Wright Case Nutshell

i
No. 13-55859 (Lead Appeal)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
________________________________________________________________________

JOHN DOES SUPPLEMENTAL EXCERPTS OF RECORD
________________________________________________________________________

Appeals From Order Awarding Sanctions And Order Setting Bond By
The United States District Court For The Central District Of California
Honorable Otis D. Wright, II, Case No. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW-JCx
________________________________________________________________________
Morgan E. Pietz (SBN 260629) Nicholas R. Ranallo (SBN 275016)
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS RANALLO
3770 Highland Avenue, Suite 206 371 Dogwood Way
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Boulder Creek, CA 95006
Telephone: (310) 424-5557 Telephone: (831) 703-4011
Facsimile: (310) 546-5301 Facsimile: (831) 533-5073
mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com nick@ranallolawoffice.com
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee JOHN DOE

INGENUITY 13 LLC

Plaintiff-Appellant
and

PAUL HANSMEIER, Esquire, et al.,

Movants-Appellants,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant-Appellee,

Consolidated With Appeal Nos.:
13-55880; 13-55881; 13-55882;
13-55883; 13-55884; 13-56028

Related Appeal No.:
13-80114

Case: 13-55859 01/17/2014 ID: 8943274 DktEntry: 24 Page: 1 of 1520

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I

District Court ECF or Exhibit Number and Description Supp. E.R. No.

2 - Certification and Notice of Interested Parties.1

13-1 Pietz Decl. Authenticating M&C Email..2

13-2 - M&C Email re AF Holdings Client and Extension...........4

23 - D's Ex Parte App to Stay Subpoena and for Early Disco.....7

23-1 - Memo iso Ex Parte to Take Discovery re Alan Cooper..15

23-2 Pietz Decl. re Cooper Facts...........34

23-3 - Letter from Coopers Lawyer Godfread to MN Court.....38

23-4 - Cooper Affidavit.........63

23-5 - Florida Hearing Transcript (Partial) .......70

23-6 - M&C Emails Where Gibbs Tries To Dodge Alan Cooper Questions94

23-7 - Forged AF Holdings Assignment......103

32 - Order Granting Putative John Does Ex Parte Application in Full..106

40 - Doe's Opposition to P's Motion for
Disqualification of Hon. Judge Otis Wright (Partial) .......108

40-1 - Decl. of Morgan Pietz re Prenda.......124

40-2 - Exhibits A to O to Decl. of Morgan Pietz.....143


iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME II


45 - Order re Status Conference on Outstanding Alan Cooper Discovery..296

52 - John Doe's Response to OSC re Sanctions (Partial) ....298

53 - Supplemental Decl. of Morgan Pietz........318

53-1 - Exhibits P to V to Suppl. Decl. of Morgan Pietz..322

53-2 - Exhibits W to DD to Suppl. Decl. of Morgan Pietz..452

54 - Decl. of Bart Huffman......511

54-1 - Exhibit 1 to Decl. of Bart Huffman...............515

54-2 - Exhibit 2 to Decl. of Bart Huffman......524

54-3 - Exhibit 3 to Decl. of Bart Huffman.......538


55 - Decl. of Camille D. Kerr..........563

55-1 - Exhibit 1 to Decl. of Camille D. Kerr.......565


58 - Gibbs Response to Further Instructions.........579

/ /


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME III


59-1 - Pietz Reply Decl..........584

59-2 - Pietz Reply Exhibits EE to JJ .........588

61 - Gibbs Reply Decl............632

75-1 - Decl. of Ranallo re Steele Demand Letter........635

75-2 - Steele Demand Letter to CA.........637

76 - Notice of Lodging News Report on Allan Mooney..644

76-1 - Ex. 1 StarTribune......646

77 - Decl. of Sean Moriarty From Verizon Online LLC re Subpoenas..650

78 - Decl. of Sean Moriarty From Verizon Online re Subpoenas....653

79 - Notice of Lodging of Voicemail Transcripts....679

79-1 - Vmail Transcript........681

102 - Decl. of Morgan E. Pietz re Fees........689

102-1 - Exhibits A to E to Decl. of Morgan E. Pietz.......693

117-1 Pietz Decl..........715

117-2 - Exhibits KK to QQ to Pietz Dec'l....719

119 - Decl. of Seth Schoen......789


v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME III (Continued)


124 - Decl. of Graham Syfert..................800

148 - Status Report re Prenda Disciplinary Authorities...803

148-1 - Exhibit 1 through Exhibit 3.....805

175 - Does Response to Duffy Motion for a Bond....824

175-1 - Decl. of Morgan Pietz.................835

175-2 - Exs. 1 and 2 to Morgan Pietz' Decl. (Appellate Bond Meet
and Confer Attempt) .........837

