3 Reasons Why a Strike 3 Holdings Anonymous Settlement is a bad idea.

strike-3-holdings-anonymous-settlement-vixen-blacked-tushy-deeper

STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS ANONYMOUS SETTLEMENTS, BUYER BEWARE.

The purpose of this article is to specifically discuss the prospect of a Strike 3 Holdings Anonymous Settlement. A Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit targets users based on the activities taken by their IP address over a long period of time. Strike 3 Holdings copyright infringement lawsuits are filed with a federal court, Strike 3 Holdings subpoenas are sent to ISP subscribers, and after realizing that filing a motion to quash might not be the best option, deciding whether to negotiate a settlement or to fight becomes the main consideration.

Strike 3 Holdings settlements are very expensive — not because they ask for a lot of money for the download (or streaming) of one of their copyrighted adult films, but because they ask for the settlement of EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS MOVIES YOU MAY HAVE DOWNLOADED OVER THE COURSE OF YEARS.  Thus, instead of asking for a settlement of, say, $3,500 for the download of one copyrighted video (as other copyright holders do), they’ll ask for a settlement of ALL 50 MOVIES they claim you downloaded over the last three (3) years.  This article will go into the various pitfalls a defendant may face when being lured into a Strike 3 Holdings anonymous settlement.

NOTE: BEFORE READING THIS ARTICLE: If you have not already done so, and you are implicated as a John Doe in a Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuit, read these first:

  1. ISP Subpoena Notification Received – WALKTHROUGH.” (Updated 3/2023).
  2. Strike 3 Holdings, LLC — JUST THE FACTS.” (Updated 3/2023).
  3. “Everything You Need To Know in One Page About Your Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuit [FAQ]” (Updated 3/2023).
  4. “In-Depth Strike 3 Holdings.  Their Lawsuits, Their Strategies, and Their Settlements” (Updated 3/2023).

FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your Strike 3 Holdings, 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.

strike-3-holdings-anonymous-settlement

Strike 3 Holdings’s list of “movies infringed” is often INCOMPLETE (and for a reason).

If you choose to fight and defend the claims against you, they have ‘slick tricks’ built into their lawsuits.  They file their lawsuit alleging copyright infringement of only one (1) video, and they list (for example,) the fifty (50) videos they claim you downloaded over the years.  However, they hold back information from the court and they do not list the newest Vixen / Tushy / Blacked / Deeper. videos you have downloaded in the recent months.  Thus, if the lawsuit was filed in March, 2023 they’ll only list downloads you participated in until December, 2022.  This leaves all of the Strike 3 Holdings downloads you participated in between January 2023 – March 2023 off of the lawsuit.

Why would they do this?  Because they know that when you start fighting your case, you might dispute a number of their claims.  You might even go line-by-line and claim that they did not follow the copyright laws in protecting their rights (e.g., Strike 3 Holdings has consistently fudged the ‘publication’ requirement, as I have fought with them on this topic in the past).  However, whether you are right or wrong, they always keep “extra ammunition” of other Strike 3 Holdings, LLC (Vixen / Tushy / Blacked / Deeper.) titles you downloaded as a threat against you fighting them on the merits.  For example, they might say “If you argue that this list is not accurate, we actually have many more titles we believe you have downloaded — we can list these too if you would like.”

Obviously it is more complicated than this, but point being, I have seen that Strike 3 Holdings LLC lawsuits always keeps some set of information ‘off of the table,’ and they reserve this information to gain additional leverage when an inexperienced attorney tries to fight them on the line-by-line details of their case (which, by the way, is often flawed or contains copy-and-paste mistakes from other lawsuits).

Strike 3 Holdings anticipated anonymous settlements and built in a way to re-sue defendants who settled.

Now as far as an anonymous settlement, Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits are ‘slick’ here too.  Their lawsuits do not implicate you, a “John Doe” defendant, who has had many IP addresses over the past few years.  Rather, they implicate only “John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 172.2.51.244,” a John Doe defendant who has been assigned a specific IP address on one day.

(And if your lawsuit is “Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe”), then look at the COMPLAINT ITSELF AND THEIR “EXHIBIT A” to see if you are implicated as downloading one title or multiple titles.)

Article reference: “How Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits use an “EXHIBIT A” spreadsheet and your IP Address histroy to “prove” their claims of infringement.

IP addresses are assigned to internet users when their router connects their computer to the internet.  That IP address does not belong to that internet user; rather, it is “leased” to that internet user for a limited time, usually 24 hours, 48 hours, or until they reboot their modem or otherwise obtain a new IP address.  Thus, the IP address you have today might not be the same IP address you had yesterday, and so on.  Now IP addresses are pulled from a limited pool of addresses, so a particular internet service provider (“ISP”) might assign the same IP address to a customer for a few days in a row, but that IP address does not belong to that internet user.  If it did, it would be called a “static IP address” which is significantly more expensive than the residential “dynamic IP addresses” leased to residential ISP customers.

Why is this relevant to you, the person behind the John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 172.2.51.244 title?  Because IF you settled anonymously, you would be settling as John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 172.2.51.244, and not as the John Doe Defendant having had many IP addresses leased to him.  Thus, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC could easily take your $12,000 settlement payment, say thank you, and then sue you again under a different “John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address [SOMETHING ELSE]” for this same set of movies allegedly downloaded.  If you settled anonymously, your attorney would have ‘unwittingly’ opened you up to this problem, because John Doe subscriber assigned IP address X is a different fictitious legal entity than John Doe subscriber assigned IP address Y.  This sounds like semantics, but buyer beware.

