VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND CITY OF RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff, v.

MORIAH KAHN, THE RICHMOND WINGNUT COLLECTIVE, NATHAN COX, FILEBIN.NET, and DOES 1-10, Defendants. MOTION TO ENLARGE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION COMES NOW Plaintiff, City of Richmond Police Department (the "RPD" or "Plaintiff'), by counsel, and moves for an enlargement of the time for the temporary The RPD states the following grounds Civil Case No. CL12-4939

injunction entered herein on November 16,2012. for the Motion. 1.

On November 15, 2012, the Plaintiff commenced this action filing on an

emergency basis a Complaint, a Motion for Temporary Injunction ("Injunction Motion") and a Motion to put the case file under seal ("Motion to Seal"). 2. The original Complaint sought injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent

the disclosure of certain Confidential Information, as defined in the Complaint, which included information concerning undercover operations of the RPD, names and home addresses of employees and undercover police officers of the RPD. A Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is being contemporaneously filed, which adds new claims for Conversion, Trespass to Chattels, and violation of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act.

US_ACTIVE111189049.1

3.

For good cause shown, the Court granted the Injunction Motion and

entered an Order (the "Injunction Order"), prohibiting further disclosure of the Confidential Information and requiring delivery to the Court of copies of the Confidential Information. 4. The Injunction Order expires twenty-one days after the date of entry,

which is December 8, 2012. Accordingly, the Injunction Order has not expired and the Court may extend it under Virginia Code 8.01-624. 5. The RPD and the City need additional time to prepare for a hearing

seeking a permanent injunction and other relief. The RPD and the City need to obtain responsive pleadings, responses to discovery requests, to conduct depositions, and to interview and prepare its own witnesses for hearing. Additionally, the RPD and the City may need to designate expert witnesses. 6. The RPD and the City believe that this matter can be prepared and brought

to trial by March 15, 2013. Granting this relief will enable this matter to be brought to decision with the most efficient use of judicial and party resources. 7. For all the same reasons that the Court granted the Injunction Motion, the

Court should grant this Motion. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, the City of Richmond Police Department, respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order extending the length of time that the Injunction Order is in effect by and through March 15,2013.

/
-2-

Respectfully submitted, CITY OF RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT By Counsel

ravi A. Sabal i, Esquire (VSB No. 47368) Justin M. Sizemore, Esquire (VSB No. 71859) Reed Smith LLP Riverfront Plaza - West Tower 901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1700 Richmond, VA 23219-4069 Telephone: (804) 344-3400 Facsimile: (804) 344-3410 tsabalewski@reedsmith.com j sizemore@reedsmith.com Counsel for Plaintiff

-3-

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND CITY OF RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff, v. MORIAH KAHN, THE RICHMOND WINGNUT COLLECTIVE, NATHAN COX, FILEBIN.NET, and DOES 1-10, Defendants. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT COMES NOW, Plaintiff, City of Richmond Police Department ("RPD") and the City of Richmond (the "City") (collectively, the "Movants"), by counsel, and moves the Court for leave to file Amended Complaint, pursuant to Rules 1:8 and 3: 14 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. As the grounds for this motion, the Movants state as follows. 1. This matter was commenced on November 15,2012, by the filing of the Civil Case No. CL12-4939

Complaint and a Motion for Temporary Injunction, which were prepared and filed on an emergency basis to prevent further disclosure of certain Confidential Information, as described in the original Complaint. 2. A proposed First Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The

amendments include a correction in the style of the case, where the last name of defendant Moriah Karn was misspelled as Kahn, though her name was elsewhere spelled correctly in the Complaint.

I
US_ACTIVE-111183S21.1

3.

Another amendment is the addition of the City as a Plaintiff. The City is the

independent political subdivision for which the RPD is an agency. The Cityhas a direct interest in relief sought in the Complaint and the Amended Complaint. 4. The First Amended Complaint includes new claims for Conversion, Trespass to

Chattels, and for violation of the Computer Crimes Act, as well as new amplified allegations in support of all the claims asserted. 5. 6. Complaint. 7. The ends of justice would be served by permitting the filing of the attached No defendant has entered an appearance in the case. No defendant would suffer any unfair prejudice from the filing of the Amended

proposed First Amended Complaint. WHEREFORE, City of Richmond Police Department and the City of Richmond request that the Court enter an Order that grants the Motion for Leave to file the First Amended Complaint and deems the proposed First Amended Complaint filed as of the date of entry of the Order, per Rule 1:8.

-2-

Respectfully submitted, CITY OF RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT By Counsel

~~

TfaViSASabaleWSk SireCVSB No.4 7368) Justin M. Sizemore, Esquire (VSB No. 71859) Reed Smith LLP Riverfront Plaza - West Tower 901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1700 Richmond, VA 23219-4069 Telephone: (804) 344-3400 Facsimile: (804) 344-3410 tS,abalewski@reedsmith.com jsizemore(a{reedsmith.com Counsel for Plaintiff

-3-

Respectfully submitted, CITY OF RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT By Counsel

~~

TfaViSASabaleWSk SireCVSB No.4 7368) Justin M. Sizemore, Esquire (VSB No. 71859) Reed Smith LLP Riverfront Plaza - West Tower 901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1700 Richmond, VA 23219-4069 Telephone: (804) 344-3400 Facsimile: (804) 344-3410 tS,abalewski@reedsmith.com jsizemore(a{reedsmith.com Counsel for Plaintiff

-3-

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND CITY OF RICHMOND and CITY OF RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT, Plaintiffs, v. MORIAH KARN, THE RICHMOND WINGNUT COLLECTIVE, NATHAN COX, FILEBIN.NET, ESPEN BRAASTAD, and DOES 1-10, Defendants. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT COME NOW Plaintiffs City of Richmond (the "City"), City of Richmond Police Department (the "RPD") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), by counsel, and for their First Amended Complaint against Moriah Kam ("Kam"), The Richmond Wingnut Collective (the "Wingnuts"), Nathan Cox ("Cox"), Filebin.net, Espen Braastad ("Braastad") and Does 1-10, ("Defendants"), state as follows: 1. This is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, including entry of a Civil Case No. CL12-4939

temporary injunction order and final injunction order, to enjoin the Defendants from the posting or sharing of confidential and sensitive information improperly obtained by the Defendants. This is necessary to preserve the safety of police officers and families of police officers in the RPD and to protect investments made by the RPD in certain undercover operations designed to thwart crimes in the City and to prevent future criminal activity in the City. Additionally, this is an action for damages based on tort of EXHIBIT

I -A

Conversion and violation of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, 18.2-152.1 et seq., as permitted under 152.4(6) and 152.l2(A). PARTIES 2. Virginia. 3. 4. The RPD is an agency of the City. The Wingnuts are a self-professed anarchist collective house in Southern The City is an independent political subdivision of the Commonwealth of

Barton Heights in Richmond, Virginia. See http://wingnutrva.org/ 5. Kam holds a leadership position with the Wingnuts and has control over

what is posted on the Wingnuts website. 6. Cox holds a leadership position with Cop Block in Virginia and Cop

Watch. Cox controls what information and links are posted on the Virginia Cop Block website at http://virginiacopblock.org/. 7. Filebin.Net is a website. Users of the website can post information on it

and thereby make it available to the public. Braastad controls what is posted on Filebin.net. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. The Court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the

Defendants in this action and subject matter jurisdiction over this cause of action pursuant to Virginia Code 8.01-620 and the Virginia Declaratory Judgment Act. 9. The Court is the proper Venue under Virginia Code 8.01-257 and 262.

-2-

FACTS 10. The Wingnuts, Kam, Cox, and/or the Does somehow obtained certain

confidential information of the Plaintiffs. This information includes the names, primary residence addresses, telephone numbers, and/or other confidential information concerning certain officers and employees of the RPD who are performing duties and investigations for the RPD on an undercover basis. This also includes the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and/or other confidential information concerning certain other officers and employees of the RPD. Collectively, the foregoing is hereafter referred to as the "Confidential Information." 11. All the Confidential Information was located on a portable hard drive (the

"Hard Drive") owned by the RPD. The Hard Drive is missing. No one employed in the RPD had the authority to distribute the Hard Drive or the Confidential Information to anyone not employed in the RPD. Accordingly, no one employed in the RPD with authority to do so delivered the Hard Drive to anyone outside the RPD. 12. The Wingnuts, Kam, Cox, and/or the Does improperly and without the

authorization of the Plaintiffs came into possession of the Confidential Information and/or the Hard Drive. The Virginia Freedom of Information Act does not permit the public to obtain information like the Confidential Information from the Plaintiffs. Wingnuts, Kam, Cox, and/or the Does did not come into possession ofthe Confidential Information through a request under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. 13. The Wingnuts, Kam, Cox, and/or the Does have made the Confidential

