What just happened in Nevada with the Eliminators Movie lawsuits?
WWE Studios Finance Corp. Nevada attorney Charles Rainey just sent what appear to be unauthorized subpoenas to CenturyLink subscribers accused of downloading their “Eliminators” movie. The last time an attorney made such a mistake was in 2011, and that attorney (Evan Stone) got sanctioned for the same conduct.
How did we know about the Eliminators movie lawsuit so early in the process?
WWE Studios Finance Corp. [now joining the ranks of many shell entities suing on behalf of a ‘common troll‘ entity], just filed suit against a small group (under 100) John Doe Defendants in Connecticut (CT), Hawaii (HI), Pennsylvania (PA), and Nevada (NV).
WHAT IS A ‘COMMON TROLL’ ENTITY?: A ‘common troll’ entity is one that contacts a movie production company for a failed movie (e.g., a “flopper”), and convinces it to license the rights to sue defendants who view their films without authorization (e.g., via bittorrent or Popcorn Time). That ‘common troll’ entity then sets up a shell corporation (or, enlists some other limited liability entity) masquerading as the copyright holder itself and sues defendants in federal court for copyright infringement on the copyright holder’s behalf.
WWE Studios Finance Corp. is claiming copyright infringement for the unlawful download of the “Eliminators” movie. Here is a snapshot of that title from the RIGHTSENFORCEMENT copyright troll’s own site (noting its placement among other movies, which I believe will soon be subject of future lawsuits): The purpose of this article, however, is not to discuss the WWE Studios Finance Corp. movie lawsuits, but to discuss their Nevada attorney, Charles Rainey of Hamrick & Evans, LLP (let’s hope they have some good malpractice insurance based on what I am about to share).
Who is WWE Studios’ plaintiff attorney Charles Rainey?
Charles Rainey is the plaintiff attorney / copyright troll attorney filing all of the WWE Studios Finance Corp. (Eliminators movie) lawsuits on behalf of his ‘common troll‘ (Guardaley / MPAA) client. I was looking at the docket for his WWE Studios Finance Corp. v. John and Jane Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00899) case, and it occurred to me that Charles Rainey sent subpoenas out to CenturyLink subscribers WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION FROM THE JUDGE.
What is your proof that this sanctionable conduct occurred?
What support do you have that sending subpoenas to ISPs without court authorization is sanctionable conduct?
If you are an attorney and you were practicing back in 2011 (or if you were following cases even back then), you might remember the last time an attorney did that. Does the name Evan Stone out of Dallas, TX sound familiar to you?
In short, before WWE Studios (Eliminator movie) copyright troll attorney Charles Rainey even asked the court for permission as to whether WWE Studios could send the subpoenas to unmask the identities of the John Doe Defendants implicated in his Nevada cases, “he will have already received identifying information of the CenturyLink subscribers and will have already been communicating with the John Doe Defendants in this case (and possibly others), likely to discuss or extort a settlement from each defendant… all this before the court even gave him permission to ask for the identities of the John Doe Defendants.”
Can you complain to the judge on our behalf as our attorney?
Yes. Now obviously, Nevada District Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach (and Nevada District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey) likely do not yet know that Charles Rainey had the chutzpah (using the language from the Evan Stone sanctions) to subpoena the names of the defendants without their authorization. But now they will know about it, and if you are a WWE Studios Finance Corp. v. John and Jane Does Defendant, you should certainly complain about this because Charles Rainey is not yet entitled to know who you are.
What is your opinion about sanctions, and would $10,000 sanctions be appropriate?
As an attorney, I don’t like seeing any attorney get sanctioned. However, copyright trolls and their attorneys engage in what is known as an abuse of process, or more easily said, an abuse of the court’s resources. They pay the court one $400 fee to file the case against multiple defendants, and they cost the judge many months of time adjudicating the case when in reality, they are using the lawsuit as a mechanism to shake down John Doe defendants accused of unlawfully viewing their client’s movies.
When calculating sanctions, such a calculation should be commensurate with the amount of money that attorney has unlawfully collected through his scheme (and I wouldn’t find it objectionable to expand the scope of the sanctions investigation into other settlement amounts received on behalf of the same copyright troll ‘common troll’ entity filed in this same court).
Here with this WWE Studios Finance Corp. entity (and more particularly, the ‘common troll’ entity behind the scenes and in the shadows), settlement amounts are significantly higher than in 2011 when Evan Stone filed his lawsuits in the Dallas, TX federal courts.
Thus, if the court decided to sanction Rainey for this same conduct that the Texas Northern District Court sanctioned Evan Stone in 2011, it should be commensurate with the settlement amounts Charles Rainey is soliciting and bringing in for his ‘common troll’ client. Plus, we are six years and literally 6,000+ copyright troll cases after the Evan Stone cases were filed, where copyright trolling and the process of obtaining early discovery from the court is well known. Thus, any attorney who sends subpoenas to ISP [without authorization from the court] forcing them to disclose the identities of their subscribers should know better.
List of WWE Studios Finance Corp. Lawsuits for the Eliminators Movie By State:
In the Connecticut District Court:
WWE Finance Studio Corporation v. Does 1-14 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00572)
In the Hawaii District Court:
WWE Studios Finance Corp. v. Does 1 Through 16 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00165)
In the Pennsylvania Eastern District (PAED) Court:
WWE STUDIOS FINANCE CORP. v. JOHN DOES 1-8 (Case No. 2:17-cv-01617)
In the Nevada District Court:
WWE Studios Finance Corp. v. John and Jane Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00899) WWE Studios Finance Corp. v. John and Jane Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00897) WWE Studios Finance Corp. v. John and Jane Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00896) WWE STUDIOS FINANCE CORP. v. JOHN AND JANE DOES (Case No. 2:17-cv-00893)
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.
