How ME2 PRODUCTIONS Obtains Your Name From An IP Address – ISP Subpoena Defense


Movie company ME2 PRODUCTIONS is suing many people for allegedly downloading its adult entertainment movies using file-sharing technology called BitTorrent. This article analyzes the movie company’s motion to the court justifying its desire to obtain the names and addresses of ISP account-holders. ME2 Productions does this through a motion for “early discovery”, by issuing a subpoena.

If your internet address (“IP address”) is involved, your first notice of the lawsuit will probably be a letter or email from ISP about the copyright infringement lawsuit, your right to file a motion to quash or vacate the subpoena, and a copy of a subpoena from ME2 Productions

Set up a free consultation to discuss the specifics of your case, or keep reading below for more information on what you can expect from your case with ME2 Productions.

What the ME2 PRODUCTIONS Lawsuit Is About

The ME2 Productions lawsuit is a federal copyright infringement lawsuit in which the owner of the copyright to “MECHANIC: RESURRECTION” allege that internet users (here, ISP users) illegally obtained their movies for free using file-sharing technology called BitTorrent.

The lawsuit seeks money through statutory damages under the US Copyright Act potentially up to $150,000 (this amount of an award is rare) plus their attorneys fees and costs, if they can prove to the court they: 1) own the copyright 2) the defendant illegally downloaded the movie. This is a broad summary but at this point its all that probably matters for you to know.

Speak with Antonelli Law For Free

Already know you want to speak with an attorney? Speak for free with Antonelli Law Defense by calling us nationwide at 312-201-8310 or use our confidential contact form below. Antonelli Law and our local counsel have helped protect many people from BitTorrent copyright infringement lawsuits just like the ME2 Productions lawsuits. We will talk with you for free and explain each of your legal options including:

1) Have us negotiate an anonymous settlement on your behalf with ME2 PRODUCTIONS

2) File a motion to quash the subpoena it issued to your ISP, or

3) Defend your innocence in court.

Click here for our free, confidential contact form.

Use our confidential contact form by the link or embedded form below and we will respond to you soon, within 24 hours

Contact US - Free Consultation

ME2 PRODUCTIONS First Has to Find Out Who the ISP Internet Users Are

When ME2 Productions filed the lawsuit, all it had as evidence was a computer’s IP addresses (like to try to identify which internet account is associated with that IP address. They can easily determine that on the date and time of the alleged movie downloads that IP address ”” was an ISP customer. But on its own, the movie company cannot tell which ISP customer it was. And it can’t serve a lawsuit on an IP address. ME2 Productions needs a name and address.

ISP already knows which of its customers was assigned IP address ””. But internet users are entitled to protection from their identities being revealed in connection with their internet activity. So, the movie company ME2 Productions must ask a federal judge for permission to issue a subpoena compelling ISP to reveal who the internet subscriber is (their name and address)  IP address ””

ME2 PRODUCTIONS Filed a Motion in Court To Justify Revealing Who the Defendant Is

ME2 Productions filed a motion with the Court to obtain permission to issue a subpoena to ISP. This motion’s technical name is “Motion For Leave to Issue a Third party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference”. I’ll just call it the ISP subpoena for your reading ease. This ISP subpoena request has several parts. The entire motion is embedded below, but here is a summary:

ME2 Productions tells the Court MaverickEye UG, a German company, obtained a direct connection with each defendants’ IP address and logged the IP address, time, and hash file number  – and the data downloaded from each infringing computer device is matched to the complete file.

What is the amount and type of data allegedly downloaded from each computer device? It does not say.

ME2 Productions Motion for ISP Subpoena - Colorado

Is it enough to state a claim for copyright infringement? A judge might find it is not.

What Are These Lawsuits About?

Critics of these BitTorrent copyright infringement lawsuits say its about the movie company generating more revenue. The movie company says it is filing these lawsuits to stop piracy of its intellectual property.

What is My First Notice If I Am Targeted In A Lawsuit?