Information publicly available by posting it on Filebin.net and making links to the Confidential Information available on the Wingnuts' website, where in part it stated:

-3-

Here are links to some of the new info out there on the web, not sure how long it will stay on those websites, so download your own copy if you are interested! http://filebin.netiOcupaguxql http://filebin.net/8supe 72vg8. 14. The Wingnuts, Karn, Cox, and/or the Does have made the Confidential

Information publicly available by posting it on Filebin.net and making links to the information available on http://virginiacopblock.org/, where it states as follows:

Anonymous LEAK: Richmond Police Department Internal Information Published Online Virginia Cop Block was contacted several days ago by an anonymous person who claimed to have internal information about the Richmond Police Department. We were told that this information would be given first to the RVA Wingnut group, which primarily is a Anarchist Collective in Southern Barton Heights whom are affiliated with and to Cop Watch outreach & activism - as well as Virginia Cop Block. Virginia Cop Block is underway in dissecting these files, SOP's, GO's, etc and we can use YOUR HELP. Feel free to download and sift through this information for yourselves. We plan on writing articles about anything pertinent we find in here. If you download the files and review the information and find something pertinent, please let us know! Below is the short blog from the RVA Wingnut about getting this information, and a little more context to why this information fell in our lap. To read the RVA Wingnut blog about this information go here, or read below: , ... we made multiple online asks for the info if anyone else already had a copy or was able to get one. (http://wingnutrva.org/2012/04/28/rpd-refuses-to-cooperatewith-foia-we-need-these-files-please-help/ ). Well, someone finally carne through, and an anonymous source gave people access to the rest of the General Orders from the RPD, as well as some other files. Since these files regard the rules the police must follow, and since tax money goes to pay for the police, we figure this is public information, and we are re-posting links to it here .... We haven't actually had a chance to go through these files ourselves, so if you find something particularly interesting or useful, drop us a line to let us know!

-4-

wingnut_collective @ yahoo.com We;d also love to hear from copwatchers, lawyers, and anyone who finds this information useful, share your stories! Here are links to some ofthe new info out there on the web, not sure how long it will stay on those websites, so download your own copy if you are interested! http://tilebin.net/Ocupaguxql http://tilebin.net/8supe72vg8 15. Confidential Information Following Information entry of an Injunction Order prohibiting and after Braastad removed access disclosure of the

to the Confidential access to the

from Filebin.net,

Cox posted a new link that provides

Confidential Information on http://virginiacopblock.org/. 16. The public posting of the Confidential Information placed in personal

danger the police officers and other employees of the Plaintiffs who are identified, as well as their families. The public posting of the Confidential Information has and will

continue to put at risk the success of the Plaintiffs' undercover police operations about which information has been made public. 17. The public posting the Confidential Information has and will diminish the

success of the disclosed undercover police operations of the Plaintiffs and by causing a waste of all or a portion of the public resources devoted to the disclosed undercover operations of the Plaintiffs and/or increasing the likelihood of crimes in the City. 18. The Wingnuts, Kam, Cox, and/or the Does knew or should have known

before they publicly posted the Confidential Information that these consequences would result from the public posting. 19. In disclosing the Confidential Information to the public and making it

publicly available in the manner described above, the Wingnuts, Kam, Cox, and/or the

-5-

Does published the names and primary residence addresses of certain individuals with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass the individuals. The Wingnuts, Karn, Cox, and/or the Does took the foregoing actions knowing or having reason to know that the persons identified were law enforcement officers, as defined in Virginia Code 9.1-101. Accordingly, the Wingnuts, Karn, Cox, and/or the Does violated Virginia Code 18.2186.4. 20. By disclosing the Confidential Information, the Wingnuts, Karn, Cox,

and/or the Does without just cause knowingly obstructed law-enforcement officers in the performance of their duties. Accordingly, the Wingnuts, Kam, Cox, and/or the Does violated Virginia Code 18.2-460. 21. The Defendants possession of and sharing of the Confidential Information

constitutes a menace to the public at large. It is a nuisance per se for the Defendants to possess and/or share with others the Confidential Information. Further, it is hurtful to the

tranquility of the public for the Defendants to possess and/or share with others the Confidential Information. Additionally, it is an outrage for the Defendants to possess

and/or share with others the Confidential Information. 22. It is in the interests of the City and those entitled to protection from the

above acts or practices that the Defendants be restrained from continued possession or sharing of the Confidential Information. 23. Ordinary recourse to criminal prosecution would not adequately protect

the public welfare.

