ME2 Productions Inc.

Todd Zenger Settlement Demand Letters Sent to Utah ME2 Defendants

by
UT ME2 Productions | Utah ME2 Settlement Letters Sent by Todd Zenger

Todd Zenger is the Utah attorney sending settlement demand letters to accused John Doe Defendants in the Utah ME2 Productions, Inc. bittorrent lawsuits (a.k.a. the Utah Mechanic: Resurrection movie lawsuits).  These settlement letters from the ME2 Production attorney are asking for a settlement of $4,900, which in my opinion is absurd.

Todd E. Zenger of Kirton McConkie has been sending settlement demand letters to ME2 Utah bittorrent defendants.

We remember that back in April, Todd Zenger of Kirton | McConkie sent subpoenas to CenturyLink subscribers to expose the idenities of ME2 Utah defendants.  These cases have been going on since March, and only now is he sending out settlement demand letters to Utah ME2 Productions defendants.  The letters claim that the accused defendant downloaded or streamed a copy of his client’s Mechanic: Resurrection movie.

The letters have the following header:

“COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT OF MOVIE “Mechanic: Ressurection”
Settlement Purposes Only – Not Admissible Under FRE 408

The silly part about this is that FRE 408 refers to the Federal Rules of Evidence, Section 408 which governs settlement negotiations.  This provision allows a defense attorney such as myself to openly speak about a case, even to discuss intimate details about a case without worrying that the conversation would somehow be used against our clients.

Todd Zenger appears to be attempting to make it seem as if his settlement demand letter cannot be used as evidence in the lawsuit.  Perhaps he could write whatever he wants in these letters without having them come and haunt him.  Wrong.  The FRE 408 protection is to allow the plaintiff and defense attorneys to discuss the facts of the case without it later being used against the defendant if settlement negotiations fail.  FRE 408 is not meant to provide Todd Zenger a blank check to write whatever he wants in a letter to scare an accused defendant into settling the claims against him.

So let’s back up a moment.  You received a subpoena notice in April, and now in August, you are receiving settlement demand letters from Todd Zenger.  Who is Todd E. Zenger?

Who is the attorney for the ME2 Utah cases?

The ‘copyright troll’ attorney in Utah who filed these cases is Todd Zenger (“Todd E. Zenger”), and he works for Kirton McConkie in Salt Lake City, Utah. Any e-mails coming from “[email protected],” or calls from his “801-328-3600” phone number (or any 801-328-XXXX phone number should cause you to be wary that you have a Utah ME2 copyright troll trying to scare you into settling with him for thousands of dollars.

Todd Zenger Utah ME2 Productions Settlement Demand Letters

Are Utah ME2 Productions, Inc. cases any different from those filed in other states?

Really, no.  I have already written much about the ME2 Productions, Inc. cases, and the Utah ME2 cases are no different from the cases filed in other states. The following articles should be helpful in understanding the ME2 Utah cases as well:

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN ONE PAGE ABOUT YOUR ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. “MECHANIC:RESURRECTION” LAWSUIT AND ISP SUBPOENA.

Just like the other cases, the Utah ME2 Productions, Inc. cases are suing for copyright infringement based on the the illegal download of the Mechanic: Resurrection movie, starring Jason Statham and Jessica Alba. The lawsuits are all copyright infringement lawsuits filed in the Federal Courts, and each lawsuit sues for statutory damages of $150,000 (but don’t let that large number scare you, because baked into copyright infringement law is the concept of ‘minimum statutory damages’ as well).

Accused ME2 Utah-based internet users are made aware of these cases when they are sent a letter from their ISP (CenturyLink), which informs them 1) they are implicated as a “John Doe” Defendant in this case, and 2) the ISP is bound by a subpoena to share the account holder’s contact information (and relevant information about their IP address’ involvement in the case) on a certain due date unless the subscriber files an objection with the court (referring to a “motion to quash”).

Why is this article relevant now (and for the next week)?

The reason why I am writing this article is because THIS PAST WEEK, Todd Zenger has been sending settlement demand letters for his ME2 Utah-based copyright infringement lawsuits.  His letters threaten that if a person does not settle, they will be named and served as a “named” defendant in this lawsuit. Most relevant, the deadlines for “payment” are right around the corner.

How did Todd Zenger get my contact information to send me this settlement demand letter?

CenturyLink complies with the subpoenas?

If you remember, CenturyLink was faced with an order signed by the federal judges in the ME2 Utah cases to hand over the contact information of the various John Doe Defendants in the ME2 Utah lawsuits.  I noted on April 24th that Todd Zenger would start sending out settlement demand letters to Utah ME2 John Doe Defendants, and he has.  The settlement letters explain that the accused defendants have been sued for $150,000, and that their ISP has identified them as being the downloader. That their ISP identified them as the infringer was not actually true, as the ISP only provided Todd Zenger with evidence that the accused account holder’s IP address was ‘in the room’ when bittorrent downloading was happening.

Remember — Todd Zenger’s lawsuits do not claim that each John Doe Defendant is the actual infringer, nor does he provide documentation of infringement in the form of a PCAP file that any of the Utah ME2 defendants actually committed copyright infringement or downloaded a large enough piece of the movie to be considered “substantially similar” to the copyrighted film. In the end, if the cases go that far — it would be up to the judges (and us attorneys) to inform them that Todd Zenger is not in possession of the PCAP evidence he allegedly claims to have.

Who are the federal judges assigned to the ME2 Utah Cases?

The Utah ME2 cases (thus far) are evenly spread between the following judges.  I wouldn’t be surprised if moving forward, one judge, e.g., Judge Evelyn Furse will take over the other cases to have uniform decisions across the Utah ME2 cases.

Judge David Nuffer:
Utah ME2 Productions v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00198)
Utah ME2 Productions v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00224)
Utah ME2 Productions v. Does 1-29 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00190)

Judge Paul M. Warner:
Utah ME2 Productions v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00199)
Utah ME2 Productions v. Does 1-14 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00225)
Utah ME2 Productions v. Does 1-22 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00189)

Judge Evelyn J Furse:
Utah ME2 Productions v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00179)
Utah ME2 Productions v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00169)
Utah ME2 Productions v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00178)
Utah ME2 Productions v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00158)
Utah ME2 Productions v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00157)
Utah ME2 Productions v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00168)

Judge Jill N. Parrish:
Utah ME2 Productions v. Does 1-22 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00200)

Judge Dustin B. Pead:
Utah ME2 Productions v. Does 1-27 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00191)

Judge Ted Stewart:
Utah ME2 Productions v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00223)

What are my options in defending or resolving claims against me in a ME2 Utah-based case?

If you have read this far, you are likely one of the John Doe Defendants in this case, and thus here are your options on how our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC (or any other competent copyright litigation attorney) can help you in this case.

OPTION 1: FIGHT

In this option, your attorney would fight this case on your behalf. Since the ME2 scam has been exposed, the inherent weaknesses in Todd Zenger’s case are now well known. This option is more expensive than the other options, but it is probably the most satisfying option when you win and ask for attorney fees from ME2 Productions.

However, as I have noted in previous articles, an innocent defendant who fights the claims against him “on the merits” would only get the attorney fees back from Todd Zenger’s ME2 Productions, Inc. client if the dismissal was made “on the merits.”  This means that either a judge or a jury would need to rule that copyright infringement did not occur or that this particular defendant is not guilty of copyright infringement based on the evidence.  Todd Zenger is smarter than this, and thus he knows to dismiss “innocent” defendants before their attorney (me, or anyone else) files a motion for summary judgement in the court.