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 introducedhere 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:
In sum, copyright holders are finicky about whether, how, and in which way they will allow their copyrighted film to be shown. Copyright law, as encoded in 17 US Code § 106 describes a number of exclusive rights given to a copyright holder (which means that the copyright holder is given authority to legally sue and destroy the financial futures of anyone who violate and/or infringe those rights). Of those exclusive rights (the right to make copies (download), the right to distribute copies (share/upload), the right to display (stream), if any of these are infringed, the copyright holders get antsy because each violation of these rights stops them from being able to profit from the movie (or ‘work’) they created.
The peer-to-peer networks have been a source of angst for the copyright holders because until now, each of these ‘exclusive rights’ are taken out from the control of the copyright holder, and are given to the internet users. When movies are listed on a bittorrent website and are downloaded, the copyright holders do not profit from the piracy, and while there has been some considerable debate of whether movie companies actually lose money from piracy (I am on the side that their ticket and DVD sales and licensing fees are hurt by piracy, but the damage is not as exaggerated as they claim it to be), but as a result of the loss (perceived or not, real or not), today copyright holders to consider it ethical to sue end user downloaders for the full $150,000 statutory damages for the download of one movie.
My opinion is that suing downloaders is misguided solution to the piracy problem, and that a better solution would be either compulsory licensing from the ISP, or simply providing better competitive solutions to give internet users the ability to PAY for access to cable TV and traditional TV networks (without paying the inflated cable bill prices they are still trying to charge).
Question: “Before Comcast hands out my information, am I still anonymous? If as a John Doe I am not yet a defendant in the case, at what point do I become a defendant?”
At this point, your plaintiff attorney does not have your name, and neither does the court. At this point, you are also still anonymous, which means that other than the filing fee, the plaintiff attorney has not yet spent any money or time investigating you or your involvement in the lawsuit.
You do not become a defendant until you are ‘named and served.’ This would happen later on in the lawsuit after the plaintiff copyright attorney tries to 1) convince you to settle, or 2) they are unable to contact you, or 3) they have formed a belief that you (the ISP subscriber) are the downloader.
Once someone knocks on your door and serves you with a copy of the complaint (or once you are served by a number of other methods), only then do you become a defendant in the lawsuit.
IS COMCAST (OR MY ISP) FORCED TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENA?
Question: “Can I call Comcast (or my ISP) and tell them I object to them sending out my information? Isn’t giving out my information a crime?”
Answer: Comcast is under a duty to comply with the subpoena, which was ordered and signed by the federal judge for your case. The ISP can and does often ignore the deadline set by the attorney in the subpoena sent to the ISP [they comply whenever they decide to comply, and if the plaintiff attorneys don’t like it, they can sue them or bring them into court, but they almost never do], but the ISPs almost always comply.
Even if you call your ISP and complain, and even if you object to them sending out your information, they will tell you that they must comply and that they WILL comply unless you file an objection with the court. This objection is the motion to quash we discussed before.
There was a time when these bittorrent-based ‘copyright troll’ lawsuits were new (back in 2010), and there was a time that I researched whether a subscriber can sue his ISP for sharing his information with the copyright holders over his objection. I even considered representing John Doe Defendants at the time as a class action lawsuit against the ISPs, however, the case law was horrible, and the damages weren’t worth the time or money the clients would have paid in order to sue their ISPs.
100% ANONYMOUS SETTLEMENTS BEFORE ISP COMPLIES WITH SUBPOENA?
Question: “Should I have my attorney contact the plaintiff attorney before he gets my identity from my ISP? Can I settle with the plaintiff attorney and stop my Comcast ISP from divulging my identity to the plaintiff attorney?”
Answer: Generally, this is not required. I have had circumstances that the defendant ABSOLUTELY wanted to keep his involvement in a lawsuit ANONYMOUS, and in cases such as this one [where the defendant had something to lose if the plaintiff attorney learned his identity], then yes, I could negotiate a 100% anonymous settlement before the ISP hands out the John Doe’s information to the plaintiff attorney. I can even stop the ISP from complying with the subpoena. How??
I have been successful asking various plaintiff attorneys to write or transmit a letter to the ISP and cancel the subpoena as to that particular John Doe Defendant, and both the paid attorney and the ISP happily complied, and my client remained 100% anonymous. Win-win. The client remained anonymous, the ISP had one fewer infringement file to take care of, and the pocket-filled plaintiff attorney saved an extra few bucks because he did not have to pay the ISP for the IP address lookup for that John Doe Defendant (sometimes ISP charge plaintiff attorneys large sums of money to lookup and handle the files of each of the John Doe Defendants).
However, one thing that is LOST when negotiating BEFORE the ISP hands over your information is LEVERAGE. If the John Doe approaches the attorney asking to be anonymous, the plaintiff will want to know, “what does he have to hide?” In addition, because any anonymous negotiations will arouse suspicion in the eyes of the plaintiff attorney, they might be less willing to negotiate down the price in a settlement negotiation when they sense that the other side has something to lose by having their name exposed to him/her. We can still do the settlements anonymously and clients still do request this, but be aware that leverage is lost when premature negotiations are made, and thus the cost of the settlement to the copyright holder may be higher than the ordinary negotiation.
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER COMCAST COMPLIES WITH THE SUBPOENA?
Question: “Do I become a defendant in the case after my ISP complies with the subpoena and hands out my information to the plaintiff attorney?”
Answer: Again, no. As far as the court is concerned (and as far as the world is concerned), nobody except you, your ISP, your attorney, and the plaintiff attorney know your name. Robots and spiders who like to ‘spider’ legal sites and post information on the parties of the cases also cannot know who you are, even after the ISP complies with the subpoena.
Rather, when the ISP complies with the subpoena, likely, they will send over a spreadsheet 10-20 lines long (depending on how many John Doe Defendants there are in the case), and you will be one of those ‘lines’ on the spreadsheet. The plaintiff will learn who you are, but you will remain an anonymous John Doe Defendant until the plaintiff attorney decides to name and serve you.
