NY Copyright Troll Bryan DeMatteo and His Split Court.

New York Bittorrent Cases with Bryan DeMatteo | ME2 NY, UN4 NY, Venice PI NY, Headhunter NY

Bryan DeMatteo is the attorney suing John Doe Defendants in the 2017 bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits in New York.  These New York bittorrent lawsuits involve “copyright trolls” such as ME2 Productions, Inc. (NY) (a.k.a. the Mechanic: Resurrection movie lawsuits), UN4 Productions, Inc. (NY) (the Boyka: Undisputed 4 movie lawsuits), Venice PI, LLC (NY) (the Once Upon a Time in Venice movie lawsuits), and more recently, Headhunter LLC (NY) (the “A Family Man” movie lawsuits).

As a NY Licensed Attorney for 10 Years, My Thoughts on Bryan DeMatteo and His Lawsuits.

Bryan DeMatteo runs DeMatteo Law, PLLC from the 5th Floor of 830 3rd Avenue in New York City (Midtown).  I have dealt with him before, and he is anything but an “empty shell” attorney that I poke fun at on this blog.  It was suggested that his cases are “just like any other bittorrent case” which is true as far as who his clients are, but Bryan fights his case differently from other plaintiff attorneys I have faced before.  In short, be careful when hiring counsel to oppose this attorney, because he separates apart his lawsuits into different kinds of copyright infringement, and any “settlement factory” attorney will be caught off guard by this.

I became an attorney over ten years ago in New York, and I have been practicing law and representing New York clients for ten years.

While our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC was formed in Texas in 2010, our law firm continues to represent New York clients.  [Why?  Because New York is where I was born, and where I grew up playing stickball on the streets of Brooklyn.  It is where I went to law school, and where I have all my roots as a New York licensed attorney.]

Bryan DeMatteo and the New York “Movie” Bittorrent Lawsuits

For the recent “movie” cases, Carl Crowell has an attorney who I have dealt with before — Bryan DeMatteo.

Bryan DeMatteo (also a patent attorney) is now suing defendants in the US District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.  Bryan DeMatteo is suing for the same four copyright holders I have discussed before in other articles:

Bryan DeMatteo Cases - A Family Man, Headhunter LLC | Mechanic: Resurrection ME2 Productions | Once Upon a Time in Venice, Venice PI | Boyka: Undisputed 4, UN4 Productions

What do I need to know about New York Attorney Bryan DeMatteo?

In representing a New York client, there are a few things to understand about Bryan N. DeMatteo of DeMatteo Law, PLLC:

1) Be sure to understand the innuendos of bittorrent technology.  He does.

Bryan DeMatteo believes in the validity of these bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits, which separates him from what I refer to as the “empty shell” local counsel plaintiff attorneys who I have seen read scripts provided to them by their copyright holder clients. In speaking to him (obviously it is best to have an attorney speak to him on your behalf), be sure you understand the innuendos of bittorrent technology, because he does. Show your incompetence, and he’ll likely plow right over your ignorance.

2) Bryan DeMatteo is on a mission to rectify a split in the NY Southern District Court.

Second. Bryan DeMatteo is faced with a SPLIT IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT which he is fighting an uphill battle to rectify.

This split happened in 2012, when our law firm (Cashman Law Firm, PLLC) was representing clients against Mike Meier (the plaintiff attorney at the time) in the Digital Sin[s] v. John Does 1-234 (Case No. 1:11-cv-08170) case.  This case [into which all other NY bittorrent cases were combined] caused the controversy Bryan DeMatteo is looking to rectify.

Digital Sin New York Bittorrent Cases affecting Bryan DeMatteo
Remember the Digital Sin, Inc. (NY) cases from 2012?

While the details of the split are not relevant, in 2012, many things happened.

1) We were successful in having the judges consolidate and freeze all of the smaller bittorrent cases in New York into one case.

See:
2012 Article #1, “New York Judge consolidates and freezes SMALLER BITTORRENT CASES for plaintiff attorney.
2012 Article #2, “More of Mike Meier NY bittorrent cases consolidated.
2012 Article #3, “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED? New York’s split Southern District Court

2) Because the New York bittorrent cases were facing joinder problems (which the judges recognized as a valid problem in most of the New York bittorrent cases at the time), the John Doe Defendants in the New York bittorrent cases were severed and dismissed.

However, as a response to the dismissal, the plaintiff attorney would turn around and sue those same defendants as new John Doe Defendants in a second bittorrent case.  This angered the judges.

