NY Copyright Troll Bryan DeMatteo and His Split Court.

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)

    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.

    How to handle Gary Fischman and his new TX movie lawsuits.

    Gary Fischman UN4, Venice PI, Headhunter LLC TXSD Lawsuits by Gary Fischman

    Venice PI & Headhunter lawsuits come to Texas.

    Literally one month ago, I wrote about the appearance of the UN4 Productions lawsuits suing accused downloaders of the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie in Texas.  Apparently, Gary Fischman, the plaintiff attorney for the various RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT (RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.COM) subpoena based movie infringement lawsuits has earned the right to sue now for the Venice PI, LLC and Headhunter, LLC movie production companies.

    Which movies are affiliated with these Texas lawsuits:

    venice-pi-subpoena-once-upon-a-time-in-venice-movie-lawsuit Venice PI
    Venice PI, LLC (“Once Upon a Time in Venice”) movie lawsuits

    Headhunter, LLC is suing for the unlawful download of “A Family Man” movie (not to be confused with Nicholas Cage’s “Family Man” movie from a number of years ago.). Gary Fischman is their local counsel in Texas for these lawsuits.

    Headhunter LLC ("A Family Man") movie lawsuits
    Headhunter LLC (“A Family Man”) movie lawsuits

    UN4 Productions, Inc. is suing for the unlawful download of the “Boyka: Undisputed 4” movie. Gary Fischman is their local counsel in Texas for these lawsuits as well.

    UN4 Productions Boyka: Undisputed 4
    UN4 Productions (“Boyka: Undisputed 4”) movie lawsuits

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

    List of Texas cases filed by Gary Fischman in the last month:

    HEADHUNTER (17 “JOHN DOE” TEXAS DEFENDANTS):
    Headhunter, LLC v. Does 1-17 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02352)

    UN4 PRODUCTIONS (51 “JOHN DOE” TEXAS DEFENDANTS)
    UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 4:17-cv-01685)
    UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01834)
    UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02115)

    VENICE PI (55 “JOHN DOE” TEXAS DEFENDANTS)
    Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02285)
    Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02395)
    Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02203)
    Venice PI, LLC v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02244)

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

    WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR LAWSUIT:

    To those 120+ Defendants who are implicated by Gary Fischman as “John Doe” defendants in this lawsuit: Understand that the Texas federal judges will likely allow Gary Fischman to send a subpoena to the Comcast & AT&T ISPs to obtain the identities of those accused of downloading the various movies.

    1) Read the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about your particular lawsuit.

    First, read about your particular movie lawsuit (see FAQs on the lawsuits here):

    NOTE: Do not be fooled — each of these movies have become lawsuits because of Carl Crowell and his “common trollRIGHTS ENFORCEMENT (RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.COM) entity, of which Gary Fischman appears to be his Texas local counsel.  We understand that Crowell (or one of his attorneys) have contacted each of the movie production companies and have secured a license to sue for copyright infringement on their behalf.  Thus, the various FAQ pages will be similar, because it is the same entity that is behind the scenes of each of these movie lawsuits. (In Texas, they will all be filed by Gary Fischman.)

    2) Learn about what an “objection with the court” or a “motion to quash” is, and whether you want to file one.

    The letters from the ISPs will tell you that you have 30 days to file an objection with the court (which is referring to a motion to quash) before they are forced to hand over your information to Gary Fischman.

    Do not get trapped in an emotional rush to file a “motion to quash” just because you learned that a motion to quash filing could stop your ISP from being required to hand over your information to the plaintiff (such a filing has actually been UNSUCCESSFUL, read why).

    NOTE: The link I provided you above is from an article I wrote in *2010*, and now we are in 2017.  This should give us some credibility, if we did not already have some in your eyes that we have an idea of what is going on in these cases.  

    The motion to quash issue was figured out by us attorneys SEVEN YEARS AGO, and yet there are still new law school graduates and other attorneys who still try to sell “motion to quash” packages, claiming they will “expose the fraud” of these cases for the same amount of money you could have settled for and guaranteed an exit from the lawsuit.

    Just to be clear, a settlement is NOT the least expensive option in handling cases such as these.  And, a motion to quash is NOT THE PLACE TO FIGHT YOUR LAWSUIT, and judges will get upset if you misuse this tool.  

    A motion to quash is a tool to determine 1) whether the subpoena is valid, and 2) whether the federal court has PERSONAL JURISDICTION over the accused defendant.

    Read about motions to quash here, understand the likely response if you file a motion to quash, and understand the likely question a federal judge will ask if you file a motion to quash.

    [For those of you who do not want to switch to another article: the short answer is that a motion to quash is a good tool to stop the ISP from handing out your information if the federal court does not have PERSONAL JURISDICTION over you (e.g., if you live in one state, but are sued in another state)].

    However, if you (an unnamed “John Doe” defendant) file a motion to quash, understand that the likely response from the plaintiff attorney is to oppose your motion to quash. This is what you will find with Gary Fischman’s responses in Texas.

    Gary Fischman (or, whoever the plaintiff attorney is for whatever state your case is filed in) will likely state that you do not have STANDING to file the motion to quash because you are not a named defendant in this case.

    [Plus, the subpoena was not issued to you, but to your ISP, and thus you are not a recipient of this subpoena, and it should be the ISP who should file the motion to quash, not you.]  

    In short, don’t jump into a motion to quash frenzy just because you learn that the legal mechanism to stop a subpoena recipient from complying with the subpoena is called a motion to quash. Attorneys such as Gary Fischman are expecting this response; don’t fall into his trap.

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

    3) Learn about anonymity – how long you remain anonymous after receiving the subpoena from the ISP, and at what point your anonymity ends.

    Second. Be aware of your anonymity, and use it to your advantage.

    Understand each stage of the lawsuit, and know at what point you lose that anonymity. The reason this is relevant to you is because there is a finite amount of time in which you remain a “John Doe” defendant.

    After the ISP hands over your information, in Texas, Gary Fischman will learn who you are, but your information is in no way made public. Further, your involvement as a potential defendant in your lawsuit will not made public until you are named and served as a defendant.

    This is relevant because during this time, you can hire an attorney to converse with the plaintiff attorney on your behalf, and everything is done anonymously, meaning that your contact information never shows up on the court’s docket, on your record, in Google searches, or anywhere else.

    Anonymity is relevant because once you lose your anonymity by being named and served, the fact that you were accused in a federal court of stealing a copyrighted movie becomes public knowledge for anyone who does a look-up of your name, including potential employers.

    A COMMON MISCONCEPTION is that the due date on the ISP subpoena is the date you lose your anonymity.

    Wrong.

    The date you lose your anonymity is the date your plaintiff attorney realizes that he will not be getting a settlement from you and he decides to change your status from a “John Doe” defendant to a “named defendant (your name as the defendant)”.

    4) Learn about settlement factories, settlement options, and *when NOT to settle*.

    Lastly, be aware that there are a number of settlement factories out there who will convince you that settling is the “cheapest” method of getting out of this case. This is simply not true.

    The fact of whether you actually downloaded the movie is possibly the most relevant piece of information in determining whether to settle.

    If you did not do it, then hiring an attorney to convince the plaintiff attorney not to name and serve you because you did not do the download could be the smartest thing you could do in any of these cases.

    Question your attorneys and ask what percentage of cases they settle, and what percentage of cases they do not settle.

    What if you DID do the download (or you DID watch the movie)?

    If you have done the download for which you were sued (or if you have watched the movie), the second most relevant is what else you have downloaded, watched illegally, or what else is in your bittorrent software’s download folder.

    The reason for this is because some bittorent clients “announce” to the bittorrent network which movies, music, e-books, and software you have downloaded, and which are actively in your “Download” folder available to be uploaded.

    With this information, the plaintiff attorneys search which files are available from your IP address, and they assemble a list of files you have downloaded.

    If you are an avid downloader, (while this information cannot be used to prove you downloaded THIS movie,) this evidence of “other titles downloaded” will affect how a plaintiff attorney such as Gary Fischman sees you as a potential target of this lawsuit. It will affect your chances of being named and served, and it will affect the leverage you have in settlement negotiations.

    This is where a good lawyer is probably a good idea, especially one with leverage in settlement negotiations — one who is willing to step into court if the settlement negotiations go awry, even if it is simply to admit guilt and argue minimum $750 statutory damages from the court.

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

    In Summary:

    In the end, having your attorney know the personality of your plaintiff attorney is possibly one of the most important items to consider when hiring an attorney.

    Specifically with Gary Fischman, he has the mind of an engineer, and he treats his cases as such. Understanding how he thinks in considering each defendant is important in obtaining the best result, whether that is not settling the case, negotiating a settlement, or fighting the claims against you in litigation.


    [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the various Texas-filed cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

    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.

      UN4 PRODUCTIONS, INC. (“BOYKA: UNDISPUTED 4”) LAWSUITS

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas sent for the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuit

      I have added this page for internet users who have become entangled in the UN4 Productions, Inc. (a.k.a. the “Boyka: Undisputed 4”) cases.  The goal here is to keep up to date on this plaintiff, and to discuss their various cases.  Should you learn of any updates regarding one of their cases, please post it here using the following format — (e.g., “UN4 Productions, Inc. v. John Does 1-20(Case No. 4:17-cv-00688) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas”).  Please also feel free to post new cases you find where UN4 Productions, Inc. is listed as the plaintiff.

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas sent for the Boyka: Undisputed movie lawsuit
      antfrank / Pixabay

      UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Does Lawsuits

      UN4 Productions, Inc. is suing for copyright infringement based on the the illegal download of the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie, starring Scott Adkins and Teodora Duhovnikova.  The lawsuits are all copyright infringement lawsuits filed in the Federal Courts, and each lawsuit sues for statutory damages of $150,000.

      Accused internet users are made aware of these cases when they are sent a letter from their ISP (e.g., Comcast, AT&T, etc.), 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”).

      Remember to please exercise discretion when posting (e.g., do not post your real name or e-mail address), and as usual, avoid using vulgar or offensive language (both towards the plaintiff and towards other users).

      [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the UN4 Productions cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your UN4 Productions, Inc. case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

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

      RECENT CASE HISTORY OF THE UN4 PRODUCTIONS, INC. CASES:

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Colorado District Court
      [Most cases assigned to Judge Wiley Y. Daniel]
      UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01419, Case No. 1:17-cv-01477, Case No. 1:17-cv-01577, Case No. 1:17-cv-01253, Case No. 1:17-cv-01299)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoena ordered in the Hawaii District Court
      … v. Doe 1 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00282)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Illinois Northern District Court
      UN4 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-22 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04865)
      … v. DOES 1-25 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04868)
      … v. DOES 1-21 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04866)
      … v. DOES 1-18 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04863)
      … v. DOES 1-23 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04861)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Indiana Northern & Southern District Courts
      UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 3:17-cv-00473, Case No. 1:17-cv-00257, Case No. 1:17-cv-00228, Case No. 1:17-cv-02037, Case No. 1:17-cv-02070, Case No. 1:17-cv-01710)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the New York Eastern & Southern District Courts
      UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.243.172.121 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03621)
      … v. Doe-173.68.177.95 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03278)
      … v. Doe-184.152.88.112 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04817)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the North Carolina Eastern District Court
      UN4 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 5:17-cv-00278, Case No. 5:17-cv-00286, Case No. 5:17-cv-00317, Case No. 5:17-cv-00232, Case No. 7:17-cv-00109)
      UN4 Productions, Inc v. John Doe 1-12 (Case No. 5:17-cv-00238)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the North Carolina Middle District Court
      … v. DOES 1-10 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00502)
      … v. DOES 1-10 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00528)
      … v. DOES 1-12 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00444)
      … v. DOE 1, et al. (Case No. 1:17-cv-00453)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the North Carolina Western District Court
      … v. Does (Case No. 3:17-cv-00295, Case No. 3:17-cv-00297, Case No. 3:17-cv-00315, Case No. 3:17-cv-00329, Case No. 3:17-cv-00282, Case No. 3:17-cv-00284)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Ohio Northern & Southern District Courts
      … v. Does (Case No. 3:17-cv-01190)
      … v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 5:17-cv-01185)
      … v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00388)
      … v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00492)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Oregon District Court
      … v. Doe-76.27.210.76 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00721)
      … v. Doe-71.238.54.166 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00722)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court
      … v. JOHN DOES 1-9 (Case No. 2:17-cv-02481)
      … v. JOHN DOES 1-15 (Case No. 2:17-cv-02768)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Texas Southern District Court
      … v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 4:17-cv-01685)
      … v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01788)
      … v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01834)

      UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Washington Western District Court
      [Most cases assigned to Judge Robert S. Lasnik]
      … v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-00892, Case No. 2:17-cv-00786, Case No. 2:17-cv-00785)

      [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Undisputed 4 subpoena-based cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your UN4 Productions subpoena, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

      BLOG POSTS:

      Article(s) Written on the Boyka: Undisputed 4 / UN4 cases:
      UN4 Productions movie lawsuits spread with Boyka: Undisputed 4,” on 7/6/2017

      Everything you need to know in one page about your UN4 Productions, Inc. (“Boyka: Undisputed 4”) Movie Lawsuit and ISP subpoena,” on 7/5/2017

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

      HOW AN ATTORNEY SHOULD REPRESENT A UN4 PRODUCTIONS CLIENT:

      Because bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases appear to be similar, I thought it would be beneficial to take a few moments and simplify the process. That way, when you pay an attorney, you will know exactly what the attorney will be doing.  (Look here for an article on when to hire an attorney, and at what point does it become too late to hire an attorney.)

      Here are the steps your attorney (us, or anyone else) should be taking on your behalf.

      STEP 1) STOP PLAINTIFF FROM CONTACTING YOU OR ANYONE ELSE ON YOUR BEHALF (WORKPLACE) ABOUT THE CLAIMS AGAINST YOU.

      Once your plaintiff attorney learns that you are represented by an attorney, all communication must be with that attorney alone. Phone calls or letters to client directly once a notice of representation is provided can jeopardize that attorney’s law license.

      STEP 2) RESEARCH AND DISCUSS CLAIMS COMPARING PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY’S DATA OF USE VERSUS ACTUAL USE OR NON-USE.

      Attorneys Gary Fischman and Joshua Wyde appear to be researching the claims and linking the accused IP addresses to determine whether that accused defendant has been involved in the download of other copyrighted films.  They appear to be watching the activity of the IP address (specifically, before and after the date the ISP sends the subpoena notice to the account holders) to see if there is a change in the downloading activity of the accused subscriber.

      It is important to share truthful information with your defense attorney so that claims against you can be disputed with facts and dates.  The plaintiff attorneys have data that they rely on, but their reliance on that data is based on a STORY which may or may not have an alternative explanation.  Obviously, your attorney should have the common sense to discuss the claims in order to refute their story without admitting guilt on your behalf.

      STEP 3) DISCUSS AND NEGOTIATE SETTLEMENT OPTIONS WITH PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY, WHETHER BY PAYING A SETTLEMENT FEE, OR NO SETTLEMENT (PROCEED WITH LAWSUIT).

      Normally the plaintiff attorneys in a copyright infringement lawsuit (or more frequently, a bittorrent-based “copyright troll” lawsuit) will immediately approach a settlement regardless of guilt or wrongdoing. This is not always the case with the UN4 Productions, Inc. attorneys, as they do not always offer settlements to accused defendants.

      The “no settlement” letter option is obviously the scenario where the client did not do the download, or the plaintiff attorney was unwilling to come to an amicable arrangement.

      Obviously if neither side can agree on an early solution to the problem, then yes, it makes sense to proceed to allow the plaintiff attorney to name and serve your client, file an answer with the court, and proceed with defending your client’s interests in the courtroom.

