ME2 Utah Subpoenas from CenturyLink Are Coming Due.

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

Subpoenas Sent to CenturyLink to expose identities of ME2 Utah Defendants due 4/28.

ME2 Utah cases have been blazing since they were filed early in March, and now the subpoenas for those cases are coming due this week.

Who is the attorney for the ME2 Utah cases?

The ‘copyright troll’ attorney in Utah who filed these cases is Todd Zenger (“Todd E. Zenger”), and he works for Kirton McConkie in Salt Lake City, Utah. Any e-mails coming from “[email protected],” or calls from his “801-328-3600” phone number (or any 801-328-XXXX phone number should cause you to be wary that you have a Utah ME2 copyright troll trying to scare you into settling with him for thousands of dollars.

Are Utah ME2 Productions, Inc. cases any different from those filed in other states?

Really, no.  I have already written much about the ME2 Productions, Inc. cases, and the Utah ME2 cases are no different from the cases filed in other states. The following articles should be helpful in understanding the ME2 Utah cases as well:

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN ONE PAGE ABOUT YOUR ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. “MECHANIC:RESURRECTION” LAWSUIT AND ISP SUBPOENA.

Just like the other cases, the Utah ME2 Productions, Inc. cases are 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 (but don’t let that large number scare you, because baked into copyright infringement law is the concept of ‘minimum statutory damages’ as well).

Accused ME2 Utah-based internet users are made aware of these cases when they are sent a letter from their ISP (CenturyLink), 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”).

Why is this article relevant now (and for the next week or so)?

The reason why I am writing this article is because starting THIS FRIDAY (and continuing for the next week), the ME2 Utah-based subpoenas sent to CenturyLink demanding that they turn over the identities of the Utah ME2 John Doe Defendants are coming due. Most relevant, the next deadline is this Friday, 4/28.

What should I expect after 4/28 once CenturyLink complies with the subpoenas?

The expectation following this 4/28 deadline is that Todd Zenger will start sending out settlement demand letters to Utah ME2 John Doe Defendants, explaining that they have been sued for $150,000, and that their ISP has identified them as being the downloader. That their ISP identified them as the infringer is actually not true, as the ISP will have only identified that their IP address was ‘in the room’ when bittorrent downloading was happening.

However, Todd Zenger’s cases do not state that each John Doe Defendant is the actual infringer, nor does he provide evidence in the form of a PCAP file that any of the Utah ME2 defendants actually committed copyright infringement or downloaded a large enough piece of the movie to be considered “substantially similar” to the copyrighted film. However, it will have to be up to the judges (and us attorneys) to inform them that Todd Zenger is not in possession of the Guardaley evidence he allegedly claims to have.

Who are the federal judges assigned to the ME2 Utah Cases?

The Utah ME2 cases (thus far) are evenly spread between the following judges.  I wouldn’t be surprised if moving forward, one judge, e.g., Judge Evelyn Furse will take over the other cases to have uniform decisions across the Utah ME2 cases.

Judge David Nuffer:
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00198)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-12 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00224)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-29 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00190)

Judge Paul M. Warner:
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00199)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-14 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00225)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-22 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00189)

Judge Evelyn J Furse:
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00179)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00169)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00178)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00158)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-23 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00157)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00168)

Judge Jill N. Parrish:
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-22 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00200)

Judge Dustin B. Pead:
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-27 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00191)

Judge Ted Stewart:
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00223)

What are your options in defending or resolving claims in a ME2 Utah-based case?

If you have read this far, you are likely one of the John Doe Defendants in this case, and thus here are your options on how our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC (or any other competent copyright litigation attorney) can help you in this case.

OPTION 1: FIGHT

In this option, your attorney would fight this case on your behalf. Since the ME2 scam has been exposed, the inherent weaknesses in Todd Zenger’s case are now well known. This option is more expensive than the other options, but it is probably the most satisfying option when you win and ask for attorney fees from ME2 Productions.

OPTION 2: SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

Settlement negotiations does not mean that you downloaded the movie or that you are guilty of copyright infringement. Rather, it simply means that you want to pay to have the plaintiff attorney dismiss you from the lawsuit. This option can be used by both ‘guilty’ and ‘innocent’ defendants. While I do not recommend an innocent defendant pay ANYTHING to settle the claims against him, I do not judge defendants when they choose this option.

OPTION 3: “NO SETTLEMENT REPRESENTATION”

This is the discounted “no settlement” representation route that I discussed here. In the span of 2-3 hours, I would consult with the client, send over a letter of representation to the plaintiff attorney (to stop him from contacting the client directly). I would then draft a letter to the plaintiff explaining that my client did not do the download, and that we are not interested in anything other than a walkaway settlement, meaning that my client pays no settlement. The purpose of this representation is to put Todd Zenger on notice that my client is not the infringer he is looking for.

OPTION 4: “IGNORE” ROUTE REPRESENTATION

The ignore route is best described as ‘playing chicken.’ I best described the “ignore” route, and how it differs from the “no settlement representation” route here. The assumption with the “ignore” route is that Todd Zenger is not yet naming and serving defendants in this case, so you would hire our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC to monitor the case for you. We would send over a letter of representation indicating that we are representing you in the case, but we would not engage in settlement negotiations.

The intended client for the ‘ignore’ route is the innocent client that wishes to have a more ‘hands on’ engagement with their case over the “no settlement” representation letter route, where their attorney is actively monitoring the case and having active discussions with the plaintiff attorney. Both ‘guilty’ and ‘non-guilty’ defendants can utilize the “ignore” route, as this option is adjustable based on the circumstances of the client. If Todd Zenger decides to start naming and serving defendants, a ‘guilty’ client would likely have me open up settlement negotiations on his behalf, whereas a non-guilty client would instruct me to not settle and adhere to the ‘ignore’ strategy. Obviously getting named and served while in this strategy would be cause to decide whether to shift strategies to the “fight” or “settle” strategy, which is fine.

OPTION 5: ARGUE “MINIMUM STATUTORY DAMAGES” REPRESENTATION

I discussed the “argue minimum statutory damages” representation option last night in this article. The purpose of this option is to take the settlement negotiations away from a misbehaving plaintiff attorney. Instead of negotiating a settlement (where the plaintiff is asking for too much money), we would file an answer with the court admitting infringement, and we would then make the case for the judge to award minimum statutory damages of $750.

The intended client for the “minimum statutory damages” representation route is a client who did the download and either does not want to go through settlement negotiations, or who wants to take settlement negotiations out of the hands of the plaintiff attorney / copyright troll and leave the damages up to the judge to decide. Obviously since we are admitting guilt in this option, it is appropriate for the client to have done the download to use this strategy.

However you decide to proceed, if I can be of assistance or answer any questions about your ME2 Utah case, please let me know.

*UPDATE (APRIL, 2017)* ME2 PRODUCTIONS INC. (FAQ) PAGE NOW UP.

*UPDATE (JULY, 2017)* SECOND WAVE OF LAWSUIT SUBPOENAS sent to CenturyLink ISP subscribers, and are due on 7/14/2017.


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.

    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

        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