ME2 Productions, Inc. v. Doe-22.214.171.124 et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER dated 9/3/17 granting plaintiff's 36 Motion for Default Judgment against defendant Rodney Henry. Since the claims against all of the other defendants have been resolved, the Court will separately enter a Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a) as to defendant Rodney Henry. ( Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 9/3/2017 ) (Guzzi, Roseann)
Case 1:17-cv-01196-BMC Document 39 Filed 09/05/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 299
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
- against :
COGAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff is a media production company and exclusive owner of the copyright for the
motion picture Mechanic: Resurrection (which I thought was quite a good movie, but I am a
sucker for both Tommy Lee Jones and Jason Statham films, and this has both). It brought this
action against fifteen John Doe defendants for using file-sharing software to illegally download,
and in some cases distribute, unauthorized copies of Resurrection over the internet. At the time
the complaint was filed, plaintiff was able to identify defendants only by their internet protocol
(“IP”) addresses, but discovery obtained in this action from their internet service providers
allowed plaintiff to identify and then settle with or dismiss the individuals involved, except for
Defendant Rodney Henry has been validly served, and is well aware of the pendency of
this action as plaintiff has gone far beyond what is required to solicit his participation. Plaintiff
has sent him 16 cease and desist notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq. Nor is this Mr. Henry’s first rodeo. Plaintiff has produced
evidence that shows Mr. Henry has illegally distributed a minimum of 19 motion pictures,
Case 1:17-cv-01196-BMC Document 39 Filed 09/05/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 300
including Resurrection, in less than a two-year period. He finally suspended distributing illegal
copies when his internet provider, Time Warner Cable, notified him that it was going to disclose
his identify to plaintiff in response to the subpoena that I authorized, but there is nothing to
suggest that he will not start up again when this controversy has abated, perhaps through a
different, more anonymous IP address.
Despite the current lull in his illegal activities, it is not as if Mr. Henry is turning over a
new leaf, because he has failed to respond to this lawsuit in any way. That is the case even
though plaintiff gave him one last chance to appear and defend this case, sending him a letter
warning him of the consequences of his continuing non-appearance. It was quite a conciliatory
letter, actually, stating that:
[W]e have no interest whatsoever in maintaining suit against innocent parties.
Serving a complaint and participating in litigation would be costly for both us and
you. We certainly do not wish to invest significant resources into this case, only
to learn at a later time that you are not responsible for infringing the rights of my
client. Thus, to the extent you believe you are not the infringer, it is to your
benefit to break your silence and contact us, so that we may avoid the unnecessary
and costly process of proceeding against you in this case, and you may avoid the
costly process of defending. If you are truly innocent, we would welcome the
opportunity to speak with you now to see if we can work together to identify the
true infringer of my client’s rights.
No response from Mr. Henry. Accordingly, the clerk already having entered a certificate of
default, plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is before me.
All of the requirements for a default judgment have been met. The allegations contained
in the amended complaint insofar as they relate to liability are deemed true, see Au Bon Pain
Corp. v. Artect, Inc., 653 F.2d 61, 65 (2d Cir. 1981), and plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to
support a claim for copyright infringement. See John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. John Doe Nos. 1-30,
284 F.R.D. 185, 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (claim for copyright infringement requires showing of
ownership of a valid copyright and unauthorized downloading, copying, and distribution).
Case 1:17-cv-01196-BMC Document 39 Filed 09/05/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 301
A plaintiff entitled to a default judgment does not get damages for the asking, see Credit
Lyonnais Sec., Inc. v. Alcantara, 183 F.3d 151, 155 (2d Cir. 1999), but must prove its
entitlement. Here, the exercise is simple not only because plaintiff has elected statutory damages
under 17 U.S.C. § 504, but because plaintiff has continued its largesse towards Mr. Henry by
only requesting $10,000, less than 7% of the statutory maximum of $150,000. Plaintiff is not
even seeking attorneys’ fees, to which it is entitled. Ten thousand dollars in statutory damages is
a remarkably restrained request against a willful infringer like Mr. Henry, especially considering
the need for deterrence of the rampant copyright violations in the film industry that the DMCA
seeks to prevent. See Privacy and Piracy: The Paradox of Illegal File Sharing on Peer-to-Peer
Networks and the Impact of Technology on the Entertainment Industry: Hearing Before the
Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations of the Sen. Comm. On Governmental Affairs, 108th
Cong., 1st Sess. 10 (2003) (Opening Statement of Sen. Levin). I have no hesitation in awarding
I similarly have no hesitation in granting plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction
under 17 U.S.C. § 502(a). Permanent injunctions are appropriate when infringement has been
established and there is a substantial likelihood of future violations. Boisson v. Banian Ltd., 280
F. Supp. 2d 10, 15 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). Mr. Henry’s refusal to acknowledge the process of this
Court might alone suffice to support a finding that he is likely to infringe again, but one look at
his track record leaves no doubt. Having learned that what he thought was anonymous piracy is
actually subject to unmasking, it would not be technologically difficult for him to layer on
another level of anonymity and try it again. (There is no reason for me to spell out how easily
this can be done). Plaintiff should not have to engage in three-card monte to anticipate Mr.
Henry’s next play. Irreparable harm, while not presumed, is self-evident, as once Mr. Henry put
Case 1:17-cv-01196-BMC Document 39 Filed 09/05/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 302
his illegal downloads of plaintiff’s copyrighted work into commerce, there is no telling with how
many users they are going to end up.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment is granted. Since the claims
against all of the other defendants have been resolved, the Court will separately enter a Final
Judgment and Permanent Injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a).
Digitally signed by Brian M.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
September 3, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?