      STEP 4) NEGOTIATE PRICE (IF BENEFICIAL, CONSIDERING CLIENT’S ABILITY TO PAY). PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OR STATEMENT IF NECESSARY TO SUBSTANTIATE CLAIMS.

      Many accused defendants downloaded the copyrighted movie not realizing that the download was illegal.  This is because there is software (e.g., Popcorn Time) which, on its face, appears to be legitimate.  However, unbeknownst to the end user, Popcorn Time uses a bittorrent backbone in order to acquire the file for the end user.  It is here that the account holder gets ‘caught’ downloading the video, because his/her real IP address is exposed as the Popcorn Time software joins one or more bittorrent swarms in order to acquire the video.

      popcorn_time-un4-productions-subpoena-boyka-undisputed-4-movie-lawsuit

      Unfortunately, it is not always known whether a software source is legitimate or not.  For example, as far as I understand, the videos presented on the Popcorn Time software are usually pirated, and downloading the videos or viewing the videos can get the end user sued for copyright infringement.  Contrast this with other movie sources, e.g., Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, etc., these are legitimate.  However, there are many “in between” software platforms and websites which appear to be legitimate, but may not be.  Most notoriously – Crackle.  So far, to me it looks as if Crackle movies are legitimate and can be viewed without being sued for copyright infringement, but I could easily be wrong and we will not know this until the lawsuits start flying.

      Regardless of the intention of how the video was acquired, downloaded, or viewed, this is our goal — to have the circumstances of the accused defendant be relevant and useful in a negotiation with UN4 Productions, Inc. to arrive at a settlement price the client can afford.

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

      STEP 4A) IF ATTORNEY IS UNCOOPERATIVE, CONSIDER ARGUING FOR MINIMUM STATUTORY DAMAGES

      Obviously this is not a preferred outcome, but it still must be considered.  If an attorney is unwilling to settle (or if he or she is being unreasonable in settlement negotiations, e.g., asking for too much money, or requiring the client to take some action outside negotiating a settlement agreement), there is another alternative strategy.  Have your attorney file an answer on your behalf, admit guilt to the claims of copyright infringement, and argue for what is called “minimum statutory damages” of $750 plus the other side’s attorney fees (which at this point would be minimal).  While not a preferred alternative, it is a method of forcing a reasonable settlement amount upon the plaintiff attorney if the download actually occurred.

      STEP 5) NEGOTIATE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

      The settlement agreement should be specific to the claims of copyright infringement, and they should include the nuances of contract law in order to ensure the agreement is enforceable.  The terms should not ‘admit guilt’ on behalf of the client, and the scope of the contract should include not only the accused defendant (the account holder), but also the household and/or family members.

      There are other crucial elements to have in a settlement agreement (e.g., attorney fee shifting specific to copyright infringement lawsuits), but the above should be sufficient.

      STEP 6) HAVE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY SIGN AGREEMENT(S), THEN HAVE CLIENT SIGN AGREEMENT(S) AND PROCESS SETTLEMENT PAYMENT.

      This is self explanatory. UN4 Productions, Inc. is not bound to an agreement until they sign it (or until their attorney with authority to sign signs it on their behalf as their agent). Attorneys generally try to get the John Doe Defendant to sign first and pay their settlement fee, and then ‘maybe’ the plaintiff attorney will sign it, and ‘maybe’ the attorney will accept the payment, and ‘maybe’ the attorney will release that defendant from liability once the settlement is received. These are games a plaintiff attorney may play, and for this reason, it is advisable to have the defense attorney insist that the plaintiff attorney sign the agreement first in order to bind their client to the terms of the agreement… before their client signs the agreement or pays a penny in settlement of the claims against them.

      STEP 7) FOLLOW-UP WITH PLAINTIFF TO HAVE CLIENT’S “JOHN DOE” ENTITY DISMISSED FROM CASE.

      Once again, this is self explanatory, but unfortunately, it must be a step. Too often, plaintiff attorneys have the clients sign first and pay first, and then when they get around to it, they’ll sign the agreement and release that defendant from liability. However, this could take weeks or months.