When the plaintiff attorney receives the list of names and contact information for each John Doe Defendant, he will separate that pile of names into two piles: 1) subscribers that are represented by attorneys (where their attorneys sent a ‘notice of representation’ to that attorney), and 2) subscribers who are not represented by an attorney. The experience of the ‘Subscribers who are not represented by attorney’ has best been described to me like ‘being called by a horrible creditor for a debt; only that creditor is an attorney and could ruin my life.’
Question: “Will the ‘copyright troll’ attorney contact me to extort a settlement?”
Answer: Funny enough, likely not. Attorneys have gotten reprimanded by the courts in recent years for abusive practices such as sending settlement demand letters (I used to refer to them as ‘scare’ letters because their purpose was to frighten and scare the defendants into paying the requested settlement amount). So rather than saying, “we want $6,000 for so-and-so title (or whatever they are asking),” the plaintiff attorneys will simply state that they have every intention of moving this case to trial, and if the defendant or his/her attorney wants to discuss settlement options, they are more than willing to cooperate.
So no, they will likely not try to contact you.
Question: “If they do not contact me, should I just ignore and do nothing until they name and serve me?”
Answer: Waiting to be named and served is a DANGEROUS legal strategy, for the simple reason that you are thrust into the “fight” option where you are forced to either spend tens of thousands of dollars to some defense attorney to litigate the case for you, or you have committed yourself to become a legal expert unrepresented “pro se” defendant.
If you have any intention of keeping your identity private, it is best to have your attorney negotiate the release of your “John Doe” placeholder entity WHILE YOU ARE STILL A JOHN DOE. As soon as you are named and served, your identity as being involved in a copyright infringement lawsuit will become public, even if your attorney convinces the other side that you are not the downloader. And, even if you ended up paying a settlement amount in lieu of litigating the claims against you, if you do so after you are named and served, your identity will become public knowledge and ‘there is no way to put that genie back in the bottle once it’s out.’
Point in sum. It is *almost ALWAYS* better to have your attorney proactively contact the plaintiff attorney before you are named and served. That way, if a release based on non-guilt is negotiated, it will be done anonymously. If a settlement is reached, then it will be done without the world learning that you were part of a copyright infringement lawsuit.
WHO IS THE ATTORNEY SUING ME?
TEXAS CASES: Gary Fischman (Fischman Law PLLC)
NOTE: Gary Fischman is the same attorney who is suing defendants in the I.T. Productions LLC cases, the September Productions cases, Cell Film Holdings cases, and Fathers & Daughters Nevada cases. He is often seen filing lawsuits in conjunction with Josh Wyde.
(I will obviously update this for other states. For the moment, I have been representing clients in the Texas Southern District Court (TXSD) because our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC practice is physically located in Houston, Texas.)
SUMMARY: ME2 SUBPOENAS DUE TODAY.
I could go on forever with these questions and answers, but the point is that your plaintiff attorney will likely be getting your contact information today for a number of the ME2 Productions, Inc. lawsuits in various states, and the reason for this is because your ISP (primarily, Comcast) is coordinating the compliance with the subpoena by bunching the various subpoenas together and handling them all at the same time.
Thus, expect that tomorrow, your respective ‘copyright troll’ plaintiff attorney will begin calling you, and from there, the process continues as I described above.
— CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.
NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together. That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.
RECENT CASE HISTORY OF THE ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. CASES:
Cases filed in the Texas Southern District Court [2017 cases]: Attorney: Gary Fischman (Fischman Law PLLC)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00501) Filed: Feb 15, 2017, Judge: TBA
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 4:17-cv-00404) Filed: Feb 09, 2017, Judge: TBA
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00275) Filed: Jan 27, 2017, Judge: TBA
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 4:17-cv-00143) Filed: Jan 17, 2017, Judge: TBA
Cases filed in the Nevada District Court: Judges include Judge Andrew Gordon, Judge James Mahan, Judge Jennifer Dorsey, and Judge Richard Boulware II — Judge Mahan and Judge Gordon have most of the cases:
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 2:16-cv-02783) The following cases also filed as ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does: Case No. 2:17-cv-00114 Case No. 2:16-cv-02563 Case No. 2:16-cv-02513 Case No. 2:16-cv-02799 Case No. 2:17-cv-00121 Case No. 2:17-cv-00126 Case No. 2:17-cv-00122 Case No. 2:16-cv-02657 Case No. 2:16-cv-02384 Case No. 2:16-cv-02520 Case No. 2:17-cv-00124 Case No. 2:17-cv-00123 Case No. 2:16-cv-02662 Case No. 2:16-cv-02788 Case No. 2:16-cv-02875 Case No. 2:16-cv-02660 Case No. 2:17-cv-00049
Cases filed in the North Carolina Eastern District Court: Judges include Judge Louise Wood Flanagan, Judge Terrence Boyle, Judge W. Earl Britt — Judge Flanagan is the lead, as she has most of the cases and is in charge of the 5:16-cv-914 case into which the others have been consolidated, so watch her rulings to understand how ‘bittorrent’ law is about to evolve in North Carolina:
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1, et al (Case No. 5:16-cv-00881) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1, et al (Case No. 5:16-cv-00885) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1, et al (Case No. 4:16-cv-00273) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1, et al (Case No. 5:16-cv-00896) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-8 (Case No. 5:16-cv-00914) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-9 (Case No. 7:16-cv-00385) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES 1-10 (Case No. 7:16-cv-00386) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-8 (Case No. 7:16-cv-00384, CONSOLIDATED into 5:16-cv-00914-FL) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 7:16-cv-00394) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-16 (Case No. 4:16-cv-00279) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-9 (Case No. 5:16-cv-00875) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe (Case No. 7:16-cv-00383) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 4:16-cv-00278) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 5:16-cv-00917) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 5:16-cv-00920) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 5:16-cv-00922) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 5:16-cv-00202) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 5:16-cv-00206)
Cases filed in the Colorado District Court: Judge Wiley Y. Daniel has ALL of the bittorrent cases. Watch his ruling because the ME2 cases might affect Colorado ‘bittorrent’ law.
