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


Success breeds imitation.

One of the pioneering  Practice areas of Antonelli Law is providing affordable, competent legal defense across the country for people sued by movie companies like ME2 Productions, Venice PI LLC, or Malibu Media LLC for alleged illegal internet movie downloads.

To fight these federal copyright lawsuits effectively and affordably, Antonelli Law developed a national team of local counsel attorneys  in many of the states the movie companies file their copyright infringement lawsuits in. Every day, almost all legal work is done by Antonelli Law attorneys employed at its downtown Chicago offices. In addition, clients across the country benefit from also having a local attorney nearby, just in case an immediate court hearing is necessary.

Antonelli Law – Real Local Counsel, Not a Referral Service

Doing business this way has allowed us to help thousands of people all across the country affordable obtain excellent legal defense against what some federal judges have called movie companies, “copyright trolls”.  We have represented parents, businesses, and individuals and helped them obtain a successful resolution through defense litigation and other methods, including anonymous settlements. We do things the right way. We don’t just refer people to other lawyers after getting them to call us.

A Real Law Firm & Established Nationwide Local Counsel

Unfortunately, the success of Antonelli Law has led some attorneys to try to replicate the appearance of strength of our national local counsel Team. But in reality, the “law firm” is just a solo lawyer referring potential clients to lawyers it doesn’t even name on its website.

So, we wanted to share the identities and legal accomplishments of our trusted local counsel below so our potential clients facing copyright infringement subpoenas and lawsuits from movie companies ME2 Productions, UN4 Productions, Venice PI LLC (a Bruce Willis film) and Malibu Media LLC can vet the authenticity of our law firm’s claims of excellence.  Just take a look below and click on each of our local counsel’s bios. They are real lawyers with remarkable backgrounds and experience.

If you would like a free consultation from Antonelli Law to help you decide whether to try to settle, to fight the lawsuit, or if you need more information about filing a motion to quash the subpoena call us at 312-201-8310 or use the contact form here.

Want to Talk to Antonelli Law About A Movie Lawsuit? Get a Valuable Free Consultation From a Real Law Firm

If you want to talk for free with Antonelli Law to discuss a BitTorrent copyright infringement lawsuit, please use our contact form or call us at 312-201-8310 nationwide. We’re the nation’s most experienced BT copyright defense firm.

Antonelli Law’s reputation for excellence and deep experience has allowed us to form co-counsel relationships with very high quality, established attorneys in a number of states around the United States

None of our competition has this strong local counsel support. It is part of why our clients receive such high value hiring Antonelli Law. No matter where their litigation case is located.

v Does 1-
Byron L Ames Nevada & Utah local counsel BitTorrent Copyright Defense for Antonelli Law

Byron L. Ames
Jurisdictions: Nevada & Utah

v Does 1-

Jeffrey Antonelli

National Lead; Illinois, Indiana, Colorado, All Other States Pro Hac

v Does 1-
Attorney Melissa Brabender

Melissa Brabender

Senior Associate; Illinois, All Other States Pro Hac

v Does 1-
Attorney Mark Del Bianco is Antonelli Law’s Maryland local counsel for Maryland and Washington DC

Mark Del Bianco
Jurisdictions: Maryland, Washington DC

v Does 1-
Leslie Farber – New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania

Leslie Farber
Jurisdictions: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania

Virginia copyright defense attorney Peter Glazer
Virginia copyright defense attorney Peter Glazer

Peter Glazer
Jurisdiction Virginia

v Does 1-
Southern District of Texas

Tristan C. Robinson
Tristan C. Robinson
Jurisdiction: Texas

ME2 Productions and UN4 Productions Are Copyright Infringement Lawsuits-But They Have Weaknesses

From our Motions to Quash page:

In 2017, Antonelli Law is again encouraged that filing motions to quash the subpoena in BitTorrent movie download cases just may be worthwhile.

Why? A new law journal article by Loyola Law Professor Matthew Sag has been published explaining why in his opinion many (if not all) of BitTorrent copyright infringement cases don’t really state enough evidence, at least in the lawsuit’s Complaint. Law Professor Matthew Sag’s article is called Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling.