In sum, don’t be sold the lie that if you hire a particular attorney and pay him his fee, all the money you pay to him will be returned to you if you are dismissed from the lawsuit.  This is simply not true.  Attorney fees are awarded only if the dismissal is “on the merits,” (on the evidence) — not when Todd Zenger dismisses you after he realizes you did not do the download.

OPTION 2: SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

Settlement negotiations does not mean that you downloaded the movie or that you are guilty of copyright infringement. Rather, it simply means that you want to pay to have the plaintiff attorney dismiss you from the lawsuit. This option can be used by both ‘guilty’ and ‘innocent’ defendants. While I do not recommend an innocent defendant pay ANYTHING to settle the claims against him, I do not judge defendants when they choose this option.

What you should know about Todd Zenger’s lawsuits is that the ME2 Productions, Inc. Utah lawsuits are part of a larger racket or scheme by Carl Crowell of Rights Enforcement (rightsenforcement.com).  If you search that website and click on “clients,” you’ll see the 50-80 movie companies who have signed on to be his client and who have (or will be) filing lawsuits in the coming months and years.

Todd Zenger has access to what other downloads the actual downloader downloaded.  This information is not admissible against the accused defendant in THIS lawsuit (because it is considered “character evidence,” but nevertheless, Todd Zenger has found a way to profit off of this information.

In addition to a settlement for the Mechanic: Resurrection movie actually downloaded, if Todd Zenger sees that another movie of his “common troll” client was also downloaded, he will seek an additional settlement for that movie as well.  This is important to know because for downloaders who have downloaded multiple movies listed on the RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT website, *if that downloader was caught* (which often is not the case), Todd Zenger will ask for a settlement for that additional movie title, albeit at a significantly discounted rate.  This is extra cash for him and his client.  If the defendant does not settle these other “unfiled claims” too, Todd Zenger threatens to file a lawsuit against the defendant for those titles too.

In short, have an attorney take care of the settlement negotiations, and better yet — have your attorney (me, or anyone else) ask Todd Zenger whether there are any other claims against you before you have your attorney open up settlement negotiations.  “Settlement Factory” attorneys are likely not paying attention to this, and they will undoubtedly get blindsided by Todd Zenger’s “unfiled claims” tactic.

OPTION 3: “NO SETTLEMENT REPRESENTATION”

This is the discounted “no settlement” representation route that I discussed here. In the span of 2-3 hours, I would consult with the client, send over a letter of representation to the plaintiff attorney (to stop him from contacting the client directly). I would then draft a letter to the plaintiff explaining that my client did not do the download, and that we are not interested in anything other than a walkaway settlement, meaning that my client pays no settlement. The purpose of this representation is to put Todd Zenger on notice that my client is not the infringer he is looking for.

This strategy was the one described in Professor Sag’s “Defense Against The Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling” paper.  However, that paper wrote a lot about these cases IN THEORY.  IN PRACTICE, sending Todd Zenger a letter claiming that my client did not do it prompts Todd Zenger to follow-up with questions to determine who actually did the download.  Clients that hire me just to write this letter for $750 for the 2-3 hours it would take to gather the facts and write the letter should be prepared to upgrade to the “Option 4” ignore route representation (below) if they don’t want to be on their own after the letter has been drafted and sent.  In other words, my experience is that the “No Settlement Letter” has not been successful when dealing with Todd Zenger’s lawsuits.

OPTION 4: “IGNORE” ROUTE REPRESENTATION

The ignore route is best described as ‘playing chicken.’ I best described the “ignore” route, and how it differs from the “no settlement representation” route here. The assumption with the “ignore” route is that Todd Zenger is not yet naming and serving defendants in this case, so you would hire our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC to monitor the case for you. We would send over a letter of representation indicating that we are representing you in the case, but we would not engage in settlement negotiations.

The intended client for the ‘ignore’ route is the innocent client that wishes to have a more ‘hands on’ engagement with their case over the “no settlement” representation letter route, where their attorney is actively monitoring the case and having active discussions with the plaintiff attorney. Both ‘guilty’ and ‘non-guilty’ defendants can utilize the “ignore” route, as this option is adjustable based on the circumstances of the client. If Todd Zenger decides to start naming and serving defendants, a ‘guilty’ client would likely have me open up settlement negotiations on his behalf, whereas a non-guilty client would instruct me to not settle and adhere to the ‘ignore’ strategy. Obviously getting named and served while in this strategy would be cause to decide whether to shift strategies to the “fight” or “settle” strategy, which is fine.

There is nothing more to comment here.  The “Ignore” Route Representation is a very effective strategy.  It gets you an attorney who is in constant communication with the plaintiff attorney on your behalf, and the goal of this representation is to convince the plaintiff attorney that you are NOT the downloader than therefore you will not be paying a settlement.  I should have called the “ignore” route the “open communication with the plaintiff attorney” route, but that would have been too wordy.

OPTION 5: ARGUE “MINIMUM STATUTORY DAMAGES” REPRESENTATION

I discussed the “argue minimum statutory damages” representation option in this article. The purpose of this option is to take the settlement negotiations away from a misbehaving plaintiff attorney. Instead of negotiating a settlement (where the plaintiff is asking for too much money), we would file an answer with the court admitting infringement, and we would then make the case for the judge to award minimum statutory damages of $750.

I am happy to share that Todd Zenger has been reasonable in any settlement negotiations I have had to have with him, so I have not needed to pull any settlements “off the table” yet for a misbehaving plaintiff attorney.  So far, he is willing to work with my clients and their particular circumstances to come to an arrangement that their pocket books can handle.

The intended client for the “minimum statutory damages” representation route is a client who did the download and either does not want to go through settlement negotiations, or who wants to take settlement negotiations out of the hands of the plaintiff attorney / copyright troll and leave the damages up to the judge to decide. Obviously since we are admitting guilt in this option, it is appropriate for the client to have done the download to use this strategy.

However you decide to proceed, if I can be of assistance or answer any questions about your ME2 Utah case, please let me know.

*UPDATE (APRIL, 2017)* ME2 PRODUCTIONS INC. (FAQ) PAGE NOW UP.

*UPDATE (JULY, 2017)* SECOND WAVE OF LAWSUIT SUBPOENAS sent to CenturyLink ISP subscribers, and are due on 7/14/2017.

—

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY:

CLICK HERE FOR OUR “CONTACT US” PAGE.

SCENARIO 1: IF YOU HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, COMMENT, OR NEED A QUICK RESPONSE:

  • SMS YOUR QUESTION: 713-364-3476
  • E-MAIL YOUR QUESTION: [email protected], OR
  • FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW.

    SCENARIO 2: IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT YOUR UTAH ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. CASE AND YOUR OPTIONS, SET UP A PHONE CONSULTATION:


    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.

    New York ME2 Productions Settlement Letters Sent by Bryan DeMatteo

    by
    New York Bittorrent Cases with Bryan DeMatteo | ME2 NY, UN4 NY, Venice PI NY, Headhunter NY

    Bryan N DeMatteo is the New York attorney sending settlement demand letters to accused John Doe Defendants in the New York ME2 Productions, Inc. bittorrent lawsuits (a.k.a. the New York Mechanic: Resurrection movie lawsuits).  These settlement letters from the ME2 Production attorney are asking for a settlement of $5,600, which in my opinion is absurd.