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00170) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02978) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. John Does 1-20 (Case No. 1:16-cv-03005) ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-03069) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. John Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:16-cv-03128) ME2 Productions, Inc. . v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00301) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00387) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00033) ME2 Productions, Inc v. John Does 1 – 11 (Case No. 1:16-cv-02770) ME2 Productions, Inc v. John Does 1-21 (Case No. 1:16-cv-02788) ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02827) ME2 Productions, Inc v. John Does 1-10 (Case No. 1:16-cv-02891) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02580) ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02629)
Cases filed in the Washington Western District Court: Judge Robert Lasnik appears to be in control of all of the bittorrent cases thus far (a number of them are still ‘TBA’, but I suspect they will go to Judge Lasnik). Watch his ruling on any of these cases, because a ruling on one of these cases will likely affect ALL of the other bittorrent cases in the Washington Western District Court.
ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:16-cv-01882) ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:16-cv-01881) ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:16-cv-01953) ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:16-cv-01955) ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:16-cv-01950) ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:16-cv-01776) ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:16-cv-01778) ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-00181) ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-00182) ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-00099) ME2 Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-00100)
Cases filed in the Indiana Northern and Southern District Courts: These cases appear to be assigned to judges in a rotating fashion, and thus, while Judge Theresa Springman (in the Indiana Northern District) and Judge Larry Mckinney (in the Indiana Southern District) each appear to have three (3) cases each, there appears to be no leadership by either judge as to directing the Indiana court as to how or whether these cases will affect ‘bittorrent’ law.
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-8 (Case No. 1:16-cv-00390) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-9 (Case No. 3:16-cv-00764) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 3:16-cv-00695) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-9 (Case No. 2:16-cv-00468) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 2:16-cv-00478) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 3:16-cv-00697) ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOE 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-03020) ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOE 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02757) ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOE 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02758)
Cases filed in the Arizona District Court: These cases also appear to be assigned to judges in a rotating fashion, however, it is appearing that Judge Diane Humetewa is taking on more bittorrent cases than any of the others. So watch her court for leadership moving forward.
ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:17-cv-00210) ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:16-cv-04039) ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:16-cv-04075) ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:16-cv-04114) ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:16-cv-04112) ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:16-cv-04123) ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:17-cv-00216) ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:17-cv-00217) ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:17-cv-00218) ME2 Productions Incorporated v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:17-cv-00222)
Cases filed in the New York Eastern and Southern District Courts: NOTE: Single “John Doe” cases are being filed here. Warning!
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe – 24.44.105.211 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-06161) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe – 68.194.38.87 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-06160) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe(s) – (Case No. 1:17-cv-00929) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe – 74.71.172.215 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01049)
Cases filed in the Oregon District Court: Again, warning! These are single-doe cases.
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-76.27.219.56 (Case No. 3:16-cv-01724) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-73.164.239.74 (Case No. 3:16-cv-01725) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-24.21.195.166 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00158)
OTHER CASES (WITHOUT COMMENT):
Cases Filed in the Connecticut District Court: ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 3:16-cv-01834) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 3:16-cv-01835) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 3:16-cv-01837) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 3:16-cv-01838)
Cases Filed in the Georgia Northern District Court: ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 1:16-cv-03904) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 1:16-cv-04054) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES 1-11 (Case No. 1:16-cv-04208) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES 1-11 (Case No. 1:16-cv-04052) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES 1-11 (Case No. 1:16-cv-04210) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-9 (Case No. 1:16-cv-04207) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 (Case No. 1:16-cv-04055)
Cases filed in the Illinois Northern District Court: (Think, John Steele / Prenda Law Inc. / Steele|Hansmeier / #Prenda old territory.) ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-25 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00712) ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-25 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00706) ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-25 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00708) ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-42 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00714) ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-26 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00710)
Case(s) filed in the Kentucky Western District Court: ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 3:16-cv-00702)
Case(s) filed in the Maryland District Court: ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 8:16-cv-03730)
Case(s) filed in the Missouri Western District Court: ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 4:16-cv-01271)
Case(s) filed in the Ohio Northern and Southern District Courts: ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 3:16-cv-02715) — Northern ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. DOES 1-14 (Case No. 2:16-cv-01062) — Southern
Cases filed in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court: (This is Jordan Rushie territory.)
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. JOHN DOES 1-8 (Case No. 2:16-cv-06138) ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. JOHN DOES 1-13 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00572)
Cases filed in the Virginia Eastern and Western District Courts: ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00058) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOE 1 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00057) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 5:16-cv-00083) ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00002)
— CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.
NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together. That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.
To properly defend against the I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does lawsuits, it is important to understand the similarities between each case. Each lawsuit, regardless of in which federal court it is filed, has certain similarities. The purpose of this article is to point out the similarities between the I.T. Productions cases, and other ‘movie troll’ lawsuits filed in the same federal courts by the same copyright troll attorneys.
Different Lawsuits, Same Plaintiff Attorneys?
These past few weeks, I have been pushing the idea that there is an entity (until now, I believed it was Voltage Pictures, Inc.) behind the lawsuits which is calling up movie companies who have produced movies which have flopped in the theaters (I call them “floppers”), and this entity convinces the movie company to license its copyright rights to them so that they can sue bittorrent users as John Doe Defendants in copyright infringement lawsuits across the US.
Yesterday, I wrote about the Cook Productions, LLC lawsuits (which are sending subpoenas to ISPs to reveal the identities of subscribers who are accused of downloading the “Mr. Church” flopper), and I was concerned that maybe this copyright holder was somehow separate from the others — the ME2 Productions lawsuits, the September Productions lawsuits, and the Cell Film Holdings lawsuits (the “three legs” or “trio“) — that we have been seeing over the past few months. [So it’s not a three-legged stool; it’s a chair.]
