ME2 Productions | ME2 Utah Cases

ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. (“MECHANIC: RESURRECTION”)

I have added this page for internet users who have become entangled in the ME2 Productions, Inc. (a.k.a. the “Mechanic: Resurrection”) 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., “ME2 Productions, Inc. v. John Does 1-15 (Case No. 4:17-cv-00404) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas”).  Please also feel free to post new cases you find where ME2 Productions, Inc. is listed as the plaintiff.

ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does Lawsuits

ME2 Productions, Inc. is 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.

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

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

Cases filed in the Texas Southern District Court [Cases as of 3/10/2017]:
Attorney: Gary Fischman (Fischman Law PLLC)

ME2 Productions, Inc. v DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00695)
Filed: March 4, 2017, Judge: Vanessa D Gilmore

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

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

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

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

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

ME2 Productions, Inc. v. John and Jane Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00668)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. John and Jane Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00667)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. John and Jane Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00666)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. John and Jane Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00665)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. John and Jane Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00676)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 2:16-cv-02783)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00114)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 2:16-cv-02563)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 2:16-cv-02513)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 2:16-cv-02799)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00121)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00126)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00122)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 2:16-cv-02657)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 2:16-cv-02384)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 2:16-cv-02520)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00124)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00123)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 2:16-cv-02662)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 2:16-cv-02788)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 2:16-cv-02875)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 2:16-cv-02660)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00049)

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

v. ME2 Productions, Inc. (Case No. 5:17-cv-00099) [not a typo]
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES (Case No. 1:17-cv-00150)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1, et al (Case No. 5:16-cv-00881)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1, et al (Case No. 5:16-cv-00885)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1, et al (Case No. 4:16-cv-00273)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1, et al (Case No. 5:16-cv-00896)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-8 (Case No. 5:16-cv-00914)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-9 (Case No. 7:16-cv-00385)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES 1-10 (Case No. 7:16-cv-00386)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-8 (Case No. 7:16-cv-00384, CONSOLIDATED into 5:16-cv-00914-FL)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 7:16-cv-00394)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 4:16-cv-00279)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-9 (Case No. 5:16-cv-00875)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe (Case No. 7:16-cv-00383)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:16-cv-00278)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 5:16-cv-00917)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 5:16-cv-00920)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 5:16-cv-00922)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 5:16-cv-00202)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 5:16-cv-00206)

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

ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00508)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00607)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00170)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02978)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. John Does 1-20 (Case No. 1:16-cv-03005)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-03069)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. John Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:16-cv-03128)
ME2 Productions, Inc. . v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00301)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00387)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00033)
ME2 Productions, Inc v. John Does 1 – 11 (Case No. 1:16-cv-02770)
ME2 Productions, Inc v. John Does 1-21 (Case No. 1:16-cv-02788)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02827)
ME2 Productions, Inc v. John Does 1-10 (Case No. 1:16-cv-02891)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02580)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02629)

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

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

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

ME2 Productions Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-00096)
ME2 Productions Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 3:17-cv-00186)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-8 (Case No. 1:16-cv-00390)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-9 (Case No. 3:16-cv-00764)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 3:16-cv-00695)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-9 (Case No. 2:16-cv-00468)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 2:16-cv-00478)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 3:16-cv-00697)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOE 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-03020)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOE 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02757)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOE 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02758)

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

ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:17-cv-00581)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:17-cv-00587)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:17-cv-00623)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:17-cv-00622)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:17-cv-00615)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:17-cv-00210)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:16-cv-04039)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:16-cv-04075)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:16-cv-04114)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:16-cv-04112)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:16-cv-04123)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:17-cv-00216)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:17-cv-00217)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:17-cv-00218)
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:17-cv-00222)

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

ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-69.125.223.48 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01196)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe – 24.44.105.211 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-06161)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe – 68.194.38.87 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-06160)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe(s) – (Case No. 1:17-cv-00929)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe – 74.71.172.215 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01049)

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

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

OTHER CASES (WITHOUT COMMENT):

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

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

Cases filed in the Hawaii District Court:
*3/10 UPDATE*: ME2 only started filing cases in Hawaii on 3/2/2017.  This is new territory for this copyright holder.

ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1 through 20 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00078)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1 through 19 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00079)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. Does 1 through 15 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00098)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. Does 1 Through 16 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00096)

Cases filed in the Illinois Northern District Court:
(Think, John Steele / Prenda Law Inc. / Steele|Hansmeier / #Prenda old territory.)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-32 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01469)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-25 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01476)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-33 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01473)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-24 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01478)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-34 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01471)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-23 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01532)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-31 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01536)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-34 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01539)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-28 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01541)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-28 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01535)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-25 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00712)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-25 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00706)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-25 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00708)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-42 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00714)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-26 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00710)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cases filed in the Utah District Court:
*3/10 UPDATE*: ME2 only started filing cases in Utah on 3/2/2017.  This is new territory for them (and for the Utah District Court).

ME2 Productions v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00158)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00157)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00169)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00168)

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

BLOG POSTS:

Article(s) Written on the Mechanic: Resurrection / ME2 cases:
ME2 Productions, Inc. Texas-based Copyright Infringement Lawsuits,” on 2/17/2017

Digging into the mindset of copyright troll attorneys; analysis of the ME2 Productions, Inc. lawsuit,” on 2/20/2017

ME2 subpoenas due today. ISPs will comply,” on 3/3/2017

Everything you need to know in one page about your ME2 Productions, Inc. ‘Mechanic:Resurrection’ Lawsuit and ISP subpoena,” on 3/21/2017

HOW AN ATTORNEY SHOULD REPRESENT A ME2 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.

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.

Attorney Joshua Wyde and Gary Fischman 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 ME2 Productions, Inc. attorneys, as they do not always offer settlements to accused defendants.

The “no settlement” 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.

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 the movies here 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 ME2 Productions, Inc. to arrive at a settlement price the client can afford.

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. ME2 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.

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 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.

Motions to Quash ISP Subpoena Letters, Malibu Media Lawsuits, Rightscorp DMCA Settlement Notices, and Helping John Does.