    As a NY Licensed Attorney for 10 Years, I am competent to speak about Bryan DeMatteo’s lawsuits because I was representing bittorrent clients in 2012 when the case law was first paved.

    Let me be clear about this.  I am competent to speak about the New York lawsuits because I have been licensed as a New York Attorney for the last 10 years.  I also have history here, because I was representing clients in the Digital Sin, Inc. lawsuits of 2012 when all of the good case law was created.

    This good case law slowly destroyed every time an innocent defendant listens to a “settlement factory” attorney (usually out-of-state) who convinces them to settle, even though they didn’t do it.  Every voluntary dismissal on paper from an innocent defendant who settled gives Bryan DeMatteo’s cases credibility in the eyes of the judges because it makes judges believe that he has correctly sued the “right” defendant.

    SIDE NOTE:  I am aware that some attorney has called me a “Western out of state defense attorney,” but don’t be fooled — I am born and raised in New York, and New York was the first state in which I first became a licensed attorney.  New York is known to be one of the hardest state bars to pass.  Let me speak clearly just so there is no confusion — I AM AN ATTORNEY LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TEN YEARS LATER, STILL IN GOOD STANDING — I am not some out of state defense attorney who is looking to get admitted (“pro hac”) to the US District Court one case at a time.  And, just so it is said, I have nothing wrong with out-of-state attorneys who get admitted “pro hac” on a case-by-case basis to represent one client for one case, as long as they represent their clients COMPETENTLY.

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. CASE RESOURCES

    The TorrentLawyer blog has become a giant with over 200+ articles on the various cases in which our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC has worked on.  If you have come to this page, you likely received a settlement demand letter from Bryan N. DeMatteo asking for $5,600 (or, whatever he is asking for at the moment; some attorneys are asking for $7,500, and others are asking for $2,500).  Either way, you missed the deadline to file a motion to quash (which is fine), and your ISP handed over your information to the plaintiff attorney.  Now you are facing another deadline — DeMatteo’s deadline — which is probably some date coming immediately, as in tomorrow.

    You want to know your options, and *this article* is more of an advanced article describing a historical view of the case law which has been achieved in the New York Southern and Eastern District Courts (in 2012), versus the 2017 cases in which Bryan DeMatteo is seeking to “undo” the achievements we have achieved in the fight against copyright trolling, and why things at the moment are in his favor based on the circumstances.

    To learn about the New York ME2 Productions lawsuits, read these cases in this order:

    1. “Just The Facts” — a short to-the-point article about the ME2 Productions, Inc. cases and what you can do about them,
    2. “An In-Depth FAQ about the ME2 Productions, Inc. cases” to understand everything you need to know about who is suing you,
    3. The article about your plaintiff attorney, Bryan N DeMatteo (read it to learn about the plaintiff, not the history of the second circuit), and
    4. The timeline of Anonymity in these bittorrent lawsuits — as a John Doe, you are still anonymous from the court (even though Bryan DeMatteo is sending you settlement demand letters).

    Then, if you need to speak to me or have questions:

    CLICK HERE FOR OUR “CONTACT US” PAGE.

    How is Bryan N DeMatteo trying to legitimize his ME2 Productions (Mechanic: Resurrection movie) cases?

    Earlier this morning, I wrote that “Bryan DeMatteo is facing an uphill battle to legitimize his “movie” bittorrent cases.”  In order to clarify what he is doing, please allow me to elaborate.  Bryan N DeMatteo is seeking to undo some of the progress we made in 2012 in the Digital Sin, Inc. cases.  Digital Sin, Inc. was a bittorrent-based copyright infringement set of lawsuits against internet users who went onto bittorrent websites such as The Pirate Bay and KickAssTorrents (“KAT”) to download adult films.  Because Bryan N DeMatteo’s cases deal with “movies” rather than “adult films,” it appears to me as if he is seeking to separate out movie companies (as legitimate) from the adult film companies (as illegitimate) who sued hundreds of downloaders for EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

    2012 Digital Sin New York Bittorrent Cases affecting Bryan DeMatteo and his 2017 New York ME2 Productions cases

    The difference between the 2012 Digital Sin, Inc. cases and the 2017 ME2 Productions, Inc. cases is that most defendants did NOT settle.

    The difference between the Digital Sin, Inc. and other adult film lawsuits that plagued the federal courts in 2012 and the 2017 “movie” lawsuits is that back then, most defendants did NOT pay settlements.  They either fought their cases, or they hired an attorney such as myself in what I referred to as an “ignore” route representation, where I would open up the line of communication between my client and the “copyright troll” attorney to convince that attorney that my client wasn’t the one who did the download (and thus would not be settling).

    With hundreds of potential defendants in one lawsuit (e.g., Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-240), this made it appear as if almost nobody was settling the claims against them.  New York judges viewed these cases with suspicion, and correctly diagnosed them with the inherent faults and flaws that even today’s bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases suffer from.  Namely, improper joinder, insufficient evidence to prove copyright infringement, etc.

    However, in the 2017 ME2 Productions, Inc. cases, a high percentage of defendants ARE settling the claims against them (even if they did not do the download).

    Today the cases no longer have 200+ defendants in each case (and in 2012, this was considered “small” because there were cases across the US that had 2,000+ John Doe Defendants filed in ONE lawsuit).  Today, cases average between 1-20 “John Doe” defendants.  Bryan N. DeMatteo lists the various defendants by their accused IP address, even though I remember seeing case law stating that “an IP address is not a person.“

    So, as far as I am concerned, Bryan DeMatteo is calling the ME2 Productions, Inc. John Doe Defendants by another name, but don’t be deceived, they are still John Doe Defendants and have the same legal status as an unnamed defendant with a “John Doe” placeholder.

    New York ME2 Productions settlement demand letters sent by Bryan DeMatteo
    JESHOOTS / Pixabay

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    The Consequence of More Defendants Settling Cases is Legitimacy Given to Movie Download Lawsuits, UNDOING our work in the 2012 Digital Sin, Inc. cases.

    The CONSEQUENCE of today’s smaller cases combined with the fact that plaintiff attorneys are happy to name and serve defendants is that the number of accused defendants who settle are higher (likely because “settlement factory” attorneys push defendants into settling when they should not settle).

    As a result, instead of having a small handful of defendants who settle in a large case with hundreds of defendants, the HIGHER PERCENTAGE of defendants settling the claims against them (just to avoid being dragged though discovery) makes it look to the federal judge like the plaintiff’s movie cases are valid when in fact they suffer from EXACTLY THE SAME DEFECTS as the 2012 Digital Sin, Inc. cases suffered from.

    In Summary, Bryan DeMatteo’s bittorrent lawsuits *will* succeed if there is a PERCEPTION by the court that he is succeeding.

    In sum, the 2012 Digital Sin, Inc. downloaders used bittorrent to download the adult films.  Similarly, the 2017 ME2 Productions, Inc. accused downloaders used Popcorn Time software or Showbox software [which uses bittorrent to stream the copyrighted movies to the viewers, often unbeknownst to the downloader].  Either way you look at it, the lawsuits from 2012 and 2017 are identical and should be subject to the same restrictions and new case law achieved in the Digital Sin, Inc. lawsuits.