“Lest plaintiff’s counsel think he can simply put cases against the severed and dismissed John Doe defendants into the wheel for assignment to yet another judge, I remind him of Local Civil Rule 1.6(a) [which requires the plaintiff attorney to bring the existence of potentially related cases to the attention of the Court].”

In sum, we were successful in forcing the plaintiff attorney to disclose whether these John Does were sued before, and in which cases they were sued.

3) Judges suggested that the New York plaintiff attorney pay 244 filing fees for 244 defendants x $350 each, rather than allowing him to pay one $350 fee [the fee in 2012 to file a lawsuit] to sue them all.

“They are dismissed because the plaintiff has not paid the filing fee that is statutorily required to bring these 244 separate lawsuits.” (p.4)

This would have amounted to $85,400 in filing fees if Digital Sin, Inc. wanted to go after the dismissed defendants from this case.

Needless to say, every one of our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC clients in the case were dismissed, and they were never filed against again. Since then, the three-year statute of limitations has run, and the plaintiff has lost the opportunity to sue my clients. Congratulations once again on hard earned, good results.

Jump to 2017, Effects of 2012 on Bryan DeMatteo's NY Bittorrent Cases
geralt / Pixabay

Since 2012, FIVE YEARS have passed, and now we have Bryan DeMatteo to contend with.

To bring you up to speed, it has been five (5) years since the Southern District of New York fiasco happened. While the rulings happened to Mike Meier and his Digital Sin, Inc. client, the “law” created by these cases is still binding on Bryan DeMatteo, and his New York ME2 Productions, Inc., New York UN4 Productions, Inc., New York Venice PI, LLC and New York Headhunter LLC lawsuits. He knows this, and thus his job in proving the validity of his cases is a complicated job.

In Sum: Unintended Consequences from 2012 => Bryan DeMatteo.

Unfortunately, as exciting as was was when our New York Southern District Court went “belly-up” for copyright trolls, the unintended consequence of our activities from five years ago is that now we have Bryan DeMatteo who has taken on these cases with “something to prove.”

In sum, New York bittorrent lawsuits are not a place for the weak minded, nor are they a place for someone not intricately familiar with the innuendos of copyright infringement. For cases against Bryan DeMatteo, it is best to have someone who knows the New York courts, who knows many of the New York federal judges, and who has had experience in fighting bittorrent-based copyright infringement cases in New York. Obviously I am one of them, and I have been fighting these cases since they were first filed in 2010.

I want to point out that as a result of this case (and other events that surrounded this case), Mike Meier is no longer filing bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits in New York, and until recently (as Sophisticated Jane Doe properly put it), “Trolls are not welcome in the Southern District of New York anymore.

CONTACT A NY LICENSED ATTORNEY:

CLICK HERE FOR OUR “CONTACT US” PAGE.

SCENARIO 1: IF YOU HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, COMMENT, OR NEED A QUICK RESPONSE:

  • SMS YOUR QUESTION: 713-364-3476
  • E-MAIL YOUR QUESTION: [email protected], OR
  • FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW.

    SCENARIO 2: IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT YOUR NEW YORK CASE AND YOUR OPTIONS, SET UP A PHONE CONSULTATION:


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

    Bryan DeMatteo New York Southern & Eastern District Cases:

    New York ME2 Productions Cases filed by Bryan DeMatteo (NY)

    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. et al v. Doe-98.113.28.221 (Case No. 1:17-cv-02175)
    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-184.75.90.162 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02645)
    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-24.193.144.240 (Case No. 1:17-cv-01456)
    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.245.46.234 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03467)
    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.85.69.69 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05701)
    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-68.194.180.74 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-00929)
    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-69.125.223.48 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01196)
    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.225.199.92 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02284)
    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.226.55.88 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01604)
    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-74.71.172.215 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-01049)
    New York ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-98.14.173.58 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-02717)

    New York Headhunter LLC Cases filed by Bryan DeMatteo (NY)

    New York Headhunter LLC v. Doe-173.56.227.169 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05314)
    New York Headhunter LLC v. Doe-69.124.0.132 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04155)
    New York Headhunter LLC v. Doe-72.80.132.46 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05895)

    New York UN4 Productions Cases filed by Bryan DeMatteo (NY)

    New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-108.29.50.167 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03698)
    New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-173.68.177.95 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03278)
    New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-184.152.88.112 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04817)
    New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-67.243.172.121 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-03621)
    New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-72.89.251.15 (Case No. 1:17-cv-04400)
    New York UN4 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-74.88.64.129 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04887)

    New York Venice PI Cases filed by Bryan DeMatteo (NY):