But then this morning, I was writing an article on the I.T. Productions, LLC lawsuits, and after speaking to a John Doe Defendant on the phone, I decided to check the list of plaintiff attorneys suing in each state for the I.T. Productions to the attorneys suing in the ME2 Productions, September Productions, (and also LHF Productions and Criminal Productions, Inc., articles to come), and the connections popped out at me. They are the same attorneys!!!
In sum, this ‘shadow entity’ (which I believed to be Voltage Pictures, Inc.) who is licensing ‘floppers’ is using the same attorneys to sue for each and every one of these movies.
I.T. Productions cases are filed in the same states as other movie troll cases.
Arizona District Court (NONE YET) Colorado District Court (I.T. 10 cases, Cook Productions, 1 case) Hawaii District Court (I.T. 2 cases, Cook Productions, 4 cases) Illinois Northern District Court (NONE YET) Indiana Northern & Southern District Courts (NONE YET) Kentucky Western District Court (I.T. 1 case, Cook Productions 1 case) Maryland District Court (I.T. 1 case, Cook Productions 1 case) Nevada District Court (I.T. 1 case, Cook Productions 1 case) North Carolina Eastern & Middle District Courts (NONE YET) Ohio Northen & Southern District Courts (I.T. 2 cases, Cook Productions 2 cases) Oregon District Courts (I.T. 4 cases, Cook Productions 3 cases) Pennsylvania Eastern District Court (I.T. 1 case, Cook Productions 1 case) Washington Western District Court (I.T. 1 case, Cook Productions 1 case)
See the similarities?!? So… expect to see I.T. Productions, LLC cases to soon be filed in Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, and North Carolina.
Texas based I.T. Productions Cases
Why are Gary Fischman and Josh Wyde always the plaintiff attorneys for each movie troll case?
As far as the attorneys for each of the lawsuits were concerned, I could not understand how here in Texas, Gary Fischman and Josh Wyde showed up OUT OF NOWHERE, and started filing lawsuits for Fathers & Daughters Nevada, September Productions, Cell Film Holdings, and most recently, I.T. Productions and ME2 Productions. Where did they come from? And how did they all of a sudden score EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE movie companies to come to THEM and hire THEM to sue John Doe defendants in Texas for the unlawful download of these films?
Why is R. Matthew Van Sickle always the attorney for the movie troll cases in North Carolina?
Another name that keeps popping up in recent weeks has been R. Matthew Van Sickle (a.k.a. Ross Matthew Van Sickle) of Van Sickle Law, PC in North Carolina. His website is http://mattvansicklelaw.com/ and it lists an expertise in “Construction Law, Civil Litigation, Employment Law, Insurance Coverage/Defense, and Mediation” (and no doubt, soon his website will be updated to state that he is knowledgeable in intellectual property matters, copyright infringement matters, and federal practice.) At least plaintiff / copyright troll attorneys Josh Wyde and Gary Fischman (AFAIK) are knowledgeable in this area of law.
The common threads between all movie troll cases.
So… who is behind these lawsuits? Is it Voltage Pictures, Inc.? Someone affiliated with Carl Crowell? Guardaley / IPP? Again, do you care??
All About the I.T. Productions Lawsuits (Regardless of Where They Are Filed)
So I digress. I.T. Productions, LLC has convinced the judges of the various courts to rubber stamp the authorization for them to conduct what is called ‘expedited discovery.’ What this means is that they are now permitted to send a subpoena to the various ISPs (e.g., Comcast, CenturyLink, AT&T, etc.), and force them to disclose the identity of the ten or so John Doe Defendants who are accused of copyright infringement from the download of their film.
The I.T. Productions, LLC lawsuit is suing for the download of the “I.T.” movie starring Pierce Brosnan. The concept of the movie is pretty cool — innovative owner of an enterprising company is flying high until his daughter gets stalked by one of his information technology (IT) guys, who uses every technological facet to attack them.
Unfortunately, as cool as the movie sounds, IMDb gave it only 5.4 or 10 stars, which means that the movie was a flopper. It’s too bad; I liked the concept of the movie.
So why did I spend all this time linking this I.T. Productions case to the Cook Productions case, the ME2 Productions case, and the others? To show that there is a decrepit and sinister entity behind the scene who has likely now set up the entity called “I.T. Productions, LLC” for the purpose of suing downloaders across the U.S. for copyright infringement.
However, as terrible as this sounds, the benefit to the John Doe Defendant reading this article is that you can begin to draw lines and conclusions from one lawsuit (e.g., the ME2 lawsuits) to understand how the plaintiff attorneys will act in these lawsuits.
Honestly, I think I understand now why this movie is called “I.T.” It really stands for “I Troll.”
As always, I hope this article has been of assistance to you.
For an analysis of the other I.T. Productions, LLC bittorrent-based cases filed across the US, click here.
RECENT CASE HISTORY OF THE I.T. PRODUCTIONS, LLC CASES:
Cases now filed in the Texas Southern District Court: Attorney: Gary Fischman (Fischman Law PLLC)
I.T. Productions, LLC v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00597)
Cases filed in the Colorado District Court: I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does 1-7 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00468) I.T. Productions, LLC v. John Doe 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-02979) Other cases with the same name: Case No. 1:16-cv-02998 Case No. 1:16-cv-03009 Case No. 1:16-cv-03058 Case No. 1:16-cv-03064 Case No. 1:16-cv-03089 Case No. 1:16-cv-03132 Case No. 1:16-cv-03150 Case No. 1:17-cv-00112
Cases filed in the Hawaii District Court: I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does 1 through 5 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00084) I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does 1 through 3 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00035) I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does 1-6 (Case No. 1:16-cv-00641)
Case filed in the Kentucky Western District Court: I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 3:16-cv-00836)
Case filed in the Maryland District Court: I.T. Productions, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 8:16-cv-03999)
Case filed in the Nevada District Court: I.T. Productions, LLC v. Does (Case No. 2:16-cv-02705)
Cases filed in the Ohio Northern and Southern District Courts (respectively): I.T. Productions LLC v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 3:16-cv-03073) I.T. Productions LLC v. Does 1-15 (Case No. 2:16-cv-01199)
Cases filed in the Oregon District Court: I.T. Productions, LLC v. Doe-76.115.0.173 (Case No. 3:16-cv-02102) I.T. Productions, LLC v. Doe-76.27.241.78 (Case No. 3:16-cv-02103) I.T. Productions, LLC v. Doe-76.115.228.18 (Case No. 3:16-cv-02101) I.T. Productions, LLC v. Doe-76.27.242.207 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00163)
Case filed in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court: I.T. PRODUCTIONS, LLC v. JOHN DOES 1-8 (Case No. 2:16-cv-06533)
Case filed in the Washington Western District Court: I.T. Productions, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:16-cv-01775)
— CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.
NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together. That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.
Cook Productions (“Mr. Church”) Movie Lawsuits are filed across the US.
How many cases have been filed in each federal court?
At the time of writing this article (Feb. 2017), Cook Productions, LLC has sued John Doe Defendants in following US District Courts*:
Arizona District Court (2) Colorado District Court (1) Hawaii District Court (4) Illinois Northern District Court (14) Indiana Northern & Southern District Courts (1, 1) Kentucky Western District Court (1) Maryland District Court (1) Nevada District Court (1) North Carolina Eastern & Middle District Courts (1, 5) Ohio Northen & Southern District Courts (1, 1) Oregon District Courts (3) Pennsylvania Eastern District Court (1) Washington Western District Court (3)
*I have included the number of filings so that you can see in which states these plaintiffs are focusing their efforts.
All About the Mr. Church Movie Lawsuit
Cook Productions, LLC is the legal entity suing Comcast ISP subscribers for the download of the “Mr. Church” movie with Eddie Murphy and Britt Robertson. The movie itself looked like a feel good drama, although the movie itself got dismal ratings (which is probably why someone agreed to start suing downloaders of this movie to make up for their shortfall.)
COS (Consequence of Sound) rated the movie as a D-, referring to it as “unusually bad melodrama…. about as enjoyable as a plague of locusts.”
Indiewire rated it as a C-, claiming that the movie “flails for the heartstrings, but instead of reaching them, it only tugs at that muscle that makes you roll your eyes at its old-fashioned, melodramatic attempts at emotion.”
What do I do if I receive a subpoena from my Internet Provider?
For someone who received a subpoena claiming that they should file a motion to quash to stop their ISP from disclosing their contact information, speak to an attorney because most likely, you live in the state in which you were sued, and the court has jurisdiction over you.
I’d be happy to explain this further if you would like, because the last time I taught anyone about motions to quash may have been back in 2012 (by the way; although those articles are many years old now, the law explained in them is still good, so please feel free to revisit older articles as I did a lot of ‘teaching of concepts’ back when bittorrent case law was not yet “hashed out,” pardon the geeky pun).
Is there anything you can share to help me understand this case?
I have four items that I can contribute to these lawsuits which might be of assistance to someone who is looking for some free legal help or tips on how to understand these lawsuits.
1. The lawsuits are smaller than they should be.
The Cook Productions copyright holders do not have many lawsuits. While it is scary to see multiple lawsuits in your court, in many cases, there are a small handful of defendants in each case (sometimes only including 5-7 John Doe Defendants in one lawsuit).
This suggests to me a fear that they might lose a significant pool of their defendants to a dismissal.
On the flip side, you could also say that the attorneys expect to maximize the money they make by extorting as much as possible from one or more defendants, but I have reasons why [for the most part] this is not the case.
2. The lawsuits appear to be filed in ‘untested’ states.
The Cook Productions lawsuits are sprinkled a few here, a few there, as if they are ‘dipping their toes’ into the various federal courts to see which jurisdictions end up being favorable to them.
In my experience, this is simply an indication that Cook Productions is either inexperienced or lazy, because if they did their research into what has already happened over the years with other bittorrent lawsuits, they would have learned which jurisdictions are favorable to so-called copyright trolls, and which are not so favorable.
Why file lawsuits in federal courts where judges are known to be unfriendly to copyright trolls?
Placing 14 cases in the Illinois Northern District Court (Prenda Law Inc. / John Steele’s former home court) is simply a mistake because there are too many judges there which will laugh when they see this lawsuit hit their case list. At least they knew to stay out of Texas.
3. New “no-name” copyright troll attorneys are being tested in these cases.
There are many well known ‘copyright troll attorneys’ in each of the states Cook is filing in. These attorneys have filed countless lawsuits against many John Doe Defendants over the years.
However, in a handful of states that I have reviewed for the Cook Productions LLC lawsuits, I am seeing “no-name” attorneys represent the copyright holder.
Let me be clear — if I were to hire an attorney to pursue downloaders, I would hire experienced attorneys who have filed lawsuits in these courts, who know the judges, and who know copyright law.
Rather, I am seeing random attorneys take on these clients who have websites that reference the plaintiff attorney’s areas of expertise to be “insurance law,” “employment law,” “construction law,” …but where is the intellectual property law specialty? Where is the “copyright law” specialty?
Answer: There is none. These fields of expertise are STATE-BASED areas of law, and in my humble opinion, a number of these local attorneys have never stepped foot in a federal court.
4. If the local plaintiff attorneys have no experience in copyright law, then they must be following instructions of someone higher.
How have they filed these cases then?? Funny, I thought the same thing. The case filings look IDENTICAL to me, suggesting to me that there is SOME COMMON ENTITY WHO IS FEEDING TEMPLATES TO THESE ATTORNEYS, and these attorneys file them in the federal courts.
My final thoughts about the Cook Productions, LLC lawsuits.