    However, if there is a PERCEPTION by the New York Judges that a high percentage of defendants are settling the claims against them, then this will make them believe that Bryan DeMatteo has done something different from the previous defendants.  Namely, a higher settlement rate suggests that the DeMatteo has sued the right defendants.  This is an unacceptable outcome, but one which I believe we are looking at for the time being given the circumstances of bittorrent lawsuits in their current form.

    Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

    Who are the New York Southern & Eastern District Judges Presiding Over the ME2 Productions, Inc. Lawsuits?

    The New York District Judges presiding over the ME2 Productions, Inc. lawsuits include Judge Brian Cogan, Judge Carol Bagley Amon, Judge Denise Cote, Judge Edgardo Ramos, Judge Frederic Block, Judge Kiyo Matsumoto, Judge Louis Stanton, Judge Margo Brodie, and Judge Paul Gardephe.  If you search for most of their names (with the exception of Judge Ramos, who oversaw the Malibu Media, LLC lawsuits for my clients in 2012 — Jason Kotzker was the NY “copyright troll” attorney at the time, for those of you who have followed the blog over the years), almost NONE of the names will show up as having anything to do with the bittorrent cases.

    In short, so far, DeMatteo has gotten lucky (except for NYSD Judge Ramos re: Case No. 1:17-cv-02284, which I expect to be dismissed immediately after Bryan DeMatteo reads this article [you’re welcome]), as none of the federal judges were involved in the 2012 Digital Sin, Inc. case consolidations.  However, the results from the Digital Sin, Inc. case is “law” (or more accurately, “case law”), which is BINDING on even these federal judges when they adjudicate the ME2 Productions, Inc. lawsuits.

    CONTACT A NY LICENSED ATTORNEY:

    CLICK HERE FOR OUR “CONTACT US” PAGE.

    SCENARIO 1: IF YOU HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, COMMENT, OR NEED A QUICK RESPONSE:

    • SMS YOUR QUESTION: 713-364-3476
    • E-MAIL YOUR QUESTION: [email protected], OR
    • FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW.

      SCENARIO 2: IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT YOUR NEW YORK CASE AND YOUR OPTIONS, SET UP A PHONE CONSULTATION:


      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.

      New York ME2 Productions Cases filed by Bryan DeMatteo (NY)

      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. et al v. Doe-98.113.28.221 (Case No. 1:17-cv-02175)
      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-184.75.90.162 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02645)
      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-24.193.144.240 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01456)
      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.245.46.234 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03467)
      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.85.69.69 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05701)
      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-68.194.180.74 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00929)
      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-69.125.223.48 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01196)
      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.225.199.92 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02284)
      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.226.55.88 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01604)
      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-74.71.172.215 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01049)
      New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-98.14.173.58 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02717)

      NY Copyright Troll Bryan DeMatteo and His Split Court.

      by
      New York Bittorrent Cases with Bryan DeMatteo | ME2 NY, UN4 NY, Venice PI NY, Headhunter NY

      Bryan DeMatteo is the attorney suing John Doe Defendants in the 2017 bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits in New York.  These New York bittorrent lawsuits involve “copyright trolls” such as ME2 Productions, Inc. (NY) (a.k.a. the Mechanic: Resurrection movie lawsuits), UN4 Productions, Inc. (NY) (the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuits), Venice PI, LLC (NY) (the Once Upon a Time in Venice movie lawsuits), and more recently, Headhunter LLC (NY) (the “A Family Man” movie lawsuits).

      As a NY Licensed Attorney for 10 Years, My Thoughts on Bryan DeMatteo and His Lawsuits.

      Bryan DeMatteo runs DeMatteo Law, PLLC from the 5th Floor of 830 3rd Avenue in New York City (Midtown).  I have dealt with him before, and he is anything but an “empty shell” attorney that I poke fun at on this blog.  It was suggested that his cases are “just like any other bittorrent case” which is true as far as who his clients are, but Bryan fights his case differently from other plaintiff attorneys I have faced before.  In short, be careful when hiring counsel to oppose this attorney, because he separates apart his lawsuits into different kinds of copyright infringement, and any “settlement factory” attorney will be caught off guard by this.

      I became an attorney over ten years ago in New York, and I have been practicing law and representing New York clients for ten years.

      While our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC was formed in Texas in 2010, our law firm continues to represent New York clients.  [Why?  Because New York is where I was born, and where I grew up playing stickball on the streets of Brooklyn.  It is where I went to law school, and where I have all my roots as a New York licensed attorney.]

      Bryan DeMatteo and the New York “Movie” Bittorrent Lawsuits

      For the recent “movie” cases, Carl Crowell has an attorney who I have dealt with before — Bryan DeMatteo.

      Bryan DeMatteo (also a patent attorney) is now suing defendants in the US District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.  Bryan DeMatteo is suing for the same four copyright holders I have discussed before in other articles:

      Bryan DeMatteo Cases - A Family Man, Headhunter LLC | Mechanic: Resurrection ME2 Productions | Once Upon a Time in Venice, Venice PI | Boyka: Undisputed 4, UN4 Productions

      What do I need to know about New York Attorney Bryan DeMatteo?

      In representing a New York client, there are a few things to understand about Bryan N. DeMatteo of DeMatteo Law, PLLC:

      1) Be sure to understand the innuendos of bittorrent technology.  He does.

      Bryan DeMatteo believes in the validity of these bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits, which separates him from what I refer to as the “empty shell” local counsel plaintiff attorneys who I have seen read scripts provided to them by their copyright holder clients. In speaking to him (obviously it is best to have an attorney speak to him on your behalf), be sure you understand the innuendos of bittorrent technology, because he does. Show your incompetence, and he’ll likely plow right over your ignorance.

      2) Bryan DeMatteo is on a mission to rectify a split in the NY Southern District Court.

      Second. Bryan DeMatteo is faced with a SPLIT IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT which he is fighting an uphill battle to rectify.

      This split happened in 2012, when our law firm (Cashman Law Firm, PLLC) was representing clients against Mike Meier (the plaintiff attorney at the time) in the Digital Sin[s] v. John Does 1-234 (Case No. 1:11-cv-08170) case.  This case [into which all other NY bittorrent cases were combined] caused the controversy Bryan DeMatteo is looking to rectify.

      Digital Sin New York Bittorrent Cases affecting Bryan DeMatteo
      Remember the Digital Sin, Inc. (NY) cases from 2012?

      While the details of the split are not relevant, in 2012, many things happened.

      1) We were successful in having the judges consolidate and freeze all of the smaller bittorrent cases in New York into one case.

      See:
      2012 Article #1, “New York Judge consolidates and freezes SMALLER BITTORRENT CASES for plaintiff attorney.“
      2012 Article #2, “More of Mike Meier NY bittorrent cases consolidated.“
      2012 Article #3, “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED? New York’s split Southern District Court“

      2) Because the New York bittorrent cases were facing joinder problems (which the judges recognized as a valid problem in most of the New York bittorrent cases at the time), the John Doe Defendants in the New York bittorrent cases were severed and dismissed.

      However, as a response to the dismissal, the plaintiff attorney would turn around and sue those same defendants as new John Doe Defendants in a second bittorrent case.  This angered the judges.

      “Lest plaintiff’s counsel think he can simply put cases against the severed and dismissed John Doe defendants into the wheel for assignment to yet another judge, I remind him of Local Civil Rule 1.6(a) [which requires the plaintiff attorney to bring the existence of potentially related cases to the attention of the Court].”