175-3 - Proposed Order........847

189 - Order re Supersedeas-Bond Requirement......850

197 - Steeles Motion for Sanctions re Service.......853

199 - Order Denying Ex Parte......860

201 - Steeles Motion for Reconsideration......861

218 - Lutz Bar Complaint Against Gibbs......866

222 - Steele's Reply re Reconsideration.......874

/ /


vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME IV


224 - Order Denying Steele's Motion for Reconsideration..882

240-2 - Decl. of Brett Gibbs.........887

240-3 - Exhibit A - Proposed Release Agreement...893

240-4 - Exhibit B - Proposed Indemnity Agreement...895

240-5 - Exhibit C - Warning Letter from Paul Duffy..897

240-6 - Exhibit D - Emails from John Steele Re Prenda Insurance Policy.900

240-7 - Exhibit E - Prenda Law Profit and Loss Detail 2012..904

240-8 - Exhibit F - Prenda OP Balance Sheet Detail Version 2012....912

Ex. 0 - ECF 106 - List of Exhibits and Witnesses from March 11, 2013,
Evidentiary Hearing...920

Ex. 1 - Complaint w Assignment (Popular Demand) (p. 17-18) 922

Ex. 2 - Complaint w Assignment (Sexual Obsession) ....943

Ex. 6 - Huffman Decl. w Exhibits........947

Ex. 7 - Kerr Decl. w Exhibits.......999

Ex. 8 - Decl. of Sean Moriarty From Verizon Online re Subpoenas............1015

Ex. 10 - Michael Stone Decl. w Exhibits 1 to 3 (Subpoena by Steele,
M&C by Steele) ......1041

Ex. 11 - Teitelbaum Decl. w Exhibit 4 (Letter signed by Steele to CA
Defendant in CA Case) .......1065

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME IV (Continued)


Ex. 12 - Affidavit Where Steele Says He Lives in Nevada and
Visits Florid.........................1077

Ex. 13 - Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel Listing Gibbs as In House
Counsel for AF Holdings.........1079

Ex. 14 - Decl. of Matt Catlet and Exh. 1 to 2 (Nebraska Complaint
and Email) .......1083

Ex. 15 - Complaint w Gibbs Email - Sunlust v. Nguyen..1101

Ex. 16 - Complaint w Gibbs Email - First Time Videos v. Oppold..1103

Ex. 17 - Complaint w Gibbs Email - Openmind v. Wolfson...1105

Ex. 18 - Guava Letter w Gibbs as in House Counsel...1107

Cited Article - How Porn Copyright Lawyer John Steele Has Made A 'Few
Million Dollars' Pursuing (Sometimes Innocent) 'Porn Pirates'
Forbes..1114

/ /

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME V


71 - Amended (Redacted) Hansmeier Deposition Transcript..1119

69-2 - Exhibits to Hansmeier Deposition Transcript (Partial) ....1411

/ /

N^||rf. .{Dtitrl ts .{ I r{-[ilK)Nh fit.\rtlilr 0F .^ l'[uKNti\ rs] lolt oR. l{.^lNrlt;f (}l{
l)lil liNl).ir' t ll fl {lN'tllt! t)ll r)l l:lNltA$i l lS PR() l'Ha
llrctt 1.. Uibbs, Of U..rur1r;cl lo Prendu L.aw. lnc,
3tl \1illcr Avenuc, ;'ltr.i
\lill Vnlk'y,
('A
94941
1+15)
325-5900
INCII]LJI'I'Y I LL('
F'ILED
201? SEP 2? AH ll'09
CLERK U.5. OIsT',IiCT COURT
CEHTRAL DIST. OF CALIF.
LOS AHGELT5
lNtll:Nt..illY
J0ilN DOti
L. t.(
r;Nt'I'f t) s'l'.l'Tli5 Dlsl'lllC'l'cl()ult f
C IiNl'RAL DIS'['RI(''I
()F (JALI
I'(}RN IA
l,inDriril i s ].
l)cl'cndarrtt:l
_g!!|
q3l?Sr^r_/s D)
CllRl'llilCzfll0N Ah* D N0'l'lCl:
0t, lN'r[RESTED P,rR'l'lES
(l.ocal Rule ?.1-l)
l'(): l llti
('Ot.rlll'ANll)
Al"L PAR'flf.S APPI'iARlNC OF RICORD:
I hc untlersigttccJ. cou rtsel rt l. record t'or
IN(ij)}l,.l f \: l.'j. L!!
(.)f purt) rppcaling in pro per.), ccrtilles that the lbllorving listed pirrty (or pnrtics) ntay ltavc a direct, pecuniar'r'
irrtcrr.st in the otrlc,,rrns ol'this casc.
'l'hese
reprcsenlalion.; arc ntucls ttt enable ths
('tlttrt
to evaltlatc possiblc
.i isrlua l r liclt ion or recusal. ( LJ se adclitiona l shect i f ttecessar.Y,)
PARTY CONNECI'ION
tl.ist th* rrunrcs ofall suclr
parties irrtd idcnti 1) thcir' cottncction and intercst
)
l\(iti\L'n Y l.j t-l.c
Suptcnibur' 2.1. lt) li
l)a tc'
lJR!-.1-r L.
(-;Il.lBS
,,\ltornc1' tlj'tc,,:otd for or party appcrtring in pro pcr
S ign
\o n
(
ti {)r.' ll\'l'u t{l.;s l [D P I R'l lt:s
\r ir.jri\i \5 r(r\
Case 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW Document 2 Filed 09/27/12 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:7
Supp. E.R. 1