If your internet address (“IP address”) is involved, your first notice of the lawsuit will probably be a letter or email from Comcast Hawaiian Telecom, Optimum Online, Verizon, Spectrum, or Time Warner and a copy of a subpoena from ME2 PRODUCTIONS.

The letter should tell you the date and time the movie was allegedly downloaded the case name and number, and inform you of your legal right to file a motion to quash or vacate the subpoena it received, by a certain date.

This is the time to talk with us about either having us negotiate an anonymous settlement, file a motion to quash subpoena, or prepare for your defense in court. We cannot help you remain anonymous after the internet company releases your information to the movie company, but can still help you negotiate a fair and confidential release as part of a settlement, or prepare for your defense in court.

What Can Antonelli Law Do For Me?

Antonelli Law will help you decide what to do about the ME2 PRODUCTIONS letters, subpoenas, and summons. We have helped many people accused of downloading movies over the internet in these types of lawsuits.

Remember, don’t panic. Learn the facts and your legal options by speaking for free to an Antonelli Law attorney confidentially nationwide at 312-201-8310 or use the contact form here.

Our clients say Antonelli Law is very good at:

  • Reducing your anxiety about the problem
  • Giving clear information to help you decide what to do
  • Responsive and accessible via phone and email
  • Tenacious and effective lawyers in lawsuit litigation

We understand the shock you may be feeling from receiving a notice of this action, and have the experience to help you deal with this in the best way possible for you: anonymous settlement, or prepare to fight back.

Antonelli Law is the Most Experienced BitTorrent Copyright Defense Firm in the Country

We can help you learn your legal options if you received an ISP letter informing you a subpoena for your identity was received, a settlement demand letter from the movie company’s attorneys, or if you are served with a summons or waiver of service of summons. We have helped nearly 2,000 people nationwide affordably defend themselves from over 50 different movie companies.

Read Even More Details Below About the Lawsuit and How to Defend Against It

  1. Don’t Sign a Waiver of Service of Summons Form Before Speaking with an Attorney

As defense attorneys, we are concerned that people who receive a Waiver of Service of Summons form in the mail from the movie company’s lawyer this will lead to an unfair default judgment against them. If you receive one of these forms, please speak with us before signing anything.

  1. Consider Filing A Motion to Quash Subpoena  in the ME2 PRODUCTIONS Case

The best reason for filing a motion to quash subpoena is if a now-anonymous defendant can manage to remain anonymous, it is possible the movie company may never be able to serve him or her with a court Summons and lawsuit Complaint.

That would be a terrific win for the defense, before the case even got started and before the expensive litigation processes of discovery and motions for summary judgment are filed. To do that, we argue that the lawsuit Complaint cannot stand up to a motion to dismiss the complaint. Therefore, if the lawsuit Complaint is not good enough there is no good reason for the subpoena to the ISP to proceed.

The Evidence Needed to Prove Copyright Infringement by ME2 PRODUCTIONS

ME2 PRODUCTIONS must show to the Court that:

  1. It has ownership of a valid copyright and
  2. The defendant violated the copyright owner’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.

We Could Not Find Sufficient Allegations of Evidence by ME2 PRODUCTIONS

We examined the court filings of ME2 PRODUCTIONS in case number 1:17-cv-02280-WYD-ME filed in the United States District Court of Colorado. We also reviewed the motion and exhibits in the case above, 1:17-cv-02280-WYD-ME ME2 PRODUCTIONS v JOHN DOES . From this review, we did not see that the movie company alleged sufficient evidence to show that its copyright was violated by the defendants it accuses.

For the reasons that follow below, we believe filing a motion to quash subpoena to stop the internet company from releasing the name and address of the unnamed Defendant could be justified. Stated simply, when we looked at the court filings by ME2 PRODUCTIONS we found in our opinion a lack of evidence of copyright infringement in the lawsuit’s complaint.

For example, ME2 PRODUCTIONS claims in its lawsuit Complaint at paragraph 50(a):”Each Defendant has downloaded a piece of the Plaintiff’s Work (emphasis added)“

One or more pieces? Is this even enough data to produce a flash of one image of the movie? If so this may qualify as a defense for what is called “de minimis” copyright infringement, which may entitle the movie company to nothing. You can read more about “de minimis” copyright infringement as well as the fair use defense here.

