Hawaii’s 512(h) subpoenas unmask identities in a sneaky way.

Kerry-Culpepper-IP 512(h) subpoenas Hunter Killer Productions Inc.

Kerry Culpepper of Hawaii-based Culpepper IP LLLC has taken a roundabout way of uncovering the identities of Verizon Wireless subscribers who downloaded the Hunter Killer movie using their cell phones. I wanted to spend a moment on how Culpepper did this, because it provides a good follow-up on my 5/3 article about the Hunter Killer Productions Inc. lawsuits.

Culpepper IP is the Hawaii-based law firm which Kerry Culpepper has since used to send letters to internet users ACCUSED OF VISITING a particular website, and downloading a movie which is copyrighted by his clients.

* 9/16/2020 UPDATE *: Joshua Lee of Culpepper IP appears to be a first year associate who is working for Kerry Culpepper. Joshua Lee is also the name which is appearing on many of the Culpepper IP settlement demand letters, which is why I am mentioning it here.

Hunter Killer Inc v. John Does as a Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

Ordinarily the case would show up on my radar because the plaintiff attorney would file a Hunter Killer Productions Inc. v. John Does copyright infringement lawsuit in a particular federal court (here, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii).

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

Kerry Culpepper would then ask the court for what is referred to as “expedited discovery,” meaning, he would ask the court to authorize Culpepper to send a subpoena to the ISP. I described this process in detail just days ago in the “How Paul Beik Has Malibu Media LLC Defendants Served” section of the linked article.

This ISP subpoena would ordinarily then force the Hawaii-based ISP to hand over the name of the John Doe defendant(s) accused of infringing the Hunter Killer Productions Inc. copyright holder’s “Hunter Killer” movie.

Judges are aware of the “copyright troll” problem.

I had to ask myself, “why would Kerry Culpepper go through such loops to disclose the identity of the alleged downloaders? Couldn’t he have just filed a Hunter Killer Productions Inc. v. Does 1-20 copyright infringement lawsuit against 20 downloaders like any other plaintiff attorney / copyright holder?

Then it occurred to me: In the list of Hunter Killer Productions Inc. lawsuits filed against defendants, I did not see *any* cases filed in the Hawaii District Court. (Rather, I only saw a few Hunter Killer Productions Inc. cases filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois).

Could it be that the Hawaii District Court has outlawed Rule 26 “expedited discovery” bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases in their case holdings? If Kerry Culpepper cannot get a federal judge to grant an “expedited discovery” to allow him to send a subpoena to the ISPs [to discover the identity of the would-be John Doe defendants], then the plaintiff attorney has a copyright infringement lawsuit without any known defendants.

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

Judges across the US have become aware of the problem we refer to as “copyright trolling,” where a copyright holder uses the federal courts to file a copyright infringement lawsuit against a set of unknown defendants. They use the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 26) “expedited discovery” tool to unmask the identities of the defendants sued in the lawsuits.

As a result of much abuse and harassment by a number of plaintiff attorneys, some judges have taken proactive steps to DENY the plaintiff attorney’s FRCP Rule 26 “expedited discovery” requests. If this is what is happening in Hawaii, this would in theory prevent Kerry Culpepper from forcing the ISP to hand over the names of the account subscribers (hence, no known defendants to sue).

What is a “MISCELLANEOUS CASE”?

What a BORING name for such an abused type of lawsuit!!!

I have seen lawsuits that look something like “Case No. 1:19-mc-00123” which differ from the civil cases [which look like “Case No. 1:19-cv-00123”]. These “miscellaneous” cases do not formally accuse the defendant of copyright infringement in the form of a complaint, but rather, they function more as a “motion to compel” [to force] a third party (here, Verizon Wireless) to disclose the identity of a would-be defendant.

From a non-lawyer’s eye, who cares whether the plaintiff attorney used a “1:19-cv-12345″ (a “civil” case) to file their lawsuit, or a “1:19-mc-12345″ (“miscellaneous” case) to discover the identity of the alleged infringer. It is the same result — the plaintiff attorney (here, Kerry Culpepper of Hawaii-based Culpepper IP LLLC) acquires the name of the alleged infringer and contacts him or her with the intention of accusing them of copyright infringement.

