3SUR-REPLY TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS No.
The tactic of Defendant’s counsel has been to throw as many unsupportable
accusations intotheir briefs as possible, in an effort to see if any will have an impact. In this particular case,Defendant has strayed far from those matters that were at issue in the underlying litigation, by (i) presenting two declarations from Mr. Gibbs (Gibbs 3 and Gibbs 4) which contradict an earlier declaration in another proceeding (Gibbs 1) in what was clearly a
quid pro quo
to benefit both sidesfinancially; (ii) re-
visiting the “Alan Cooper” hoax
, without disclosing evidence they are aware of that there is a clear factual dispute over whether Mr. Cooper signed the copyright assignment; and
(iii) presenting the “opinion” of a wi
tness whom they have not sought to qualify as an expert, whoaccuses a non-
party, John Steele, of “seeding” the BitTorrent swarm
from which Mr. Navasca stole
Plaintiff’s copyrighted work
THE COURT SHOUD DISREGARD MR. GIBBS
DECLARATIONS AS NOTCREDIBLE.
The centerpiece of Defendant’s latest
effort is yet another declaration from former Plaintiff counsel Mr. Gibbs, in which Mr. Gibbs flatly contradicts statements that he made in other federal proceedings. (True and correct copies of (4) declarations of Mr. Gibbs, filed in Federal Court
proceedings between December 2012 and July 2013 (referred to herein sequentially as “Gibbs 1”through “Gibbs 4”) are attached
respectively, hereto and made a parthereof.) The factual inconsistencies in
declarations are clear, and suggest that at aminimum, the Court should disregard them. Plaintiff highlights five of the more strikinginconsistencies that establish that his statements should be given no weight.
Mr. Gibbs claims now that he was an employee of Prenda Law.
(Gibbs 3 and Gibbs 4,Exs. A and B.) However, before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in
December, 2012, Mr. Gibbs stated that he was “I am not an employee or partner” of Prenda Law.
(Gibbs 1 at Ex. A.)
December 2012 affidavit of Mr. Gibbs (“Gibbs 1”), a true and correct copy
of which is attached at
hereto and made a part of.). He made the statement in Gibbs 1 before the defendant in the Florida brought a motion for sanctions; he changed his conclusion after
narrative is ostensibly an effort on his part to delegate to his
responsibility of maintaining an original signed copy of documents containingelectronic signatures.
Case3:12-cv-02396-EMC Document104-1 Filed08/28/13 Page3 of 11