      In sum, we were successful in forcing the plaintiff attorney to disclose whether these John Does were sued before, and in which cases they were sued.

      3) Judges suggested that the New York plaintiff attorney pay 244 filing fees for 244 defendants x $350 each, rather than allowing him to pay one $350 fee [the fee in 2012 to file a lawsuit] to sue them all.

      “They are dismissed because the plaintiff has not paid the filing fee that is statutorily required to bring these 244 separate lawsuits.” (p.4)

      This would have amounted to $85,400 in filing fees if Digital Sin, Inc. wanted to go after the dismissed defendants from this case.

      Needless to say, every one of our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC clients in the case were dismissed, and they were never filed against again. Since then, the three-year statute of limitations has run, and the plaintiff has lost the opportunity to sue my clients. Congratulations once again on hard earned, good results.

      Jump to 2017, Effects of 2012 on Bryan DeMatteo's NY Bittorrent Cases
      geralt / Pixabay

      Since 2012, FIVE YEARS have passed, and now we have Bryan DeMatteo to contend with.

      To bring you up to speed, it has been five (5) years since the Southern District of New York fiasco happened. While the rulings happened to Mike Meier and his Digital Sin, Inc. client, the “law” created by these cases is still binding on Bryan DeMatteo, and his New York ME2 Productions, Inc., New York UN4 Productions, Inc., New York Venice PI, LLC and New York Headhunter LLC lawsuits. He knows this, and thus his job in proving the validity of his cases is a complicated job.

      In Sum: Unintended Consequences from 2012 => Bryan DeMatteo.

      Unfortunately, as exciting as was was when our New York Southern District Court went “belly-up” for copyright trolls, the unintended consequence of our activities from five years ago is that now we have Bryan DeMatteo who has taken on these cases with “something to prove.”

      In sum, New York bittorrent lawsuits are not a place for the weak minded, nor are they a place for someone not intricately familiar with the innuendos of copyright infringement. For cases against Bryan DeMatteo, it is best to have someone who knows the New York courts, who knows many of the New York federal judges, and who has had experience in fighting bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases in New York. Obviously I am one of them, and I have been fighting these cases since they were first filed in 2010.

      I want to point out that as a result of this case (and other events that surrounded this case), Mike Meier is no longer filing bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits in New York, and until recently (as Sophisticated Jane Doe properly put it), “Trolls are not welcome in the Southern District of New York anymore.“

      CONTACT A NY LICENSED ATTORNEY:

      CLICK HERE FOR OUR “CONTACT US” PAGE.

      SCENARIO 1: IF YOU HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, COMMENT, OR NEED A QUICK RESPONSE:

      • SMS YOUR QUESTION: 713-364-3476
      • E-MAIL YOUR QUESTION: [email protected], OR
      • FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW.

        SCENARIO 2: IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT YOUR NEW YORK CASE AND YOUR OPTIONS, SET UP A PHONE CONSULTATION:


        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.

        Bryan DeMatteo New York Southern & Eastern District Cases:

        New York ME2 Productions Cases filed by Bryan DeMatteo (NY)

        New York ME2 Productions, Inc. et al v. Doe-98.113.28.221 (Case No. 1:17-cv-02175)
        New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-184.75.90.162 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02645)
        New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-24.193.144.240 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01456)
        New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.245.46.234 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03467)
        New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.85.69.69 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05701)
        New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-68.194.180.74 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00929)
        New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-69.125.223.48 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01196)
        New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.225.199.92 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02284)
        New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.226.55.88 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01604)
        New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-74.71.172.215 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01049)
        New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-98.14.173.58 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02717)

        New York Headhunter LLC Cases filed by Bryan DeMatteo (NY)

        New York Headhunter LLC v. Doe-173.56.227.169 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05314)
        New York Headhunter LLC v. Doe-69.124.0.132 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04155)
        New York Headhunter LLC v. Doe-72.80.132.46 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05895)

        New York UN4 Productions Cases filed by Bryan DeMatteo (NY)

        New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-108.29.50.167 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03698)
        New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-173.68.177.95 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03278)
        New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-184.152.88.112 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04817)
        New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.243.172.121 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03621)
        New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.89.251.15 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04400)
        New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-74.88.64.129 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04887)

        New York Venice PI Cases filed by Bryan DeMatteo (NY):

        New York Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-24.187.92.79 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04904)
        New York Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-24.44.143.124 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04249)
        New York Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-66.108.113.178 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05594)
        New York Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-68.173.101.58 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04076)

        BitTorrent Lawsuit Trends – ME2, Venice PI, UN4, Headhunter (8/2017)

        by
        malibu-media-anonymous-settlement

        While we are far from the end of August, we have seen a significant shift in the filing trends of the ME2 Productions movie lawsuits, a continuing trend in the UN4 Productions movie lawsuits, growth in the Headhunter LLC movie lawsuits, and an expansion of the Venice PI LLC movie lawsuits.  This shift in filing trends is the subject of this NEW BITTORRENT CASE FILINGS UPDATE (8/2017). We also have seen the birth of a new baby copyright troll with just 2 cases in Oregon, “POW Nevada, LLC.”

        NOTE: “POW” Nevada, LLC stands for “Prisoner of War,” and the movie they are suing for is called “Revolt (2017), a.k.a. Prisoner of War.” I saw the trailer for this movie, and while I am less than enthusiastic about the prisoner of war alternative title, all I could say is, “Killer Robot steel tentacles — I’m in!”

        pow-nevada-revolt-trailer-screenshot
        Yes, those are killer robot tentacles being launched at the soldier’s face.

        Are the bittorrent cases coming to an end?

        Obviously, it would be wishful thinking to think that we have won the war, and what is that war? Piracy is illegal and it hurts the content producers. However, the solution to piracy is not filing federal copyright infringement lawsuits alleging statutory damages of $150,000 against each and every accused downloader, regardless of whether they did the download or not. And, the solution to piracy is not to force hundreds of families (987 families were sued by the copyright troll lawyers last year) to choose between two bad choices — either empty their savings to pay a multi-thousand dollar settlement or hire an attorney (which also costs money) to stop the plaintiff attorney from coming after the accused defendants.

        Bad Defense Litigation Attorneys

        Defense attorneys who understand federal practice happily take clients who are accused of copyright infringement. They have read articles I or others have written, and they have read Prof. Matthew Sag’s “Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling” paper, which explains that even if the accused John Doe Defendant actually did the download (or, viewed the movie illegally using Popcorn Time software), they actually cannot prove that copyright infringement happened.

        They will then tell their potential clients that “copyright law” gives the winner of the lawsuit all of their attorney fees (which is true in theory, but not in practice). In other words, “pay me $300/hour for the next 100 hours of work, and WHEN YOU WIN, you’ll get all that money back from the criminal copyright trolls who deserve everything that comes to them.” However, what they do not tell you is that attorney fees only get awarded to the party who “wins” the case when it is dismissed by a judge or a jury because they find that based on the evidence, no copyright infringement occurred. In other words, the legal speak for this is that attorney fee awards for copyright infringement lawsuits are only awarded “to the prevailing party who prevails ON THE MERITS.”

        These defense attorneys are WELL AWARE that the copyright troll plaintiff attorneys are under instructions to dismiss an innocent defendant after discovery, but before the defense attorney files a summary judgement motion (the first place a judgement “on the merits” can happen).