In sum, Cook Productions, LLC appears to me to be yet another copyright troll. If I was a betting man, I would suggest that some entity licensed the rights to the failed “Mr. Church” movie, and is now suing John Doe Defendants across the US using each state’s local attorneys as straw men to act as if they are the ones who are representing the client to enforce that client’s copyright rights.
For an analysis of the other Cook Productions, LLC bittorrent-based cases [as they start to develop past the subpoena phase of the lawsuit], click here.
What are the actual names of the Mr. Cook lawsuits filed in each court?
Cases filed in the Arizona District Court: Cook Productions LLC v. Unknown Parties (Case No. 2:16-cv-04478) Also, Case No. 2:16-cv-04481
Case filed in the Colorado District Court: Cook Productions, LLC v. Doe 1-23 (Case No. 1:16-cv-03198)
Cases filed in the Hawaii District Court: Cook Productions, LLC v. Does 1 through 15 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00034) Cases also filed against small-number Doe Defendants: Does 1-8 (Case No. 1:16-cv-00637) Does 1-4 (Case No. 1:16-cv-00639) Does 1-5 (Case No. 1:16-cv-00638)
Cases filed in the Illinois Northern District Court: COOK PRODUCTIONS, LLC v. DOES 1-24 (Case No. 1:16-cv-11338) Cases also filed against small-number Doe Defendants: v. DOES 1-15 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00522) v. DOES 1-12 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00536, 1:17-cv-00526) v. Does 1-29 (Case No. 1:16-cv-11337) v. DOES 1-12 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00535) v. Does 1-13 (Case No. 1:17-cv-00523) v. DOES 1-14 (Case No. 1:16-cv-11347) v. DOES 1-15 (Case No. 1:16-cv-11345) v. DOES 1-18 (Case No. 1:16-cv-11341) v. DOES 1-25 (Case No. 1:16-cv-11340) v. DOES 1-13 (Case No. 1:16-cv-11350) v. Does 1-21 (Case No. 1:16-cv-11344) v. DOES 1-23 (Case No. 1:16-cv-11339)
Cases filed in the Indiana Northern & Southern District Courts (respectively): Cook Productions, LLC v. Does 1-11 (Case No. 3:16-cv-00773) COOK PRODUCTIONS LLC v. DOE 1 et al (Case No. 1:16-cv-03158)
Case filed in the Kentucky Western District Court: NOTE: The “Inc.” is probably a silly typo from a sloppy attorney.
Cook Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-9 (Case No. 3:16-cv-00838)
Case filed in the Maryland District Court: Cook Productions, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 8:16-cv-03873)
Case filed in the Nevada District Court: Cook Productions, LLC v. Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00069)
Cases filed in the North Carolina Eastern & Middle District Courts: Cook Productions, LLC v. Doe 1, et al. (Case No. 5:16-cv-00910) Also Filed: Case No. 5:16-cv-00909 Case No. 5:16-cv-00924 COOK PRODUCTIONS, LLC V. DOES 1-5 (Case No. 1:16-cv-01369) COOK PRODUCTIONS, LLC V. DOES 1-11 (Case No. 1:16-cv-01375, 1:16-cv-01374) COOK PRODUCTIONS, LLC V. DOES 1-7 (Case No. 1:16-cv-01372) COOK PRODUCTIONS, LLC V. DOES 1-9 (Case No. 1:16-cv-01373)
Cases filed in the Ohio Northern & Southern District Courts (respectively): Cook Productions, LLC v. Does (Case No. 3:16-cv-03045) Cook Productions LLC v. Does 1-15 (Case No. 2:16-cv-01192)
Cases Filed in the Oregon District Court: NOTE: OK, this one concerns me. Look at the attorney and the “single Doe” case lawsuit style. These might play out differently than the others [just my gut feeling].
Cook Productions, LLC v. Doe-50.53.40.201 (Case No. 3:16-cv-02086) Cook Productions, LLC v. Doe-71.63.208.154 (Case No. 3:16-cv-02085) Cook Productions v. Doe-73.37.111.126 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00162)
Case filed in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court: COOK PRODUCTIONS, LLC. v. JOHN DOES 1-13 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00705)
Cases filed in the Washington Western District Court: Cook Productions, LLC v. Doe 1 et al (Case No. 2:16-cv-01884) Also filed: Case No. 2:17-cv-00252 Case No. 2:17-cv-00101
— 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.
Introducing the ME2 Productions (“Mechanic:Resurrection”) Move Lawsuits
Because the “ME2 Productions, Inc.” copyright infringement lawsuits appear to be the ‘third leg’ to the “September Productions, Inc.” (leg 1) and the “Cell Film Holdings, LLC” (leg 2) lawsuits, I felt compelled to write something about it.
This third leg of cases, each of which have been filed by Gary Fischman and Josh Wyde consist of four cases (and counting), each filed here in the TX Southern District Court. ME2 Productions, Inc. itself [through their local counsel across the US] has filed 112 cases so far, and each case appears to be following the same template. There are 10-20 John Doe Defendants per case, and the cases are spaced apart when filed, hoping that no proactive judge receives and consolidates all of the cases in one federal district (this has not yet happened in Texas).
ME2 PRODUCTIONS CASES ARE STILL IN THEIR INFANCY IN TEXAS.
In Texas, the ME2 cases are still in their infancy, and all that has happened is that judges have rubber stamped what are called “expedited discovery” requests to allow the plaintiff attorneys to force the ISP(s) to send subpoenas to the account holders of those IP addresses where unlawful downloading is claimed to have happened.
As of writing this message, the Comcast / XFinity ISP has received three subpoenas, and has sent letters to the accused account holders (the “John Doe Defendants”) indicating that they should file an objection to the subpoena with the court before the ISP is forced to hand out the subscriber information to the plaintiff attorney.
As of now, there are three known ‘deadlines’ to file an objection (e.g., motion to quash) with the court — 3/2, 3/16 and 3/20 — corresponding to three of the four cases so far filed in Texas. I’ll update this article with the fourth date as soon as I get it.
