)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe – 74.71.172.215 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01049)

Cases filed in the Oregon District Court:
Again, warning! These are single-doe cases.

ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-76.27.219.56 (Case No. 3:16-cv-01724)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-73.164.239.74 (Case No. 3:16-cv-01725)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-24.21.195.166 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00158)

OTHER CASES (WITHOUT COMMENT):

Cases Filed in the Connecticut District Court:
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 3:16-cv-01834)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 3:16-cv-01835)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 3:16-cv-01837)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 3:16-cv-01838)

Cases Filed in the Georgia Northern District Court:
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 1:16-cv-03904)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 1:16-cv-04054)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES 1-11 (Case No. 1:16-cv-04208)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES 1-11 (Case No. 1:16-cv-04052)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES 1-11 (Case No. 1:16-cv-04210)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-9 (Case No. 1:16-cv-04207)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 (Case No. 1:16-cv-04055)

Cases filed in the Illinois Northern District Court:
(Think, John Steele / Prenda Law Inc. / Steele|Hansmeier / #Prenda old territory.)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-25 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00712)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-25 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00706)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-25 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00708)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-42 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00714)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-26 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00710)

Case(s) filed in the Kentucky Western District Court:
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 3:16-cv-00702)

Case(s) filed in the Maryland District Court:
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 8:16-cv-03730)

Case(s) filed in the Missouri Western District Court:
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 4:16-cv-01271)

Case(s) filed in the Ohio Northern and Southern District Courts:
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 3:16-cv-02715) — Northern
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-14 (Case No. 2:16-cv-01062) — Southern

Cases filed in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court:
(This is Jordan Rushie territory.)

ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. JOHN DOES 1-8 (Case No. 2:16-cv-06138)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. JOHN DOES 1-13 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00572)

Cases filed in the Virginia Eastern and Western District Courts:
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00058)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOE 1 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00057)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 5:16-cv-00083)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00002)


CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

I.T. Productions, LLC should really be called “I, Troll.”

To properly defend against the I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does lawsuits, it is important to understand the similarities between each case.  Each lawsuit, regardless of in which federal court it is filed, has certain similarities.  The purpose of this article is to point out the similarities between the I.T. Productions cases, and other ‘movie troll’ lawsuits filed in the same federal courts by the same copyright troll attorneys.

Different Lawsuits, Same Plaintiff Attorneys?

These past few weeks, I have been pushing the idea that there is an entity (until now, I believed it was Voltage Pictures, Inc.) behind the lawsuits which is calling up movie companies who have produced movies which have flopped in the theaters (I call them “floppers”), and this entity convinces the movie company to license its copyright rights to them so that they can sue bittorrent users as John Doe Defendants in copyright infringement lawsuits across the US.

Yesterday, I wrote about the Cook Productions, LLC lawsuits (which are sending subpoenas to ISPs to reveal the identities of subscribers who are accused of downloading the “Mr. Church” flopper), and I was concerned that maybe this copyright holder was somehow separate from the others — the ME2 Productions lawsuits, the September Productions lawsuits, and the Cell Film Holdings lawsuits (the “three legs” or “trio“) — that we have been seeing over the past few months. [So it’s not a three-legged stool; it’s a chair.]

But then this morning, I was writing an article on the I.T. Productions, LLC lawsuits, and after speaking to a John Doe Defendant on the phone, I decided to check the list of plaintiff attorneys suing in each state for the I.T. Productions to the attorneys suing in the ME2 Productions, September Productions, (and also LHF Productions and Criminal Productions, Inc., articles to come), and the connections popped out at me.  They are the same attorneys!!!

In sum, this ‘shadow entity’ (which I believed to be Voltage Pictures, Inc.) who is licensing ‘floppers’ is using the same attorneys to sue for each and every one of these movies.

I.T. Productions cases are filed in the same states as other movie troll cases.

Not only that, but for the IT Productions, LLC cases, they are even ‘dipping their toes’ into the same states as I saw yesterday when reviewing the Cook Productions, LLC cases.  Here are the similarities:

Arizona District Court (NONE YET)
Colorado District Court (I.T. 10 cases, Cook Productions, 1 case)
Hawaii District Court (I.T. 2 cases, Cook Productions, 4 cases)
Illinois Northern District Court (NONE YET)
Indiana Northern & Southern District Courts (NONE YET)
Kentucky Western District Court (I.T. 1 case, Cook Productions 1 case)
Maryland District Court (I.T. 1 case, Cook Productions 1 case)
Nevada District Court (I.T. 1 case, Cook Productions 1 case)
North Carolina Eastern & Middle District Courts (NONE YET)
Ohio Northen & Southern District Courts (I.T. 2 cases, Cook Productions 2 cases)
Oregon District Courts (I.T. 4 cases, Cook Productions 3 cases)
Pennsylvania Eastern District Court (I.T. 1 case, Cook Productions 1 case)
Washington Western District Court (I.T. 1 case, Cook Productions 1 case)

See the similarities?!?  So… expect to see I.T. Productions, LLC cases to soon be filed in Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, and North Carolina.

Texas based I.T. Productions Cases

Why are Gary Fischman and Josh Wyde always the plaintiff attorneys for each movie troll case?