However it is the BACKHANDED WAY the plaintiff attorney gets his defendants that simply irks me.

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

I saw these same “miscellaneous case” filings in Florida state courts in 2010-2012.

This is not the first time I have seen “miscellaneous cases (mc)” rather than the typical “civil cases (cv)”.

Keith Lipscomb, the attorney [at the time] behind all of the Malibu Media LLC cases (and formerly, the Patrick Collins Inc. cases from 2010-2012) used to use a similar mechanism in the Florida state courts to achieve these same ends. As an attorney myself who operates in the FEDERAL COURTS, a “mc” case filed in a state court would not show up on my radar.

What Kerry Culpepper did in Hawaii to force the clerk to issue 512(h) subpoenas to Verizon Wireless

Kerry Culpepper in my opinion is one of the smarter plaintiff attorneys. I have always known this, as his copyright infringement lawsuits were always out-of-the-box.

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

When dealing with him, Culpepper rarely asked for a settlement outright — rather, he had a roundabout way of explaining that, “…since my client accessed the bittorrent file 530 times over a two-day (26 hour) period to download a full copy of the movie, and that bittorrent swarm shared the movie with 2,930 other bittorrent users over those same 26 hours, judging the discounted cost of a movie at Wal*Mart is $2.99 (in a clearance bin, not $19.99 retail on the shelf), multiply the $2.99 x 2,930 to arrive at a settlement price of $8,760.70.”

His thinking style was also visible when he decided to sue a group of individuals who I presume were profiting off of the ad sales of a movie app which shares pirated movies. Rather than “shake down” the end user (the downloader), he went after the “big bucks,” here I assume the ad revenue, as the Showbox app was actively being used [and ads shown] by literally millions of users.

In sum, Kerry Culpepper a good mind which he uses to discover methods of suing defendants for profit.

Kerry Culpepper-512(h)-subpoenas-hawaii-hunter-killer-productions

Hunter Killer Productions Inc. and their new defendants.

This brings us to Kerry Culpepper’s latest feat — getting the Hawaii Federal Court to force Verizon Wireless to hand over the names of several defendants WITHOUT EVER FILING A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT.

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

In his application to the US District Court for the District of Hawaii entitled “In re Subpoena to Verizon Wireless” (Case No. 1:19-mc-00125), he invokes 17 USC 512(h) to ask the *CLERK* (not a judge, and WITHOUT a lawsuit filed) to issue a subpoena to disclose the identity of an alleged copyright infringer.

Let me say that again. Kerry Culpepper just succeeded in getting the CLERK to issue a subpoena WITHOUT ANY JUDGE ruling on the motion, and WITHOUT NEEDING TO FILE ANY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT.

Literally, the entire “miscellaneous” lawsuit was:

  • Doc 1) Application for a 512(h) subpoena,
  • Doc 2) Judge assigns the case to a magistrate judge (in my opinion, in an “I’m not touching this one,” way),
  • Doc 3) Clerk issues subpoena.
    [CASE CLOSED]

KERRY CULPEPPER’S ARGUMENT TO THE HAWAII DISTRICT COURT

Kerry Culpepper’s argument was simple. I am laying it out in points below:

1) DC Circuit said that a 512(h) subpoena can only be issued to an ISP engaged in storing infringing copyrighted materials on their servers. (351 F.3d 1229, 1233 (D.C. Cir. 2003)).

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

2) Eighth circuit said that a 512(h) subpoena only applies to an ISP that directly stores, caches, or provides links to infringing materials. (393 F.3d 771, 776-77 (8th Cir. 2005)).

Kerry Culpepper noted that neither court mentioned anything about whether a subpoena can be issued to an ISP that acts as a CONDUIT [to allow their subscribers to pass copyrighted content through their servers].

Here is where Kerry Culpepper shows his talents:

Culpepper then commented that the 9th Circuit (which is a higher court which includes and is binding upon the Hawaii District) has not ruled on whether a copyright holder can use a 512(h) subpoena to an ISP that acts as a CONDUIT [to allow their subscribers to infringe copyrighted materials].