Basically, our argument goes like this:

“The lawsuit’s complaint alleging copyright infringement really only alleges that a few “bits” of data were directly observed transmitted with the IP address in question. That’s not enough to make out a copyright infringement claim. Therefore, if the court should throw out the lawsuit’s complaint based on this deficiency (through something called a 12(b)(6) motion) then it should quash the subpoena.

These arguments are not new.

However, we believe that when a law professor says the same things rather than “just a lawyer” arguing on behalf of a client, a judge (and his or her judicial law clerks) just might take the argument more seriously.

We recently filed a motion to quash the subpoena in a Malibu Media LLC case. Days before the court hearing on the motion Malibu Media LLC agreed to dismiss the lawsuit against our client. Was it due to the argument we made above? Or was it the additional argument we made based on jurisdiction that our client was in Indiana and the lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Illinois? Or something else? We will probably never know.

Based on the above, as of the time of writing this update in 2017 we are again willing to file motions to quash subpoenas again – with the hope that the judge will grant it and dispose of the case permanently against the client.

However, even if you are interested in pursuing this route please call us to see why filing a motion to quash the subpoena might not end the case permanently against you, and might even work against you. And of course feel free to speak with an Antonelli Law attorney for free to evaluate whether filing a motion to quash the subpoena makes sense for you.

See also:

ME2 Productions Nationwide Update- ISP Subpoena Defense

Venice PI LLC Lawsuit – Here’s the Help & Information You Need by Antonelli Law Defense

I received a Comcast Copyright Infringement Letter and Subpoena – Help!

ME2 Productions Lawsuits

ME2 Productions Inc. – Help for Subpoenas and Summons

Received an ME2 Productions Inc. subpoena or summons? We can help!

Many people are starting to receive copies of subpoenas from ME2 Productions Inc. sent to them by their Internet service provider, like Comcast or AT&T.

Want to Talk to Antonelli Law For Free About These Questions Right Away? Start Here

If you want to talk for free with Antonelli Law right away to discuss an ME2 Productions lawsuit, use our contact form or call us at 312-201-8310 nationwide. We’re the nation’s most experienced BT copyright defense firm. Or scroll down to continue learning more about these lawsuits.

Feeling confused or scared about receiving this letter and subpoena? Our FAQ page will answer these questions:

What is This About?
What Happens Next?
What Can I Do?
Stages in the Life of a “John Doe” Lawsuit – Alleged Movie Downloads
If you received an ME2 Productions Inc. Subpoena or were served a Summons, call us at 312-201-8310

The best thing to do is to talk with an experienced lawyer.

Learn about what the notice means.
Do you want to quickly and anonymously make this go away by resolving the lawsuit by settling?
Or do you want to prepare to fight the lawsuit?
Should you file a motion to quash the subpoena?
Ask us every question that concerns you.
This is what 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
Our fees are reasonable and most cases are resolved out of court for a flat legal fee of $750 – $1,000 for anonymous settlements.

Call us today for a free consultation at 312-201-8310 or click here to contact us and we will respond within an hour during office hours or the very next morning if not. Don’t panic. Learn the facts and speak for free, confidentially, with our experienced attorneys.

Would you like information on ME2 Productions that is specific to your state?

Click on the state you are interested in:

North Carolina
Antonelli Law’s Nationwide Experience With BitTorrent Copyright Lawsuits

At Antonelli Law we have been defending people targeted in BitTorrent copyright infringement lawsuits like the one filed by ME2 Productions Inc. for a long time and have helped nearly 2,000 clients nationwide. We have an excellent reputation – even our competition respects us.

Attorney Jeffrey Antonelli has more than 15 years litigation experience and is admitted to the trial bar of the Northern District of Illinois federal court and our local counsel from the west coast to the east coast help us efficiently and effectively settle and fight lawsuits in your state.

Call us at 312-201-8310 for a free initial attorney consultation or Click here for our simple contact form. An attorney will respond to you shortly.

What is the ME2 Productions Inc. Lawsuit About?

ME2 Productions Inc. filed federal copyright infringement lawsuits alleging illegal downloads of the action thriller “Mechanic: Resurrection” starring Jason Statham and Jessica Alba. Your first notice of the lawsuit will probably be a letter from your ISP and a ME2 Productions Inc subpoena.

Like other BitTorrent peer-to-peer file-sharing cases,
ME2 Productions Inc. accuses defendants of copyright infringement by using software and the internet to obtain the film “Mechanic: Resurrection” without paying the appropriate license fee.


Antonelli Law has the experience and compassion to competently help you, too. Click here to contact us or call 312-201-8310 for a free initial attorney consultation. Antonelli Law has been defending clients accused of BitTorrent copyright claims since 2011 and has helped over 1,500 clients across the country deal with being targeted in federal copyright lawsuits.

Antonelli Law can help you nationwide if you have received an ISP letter informing you a subpoena for your identity was received, or if you are served with a summons or waiver of service.

For immediate advice and a free initial consultation call attorney Jeffrey Antonelli at 312-201-8310 or fill out our simple contact page or email us with a request to call you back at a time that is convenient for you. 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. Attorney referrals accepted.

Antonelli Law is Very Experienced Defending BT Claims

Antonelli Law has represented over 1500 clients dealing with copyright trolls and satellite piracy trolls. We have gained a great deal of insight into what works and what is a waste of your time and money. We have no desire to have you spin your wheels with legal work that does not advance your defense and only racks up lawyer fees. However, we are experienced litigators and are prepared to defend clients vigorously. Either way, we will never put our interests ahead of your own.

Hiring Antonelli Law Is No More Expensive than Hiring a Local Attorney in Your State

Antonelli Law’s numerous federal court admissions, local counsel affiliations, and the nature of federal lawsuits allow us to effectively and cost-consciously represent you in your copyright infringement defense, no matter which state you live in – and no more expensively than a local attorney.

We are able to represent you in your federal case without being more expensive or more difficult to hire than hiring a local attorney because federal courts require attorneys to file their papers electronically, and often conduct hearings by telephone. This makes frequent trips to the courthouse unnecessary. Also, we do not charge for airline flights or flying travel charges. Clients pay only for the normal travel time to the courthouse any local attorney would charge.

Finally, we have affiliated local counsel in a number of states who have earned our trust and can appear in court on an expedited basis when necessary. We will of course be in court personally when necessary such as non-routine hearings or a trial.

An Overview of BitTorrent Copyright Infringement

To get an overview of this type of litigation and what you might expect to experience, click here for Jeffrey Antonelli’s article Torrent Wars, published by the Illinois State Bar Association’s Intellectual Property section.

More Information

See our motions to quash page and give us a call to speak with an attorney about filing a motion to quash the subpoena your ISP received for your account information and name.

See our should I settle? page if you are thinking about possibly settling and give us a call.

Recent Press on Antonelli Law

“Why Are So Many People In Northern Illinois Being Sued For Downloading Porn?”Miles Bryan NPR/WBEZ quoting Jeffrey Antonelli
“Porn Infringement Battles Keeps the Action Going for Both Sides” Anandashankar Mazumdar and Tommy Shen BNA Bloomberg
“Movie Studio Targets Consumers For Illegal Downloads”
Chicago NBC 5 television interview of Jeffrey Antonelli
Why It’s Getting Harder to Sue Illegal Movie Downloaders MotherJones, quoting Jeffrey Antonelli
Our Legal Services

We offer a reasonable Flat Fee for motions to quash, and helping you settle and remain anonymous in many cases; and reasonable fees for defending you if you are named as a defendant in a copyright infringement lawsuit.

Selected severe financial hardship cases are handled on a reduced or pro bono basis. We accept attorney referrals and clients nationwide. This is a swiftly changing area of law and we continually follow the latest developments.

Antonelli Law Ltd. provides advice based on years of solid litigation experience representing consumers and businesses and concentrates in representing people accused of BitTorrent copyright infringement. You need serious legal advice for your copyright troll defense – not from a firm who can only try to negotiate a settlement but has little or no actual litigation experience. Our last complex trial involved computer firewalls, sophisticated commercial networks, and a Microsoft certified expert. We have the credentials to back up our advice and settlement postures, and the other side knows it.

A copy of the ME2 Productions Inc Complaint is located here (click) and is duplicated in the following cases:

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

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

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 (1-22) 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

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 (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 (1-27) 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

Like Us On Facebook



Add a Comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Website Apps