-6-

-COlIVERSION

AND TRESPASS TO CHATTELS

eding paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference. Confidential Information was and is owned by the Plaintiffs. Defendants knew that the Confidential Information was the property of the
P"~CltitlS' \ hen they came into possession of it.

27. 28.

Defendants possessed and copied the Confidential Information. Defendants converted the Confidential Information and/or the Hard Drive

to their own use and/or intermeddled with the rights of the Plaintiffs in the Confidential Information and/or the Hard Drive without authorization. The condition, quality or value

of the Confidential Information and/or the Hard Drive were impaired by the acts of the Defendants. 29. In so doing, Defendants deprived the Plaintiff of the value of the

Confidential Information and caused actual damages to the Plaintiffs. 30. The Defendants provided the general public with access to the

Confidential Information. 31. The Plaintiffs will suffer continuing and/or additional damages, unless all

copies of the Confidential Information in the possession of the Defendants are returned to the Plaintiffs.

COUNT II - VIRGINIA COMPUTER CRIMES ACT

32. 33. The preceding paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference. The Confidential Information was computer data as defined in Virginia

Code 18.2-152.2.

-7-

fendants used a computer or computer network to make or cause to :-::1~.w!'":'Il2nntlorizedcopy of the Confidential Information in electronic and/or

As a consequence of the foregoing actions of the Defendants, Plaintiffs ~ ered damages and have incurred costs of this lawsuit, which Defendants are

itled to recover. The Plaintiffs will suffer continuing and/or additional damages, unless all copies of the Confidential Information in the possession of the Defendants are returned to the Plaintiffs. COUNT III - INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 36. 37. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference. The Plaintiffs are entitled to the return of any copies of the Confidential

Information and any portions of it. The Defendants have no right to retain copies of the Confidential Information or to share it with others. 30. Permitting the Defendants to continue or resume making the Confidential

Information available to the public and/or to continue possessing copies of the Confidential Information will cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs, the individuals whose information is made public, and the families of those individuals, and the citizens of the City of Richmond, generally. 31. Permitting the Defendants to continue possessing the Confidential

Information will cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs, the individuals whose information is made public, the families of those individuals, and the City of Richmond, generally.

-8-

aintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Defendants will not suffer from the injunctive relief requested. The public interests are served by granting a temporary and a permanent

COUNT IV - DECLARATORY 34. 35.

RELIEF

The preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference. There is a justiciable controversy and dispute between the Plaintiffs and

the Defendants regarding the rights of the Defendants to continue possessing and making public the Confidential Information. 36. Specifically, it is the Plaintiffs' position that Defendants have no right to

continue possessing the Confidential Information and copies thereof. It is also Plaintiff s position that Defendants have no right to continue or resume making the Confidential Information publicly available. 37. Conversely, it is the Defendants' position that they have the right to

possess, copy, and share the Confidential Information, as they choose. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs the City of Richmond and the City of Richmond Police Department respectfully request that this Court: (1) enter Temporary and Permanent Injunction Orders (a) prohibiting Defendants from continuing to make the Confidential Information available to the public; and (b) requiring that the Defendants return to the Plaintiffs any copies of any portion of the Confidential Information; and (2) award to the Plaintiffs monetary relief caused by publication of the Confidential Information; (3) award to Plaintiffs their costs of this lawsuit; and (4) grant to the Plaintiffs such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

-9-

Respectfully submitted, CITY OF RICHMOND and CITY OF RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT By Counsel

Tr~SBNO. 47368) Justin M. Sizemore, Esquire (VSB No. 71859) Reed Smith LLP Riverfront Plaza - West Tower 901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1700 Richmond, VA 23219-4069 Telephone: (804) 344-3400 Facsimile: (804) 344-3410 tsabalewski@reedsmith.com isizemore@reedsmith.com Counsel for Plaintiffs

-10-

Respectfully submitted, CITY OF RICHMOND and CITY OF RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT By Counsel

Tr~SBNO. 47368) Justin M. Sizemore, Esquire (VSB No. 71859) Reed Smith LLP Riverfront Plaza - West Tower 901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1700 Richmond, VA 23219-4069 Telephone: (804) 344-3400 Facsimile: (804) 344-3410 tsabalewski@reedsmith.com isizemore@reedsmith.com Counsel for Plaintiffs

-10-