Finally, if you are curious you can read these filings for yourself by viewing the embedded Complaint below.

In our review of these court filings, in our opinion ME2 PRODUCTIONS has simply failed to allege sufficient evidence to show that its copyright was violated by the defendant it accuses.

In other words:

From what we saw, nothing was said about the size or contents of the portions of the work actually downloaded from the defendants’ IP addresses


ME2 Productions Complaint 17-cv-02280 Colorado


What Are Movie Downloading Cases in General About? What Are “Copyright Troll” Lawsuits?

If you want to read more, consider reading the article I wrote about “copyright troll” litigation which was published by the Illinois State Bar Association’s Intellectual Property Section:

Torrent Wars

Copyright Trolls, Legitimate IP rights, and the Need for New Rules Vetting Evidence and to Amend the Copyright Act

by Jeffrey J. Antonelli


Call us for a free consultation nationwide at 312-201-8310

Some of our attorneys are listed below. We represent clients in Hawaii, California, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, Texas, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Georgia, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and Washington DC.

District of Arizona

ME2 Productions Inc. v

Unknown Parties 2:16-cv-04039

Unknown Parties 2:16-cv-04075

Unknown Parties 2:16-cv-04112

Unknown Parties 2:16-cv-04114

Unknown Parties 2:16-cv-04123


District of Colorado

ME2 Productions Inc. v

Doe 1 et al 1:17-cv-02385

Doe 1 et al 1:17-cv-02280

Doe 1 et al 1:17-cv-01810

John Does (1-8) 1:17-cv-01207

Does 1 et al (1-16) 1:17-cv-01162

Doe 1 et al (1-5) 1:17-cv-00821

John Does (1-7) 1:17-cv-00793

John Does (1-19) 1:17-cv-00724

John Does (1-11) 1:17-cv-00674

Doe et al (1-24) 1:17-cv-00607

Doe et al (1-11) 1:17-cv-00508

Doe et al (1-11) 1:17-cv-00387

Doe et al (1-15) 1:17-cv-00301

Doe et al (1-20) 1:17-cv-00170

Doe et al (1-20) 1:17-cv-00033

John Does (1-2 4) 1:16-cv-03128

Doe et al (1-26) 1:16-cv-03069

Doe et al (1-20) 1:16-cv-03005

Doe et al 1:16-cv-02978

Doe et al 1:16-cv-02629

Doe et al 1:16-cv-02580

Doe 1 et al 1:16-cv-02629

Doe 1 et al 1:16-cv-02770

Doe 1 et al 1:16-cv-02788

Doe 1 et al (1-19) 1:16-cv-02827

Doe 1 et al (1-10) 1:16-cv-02891

Doe 1 et al (1-4) 1:17-cv-01031

Doe 1 et al (1-7) 1:17-cv-01089


District of Connecticut

ME2 Productions Inc. v

Does 1-11 3:16-cv-01834

Does 1-14 3:16-cv-01835

Does 1-19 3:16-cv-01837

Does 1-19 3:16-cv-01838


District of Georgia

ME2 Productions Inc. v

Does 1-14 1:16-cv-04055

Does 1-12 1:16-cv-04054

Does 1-11 1:16-cv-04052

Does 1-13 1:16-cv-03904


District of Hawaii