He then invoked the recent BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Cox Communications Inc., 881 F.3d 293, 300 (4th Cir. 2018) case to conclude that the 9th Circuit (including the Hawaii District Court) would allow such a 512(h) subpoena.

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

PERSONAL NOTE:

There are some people who operate at such a high level that I get a headache when listening to them. I could strain to understand them, but I wonder whether I would understand them better if I too were a few magnitudes smarter.

I read the arguments and looked up the references, but I don’t get the jump in logic.

Personally, I think Culpepper confused the court with a logic-based argument, but I believe he jumped to a conclusion that his facts did not support.

However, I’ve heard Culpepper speak — he is a smart dude and he thinks very quickly. Sometimes it is difficult to understand him because he is thinking at levels higher than the average person (here, the average judge) can comprehend.

However, I still think that the judge dropped the ball and did not have the caffeine to oppose Culpepper (NOTE: there was no “defense” counsel to oppose him), and the Hawaii court capitulated.

This is how I see it after reading what happened.

[UPDATE: After writing this e-mail, Kerry Culpepper explained his reasoning why 512(h) subpoenas are a legitimate way to uncover the identities of his client’s movies.]

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

THE END RESULT: CULPEPPER KNOWS WHO YOU ARE.

The end result is that now Verizon Wireless will be complying with the subpoena and providing Culpepper here, a list of 20 defendants who allegedly used their cell phones to view, stream, or download copies of his client’s Hunter Killer movie, and the settlement demands will likely ensue.

If you are an attorney and have the desire to see exactly what Kerry Culpepper did, here is the link to his application to the court.

If you are a defendant (or you received a letter from Kerry Culpepper asking for settlement money for the download of the Hunter Killer movie using your cell phone), at least now you will understand how he got your name.

hawaii-512h-subpoenas-kerry-culpepper-ip-hunter-killer-settlement-hawaii-hi
Perlinator / Pixabay

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


[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Hunter Killer Productions Inc. 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 Hunter Killer Productions Inc. 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.

    Hunter Killer Productions Inc. and Their Sordid History

    Kerry-Culpepper-IP 512(h) subpoenas Hunter Killer Productions Inc.

    Doing a HUNTER KILLER PRODUCTIONS INC. COPYRIGHT TROLL WRITE-UP was not my initial purpose in searching PACER for documentation regarding last night’s Strike 3 Holdings LLC “turf war” article, but what I came across with Hunter Killer Productions Inc. is noteworthy because of my memories of this entity.

    I have useful information on Hunter Killer Productions Inc. because I have background information [piecing my memories together] which provide a context for the new Hunter Killer Productions Inc. cases filed in the Northern District of Illinois by Michael Hierl and William Kalbac.

    Looking up the most recent Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases last night on PACER, I couldn’t help but to notice that another small set of lawsuits popped up on my radar.

    There is now a new [apparent] “copyright troll” testing the waters named “Hunter Killer Productions Inc.” Hunter Killer Productions Inc. originally did not raise any flags for me — I remembered that they have a history in Hawaii with former-copyright-troll Kerry Culpepper, and I had nothing wrong with their activities… until now.

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

    THE HUNTER KILLER MOVIE

    Hunter Killer Productions Inc. is the shell company that owns the rights to the “Hunter Killer” movie. “Hunter killer” is an action, thriller movie directed by Donovan Marsh, and stars Gerard Butler and Gary Oldman (among others).

    I mention their name merely for movie recognition — not because the actors themselves ever benefit from the copyright troll lawsuits their production companies file to monetize the piracy of their movies.

    hunter-killer-productions-inc, Hunter Killer Productions ISP subpoena lawsuit | Notice of Subpoena For Records

    Hunter Killer Productions Inc. was known to me to merely “consort” with known copyright trolls (more on this below), but I did not identify them as copyright trolls themselves… until now.

    Copyright trolls are production companies and lawyers who file lawsuits against internet users who are accused of downloading copyrighted movies; these companies and lawyers seek to use the federal courts and the copyright infringement statutory damages to demand thousands of dollars in settlement payments from each accused defendant (through their John Doe entity).

    Apparently, Hunter Killer Productions Inc. is now testing the waters with copyright troll bittorrent-based lawsuits filed in the Illinois Northern District federal court.