In sum, beware of the settlement factory attorney who tries to convince you to settle the claims against you “anonymously.”

Strike 3 Holdings anonymous settlement “price gouging.”

Further, Strike 3 Holdings anonymous settlements give the Strike 3 Holdings attorneys an opportunity to price gouge their settlement prices.  Why?  Because an attorney who comes to them asking them to settle anonymously (without disclosing to Strike 3 Holdings the identity of the defendant) prompts the Strike 3 Holdings attorney to inquire why that defendant wants to settle anonymously.  “What does he have to hide?,” they ask.  Immediately upon learning that the accused defendant wants to settle anonymously, they recognize that the defense attorney has lost all leverage in negotiating the settlement price, and they’ll “spike” the cost of the settlement.  “Anonymous settlements come at a price,” they may say.

strike-3-holdings-anonymous-settlement
pedrofigueras / Pixabay

Attorneys Advocating “Anonymous Settlements” are Deceiving You.

Thus, it is important to understand the mechanics of a settlement before jumping to ask for an anonymous settlement.  What most accused Strike 3 Holdings defendants do not realize is that the settlements ARE ALREADY ANONYMOUS [with minimal tweaking] without the defendant having to ask for it.  A diligent attorney will negotiate a confidentiality clause into the settlement agreement (or strengthen one that is already in their boilerplate settlement agreement) to prevent their attorneys from disclosing the identity of the defendant with anyone.  This means that your attorney can (and should) put your name in the settlement agreement itself.  This avoids the entire John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address [SOMETHING] issue, because it is actually the real person (not the fictitious John Doe legal entity having a particular IP address) who is settling.

Rather than taking the effort to actually negotiate the terms of the agreement, your settlement factory attorney will try to convince you that you won’t suffer if you try to settle anonymously.  This not only alleviates them of the need to negotiate the terms of the agreement, but it also allows them to use their “turn key” boilerplate e-mails, which the plaintiff attorneys (who have already agreed to a pre-arranged inflated settlement price) already know and recognize, so that they can ‘spike’ the settlement amount, gouge the settling defendant, and charge higher prices.  I won’t go into the dishonest attorney issue, kickbacks, etc., as I have written about these issues before.

Once an accused Strike 3 Holdings defendant realizes that it is okay to allow his attorney to put his name in the settlement agreement, at that point, the Strike 3 Holdings settlement agreement itself covers 1) ALL PAST ACTS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT regarding 2) ALL OF STRIKE 3 HOLDING’S TITLES, and based on the wording of the CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE in the agreement the settlement truly becomes a “Strike 3 Holdings anonymous settlement.”  Let’s look into this one level deeper, just to be sure that we have also solved the other ‘slick tricks’ Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits have built into their cases.

1) “ALL PAST ACTS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT”

Because the settlement agreement containing the name of the accused defendant (and not the so-called ‘anonymous’ fictitious John Doe entity), the settlement will cover “ALL PAST ACTS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.”  This means that the settlement will cover even those downloads that Strike 3 Holdings, LLC purposefully “left out” from the list of infringements filed with the lawsuit.  Further, the Strike 3 Holdings settlement agreement WILL EVEN THOSE DOWNLOADS MADE BY A “John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address” HAVING AN IP ADDRESS WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE “John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address” IMPLICATED AS THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE.  In other words, by negotiating the terms of a Strike 3 Holdings settlement, but having the confidentiality clause protect the client’s identity, the settlement agreement having the client’s real name on it will not only be a true Strike 3 Holdings anonymous settlement, but it will also cover any other fictitious “John Doe” entity that could have downloaded any of Strike 3 Holdings movies, ever.

2) “ALL OF STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS’ TITLES”

Strike 3 Holdings settlement agreements used to be very specific as to which specific Strike 3 Holdings titles were being settled, and the settlement used to cover ONLY THOSE TITLES and no other titles allegedly downloaded.  This was back when the Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1-1000 cases were still being filed.  Immediately we recognized that this limitation of the scope of the agreement to ONLY THOSE KNOWN TITLES DOWNLOADED exposed the client to multiple lawsuits for 1) Strike 3 Holdings movie titles that Strike 3 Holdings ‘slickly’ left out of their list, or 2) Strike 3 Holdings titles which their investigators missed.  Thus today, when we negotiate a Strike 3 Holdings settlement, the settlement necessarily includes ALL PAST ACTS of copyright infringement FOR ALL OF STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS’ MOVIES.

In sum, when dealing with a copyright troll such as Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, and you see that they do something innocuous such as changing the lawsuit names from “Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe” to “Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 214.42.955.8,” realize that THEY HAVE DONE THIS FOR A REASON.

What else can you tell me about the Strike 3 Holdings cases?

[2023 UPDATE] The best way to learn about Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is to read what happened to them as it happened.  The list of stories below (in the order I listed them) tell the Strike 3 Holdings story in a way that you will understand them.

The easiest way to do this is to click on the Strike 3 Holdings CATEGORY link [here], and read what articles I have written on Strike 3 Holdings and their recent activities.


FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC: Again, if you have been implicated as a John Doe defendant in a Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuit, there are TWO (2) main articles you should read immediately:

  1. ISP Subpoena Notification Received – WALKTHROUGH.”
  2. Strike 3 Holdings, LLC — JUST THE FACTS.”
  3. “Everything You Need To Know in One Page About Your Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuit [FAQ]”
  4. “In-Depth Strike 3 Holdings.  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 Strike 3 Holdings, 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: 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