ME2 Productions Inc. v

Doe 1 et al 1:17-cv-00320

Does 1-20 1:17-cv-00155

Does 1-20 1:17-cv-00131

Does 1-20 1:17-cv-00130

Does 1-15 1:17-cv-00098

Does 1-16 1:17-cv-00096

Does 1-20 1:17-cv-00078

Does 1-19 1:17-cv-00079


Northern District of Illinois

ME2 Productions Inc. v

Does 1-25 1:17-cv-03914

Does 1-25 1:17-cv-03913

Does 1-29 1:17-cv-03912

Does 1-20 1:17-cv-03911

Does 1-27 1:17-cv-03910

Does 1-28 1:17-cv-03852

Does 1-27 1:17-cv-03851

Does 1-23 1:17-cv-03850

Does 1-18 1:17-cv-03847

Does 1-20 1:17-cv-03846

Does 1-36 1:17-cv-02467

Does 1-31 1:17-cv-02466

Does 1-31 1:17-cv-02465

Does 1-29 1:17-cv-02464

Does 1-25 1:17-cv-02462

Does 1-24 1:17-cv-02423

Does 1-22 1:17-cv-02421

Does 1-21 1:17-cv-02420

Does 1-19 1:17-cv-02419

Does 1-23 1:17-cv-02418

Does 1-28 1:17-cv-01541

Does 1-34 1:17-cv-01539

Does 1-31 1:17-cv-01536

Does 1-28 1:17-cv-01535

Does 1-23 1:17-cv-01532

Does 1-24 1:17-cv-01478

Does 1-25 1:17-cv-01476

Does 1-33 1:17-cv-01473

Does 1-34 1:17-cv-01471

Does 1-32 1:17-cv-01469

Does 1-25 1:17-cv-00706

Does 1-25 1:17-cv-00708

Does 1-26 1:17-cv-00710

Does 1-25 1:17-cv-00712

Does 1-42 1:17-cv-00714

Does 1-24 1:17-cv-03183

Does 1-27 1:17-cv-03184

Does 1-37 1:17-cv-03186

Does 1-36 1:17-cv-03188

Does 1-29 1:17-cv-03189


District of Indiana

ME2 Productions Inc. v

Doe 1 et al (1-8) 1:17-cv-01723

Doe 1 et al (1-9) 3:17-cv-00186

Doe 1 et al (1-11) 2:17-cv-00096

Doe 1 et al (1-9) 3:16-cv-00764

Doe 1 et al (1-12) 2:16-cv-00478

Doe 1 et al (1-7) 1:16-cv-03020

Doe 1 et al (1-9) 2:16-cv-00468

Doe 1 et al 1:16-cv-02757

Doe 1 et al 1:16-cv-02758

Does 3:16-cv-00695

Does 3:16-cv-00697

Does 1:16-cv-00390


District of Kentucky

ME2 Productions Inc. v

Does (1-10) 3:16-cv-00702


District of Maryland

ME2 Productions Inc. v

Doe 1 et al (1-15) 8:16-cv-03730


District of Missouri

ME2 Productions Inc. v

Doe 1 et al (1-2) 4:16-cv-01271


District of Nevada

ME2 Productions Inc. v

Does (1-21) 2:17-cv-00724

Does (1-18) 2:17-cv-00723

Does (1-24) 2:17-cv-00722

Does (1-18) 2:17-cv-00676

Does 2:17-cv-00668

Does (1-31) 2:17-cv-00667

Does (1-27) 2:17-cv-00666

Does 1-30 2:17-cv-00665

Does (1-22) 2:17-cv-00126

Does (1-20) 2:17-cv-00124

Does (1-19) 2:17-cv-00123

Does (1-21) 2:17-cv-00122

Does (1-23) 2:17-cv-00121

Does (1-23) 2:17-cv-00114

Does 1-21   2:17-cv-00049

Does 1-19 2:16-cv-02875

Does 1-33 2:16-cv-02783

Does 1-20 2:16-cv-02788

Does 1-12 2:16-cv-02799

Does 1-15 2:16-cv-02563

Does 1-15 2:16-cv-02520

Does 2:16-cv-02513

Does 2:16-cv-02384

Does (1-25) 2:16-cv-02657

Does (1-25) 2:16-cv-02660

Does (1-14) 2:16-cv-02662


District of New York

ME2 Productions Inc. v

Doe- et al 1:17-cv-05053

Doe- et al 1:17-cv-05701