As far as the attorneys for each of the lawsuits were concerned, I could not understand how here in Texas, Gary Fischman and Josh Wyde showed up OUT OF NOWHERE, and started filing lawsuits for Fathers & Daughters Nevada, September Productions, Cell Film Holdings, and most recently, I.T. Productions and ME2 Productions.  Where did they come from?  And how did they all of a sudden score EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE movie companies to come to THEM and hire THEM to sue John Doe defendants in Texas for the unlawful download of these films?

Why is R. Matthew Van Sickle always the attorney for the movie troll cases in North Carolina?

Another name that keeps popping up in recent weeks has been R. Matthew Van Sickle (a.k.a. Ross Matthew Van Sickle) of Van Sickle Law, PC in North Carolina.  His website is http://mattvansicklelaw.com/ and it lists an expertise in “Construction Law, Civil Litigation, Employment Law, Insurance Coverage/Defense, and Mediation” (and no doubt, soon his website will be updated to state that he is knowledgeable in intellectual property matters, copyright infringement matters, and federal practice.) At least plaintiff / copyright troll attorneys Josh Wyde and Gary Fischman (AFAIK) are knowledgeable in this area of law.

The common threads between all movie troll cases.

So… who is behind these lawsuits?  Is it Voltage Pictures, Inc.?  Someone affiliated with Carl Crowell? Guardaley / IPP?  Again, do you care??

All About the I.T. Productions Lawsuits (Regardless of Where They Are Filed)

So I digress.  I.T. Productions, LLC has convinced the judges of the various courts to rubber stamp the authorization for them to conduct what is called ‘expedited discovery.’  What this means is that they are now permitted to send a subpoena to the various ISPs (e.g., Comcast, CenturyLink, AT&T, etc.), and force them to disclose the identity of the ten or so John Doe Defendants who are accused of copyright infringement from the download of their film.

The I.T. Productions, LLC lawsuit is suing for the download of the “I.T.” movie starring Pierce Brosnan.  The concept of the movie is pretty cool — innovative owner of an enterprising company is flying high until his daughter gets stalked by one of his information technology (IT) guys, who uses every technological facet to attack them.

Unfortunately, as cool as the movie sounds, IMDb gave it only 5.4 or 10 stars, which means that the movie was a flopper.  It’s too bad; I liked the concept of the movie.

So why did I spend all this time linking this I.T. Productions case to the Cook Productions case, the ME2 Productions case, and the others?  To show that there is a decrepit and sinister entity behind the scene who has likely now set up the entity called “I.T. Productions, LLC” for the purpose of suing downloaders across the U.S. for copyright infringement.

However, as terrible as this sounds, the benefit to the John Doe Defendant reading this article is that you can begin to draw lines and conclusions from one lawsuit (e.g., the ME2 lawsuits) to understand how the plaintiff attorneys will act in these lawsuits.

Honestly, I think I understand now why this movie is called “I.T.”  It really stands for “I Troll.”

As always, I hope this article has been of assistance to you.

For an analysis of the other I.T. Productions, LLC bittorrent-based cases filed across the US, click here.

RECENT CASE HISTORY OF THE I.T. PRODUCTIONS, LLC CASES:

Cases now filed in the Texas Southern District Court:
Attorney: Gary Fischman (Fischman Law PLLC)

I.T. Productions, LLC v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00597)

Cases filed in the Colorado District Court:
I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does 1-7 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00468)
I.T. Productions, LLC v. John Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02979)
Other cases with the same name:
Case No. 1:16-cv-02998
Case No. 1:16-cv-03009
Case No. 1:16-cv-03058
Case No. 1:16-cv-03064
Case No. 1:16-cv-03089
Case No. 1:16-cv-03132
Case No. 1:16-cv-03150
Case No. 1:17-cv-00112

Cases filed in the Hawaii District Court:
I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does 1 through 5 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00084)
I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does 1 through 3 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00035)
I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does 1-6 (Case No. 1:16-cv-00641)

Case filed in the Kentucky Western District Court:
I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 3:16-cv-00836)

Case filed in the Maryland District Court:
I.T. Productions, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 8:16-cv-03999)

Case filed in the Nevada District Court:
I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does (Case No. 2:16-cv-02705)

Cases filed in the Ohio Northern and Southern District Courts (respectively):
I.T. Productions LLC v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 3:16-cv-03073)
I.T. Productions LLC v. Does 1-15 (Case No. 2:16-cv-01199)

Cases filed in the Oregon District Court:
I.T. Productions, LLC v. Doe-76.115.0.173 (Case No. 3:16-cv-02102)
I.T. Productions, LLC v. Doe-76.27.241.78 (Case No. 3:16-cv-02103)
I.T. Productions, LLC v. Doe-76.115.228.18 (Case No. 3:16-cv-02101)
I.T. Productions, LLC v. Doe-76.27.242.207 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00163)

Case filed in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court:
I.T. PRODUCTIONS, LLC v. JOHN DOES 1-8 (Case No. 2:16-cv-06533)

Case filed in the Washington Western District Court:
I.T. Productions, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:16-cv-01775)


CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.