        Essentially, a summary judgement motion tells the court,

        “Dear Judge, the plaintiff attorney has searched my client’s computer. He has asked my client questions under oath. He has conducted a video recording of my client answering his questions. With all this, he cannot prove the elements of copyright infringement, so please dismiss the case.”

        Again, a plaintiff attorney will dismiss a defendant BEFORE the summary judgement is filed, which means that the defendant will LOSE all the tens of thousands of dollars he paid in attorney fees TO HIS OWN LAWYER!

        Bad Settlement Factory Attorneys

        I have already covered the topic of “bad settlement factory attorneys” here, and here (and here).

        [Essentially, settlement factories pretend that they do not only settle clients, but every client interview leads to the answer of “you should settle,” or, “wait to see if they come after you and send you a settlement demand letter, then settle,” or some variation thereof.

        If you retain a settlement factory attorney, you will be paying less for your attorney, but you do not get the value for the amount you are paying. Why? Because 1) the physical amount of time they actually spend on your settlement versus the amount of money you pay gives them a $500+/hour hidden rate because they actually do not negotiate your settlement price. As a result, the amount you end up paying ends up being significantly higher than if you just hired an attorney (me or anyone else) to negotiate a settlement to right way, without cutting any corners. Oh, and the settlement factories will provide you merely a boilerplate settlement agreement (which has you admit guilt, and which potentially opens you up to future lawsuits).

        As a result of my articles exposing their methods, these settlement factories have altered their scripts claiming that they do actually negotiate each settlement price, and that they actually do negotiate the settlement agreements, but this is a marketing trick. They don’t, I’ve seen the agreements.]

        So why is it relevant that there have only been six (6) cases filed so far this month?

        I am writing this article on 8/8/2017, so we are only eight days into the month. However, one of the strengths of our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC is that we pay attention to:

        • which plaintiff attorneys are suing for copyright infringement on behalf of which movie production studios,
        • what the proclivities of each plaintiff attorney are (do they name and serve defendants, do they drag them through discovery before dismissing, or can we quickly negotiate a dismissal for an innocent client without paying a settlement),
        • what the mood of the federal court is where the lawsuits are filed (copyright trolls choose where to sue based on where they believe they will find “copyright troll friendly” judges) [this is called forum selection for those of you who are interested], and
        • whether the underlying movie company is willing to pay their attorney to name and serve clients and “drag them through the mud” before dismissing, or whether it is cost efficient, meaning, they pay attention to the bottom line.

        Why I just spent an entire paragraph listing our law firm’s strengths is to share that when there is a change in a trend, we notice, and there has been a change in the trend.

        So are copyright troll lawsuits dead?

        Unfortunately, no, they are simply pacing themselves. Since we discovered in March 2017 the underlying “common copyright troll” link between each and every movie lawsuit filed in federal courts across the US, we have been watching which movie company sues, where, and how often. That way, when a “bittorrent lawsuit campaign” is coming to an end, we see this trend and cut off all funding, even for defendants who may have otherwise settled the claims against them. This might anger and provoke the plaintiff attorneys who diligently read my blog (“hello y’all”), but the simple matter is that I do not take every client who calls my office unlike other firms, and if I sense a campaign is over, I’ll tell them to avoid even my fees and just watch the case and wait for a dismissal. I’ll even teach them how to do it themselves, and I don’t charge them for this.

        What trends have we spotted for August, 2017?

        Now to the meat of the article. 🙂 Data described here includes ALL FILINGS across the US for July 1, 2017 – August 8, 2017.

        ME2 PRODUCTIONS (MECHANIC:RESURRECTION) MOVIE LAWSUITS

        ME2 Productions, Inc. cases are coming to an end, or at least that is how it appears. There have been four (4) cases filed in four courts (Washington, Colorado, Hawaii, and New York). *That is ONE lawsuit per state,* a mere “drip” compared to the volume of cases they have filed in recent months.

        ME2 Productions Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-01077) (Washington Western District Court)
        ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. Case No. 1:17-cv-01810) (Colorado District Court)
        ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1; et al. (Case No. Case No. 1:17-cv-00320) (Hawaii District Court)
        ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.85.69.69 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05701) (New York Southern District Court)

        UN4 PRODUCTIONS (BOYKA: UNDISPUTED 4) MOVIE LAWSUITS

        The UN4 Productions ISP subpoena cases appear to be in the middle of their campaign. Cases are still being filed (predominantly in the Illinois Northern District Court), but there has also been a splattering of cases filed in Washington, Colorado, Hawaii, New York, and Texas [Texas is actually a new story, as having these cases expand into Texas with Gary Fischman as the plaintiff attorney is a new trend]). Aside from the Texas filings, you’ll notice the list of federal courts matches exactly with the list of courts where the ME2 Productions, Inc. cases are filed.

        Expect to see more UN4 Productions, Inc. cases filed, as this lawsuit appears to be targeting “ethnic” defendants with “deeper pockets.” These include Arabic speaking defendants, French speaking defendants, and Spanish speaking defendants.

        UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. Case No. 1:17-cv-01689) (Colorado District Court)
        UN4 Productions, Inc. v. DOE Defendants 1-20 (Case No. Case No. 1:17-cv-00331) (Hawaii District Court)
        UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.89.251.15 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04400) (New York Eastern District Court)
        UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-16 (Case No. Case No. 4:17-cv-02115) (Texas Southern District Court)
        UN4 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-17 (Case No. Case No. 1:17-cv-05563) (Illinois Northern District Court)
        UN4 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-19 (Case No. Case No. 1:17-cv-05561) (Illinois Northern District Court)
        UN4 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-26 (Case No. Case No. 1:17-cv-05565) (Illinois Northern District Court)
        UN4 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-31 (Case No. Case No. 1:17-cv-05567) (Illinois Northern District Court)
        UN4 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-35 (Case No. Case No. 1:17-cv-05569) (Illinois Northern District Court)

        HEADHUNTER LLC (“A FAMILY MAN”) MOVIE LAWSUITS

        The Headhunter movie lawsuit campaign is still in its infancy. Only appearing on the scene recently, most of their cases are also young and in their infancy. This means that even though cases have already been filed across the US, federal judges have not yet approved the plaintiffs’ requests to send subpoenas to the ISPs of accused defendants to unmask their identities. Thus, many of those who have been accused of being John Doe defendants do not even know they have been implicated in their lawsuits.

        Headhunter LLC lawsuits in sum have already “dropped their seeds,” and now while they wait for those filings to sprout and ensnare hundreds of families across the US for the “A Family Man” movie (irony), Headhunder, LLC is expanding the scope and bredth of their filings, and they are filing in liberal states (Texas is very conservative as a rule, but the city of Houston, and the various nerve centers are all liberal — that way they can vote Republican in every federal election, but they vote Democrat in-state to provide services to Texas citizens). I have not figured out the relevance of their choosing this demographic to sue for the “A Family Man” movie, but as these cases mature, I’ll begin to see the trends as they unfold.