WHAT MOVIE IS BEHIND THE ME2 PRODUCTIONS CASES?
More generally, ME2 Productions, Inc. is suing for copyright infringement based on the the illegal download of the Mechanic: Resurrection movie, starring Jason Statham and Jessica Alba. (NOTE: If you are considering downloading any of the Transporter movies also with Jason Statham, I wouldn’t be surprised if we see lawsuits from the production companies for those movies as well in the near future based on a trend I’ve noticed in the past. Also be on the lookout for lawsuits for the ‘Transporter’ movies as well for this same reason).
NOTICING A CONNECTION BETWEEN ME2 PRODUCTIONS AND EARLIER LAWSUITS.
Based on my conversations with the plaintiff attorneys who are attempting to sue downloaders of the Mechanic: Resurrection title, I understand that a number of those implicated in these lawsuits may have also been implicated in the September Productions, Inc. v. Does lawsuits for the download of the Septembers of Shiraz video and possibly also the Cell Film Holdings, LLC v. Does lawsuit for the download of the “The Cell” video.
For some reason, these three videos appear to be a trio, perhaps because they were shared on the piracy websites or Popcorn Time software platforms at the same time, or that there is some ‘contractual’ connection between the three movies (e.g., perhaps Voltage Pictures has signed an agreement with each of the three copyright holders giving Voltage a right to take on the movie production’s company name as they did with Dallas Buyers Club, LLC, to act and to sue on their behalf in order to ‘monetize’ and enforce the copyright rights those productions companies have from the creation of the copyrighted films).
I wrote this last paragraph very quickly, without much explanation. Do you even care if the company suing you is really Voltage Pictures, Inc. who has contacted the movie companies and said, “sign a contract with me — I’ll sue in your name and get lots of settlement money for you”? Bottom line, you are implicated as a John Doe Defendant in what looks to be a copyright troll lawsuit, Comcast is about to hand over your information to plaintiff attorneys Joshua Wyde and Gary Fischman, and you are staring down the barrel of a $150,000 copyright infringement for clicking and possibly watching a movie that may not have been any good.
WHY THESE CASES ARE BOTH SIMILAR AND SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM CONVENTIONAL COPYRIGHT TROLL CASES.
In sum, whether this lawsuit indeed falls under “copyright troll” status or not, the plaintiff attorneys have taken great strides to mask the true nature of this lawsuit, namely, that this lawsuit will likely not go to trial for any of the defendants, because it is not economically profitable for the copyright holder (or Voltage Pictures, if this is the case) to spend the money to chase some student in Houston, TX and force a $150,000 judgment on them that the student will never and could never pay. Yet based on the documents I have seen these attorneys file in the court (sometimes even quoting this blog), they seem to want to litigate.
Whether they are paid hourly by their copyright holder clients (the production companies) or whether the simply take a commission based on a percentage of the settlement amount they elicit from the defendants (my gut feeling is that they are actually being paid hourly by their clients which gives them an incentive to spend more time filing documents in the court) they do spend significant amounts of time drafting motions, and they do spend the money to name and serve defendants, and they DO fight the case *as if* they were taking each John Doe Defendant to trial. Whether this is because they are trying to overcome the bias the federal judges in Texas have against the pornography bittorrent cases which wasted the past seven years of the court’s time or because they are trying to prove the legitimacy of bittorrent based copyright infringement lawsuits, bottom line, they are fighting these cases differently from the way other plaintiff attorneys have fought them in recent years.
What to do if you are sued for a movie you did not download?
So here is the solution. If you did not download the Mechanic: Resurrection movie, then fight back. Hire an attorney (me, or any other attorney) to fight your case. If you did the download, well, there are also solutions found with an attorney, but you knew this already, and it will require both sides to be reasonable to come to an amicable solution.
I did not mention this before, so I am mentioning this here since it is relevant — it is not profitable for a movie company to bring a copyright infringement lawsuit to trial. This gives us on the defense side leverage to either come to an amicable solution, or to fight back and force them to dismiss. The plaintiff attorneys Josh Wyde and Gary Fischman will fight back, but facts are facts, and justice is for the most part blind. If they cannot prove that it is more likely than not that you were the downloader of the copyrighted movie, then they cannot find you guilty for copyright infringement.
An unintended consequence of fighting back.
NOTE: An unintended consequence of fighting back from a purely academic perspective is that doing so forces the copyright holders to focus their set of John Doe Defendants to those downloaders to whom they can prove did the download, because each ‘misfire’ (meaning, each John Doe Defendant who did not do the download and who fights back) costs the copyright holder severely, and we have said for years that this would be the demise of the ‘copyright troll’ model if they sue without vetting their data as to which John Doe Defendants apparently did what and when. Make it too expensive to blindly name and serve (without vetting the John Doe Defendants first), and their model falls. However, fight back, and they will focus and limit their list of John Doe Defendants to those who subscribers (or their family members) who actually did the downloading, and this will only feed back into their cash stream by encouraging settlements to avoid being named and served, sued, and found liable for copyright infringement. It’s a messy problem.
Known Mechanic Resurrection Movie Lawsuits Filed in TX
KNOWN Texas Southern District Court ME2 Cases [Filed in 2017]: Attorney: Gary Fischman (Fischman Law PLLC)
ME2 Productions, Inc. v DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00695) Filed: March 4, 2017, Judge: Vanessa D Gilmore
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00501) Filed: Feb 15, 2017, Judge: TBA
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 4:17-cv-00404) Filed: Feb 09, 2017, Judge: TBA
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. DOES (Case No. 4:17-cv-00275) Filed: Jan 27, 2017, Judge: TBA
ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 4:17-cv-00143) Filed: Jan 17, 2017, Judge: TBA
For an analysis of the other ME2 Productions, Inc. bittorrent-based cases filed across the US, click here.
— 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.