-i-
DECLARATION OF MORGAN E. PIETZ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Morgan E. Pietz (SBN 260629)
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301

Attorney for Putative John Doe
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
INGENUITY 13, LLC, a Limited Liability
Company Organized Under the Laws of the
Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendants.

Case Number(s): 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW

Assigned to: Judge Dolly M. Gee
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Patrick J.
Walsh

DECLARATION OF MORGAN E.
PIETZ

[No Hearing Requested]
Case 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW Document 13-1 Filed 11/28/12 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:88
Supp. E.R. 2

-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

I, Morgan E. Pietz, have personal knowledge of the facts alleged herein and hereby declare
as follows:
1. I am an attorney duly licensed by and in good standing with the State Bar of
California, and am admitted to the practice of law in the State and Federal Courts of the
State of California.
2. I am the attorney principally responsible for the representation the Putative
John Doe in the above-entitled action. My client wishes to remain anonymous for now,
however, his true identity and contact information are known to me. My client received a
letter from his IPS, Verizon, a few weeks ago, explaining that Ingenuity 13, LLC, an entity
organized in the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis, had filed a lawsuit, and issued a
subpoena seeking my clients identity. My client pays the Internet bill for an account that
was assigned an IP address which was purportedly used to illegally download plaintiffs
pornographic content.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of my attempts to
meet and confer with plaintiffs counsel, Brett Gibbs, via email regarding obtaining an
extension in this matter. Mr. Gibbs promised to get back to me by Wednesday, November
28, but as of 8:00 p.m. on that day he had not done so.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on November 28, 2012, at Manhattan Beach, California.