      The reason for this is because once their client has their money, without being contract-bound to release the defendant from the lawsuit (assuming the John Doe Defendant signed first), the John Doe Defendant who paid their settlement fee becomes a lower priority to the busy plaintiff attorney (who is juggling sometimes hundreds of defendants in multiple cases) who is more worried about the due dates for their other cases, or who is more worried about extracting settlements from other defendants. This is why it is important in STEP 6) for the plaintiff attorney to sign the agreement first.

      Nevertheless, even with a signed agreement, sometimes the plaintiff attorneys need ‘reminders’ to do what they are duty-bound to do. Thus, your attorney should not close the client’s file when payment is sent, but rather, the attorney should stay on top of the plaintiff attorney until the dismissal is actually filed in the court dismissing that John Doe Defendant from liability.

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

      TIMELINE: UN4 PRODUCTIONS SUBPOENAS AND HOW TO HANDLE THEM

      Any UN4 Productions “copyright troll” bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuit really revolves around the UN4 Productions subpoena which moves from the court to the accused John Doe Defendants.  Tracking a UN4 Productions subpoena can help an accused defendant understand the timelines of when they can fight, when they can settle, when they can ignore, and whether they are anonymous or not at each step.

      NOTE: I have moved the contents of this section to its own article, because the topic of “Subpoena Stages and Anonymity” is not limited to the UN4 / “Undisputed 4” movie cases.

      UN4 Productions Subpoena is first introduced to the court for approval.

      A UN4 Productions subpoena is first introduced to the court when the plaintiff attorney files the lawsuit and asks the court for permission to obtain the identities of the various internet users accused of downloading UN4 Productions’ “Boyka: Undisputed 4” movie.

      UN4 Productions Subpoena, once approved by the court, is sent to the ISP.

      The federal judge approves the UN4 Productions subpoena (usually by rubber stamp), and the UN4 Productions subpoenas are then sent to the “abuse” department of the various ISPs (e.g., AT&T U-verse, COX Communications, Comcast, etc.).  These ISPs in receipt of the UN4 Productions subpoena are ordered to hand over the accused subscriber’s information to the plaintiff attorney.  They send a notice to the account holder that a UN4 Productions subpoena has been received, and that they are under a duty to comply with the subpoena by a certain date unless the account holder files a Motion to Quash the UN4 Productions subpoena before the arbitrary deadline they set (usually the deadline is 30 days from the notice sent to the subscriber).

      The ISP forwards the UN4 Productions Subpoena to the accused account holder giving him a chance to file an objection with the court.

      You (the account holder) receive the notice containing the UN4 Productions subpoena, and you learn that you are implicated as a “John Doe” (an unnamed defendant) in the UN4 Productions v. Does lawsuit.  At this point, you are still anonymous.

      The ISP complies with the UN4 Productions Subpoena and hands over your contact information to the plaintiff attorney.

      Assuming you do not file the Motion to Quash (there are many articles on this website explaining why you might not do so), the 30-day deadline set by your ISP will lapse, and your ISP will comply with the UN4 Productions subpoena.  They turn over your information to the PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY (but not to the court or anyone else).  You are still anonymous.

      The exact moment your anonymity expires.

      At this point, the life of the UN4 Productions subpoena is over, as it has served its purpose and the plaintiff attorney is in receipt of your contact information (and whatever other information your ISP was forced to hand over to it).  At this point, you are a “John Doe” defendant in the lawsuit, and only your plaintiff attorney knows your real identity.  YOU ARE STILL ANONYMOUS at this point (as to the court and the world, as the plaintiff attorney is not going to share your information unless he decides to name and serve you as a defendant in the lawsuit).

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

      Your anonymity expires once the UN4 Productions plaintiff attorney realizes that he or she cannot get a settlement from you, and based on their evidence that you are the downloader of their “Boyka: Undisputed 4” movie, they file an amended complaint with the court with your name as a defendant, and they serve you with a copy of the complaint.  At this point, you have been “named and served,” and you are no longer anonymous.  At this point, you need to decide whether it makes more sense to stand and defend against the claims against you (again, consider the attorney fees issue), or to negotiate a settlement and amicably step away from the lawsuit.