    New York Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-24.187.92.79 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04904)
    New York Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-24.44.143.124 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04249)
    New York Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-66.108.113.178 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-05594)
    New York Venice PI, LLC v. Doe-68.173.101.58 et al (Case No. 1:17-cv-04076)

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

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

    I have added this page for internet users who have become entangled in the ME2 Productions, Inc. (a.k.a. the “Mechanic: Resurrection”) cases.  The goal here is to keep up to date on this plaintiff, and to discuss their various cases.  Should you learn of any updates regarding one of their cases, please post it here using the following format — (e.g., “ME2 Productions, Inc. v. John Does 1-15 (Case No. 4:17-cv-00404) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas”).  Please also feel free to post new cases you find where ME2 Productions, Inc. is listed as the plaintiff.

    UT ME2 Productions | Utah ME2 subpoena lawsuits
    Screenshot from Carl Crowell’s RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.com website, with Mechanic:Resurrection outlined.

    ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Does Lawsuits

    ME2 Productions, Inc. is suing for copyright infringement based on the the illegal download of the Mechanic: Resurrection movie, starring Jason Statham and Jessica Alba.  The lawsuits are all copyright infringement lawsuits filed in the Federal Courts, and each lawsuit sues for statutory damages of $150,000.

    Accused internet users are made aware of these cases when they are sent a letter from their ISP (e.g., Comcast, etc.), which informs them 1) they are implicated as a “John Doe” Defendant in this case, and 2) the ISP is bound by a subpoena to share the account holder’s contact information (and relevant information about their IP address’ involvement in the case) on a certain due date unless the subscriber files an objection with the court (referring to a “motion to quash”).

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

    [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the ME2 Productions cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your ME2 Productions, Inc. case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

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

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

    ME2 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Texas Southern District Court [Cases as of 3/10/2017]:
    Attorney: Gary Fischman (Fischman Law PLLC)

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

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

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

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

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

    ME2 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Nevada District Court:
    Judges include Judge Andrew Gordon, Judge James Mahan, Judge Jennifer Dorsey, and Judge Richard Boulware II — Judge Mahan and Judge Gordon have most of the cases:

    ME2 Productions, Inc. v. John and Jane Does (Case No. 2:17-cv-00668, Case No. 2:17-cv-00667, Case No. 2:17-cv-00666, Case No. 2:17-cv-00665, Case No. 2:17-cv-00676, Case No. 2:16-cv-02783, 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)

    ME2 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the North Carolina Eastern & Middle District Courts:
    Judges include Judge Louise Wood Flanagan, Judge Terrence Boyle, Judge W. Earl Britt — Judge Flanagan is the lead, as she has most of the cases and is in charge of the 5:16-cv-914 case into which the others have been consolidated, so watch her rulings to understand how ‘bittorrent’ law is about to evolve in North Carolina:

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

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

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

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

    ME2 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Indiana Northern and Southern District Courts:
    These cases appear to be assigned to judges in a rotating fashion, and thus, while Judge Theresa Springman (in the Indiana Northern District) and Judge Larry Mckinney (in the Indiana Southern District) each appear to have three (3) cases each, there appears to be no leadership by either judge as to directing the Indiana court as to how or whether these cases will affect ‘bittorrent’ law.

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

    ME2 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Arizona District Court:
    These cases also appear to be assigned to judges in a rotating fashion, however, it is appearing that Judge Diane Humetewa is taking on more bittorrent cases than any of the others. So watch her court for leadership moving forward.

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

    ME2 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the New York Eastern and Southern District Courts:
    NOTE: Single “John Doe” cases are being filed here. Warning!

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

    ME2 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered 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)

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

    OTHER CASES (WITHOUT COMMENT):

    ME2 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered 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)

    ME2 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ME2 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered 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

    ME2 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered 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)

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

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

    ME2 Productions ISP subpoenas ordered in the Virginia Eastern and Western District Courts:
    ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe 1 (Case No. 3:17-cv-00058, 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 AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Mechanic Resurrection subpoena-based cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your ME2 Productions subpoena, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

    BLOG POSTS:

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

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

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

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

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

    HOW AN ATTORNEY SHOULD REPRESENT A ME2 PRODUCTIONS CLIENT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Normally the plaintiff attorneys in a copyright infringement lawsuit (or more frequently, a bittorrent-based “copyright troll” lawsuit) will immediately approach a settlement regardless of guilt or wrongdoing. This is not always the case with the ME2 Productions, Inc. attorneys, as they do not always offer settlements to accused defendants.