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

    HUNTER KILLER PRODUCTIONS INC HISTORY IN HAWAII

    At first glance, when seeing the copyright infringement cases in Illinois, Hunter Killer Productions Inc. as the plaintiff did not raise any “red flags” except that 1) it is a production company, and 2) it filed multiple identical-looking lawsuits against a handful of John Doe Defendants in each case.

    Delving deeper into the Hawaii case (and remembering that Kerry Culpepper was the plaintiff attorney who was filing all of the Hawaii copyright troll lawsuits in previous years), I was surprised by what I saw — the complaint was not only claiming copyright infringement, but also “…FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, CONTRIBUTORY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, INDUCEMENT, FALSE ADVERTISING, UNFAIR COMPETITION, AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES.”

    Thus, the Hawaii case (especially with what I remember Kerry Culpepper was doing) did not look like a copyright troll lawsuit to me.

    KERRY CULPEPPER MOVED PAST COPYRIGHT TROLLING

    I remember distinctly that Kerry Culpepper was getting into significantly more in-depth cases, namely going after the PROVIDERS of movies which are streamed online via the Show Box app (“Showbox”), which illegally provide pirated content to the web by advertising their app as a method of “watching free movies.”

    I also remember not being so interested in the topic, as I had nothing wrong with Kerry Culpepper trying to stop Showbox or the flow of pirated movies.

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

    As long as Kerry was not going after the end users (the internet users who actually downloaded the content) seeking thousands of dollars in settlements for each lawsuit, I had nothing wrong with his lawsuit against Showbox.  As far as I recall, the providers of Showbox were Indian companies such as Galbatross Technologies who were somehow benefiting financially (if I recall, by significant ad revenue) by providing copyrighted content to internet users in the US.

    You could read the Adobe PDF link to Kerry Culpepper’s complaint against Showbox here.

    Ernesto from Torrentfreak.com also wrote up the topic on the Showbox lawsuit here:

    I could be mistaken, but I also vaguely recall that Showbox sold set top boxes here in the US, and those set top boxes streamed copyrighted content to US customers which were acquired by using BitTorrent software on the back end. I remember this because a handful of past clients of mine got sued by Gary Fischman in Texas for using Showbox, but the lawsuits were for BitTorrent use.

    HUNTER KILLER PRODUCTIONS IS AN EXTENSION OF THE SHOWBOX LAWSUITS

    I must admit that I was a bit surprised when I saw the in-depth lawsuit filed by Hunter Killer Productions Inc. against the few named defendants. What jogged my memory about the Showbox cases were the “group effort” of copyright troll plaintiffs who were involved as plaintiffs in the effort. Those companies include:

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

    The similarity of plaintiffs in this Kerry Culpepper’s Hawaii-based Hunter Killer Productions Inc. case reminded me of Culpepper’s former Showbox lawsuit and its list of plaintiffs. They included companies such as:

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

    REMEMBERING THE “COMMON THREAD” CONTROVERSY

    NOTE: I want to point out the big “common thread” controversy from years ago when I claimed that all of the movie lawsuits were working behind the scenes together as a master settlement scheme. So many people (and attorneys) told me that I was “full of it” when I noticed a common string between each of the lawsuits filed by each of these copyright troll production companies (via their “shell” companies).

    Each of these companies COINCIDENTALLY hired the IDENTICAL SET OF ATTORNEYS in every state in which bittorrent based copyright infringement lawsuits were filed. This made no sense to me — either these attorneys were each masterful in acquiring the identical copyright troll clients, or there was a “kingpin” behind the scenes of each of these seemingly separate companies who were directing each of the hundreds of lawsuits filed across the US (please read my article yesterday on Strike 3 Holdings LLC and the need for a kingpin to manage and centralize multiple lawsuits filed by local attorneys in each state’s federal court).

    In sum, Culpepper took every copyright troll and sued the source of the piracy — something I had nothing wrong with, as my goal in defending copyright infringement lawsuits is not to encourage piracy, but to prevent the harassment of defendants accused of copyright infringement (and the inexcusably high settlement demands that inevitably come with these copyright infringement lawsuits).