      NOTE: If you choose to fight, be aware of Prof. Matthew Sag’s paper entitled “Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling,” and the considerations surrounding using what are otherwise “valid” defenses to copyright infringement which likely DO apply to your case.

      [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Venice PI, LLC cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Venice PI, LLC case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

      In Summary:

      In sum, copyright infringement cases are all similar, but each one has its nuances. The steps described in this article apply to any John Doe Defendant in any copyright infringement lawsuit, and for this reason, I wrote this article 1) to not only give the client an understanding of the steps which are required in representing a client prior to being named and served in a John Doe lawsuit, but more importantly, 2) to allow that client to hold their lawyer’s toes to the fire and make sure they are being represented carefully and individually.


      [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Venice PI, LLC cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Venice PI, LLC case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

      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.

        Are the UN4 Productions ISP Subpoenas Targeting Ethnic Groups?

        UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas sent for the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuit

        UN4 Productions ISP Subpoenas sent

        I don’t take pleasure in writing this, but there is a new copyright troll on the block named UN4 Productions, Inc. (a Millennium Films company). For the past two weeks, UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas have been going out to internet users informing them that they have been implicated as being a John Doe defendant in the UN4 Productions lawsuit (a.k.a. the Boyka: Undisputed 4 lawsuit). Each lawsuit claims copyright infringement damages of $150,000 for the illegal download or streaming of the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie using bittorrent, or some other streaming device.

        The name Boyka generally means “One Who Terrifies in Battle,” fitting for a gory fighting movie. Boyka: Undisputed 4 focuses on the story of Yuri Boyka, a mixed martial arts fighter.

        Boyka: Undisputed 4 Video Trailer (click here)

        Why the Boyka: Undisputed 4 ISP subpoenas mirror what we have seen

        As soon as I looked into this new copyright troll, I realized that this is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” copyright troll. The UN4 Productions ISP subpoena that you just received in the mail is coming from the same copyright enforcement entity (think Carl Crowell, or rightsenforcement.com) who just finished sending you bittorrent lawsuits for the ME2 Productions movie lawsuits, the Cook Productionsmovie lawsuits, the I.T. Productions movie lawsuits, LHF Productions movie lawsuits (think, London Has Fallen), and so many others.

        Are the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuits targeting a particular ethnic group??

        The difference here with the Boyka: Undisputed 4 lawsuit is that this pirated movie has been dressed up as an ethnic movie (the previews I saw had arabic subtitles). Think, ME2 Productions, Inc. with no shirt, ripped bloody muscles, adrenaline-pumping punches all in line with the three previous Undisputed 4 movies [Undisputed (2002), Undisputed II: Last Man Standing (2006), and Undisputed III: Redemption (2010]).

        UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas sent for the Boyka: Undisputed movie lawsuit
        antfrank / Pixabay

        “tracking an ethnic-based movie based on a specific nationality”

        Again, just in case you did not get my innuendo. The twisted offense here with the Boyka: Undisputed 4 lawsuit is that the  UN4 Productions copyright trolls have developed a new way of catching people — by tracking an ethnic-based pirated movie based on a specific nationality.  They spread a fishnet, monitor the downloads, and vwallah!  They catch bittorrent downloaders with ethnic names. When that defendant claims “it isn’t me who did the download!” the plaintiff attorney just chuckles at Youssef, Oleksiy, Omar, or whichever ethnic name just happened to be the same ethnic group or nationality for whom the movie was made.

        UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas sent for the Boyka: Undisputed movie lawsuit

        How you can understand the Boyka: Undisputed 4 cases

        First of all, at some point this evening, I will be writing a FAQ page so that you can understand what is going on with your Boyka: Undisputed 4 lawsuit.  I will be posting that link here.

        To keep things simple, when you think of the UN4 Productions ISP subpoena you just received, or when you think about the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuit, just think to yourself, “this is ME2 Productions in disguise. Same rules apply.” With the UN4 Productions lawsuit, the plaintiff attorney lawyers are exactly the same lawyers as with the ME2 Productions, Cook Productions, LHF Productions lawsuits we’ve been seeing for months now.