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

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

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

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

    popcorn_time-me2-productions-subpoena-mechanic-resurrection-movie-lawsuit

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

    Regardless of the intention of how the video was acquired, downloaded, or viewed, this is our goal — to have the circumstances of the accused defendant be relevant and useful in a negotiation with ME2 Productions, Inc. to arrive at a settlement price the client can afford.

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

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

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

    STEP 5) NEGOTIATE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

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

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

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

    This is self explanatory. ME2 Productions, Inc. is not bound to an agreement until they sign it (or until their attorney with authority to sign signs it on their behalf as their agent). Attorneys generally try to get the John Doe Defendant to sign first and pay their settlement fee, and then ‘maybe’ the plaintiff attorney will sign it, and ‘maybe’ the attorney will accept the payment, and ‘maybe’ the attorney will release that defendant from liability once the settlement is received. These are games a plaintiff attorney may play, and for this reason, it is advisable to have the defense attorney insist that the plaintiff attorney sign the agreement first in order to bind their client to the terms of the agreement… before their client signs the agreement or pays a penny in settlement of the claims against them.

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

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

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

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

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

    TIMELINE: ME2 PRODUCTIONS SUBPOENAS AND HOW TO HANDLE THEM

    Any ME2 Productions “copyright troll” bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuit really revolves around the ME2 Productions subpoena which moves from the court to the accused John Doe Defendants.  Tracking a ME2 Productions subpoena can help an accused defendant understand the timelines of when they can fight, when they can settle, when they can ignore, and whether they are anonymous or not at each step.

    NOTE: I have moved the contents of this section to its own page, because the topic of “Subpoena Stages and Anonymity” is not limited to the ME2 / “Mechanic: Resurrection” movie cases.

    ME2 Productions Subpoena is first introduced to the court for approval.

    An ME2 Productions subpoena is first introduced to the court when the plaintiff attorney files the lawsuit and asks the court for permission to obtain the identities of the various internet users accused of downloading ME2 Productions’ “Mechanic: Resurrection” movie.

    ME2 Productions Subpoena, once approved by the court, is sent to the ISP.

    The federal judge approves the ME2 Productions subpoena (usually by rubber stamp), and the ME2 Productions subpoenas are then sent to the “abuse” department of the various ISPs (e.g., AT&T U-verse, COX Communications, Comcast, etc.).  These ISPs in receipt of the ME2 Productions subpoena are ordered to hand over the accused subscriber’s information to the plaintiff attorney.  They send a notice to the account holder that a ME2 Productions subpoena has been received, and that they are under a duty to comply with the subpoena by a certain date unless the account holder files a Motion to Quash the ME2 Productions subpoena before the arbitrary deadline they set (usually the deadline is 30 days from the notice sent to the subscriber).

    The ISP forwards the ME2 Productions Subpoena to the accused account holder giving him a chance to file an objection with the court.

    You (the account holder) receive the notice containing the ME2 Productions subpoena, and you learn that you are implicated as a “John Doe” (an unnamed defendant) in the ME2 Productions v. Does lawsuit.  At this point, you are still anonymous.

    The ISP complies with the ME2 Productions Subpoena and hands over your contact information to the plaintiff attorney.

    Assuming you do not file the Motion to Quash (there are many articles on this website explaining why you might not do so), the 30-day deadline set by your ISP will lapse, and your ISP will comply with the ME2 Productions subpoena.  They turn over your information to the PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY (but not to the court or anyone else).  You are still anonymous.

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

    The exact moment your anonymity expires.

    At this point, the life of the ME2 Productions subpoena is over, as it has served its purpose and the plaintiff attorney is in receipt of your contact information (and whatever other information your ISP was forced to hand over to it).  At this point, you are a “John Doe” defendant in the lawsuit, and only your plaintiff attorney knows your real identity.  YOU ARE STILL ANONYMOUS at this point (as to the court and the world, as the plaintiff attorney is not going to share your information unless he decides to name and serve you as a defendant in the lawsuit).

    Your anonymity expires once the ME2 Productions plaintiff attorney realizes that he or she cannot get a settlement from you, and based on their evidence that you are the downloader of their “Mechanic: Resurrection” movie, they file an amended complaint with the court with your name as a defendant, and they serve you with a copy of the complaint.  At this point, you have been “named and served,” and you are no longer anonymous.  At this point, you need to decide whether it makes more sense to stand and defend against the claims against you (again, consider the attorney fees issue), or to negotiate a settlement and amicably step away from the lawsuit.

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

    [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Mechanic: Resurrection cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your ME2 Productions case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

    In Sum, about this article:

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


    [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Mechanic: Resurrection cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your ME2 Productions case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

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

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

      Skip to content