        Headhunter LLC v. Doe-173.56.227.169 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05314) (New York Southern District Court)
        Headhunter LLC v. Doe-69.124.0.132 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04155) (New York Eastern District Court)
        Headhunter LLC v. Doe-72.80.132.46 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05895) (New York Southern District Court)
        Headhunter, LLC v. Doe-73.191.98.246 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00793) (Virginia Eastern District Court)
        Headhunter, LLC v. Does 1-17 (Case No. Case No. 4:17-cv-02352) (Texas Southern District Court)
        Headhunter, LLC v. Does 1-9 (Case No. Case No. 5:17-cv-00069) (Virginia Western District Court)
        HEADHUNTER, LLC v. JOHN DOES 1-10 (Case No. Case No. 2:17-cv-02985) (Pennsylvania Eastern District Court)
        HEADHUNTER, LLC v. JOHN DOES 1-11 (Case No. Case No. 2:17-cv-02986) (Pennsylvania Eastern District Court)

        Stay tuned; there will be many more of these lawsuits.

        VENICE PI (“ONCE UPON A TIME IN VENICE”) MOVIE LAWSUITS

        I wonder if Bruce Willis knew when he took this role that in addition to the “Once Upon a Time in Venice” movie destroying his reputation, it would also spawn a slew of copyright infringement lawsuits which destroy the lives of hundreds of families across the US. Venice PI movie lawsuits are in FULL SWING and are being accelerated and expanded across the US. This simply means that the Venice PI copyright holder is happy with the initial results of early lawsuits, and they are investing significantly more money into the enforcement of their copyright rights.

        What this means for you if you are a defendant in this lawsuit is that the plaintiff attorneys across the US are likely funded and able to spend large amounts of time and hours going after the many defendants for Venice PI, LLC cases. This means that they will likely name and serve defendants who do not settle, and they will drag innocent defendants into and through discovery before dismissing them. Contrast this to a cost conscious copyright holder who wants to spend as little as possible on their copyright trolling campaign — defendants from the cost conscious copyright holders will be dismissed outright and any naming and serving of defendants will be for “face saving” purposes only (e.g., to fool the federal judges into thinking that these copyright holder plaintiffs are “serious” about proceeding against those downloaders who actually downloaded the film).

        This copyright holder will likely be a problem for accused defendants.

        Because there are so many new defendants implicated by Venice PI, LLC, I am sorting the lawsuits by state so that it is easier to see how many families will be affected by these lawsuits.

        Venice PI ISP Subpoena cases recently filed in the Colorado District Court (5)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. Case No. 1:17-cv-01664)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. Case No. 1:17-cv-01787)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. Case No. 1:17-cv-01861)
        VENICE PI, LLC v. John Does 1 – 15 (Case No. Case No. 1:17-cv-01870)
        Venice PI, LLC. v. John Doe 1 et al (Case No. Case No. 1:17-cv-01850)

        Venice PI ISP Subpoena cases recently filed in the Indiana Northern District Court (4)
        (NOTE: I was just there a few weeks ago.)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. Case No. 2:17-cv-00284)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. Case No. 2:17-cv-00285)
        VENICE PI, LLC v. DOE 1 et al (Case No. Case No. 1:17-cv-02274)
        VENICE PI, LLC v. DOE 1 et al (Case No. Case No. 1:17-cv-02328)

        Venice PI ISP Subpoena cases recently filed in the New York Southern and Eastern District Courts (3)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-24.44.143.124 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04249)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-68.173.101.58 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04076)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-66.108.113.178 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05594)

        Venice PI ISP Subpoena cases recently filed in the North Carolina District Courts (11)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. Case No. 5:17-cv-00337)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. Case No. 5:17-cv-00339)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. Case No. 5:17-cv-00340)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-11 (Case No. Case No. 5:17-cv-00334)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-12 (Case No. Case No. 5:17-cv-00333)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-14 (Case No. Case No. 5:17-cv-00367)
        VENICE PI, LLC v. DOES 1-10 (Case No. Case No. 1:17-cv-00671)
        VENICE PI, LLC v. DOES 1-10 (Case No. Case No. 1:17-cv-00676)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-10 (Case No. Case No. 3:17-cv-00409)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-10 (Case No. Case No. 3:17-cv-00445)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-11 (Case No. Case No. 5:17-cv-00128)

        Venice PI ISP Subpoena cases recently filed in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court (5)
        VENICE PI, LLC v. JOHN DOES 1-10 (Case No. Case No. 2:17-cv-03322)
        VENICE PI, LLC v. JOHN DOES 1-11 (Case No. Case No. 2:17-cv-03324)
        VENICE PI, LLC v. JOHN DOES 1-14 (Case No. 2:17-cv-03325)
        VENICE PI, LLC v. JOHN DOES 1-7 (Case No. Case No. 2:17-cv-03323)
        VENICE PI, LLC v. JOHN DOES 1-8 (Case No. Case No. 2:17-cv-03326)

        Venice PI ISP Subpoena cases recently filed in the Texas Southern District Court (4)
        (NOTE: I wrote about these cases here.)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-10 (Case No. Case No. 4:17-cv-02285)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-13 (Case No. Case No. 4:17-cv-02395)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-16 (Case No. Case No. 4:17-cv-02203)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-16 (Case No. Case No. 4:17-cv-02244)

        Venice PI ISP Subpoena cases recently filed in the Washington Western District Court (6)
        Venice PI LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. Case No. 2:17-cv-01074)
        Venice PI LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. Case No. 2:17-cv-01075)
        Venice PI LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. Case No. 2:17-cv-01076)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. Case No. 2:17-cv-01160)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. Case No. 2:17-cv-01163)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. Case No. 2:17-cv-01164)

        Venice PI ISP Subpoena case recently filed in the Hawaii District Court (1)
        Venice PI, LLC v. Doe 1; et al. (Case No. Case No. 1:17-cv-00335), and

        Venice PI ISP Subpoena case recently filed in the Virginia Western District Court (1)
        Venice PI, LLC v. DOES 1-15 (Case No. Case No. 5:17-cv-00070)

        THE ANOMALY: POW NEVADA, LLC (REVOLT)

        If I called Headhunter, LLC movie lawsuits an “infant,” then POW Nevada, LLC would be a newborn. POW Nevada is suing downloaders for the sci-fi movie “Revolt.” The movie trailer for this film looks intense. While this movie has not yet appeared on Carl Crowell’s RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT (RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.COM) list of clients, he is indeed the plaintiff attorney for these lawsuits. Thus, once again, this appears to be a “common copyright troll” lawsuit scenario. There are only two test cases currently filed against two defendants, so let’s see what happens with this copyright holder. If the copyright holder’s lawsuits start metastasizing into federal courts across the US, I’ll pay more attention to this one. For now, it’s a newborn and there are only two defendants.

        POW Nevada ISP Subpoena test cases filed in the Oregon District Court (2)
        POW Nevada v. Doe-73.157.238.5 (3:17-cv-01134)
        POW Nevada, LLC v. Doe-76.27.245.245 (3:17-cv-01133)

        POW Nevada LLC | Prisoner-of_War-Revolt-Image Croped

        In Summary

        I would hate to end with a whimper rather than a bang, but really, the answer is that there are movie lawsuit campaigns — each one has its beginning, its peak, and its end.

        As you can see, the ME2 Productions, Inc. cases have had their run. Now in full swing are the UN4 Productions cases, the Venice PI cases, and the Headhunter LLC cases. I.T. Productions (the “I.T”. Movie Lawsuits) didn’t go anywhere, and Cook Productions (the “Mr. Church” movie lawsuits) might still be around, although I never sensed much unity of purpose across the various federal courts from these cases.