        Thus, you must come to the logical conclusion that the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuit is simply another Carl Crowell (RightsEnforcement.com) common troll lawsuit with the same attorney characters we have seen before. We can infer that behind the scenes, the common troll entity (with MPAA’s blessing) approached the real production company of the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie, and offered to license the rights to monetize the copyright rights on behalf of the Boyka: Undisputed 4 copyright holder (this means, sue defendants, extort multi-thousand dollar settlements from each John Doe Defendant, name some, dismiss some).

        How we at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC understand the Boyka: Undisputed 4 cases.

        In sum, because we know the copyright enforcement entity behind the scenes of this lawsuit (think, APMC, or Anti-Piracy Management Company), and because we know the proclivities of the plaintiff attorneys (who names and serves, who settles, etc.) coupled with the federal judges who are assigned the various cases in each federal district court, we can predict with some relative certainty what will happen in each case.

        Whether that means filing a motion to quash an ISP subpoena, whether that means we will recommend that we defend your case, or whether we settle the claims against you or simply convince the plaintiff attorneys that it was not you who did the download (no settlement representation), there are a number of options we could take to represent our clients in these cases.

        Here are the cases:

        UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Colorado District Court
        [Most cases assigned to Judge Wiley Y. Daniel]
        UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01419, Case No. 1:17-cv-01477, Case No. 1:17-cv-01577, Case No. 1:17-cv-01253, Case No. 1:17-cv-01299)

        UN4 Productions ISP subpoena ordered in the Hawaii District Court
        … v. Doe 1 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00282)

        UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Illinois Northern District Court
        UN4 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-22 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04865)
        … v. DOES 1-25 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04868)
        … v. DOES 1-21 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04866)
        … v. DOES 1-18 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04863)
        … v. DOES 1-23 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04861)

        UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Indiana Northern & Southern District Courts
        UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 3:17-cv-00473, Case No. 1:17-cv-00257, Case No. 1:17-cv-00228, Case No. 1:17-cv-02037, Case No. 1:17-cv-02070, Case No. 1:17-cv-01710)

        UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the New York Eastern & Southern District Courts
        UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.243.172.121 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03621)
        … v. Doe-173.68.177.95 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03278)
        … v. Doe-184.152.88.112 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04817)

        UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the North Carolina Eastern District Court
        UN4 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 5:17-cv-00278, Case No. 5:17-cv-00286, Case No. 5:17-cv-00317, Case No. 5:17-cv-00232, Case No. 7:17-cv-00109)
        UN4 Productions, Inc v. John Doe 1-12 (Case No. 5:17-cv-00238)

        UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the North Carolina Middle District Court
        … v. DOES 1-10 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00502)
        … v. DOES 1-10 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00528)
        … v. DOES 1-12 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00444)
        … v. DOE 1, et al. (Case No. 1:17-cv-00453)

        UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the North Carolina Western District Court
        … v. Does (Case No. 3:17-cv-00295, Case No. 3:17-cv-00297, Case No. 3:17-cv-00315, Case No. 3:17-cv-00329, Case No. 3:17-cv-00282, Case No. 3:17-cv-00284)

        UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Ohio Northern & Southern District Courts
        … v. Does (Case No. 3:17-cv-01190)
        … v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 5:17-cv-01185)
        … v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00388)
        … v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00492)

        UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Oregon District Court
        … v. Doe-76.27.210.76 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00721)
        … v. Doe-71.238.54.166 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00722)

        UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court
        … v. JOHN DOES 1-9 (Case No. 2:17-cv-02481)
        … v. JOHN DOES 1-15 (Case No. 2:17-cv-02768)

        UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Texas Southern District Court
        … v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 4:17-cv-01685)
        … v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01788)
        … v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01834)

        UN4 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Washington Western District Court
        [Most cases assigned to Judge Robert S. Lasnik]
        … v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-00892, Case No. 2:17-cv-00786, Case No. 2:17-cv-00785)

        Skip to content