    The Defendants in the Hawaii-based Hunter Killer Productions Inc. lawsuit didn’t interest me much either. To me, it seemed like Kerry Culpepper again trying to go after the source of the copyright infringement (foreign defendants) rather than the end users.

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

    THE NEW HUNTER KILLER PRODUCTIONS INC. COPYRIGHT TROLL LAWSUITS

    TWO DAYS AGO, Hunter Killer Productions Inc. jumped into the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and started suing John Doe Defendants in Illinois. Seeing the attorneys Michael Hierl and William Benjamin Kalbac (who I know as “Bill Kalbac”), this changed the story.

    Hunter Killer Productions Inc John Doe Lawsuits

    Now Hunter Killer Productions Inc. is suing John Doe defendants (all Comcast subscribers) for the download of the “Hunter Killer” movie, or more specifically, for the “Hunter.Killer.2018.KORSUB.HDRip.x264-STUTTERSHIT” movie which was shared on bittorrent networks in December 2018.

    In other words, Hunter Killer Productions Inc. is now suing defendants using the classic copyright troll model (and the same attorneys).

    Pasted below are the small set of Hunter Killer Productions Inc. cases I’ve seen thus far.  As far as I can tell, they are only “dipping their toes” into the Illinois federal court to test the copyright trolling model, but with Michael Hierl and Bill Kalbac as plaintiff attorneys (in 2012, I called Michael Heirl a “baby copyright troll,” but now we are SIX YEARS LATER), their chances of successfully soliciting settlements from accused users is high.

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

    Case filed in the Hawaii District Court
    Hunter Killer Productions Inc et al. v. Qazi Muhammad Zarlish et al. (1:19-cv-00168)

    Cases Filed in the Illinois Northern District Court
    HUNTER KILLER PRODUCTIONS INC. v. DOES 1-21 (1:19-cv-02926)
    HUNTER KILLER PRODUCTIONS INC. v. DOES 1-23 (1:19-cv-02922)
    HUNTER KILLER PRODUCTIONS INC. v. DOES 1-23 (1:19-cv-02924)
    HUNTER KILLER PRODUCTIONS INC. v. DOES 1-17 (1:19-cv-02927)
    Hunter Killer Productions Inc. v. DOES 1-21 (1:19-cv-02920)

    UPDATE (9/2020)

    Culpepper IP is the Hawaii-based law firm which Kerry Culpepper has since used to send letters to internet users ACCUSED OF VISITING a particular website, and downloading a movie which is copyrighted by his clients.

    * 9/16/2020 UPDATE *: Attorney Joshua Lee of Culpepper IP is a first year associate who is now working under Kerry Culpepper’s direction. Joshua Lee is also the name which is appearing on many of the Culpepper IP settlement demand letters.

    SUMMARY

    In sum, Hunter Killer Productions Inc. is a known entity with a history of taking legal steps to enforce its copyright rights.  Now they have “dipped their toes” into what I consider to be illegitimate copyright enforcement activities, namely, copyright trolling and soliciting multiple-thousand dollar settlements from each defendant.


    [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Hunter Killer Productions Inc. 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 Hunter Killer Productions Inc. 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)

      2017 Malibu Media – Which Attorneys Filed Cases and Where?

      malibu-media-case-consolidations

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

      If you have not already done so, and you are implicated as a John Doe in a Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, read these first:
      1) “Everything You Need To Know in One Page About Your Malibu Media, LLC (X-Art) Lawsuit [FAQ]
      2) “In-Depth Malibu Media.  Their Lawsuits, Their Strategies, and Their Settlements

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

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

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

      What is the relevance of these three attorneys?

      JACQUELINE JAMES (NY, CT)

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

      2018 UPDATE: Jackie James is no longer representing Malibu Media, LLC.  While we were opponents on many cases, I did get to know her (as much as was possible).  In hindsight, she has always been tough when negotiating a settlement, but she has always been fair (to the extent any of these cases are “fair”).  The biggest change in my view of her happened when she stopped representing Malibu Media, LLC.  Malibu has many issues, and in my opinion, they suffer from a lack of a moral compass.  My view of Jackie changed for the better when I learned that she decided to no longer represent Malibu as their attorney.  That was no doubt a lot of “business” to give up, and given the circumstances, she did it in the best way possible.  After she left, Kevin Conway happily took over each of her cases, and is now Malibu Media’s NY / CT attorney.