        As far as number of cases filed, this month in August, it appears as if the movie lawsuits are taking a breather. There is definitely a slowdown, perhaps because the college kids are on summer break, and the real lawsuits will start being filed after they return to college. On average, these movie copyright trolls file around 40 cases each month, with occasional spikes of 100+ cases in a “high season,” and 200+ cases filed in the spring.

        Utah ME2 subpoenas are coming due again (7/14).

        by
        UT ME2 Subpoena | Utah ME2 lawsuit subpoenas due

        Utah ME2 Subpoena-based Cases

        In March, 2017, our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC had its first interactions with the Utah ME2 subpoenas.  We created a ME2 Productions FAQ page which addressed the UT ME2 subpoenas.  The ‘copyright troll’ attorney who filed the UT ME2 cases is Todd Zenger (“Todd E. Zenger”), and he works for Kirton McConkie in Salt Lake City, Utah. Any e-mails coming from “[email protected],” or calls from his “801-328-3600” phone number (or any 801-328-XXXX phone number should cause you to be wary that you have a UT ME2 copyright troll trying to scare you into settling with him for thousands of dollars.

        UT ME2 Productions | Utah ME2 subpoena lawsuits
        Screenshot from Carl Crowell’s RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com website, with Mechanic:Resurrection outlined.

        UT ME2 Subpoena Cases – Wave 1 (March, 2017)

        We wrote about our first impressions of Todd Zenger and the Utah ME2 cases here:

        “UTAH ME2 SUBPOENAS FROM CENTURYLINK ARE COMING DUE,” written on April 24th, 2017.

        We also directed those accused of being a John Doe Defendant in any of the UT ME2 cases to read the ME2 Productions Subpoena FAQ, which we posted on our law firm’s website.

        UT ME2 Subpoena Cases – Wave 2 (July, 2017)

        The second wave of cases are now upon us.  All filed in June, 2017, Todd Zenger followed the instructions of the common troll entity (which I understand licenses the rights from movie production companies to “enforce” the copyrights for that company), and filed the second wave of lawsuits in June, 2017.  Utah federal judges rubber-stamped these new lawsuits, just as they did the first set of them.

        Todd Zenger sent subpoenas to CenturyLink subscribers (just as he did with the first wave of cases), and CenturyLink subpoena notices were sent to the ISP’s subscribers who were implicated in the UT ME2 lawsuits.

        UT ME2 SUBPOENAS DUE TOMORROW

        *These second wave of UT ME2 subpoenas ALL appear to be DUE TOMORROW, 7/14.*

        This means that unless an accused defendant wishes to file a motion to quash the subpoena, CenturyLink is under a duty to hand over the names of the subscribers accused of being John Doe Defendants in these Utah ME2 cases.

        However, it must be noted that the 7/14 deadline is merely the deadline that CenturyLink has given their subscribers.  Chances are that they will provide the names of the subscribers implicated in the Utah ME2 subpoenas at some future date (as listed on the subpoena itself).

        To see the actual deadline by when your CenturyLink ISP must hand out your information to the UT ME2 attorney, check the subpoena itself included in the packet you received from your ISP.

        RESOURCES:

        “EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN ONE PAGE ABOUT YOUR ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. “MECHANIC:RESURRECTION” LAWSUIT AND ISP SUBPOENA (FAQ).“

        “ME2 UTAH SUBPOENAS FROM CENTURYLINK ARE COMING DUE,” written on April 24th, 2017.

        What are your options in defending or resolving claims in a ME2 Utah-based case?

        If you have read this far, you are likely one of the John Doe Defendants in this case, and thus here are your options on how our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC (or any other competent copyright litigation attorney) can help you in this case.

        OPTION 1: FIGHT

        In this option, your attorney would fight this case on your behalf. Since the ME2 scam has been exposed, the inherent weaknesses in Todd Zenger’s case are now well known. This option is more expensive than the other options, but it is probably the most satisfying option when you win and ask for attorney fees from ME2 Productions.

        OPTION 2: SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

        Settlement negotiations does not mean that you downloaded the movie or that you are guilty of copyright infringement. Rather, it simply means that you want to pay to have the plaintiff attorney dismiss you from the lawsuit. This option can be used by both ‘guilty’ and ‘innocent’ defendants. While I do not recommend an innocent defendant pay ANYTHING to settle the claims against him, I do not judge defendants when they choose this option.

        OPTION 3: “NO SETTLEMENT REPRESENTATION”

        This is the discounted “no settlement” representation route that I discussed here. In the span of 2-3 hours, I would consult with the client, send over a letter of representation to the plaintiff attorney (to stop him from contacting the client directly). I would then draft a letter to the plaintiff explaining that my client did not do the download, and that we are not interested in anything other than a walkaway settlement, meaning that my client pays no settlement. The purpose of this representation is to put Todd Zenger on notice that my client is not the infringer he is looking for.

        OPTION 4: “IGNORE” ROUTE REPRESENTATION

        The ignore route is best described as ‘playing chicken.’ I best described the “ignore” route, and how it differs from the “no settlement representation” route here. The assumption with the “ignore” route is that Todd Zenger is not yet naming and serving defendants in this case, so you would hire our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC to monitor the case for you. We would send over a letter of representation indicating that we are representing you in the case, but we would not engage in settlement negotiations.

        The intended client for the ‘ignore’ route is the innocent client that wishes to have a more ‘hands on’ engagement with their case over the “no settlement” representation letter route, where their attorney is actively monitoring the case and having active discussions with the plaintiff attorney. Both ‘guilty’ and ‘non-guilty’ defendants can utilize the “ignore” route, as this option is adjustable based on the circumstances of the client. If Todd Zenger decides to start naming and serving defendants, a ‘guilty’ client would likely have me open up settlement negotiations on his behalf, whereas a non-guilty client would instruct me to not settle and adhere to the ‘ignore’ strategy. Obviously getting named and served while in this strategy would be cause to decide whether to shift strategies to the “fight” or “settle” strategy, which is fine.

        OPTION 5: ARGUE “MINIMUM STATUTORY DAMAGES” REPRESENTATION

        I discussed the “argue minimum statutory damages” representation option last night in this article. The purpose of this option is to take the settlement negotiations away from a misbehaving plaintiff attorney. Instead of negotiating a settlement (where the plaintiff is asking for too much money), we would file an answer with the court admitting infringement, and we would then make the case for the judge to award minimum statutory damages of $750.

        The intended client for the “minimum statutory damages” representation route is a client who did the download and either does not want to go through settlement negotiations, or who wants to take settlement negotiations out of the hands of the plaintiff attorney / copyright troll and leave the damages up to the judge to decide. Obviously since we are admitting guilt in this option, it is appropriate for the client to have done the download to use this strategy.

        However you decide to proceed, if I can be of assistance or answer any questions about your ME2 Utah case, please let me know.

        LIST OF RECENT “WAVE 2” UTAH ME2 CENTURYLINK SUBPOENA LAWSUITS

        Below is the list of UT ME2 lawsuits filed between 6/5-6/21:

        ME2 Productions v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00526)
        ME2 Productions v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00525)
        ME2 Productions v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00523)
        ME2 Productions v. Does 1-29 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00547)
        ME2 Productions v. Does 1-27 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00576)
        ME2 Productions v. Does 1-27 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00625)
        ME2 Productions v. Does 1-36 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00624)
        ME2 Productions v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00626)
        ME2 Productions v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00662)
        ME2 Productions v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00663)
        ME2 Productions v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00664)

        —
        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.