Attorney Evan Stone Fined $10K Over 'Improper' Subpoenas

DALLAS — A federal judge has fined attorney Evan Stone $10,000 for sending out subpoenas before getting court approval.

But Stone told XBIZ he plans to appeal the ruling and said that people have lost sight of why these BitTorrent suits are happening in the first place.

"Years ago, we in the entertainment industry made a deal with the nation’s largest Internet service providers," Stone said. "Part of this deal stated that we wouldn’t sue ISPs for unlawfully distributing content through their networks [at the behest of their customers] provided that the ISPs would help us identify the individuals engaged in these unlawful activities.  The problem now is that the ISPs have welshed on their end of the deal."

Stone, who earlier this year filed a BitTorrent lawsuit at U.S. District Court in Dallas targeting 670 John Does on behalf of Mick Haig Productions , asked the court to allow him to send out subpoenas to Internet service providers to find out the identities of the infringers.

But the court never made a ruling on the request and instead ordered the ISPs to store the information for a later date.

Stone said that the only alternative seems to be is to file a federal lawsuit and obtain a court order specifically granting discovery that IPSs had originally promised to comply with on their own volition. 

"This 'sue first and ask questions later' approach we are left is far from ideal for everyone involved, but the copyright holder’s right to conduct discovery to identify wrongdoers should not be in question," Stone said.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation represented the defendants in the case and asked the court to disallow subpoenas seeking the identities of the accused Does.  The judge ruled that Stone was not to send out any subpoenas until after the court ruled if it was proper to do so.

However, Stone sent out the subpoenas anyway, and began identifying individuals, even though the court had not ruled if it was proper.

By serving invalid subpoenas, Stone necessarily, “imposed an undue burden or expense on each ISP and the putative Does,” the court said. “To say that the subpoenas imposed an undue burden on their targets fails to capture the gravity of Stone’s abdication of responsibility because Stone obtained information that he had no right to receive.”

Stone was ordered by the court to pay $10,000 in sanctions and take remedial steps outlined by the judge.

"Discovery can, most certainly, be guided by the court," Stone said. "But for an order to be issued at the outset of a case that discovery itself should be opposed continues to perplex me."

Stone added that Congress had some notion of the "volume of piracy we would be experiencing now and noone, even today, could suggest with a straight face that the simple, essential step of matching an account holder to an IP address merits the scrutiny of a federal judge every time someone unlawfully downloads the content of another.  That scrutiny should be reserved for the merits of the case."

Related:  

Copyright © 2025 Adnet Media. All Rights Reserved. XBIZ is a trademark of Adnet Media.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.

More News

Supreme Court Rules Against Adult Industry in Pivotal Texas AV Case

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday issued its decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, striking a blow against the online adult industry by ruling in support of Texas’ controversial age verification law, HB 1181.

North Carolina Passes Extreme Bill Targeting Adult Sites

The North Carolina state legislature this week ratified a bill that would impose new regulations that industry observers have warned could push adult websites and platforms to ban most adult creators and content.

Supreme Court Ruling Due Friday in FSC v. Paxton AV Case

The U.S. Supreme Court will rule on Friday in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the adult industry trade association's challenge to Texas’ controversial age verification law, HB 1181.

Ofcom: More Porn Providers Commit to Age Assurance Measures

A number of adult content providers operating in the U.K. have confirmed that they plan to introduce age checks in compliance with the Online Safety Act by the July 25 deadline, according to U.K. media regulator Ofcom.

Aylo Says It Will Comply With UK Age Assurance Requirements

Tech and media company Aylo, which owns various adult properties including Pornhub, YouPorn and Redtube, plans to introduce age assurance methods in the United Kingdom that satisfy government rules under the Online Safety Act, the company has announced.

Kyrgyzstan Parliament Approves Measure Outlawing Internet Porn

The Supreme Council of Kyrgyzstan on Wednesday passed legislation outlawing online adult content in the country.

Trial Set for Lawsuit by U Wisconsin Professor Fired Over Adult Content

A trial date of June 22, 2026, has been set for the civil lawsuit filed by veteran communications professor Joe Gow against the University of Wisconsin board of regents, which fired him for creating and appearing in adult content.

New UK Task Force Meets to Target Adult Content

The architect of an influential report that recommended banning adult content deemed “degrading, violent and misogynistic” has convened an “Independent Pornography Review task force” aimed at translating that report’s findings into action in the U.K.

French Court Suspends Age Verification Rule for EU Sites

The Paris Administrative Court has suspended enforcement of age verification regulations for sites based in other European Union member nations, pending a final judgment on whether France’s AV rules align with EU standards.

UK Parliament Weighs Proposals Targeting Adult Content

The U.K. Parliament this week debated proposed amendments to the pending Crime and Policing Bill, including clauses criminalizing “choking” content — and potentially outlawing paying for sex acts in cam performances and custom clips.

Show More