, ,

For those following the CP Productions v. John Doe BitTorrent lawsuit filed recently in the Southern District of Indiana, I thought I’d detail the first steps in the Plaintiff’s litigation strategy. First, Plaintiff uses its “proprietary P2P network forensic software” to monitor and collect IP addresses of BitTorrent downloaders. They then file a Complaint in the jurisdiction du jour (over the last two years they’ve been filing all over the U.S. looking for courts willing to play along…CP Productions v. John Doe is the first lawsuit of this type filed in Indiana). Plaintiff then files a motion asking the Court to issue a subpoena to the downloaders’ Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to obtain the personal information (name, address) of the John Does. Most courts have granted this motion (see example below).

Once an ISP receives a subpoena, it will contact the downloader, alerting them to the subpoena and that their personal information will be disclosed by a set deadline. Some ISPs have decided to challenge the subpoena, but most have simply played along, presumably happy that they’re not included in the lawsuit. From there, it’s up to the downloader to decide whether to settle, defend themself or just wait and hope the lawsuit gets thrown out. If nothing is done by the ISP’s deadline, the ISP will share the downloaders’ information and the downloader will receive a new letter directly from Plaintiff.

Stay tuned for more updates as the case proceeds. If you have questions, feel free to leave them in the comments. However, there are numerous helpful websites already out there with general information about BitTorrent download cases. I’ll be trying to focus primarily on the specifics of this Indiana case. Coming up…profiles of Plaintiff’s counsel and Judge Magnus-Stinson.

CP Productions, Inc. v. John Doe
Court Case Number: 1:12-cv-00808-JMS-DML

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to the Rule 26(f) Conference:

Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to the Rule 26(f) Conference: