Utah ME2 Subpoena-based Cases
In March, 2017, our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC had its first interactions with the Utah ME2 subpoenas. We created a ME2 Productions FAQ page which addressed the UT ME2 subpoenas. The ‘copyright troll’ attorney who filed the UT ME2 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 UT ME2 copyright troll trying to scare you into settling with him for thousands of dollars.
UT ME2 Subpoena Cases – Wave 1 (March, 2017)
We wrote about our first impressions of Todd Zenger and the Utah ME2 cases here:
“UTAH ME2 SUBPOENAS FROM CENTURYLINK ARE COMING DUE,” written on April 24th, 2017.
We also directed those accused of being a John Doe Defendant in any of the UT ME2 cases to read the ME2 Productions Subpoena FAQ, which we posted on our law firm’s website.
UT ME2 Subpoena Cases – Wave 2 (July, 2017)
The second wave of cases are now upon us. All filed in June, 2017, Todd Zenger followed the instructions of the common troll entity (which I understand licenses the rights from movie production companies to “enforce” the copyrights for that company), and filed the second wave of lawsuits in June, 2017. Utah federal judges rubber-stamped these new lawsuits, just as they did the first set of them.
Todd Zenger sent subpoenas to CenturyLink subscribers (just as he did with the first wave of cases), and CenturyLink subpoena notices were sent to the ISP’s subscribers who were implicated in the UT ME2 lawsuits.
UT ME2 SUBPOENAS DUE TOMORROW
*These second wave of UT ME2 subpoenas ALL appear to be DUE TOMORROW, 7/14.*
This means that unless an accused defendant wishes to file a motion to quash the subpoena, CenturyLink is under a duty to hand over the names of the subscribers accused of being John Doe Defendants in these Utah ME2 cases.
However, it must be noted that the 7/14 deadline is merely the deadline that CenturyLink has given their subscribers. Chances are that they will provide the names of the subscribers implicated in the Utah ME2 subpoenas at some future date (as listed on the subpoena itself).
To see the actual deadline by when your CenturyLink ISP must hand out your information to the UT ME2 attorney, check the subpoena itself included in the packet you received from your ISP.
“EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN ONE PAGE ABOUT YOUR ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC. “MECHANIC:RESURRECTION” LAWSUIT AND ISP SUBPOENA (FAQ).“
“ME2 UTAH SUBPOENAS FROM CENTURYLINK ARE COMING DUE,” written on April 24th, 2017.
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.
LIST OF RECENT “WAVE 2” UTAH ME2 CENTURYLINK SUBPOENA LAWSUITS
Below is the list of UT ME2 lawsuits filed between 6/5-6/21:
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-25 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00526)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00525)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00523)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-29 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00547)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-27 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00576)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-27 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00625)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-36 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00624)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00626)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00662)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-26 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00663)
ME2 Productions v. Does 1-24 (Case No. 2:17-cv-00664)
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.