Does (1-15) 1:17-cv-03467

Does (1-15) 1:17-cv-02645

Does (1-15) 1:17-cv-02175

Does (1-15) 1:17-cv-02284

Does (1-14) 1:17-cv-01604

Does (1-15) 1:17-cv-01456

Does (1-16) 1:17-cv-01196

Does (1-14) 1:17-cv-01049

Does (1-19) 1:16-cv-06161

Does (1-19) 1:16-cv-06160

Doe et al 1:17-cv-02717


District of North Carolina

ME2 Productions Inc. v

Does 1-5 5:17-cv-00131

Does 1-5 5:17-cv-00121

Doe 1-12 1:17-cv-00150

Doe 1-15 5:17-cv-00099

Doe 1 et al (1-7) 1-11 4:16-cv-00273

Doe 1 et al (1-8) 1-11 5:16-cv-00885

Doe 1 et al 1-11 5:16-cv-00881

Doe 1-9 5:16-cv-00202

Doe 1-9 5:16-cv-00875

Doe 1 et al (1-12) 5:16-cv-00896

Doe 1 et al (1-12) 5:16-cv-00206

Doe (1-8) 7:16-cv-00383

Doe (1-8) 7:16-cv-00384

Doe (1-9) 7:16-cv-00385

Doe (1-10) 7:16-cv-00386

Does (1-13) 4:16-cv-00278

Does (1-16) 7:16-cv-00394

Does (1-16) 4:16-cv-00279

Doe 1 et al (1-9) 5:16-cv-00917

Doe 1 et al (1-10) 5:16-cv-00920

Doe 1 et al (1-11) 5:16-cv-00922


District of Ohio

ME2 Productions Inc. v

Does 1-8 3:16-cv-02715

Does 1-14 3:16-cv-01062

Does 1-9 1:17-cv-00863

Does 1-8 2:17-cv-00342


District of Pennsylvania

ME2 Productions Inc. v

John Does 1-10 2:17-cv-01618

John Does 1-13 5:17-cv-01352

John Does 1-13 2:17-cv-00572

John Does 1-8 2:16-cv-06138


District of Texas

ME2 Productions Inc. v

Doe 1 et al 4:17-cv-01212

Doe 1 et al (1-14) 4:17-cv-01033

Does 1-11 4:17-cv-00862

Does 1-11 4:17-cv-00695

Does 1-12 4:17-cv-00501

Does 1-12 4:17-cv-00404

Doe 4:17-cv-00275


District of Utah

ME2 Productions Inc. v

Does 1-24 2:17-cv-00664

Does 1-26 2:17-cv-00663

Does 1-24 2:17-cv-00662

Does 1-26 2:17-cv-00626

Does 1-27 2:17-cv-00625

Does 1-36 2:17-cv-00624

Does (1-27) 2:17-cv-00576

Does (1-29) 2:17-cv-00547

Does (1-25) 2:17-cv-00526

Does (1-26) 2:17-cv-00525

Does (1-22) 2:17-cv-00523

Does (1-14) 2:17-cv-00225

Does (1-12) 2:17-cv-00224

Does (1-24) 2:17-cv-00223

Does (1-23) 2:17-cv-00198

Does (1-26) 2:17-cv-00199

Does (1-22) 2:17-cv-00200

Does (1-27) 2:17-cv-00191

Does (1-29) 2:17-cv-00190

Does (1-22) 2:17-cv-00189

Does (1-25) 2:17-cv-00179

Does (1-23) 2:17-cv-00178

Does (1-25) 2:17-cv-00169

Does (1-26) 2:17-cv-00168

Does (1-25) 2:17-cv-00158

Does (1-23) 2:17-cv-00157


District of Virginia

ME2 Productions Inc. v

Does (1-11) 3:17-cv-00002

Does (1-13) 5:16-cv-00083


See Also:

ME2 Productions Nationwide Update- ISP Subpoena Defense

Chicago Defendant Fights ME2 Productions Movie Lawsuit On His Own – Court Says No But Can Try Motion to Quash Subpoena Again – Antonelli Law Defense


ME2 Productions Lawsuit: Don’t Get Farmed Out By a Referral Service – Antonelli Law Defense



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Website Apps