      These days, Jackie has taken on Malibu Media LLC’s “sister” as a client — Strike 3 Holdings, LLC.  The lawsuits are almost identical to Malibu’s, however, of the two companies, Strike 3 Holdings appears to be run significantly more “ethically” than the Malibu cases are.  This is not to say that Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is not engaging in copyright trolling — they are — however, their “tactics” are much more friendly than what I have even heard in recent months since she has stopped representing Malibu Media LLC.

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

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

      2018 UPDATETo keep things up to date, I am also now listing Kevin Conway’s information here so that you will recognize his name on the subpoena paperwork.  Again, it is never a good idea to speak to the plaintiff attorney directly:

      Kevin T. Conway, Esq.
      664 Chestnut Ridge Road
      Spring Valley, NY 10977
      E-mail: [email protected]

      ANDREW KUMAR / MICHAEL LOWENBERG (TX)

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

      2018 UPDATE: It must have been a coincidence that I wrote about both Jackie James (NY) and Andrew Kumar / Michael Lowenberg (TX) in the same article.  Likely for the same reasons that Jackie James stopped representing Malibu Media, LLC, I saw similar tensions arising between these two and Malibu Media, LLC as well.  Even though I called them on it and asked them what was going on behind the scenes, and although they appeared jaded by what was happening at Malibu, they denied that there was a problem.

      Out of nowhere, one day I learned that they too were no longer representing Malibu Media, LLC.  In their place is Malibu Media’s new local counsel, Paul Beik.  As of updating this article, I do not yet have an opinion of Paul.  [05/2019 UPDATE: Now I do have an opinion of Paul Beik.] Beik came in as a Malibu Media, LLC local counsel for our Texas cases after the big changes happened with Malibu Media, LLC.  Paul seems to be comfortable with the new “rules” and this is not a positive for him, as Malibu Media, LLC has gotten a lot worse over the last few months.

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

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

      Paul Beik’s contact information is being listed here so that you can recognize his name as it is found on the subpoena area of the paperwork you receive from your ISP.

      Paul S. Beik
      Beik Law Firm, PLLC
      8100 Washington Avenue, Suite 1000
      Houston, Texas 77007
      E-mail: [email protected]

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

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

      PATRICK CERILLO (NJ)

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

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

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

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

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

      Why is me being licensed in Texas relevant to you?

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

      What else can you tell me about the Malibu Media cases?

      The best way to learn about Malibu Media, LLC is to read what happened to them as it happened.  The list of stories below (in the order I listed them) tell the Malibu Media story in a way that you will understand them.

      SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

         

        What else can you tell me about the Malibu Media cases?

        [2017 UPDATE] The best way to learn about Malibu Media, LLC is to read what happened to them as it happened.  The list of stories below (in the order I listed them) tell the Malibu Media story in a way that you will understand them.


        FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT MALIBU MEDIA, LLC:Again, if you have been implicated as a John Doe defendant in a Malibu Media, LLC lawsuit, there are TWO (2) main articles you should read immediately:

        1) “Everything You Need To Know in One Page About Your Malibu Media, LLC (X-Art) Lawsuit [FAQ],” and then
        2) “In-Depth Malibu Media.  Their Lawsuits, Their Strategies, and Their Settlements.”

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

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

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

          Book a Phone Consultation with a Cashman Law Firm Attorney

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

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

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

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

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

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

          ME2 LAWSUIT SUBPOENA Q&A:

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

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

          SHOULD I FILE A MOTION TO QUASH?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          100% ANONYMOUS SETTLEMENTS BEFORE ISP COMPLIES WITH SUBPOENA?

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

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

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

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

          WHAT HAPPENS AFTER COMCAST COMPLIES WITH THE SUBPOENA?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          WHO IS THE ATTORNEY SUING ME?

          TEXAS CASES: Gary Fischman (Fischman Law PLLC)

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

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

          SUMMARY: ME2 SUBPOENAS DUE TODAY.

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

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


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

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

            shalta boook now cta nowhitespace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            OTHER CASES (WITHOUT COMMENT):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

              shalta boook now cta nowhitespace

              Skip to content