/s/ Morgan E. Pietz
Morgan E. Pietz, Declarant

Supp. E.R. 3
Morgan Pietz <morganpietz@gmail.com>
Ingenuity 13, LLC - C.D. Cal. 12-cv-8333 - Extension Request
4 messages
Morgan E. Pietz <mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com> Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 6:08 PM
To: "Brett L. Gibbs, Esq." <blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com>
Brett,
I was retained today by a new client, who is either a putative John Doe defendant or perhaps a putative
co-conspirator (don't know, haven't had a chance to look at the pleadings yet) in the above-entitled action.
The subpoena response deadline from the ISP is this Thursday 11/29/12. I plan to file a motion to quash (and
possibly sever). Are you amenable to a 14 day extension?
Also, what is your opening settlement demand in these cases?
Best regards,
Morgan
--
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301
www.pietzlawfirm.com
Brett Gibbs <blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com> Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 6:31 PM
To: "Morgan E. Pietz" <mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com>
Mr. Pietz:
I would have to check with our client about that request. Just an FYI, our client usually does not like to grant
these types of requests on short notice unless there is a reasonable chance that settlement may occur in the
case. Judging by your past tactics in our Lightspeed case, I have little hope of settlement here. Our client
does not like delay tactics, especially when it only benefits opposing party. With that said, I will still approach
our client about this issue. Depending on when I can get in touch with the client, and considering the timing of
this request, I may or may not get back to you before that deadline.
As for your settlement inquiry, since you asked, we would offer your client a $4,000 settlement for a full
release of the claims in this case. Also, I will throw in a redaction letter to the ISP notifying the ISP that we
are withdrawing our subpoana for your client's information. I can promise that, if you client decides on this
route, and we get the payment before the ISP release on Thursday, our letter withdrawing our subpoena to
the ISP will guarantee his anonymity. In other words, we won't see anything back from the ISP relating to his
Gmail - Ingenuity 13, LLC - C.D. Cal. 12-cv-8333 - Extension ... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5e8233d0c6&view...
1 of 3 11/28/12 8:26 PM
Supp. E.R. 4
case, and the case itself will be dropped with prejudice immediately.
Obviously, it is up to your client. Talk with him, and, if he is leaning that way, I can draft up the documents to
settle. The benefit is obvious -- he won't have to pay you to draft a motion to quash that I can guarantee you
will fail.
It's up to him. Let me know what he says.
Regards,
Brett Gibbs
[Quoted text hidden]
--
Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000)
Of Counsel to Prenda Law Inc.
38 Miller Avenue, #263
Mill Valley, CA 94941
415-341-5318
blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com
NOTICE: THIS EMAIL IS INTENDED TO BE PART OF A SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATION AND IS NOT
ADMISSIBLE UNDER FRE RULE 408.
NOTICE:
This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, found at 18 U.S.C. 2510 et. seq. and is
intended to remain confidential and is subject to applicable attorney/client and/or work product privileges. If you are not
the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the
sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and all attachments. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this message
and/or any attachments and if you are not the intended recipient, do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance
upon the information contained in this communication or any attachments.
Circular 230 Disclosure: Pursuant to recently-enacted U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we are now required to advise
you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication, including attachments
and enclosures, is not intended or written to be used, and may not be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related
matters addressed herein.
Morgan E. Pietz <mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com> Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 7:11 PM
To: Brett Gibbs <blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com>
Brett,
If I understand you correctly, your position is that you "may or may not get back to me" by Thursday of this
week regarding my request for an extension of the deadline that falls that day? That is not very helpful. If you
cannot promise me a response on this simple request by Wednesday (more than two full business days from
now), I'll just go ahead and seek an extension ex parte tomorrow.
Also, am I to understand that your willingness to entertain the basic professional courtesy of an extension is
contingent upon your belief that you may be able to pressure my client into settling? First, that is never going
to work with me. Second, as you very well know, I really cannot control when clients hire me on these cases,
2 of 3 11/28/12 8:26 PM
Supp. E.R. 5
and ISP subscribers often have trouble finding counsel and therefore end up hiring a lawyer last minute; the
delay is not my fault, and it does not prejudice your client.
I do not believe that this client is interested in settling, but based on the rate my phone is starting to ring on
these CD Cal Ingenuity 13 cases, that may change in the future for other putative John Does.
We are likely to be dealing with each other a lot, Brett. I would hate to see professional courtesy fall by the
wayside for no good reason. Aside from that practical reality, I would also refer you to the following,
particularly the fourth bullet point of Section B(2): http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/attorneys/admissions/civility-
and-professionalism-guidelines
Please advise.
Best regards,
Morgan
Brett Gibbs <blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com> Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 7:55 PM
Morgan:
I don't like you patronizing comments. I don't respond well to them -- in fact, I don't know many who do. Your
constant misunderstanding of things--whether purposeful or not--as well as your inclination to want to "teach"
me things that I already am fully aware of is not exactly the acts of an attorney that wants to "get along" with
opposing counsel.
Let me make this absolutely clear considering your confusion: I will talk with my client, and I should have an
answer for you by Wednesday. The only issue is the last minute notice of this -- I understand that this is
something that you cannot always control, obviously, but it nonetheless can be an inconvenience to my
client. Both facts can equally coexist.
According your email, your client will not likely settle this case. Fine, I will alert my client of that new
information when I get in touch with him.
All in all, you will hear from me by Wednesday.
On a side note, I am happy that you are getting more of our cases down there. It will be a pleasure to work
with you on these cases in the future.
Regards,
Brett
3 of 3 11/28/12 8:26 PM
Supp. E.R. 6

-i-
PUTATIVE JOHN DOES EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE EARLY DISCOVERY AND
FOR A FURTHER STAY OF THE SUBPOENA RETURN DATE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301

Attorney for Putative John Doe in 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.


Walsh

PUTATIVE JOHN DOES EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE
EARLY DISCOVERY AND FOR A
FURTHER STAY OF THE SUBPOENA
RETURN DATE

Supp. E.R. 7

-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

EX PARTE APPLICATION
TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the putative Putative John Doe in 2:12-cv-08333-
DMG-PJW (Movant), by and through counsel, hereby applies to the Court ex parte for
leave to take limited discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference, and to further stay the
subpoena return date on the outstanding ISP subpoena seeking Movants identity. This
motion is made on the ground that good cause exists to authorize the limited discovery
requested, per Rule 26(d)(1), because, very recently, deeply troubling factual allegations
have been made which suggest the plaintiff is engaged in a widespread and systemic fraud
on the Courts affecting thousands of ISP subscribers. Specifically, very troubling
questions have been raised as to whether Prenda Law, Inc., has misappropriated the
identity of one Mr. Alan Cooper of Minnesota, holding him out in verified federal court
filings as the principal of plaintiff Ingenuity 13, a shell entity organized in St. Kitts and
Nevis, without Mr. Coopers knowledge or consent. Further, the circumstances seem to
suggest that the plaintiffs lawyers behind this action, Prenda Law, Inc. and/or John Steele,
may be the realbut undisclosedparties in interest in this case. For weeks, undersigned
counsel, and others, have sought answers from Prenda Law, Inc. and its clients AF
Holdings, LLC and Ingenuity 13, LLC, to try and put these concerns to rest. None of the
answers proffered to date have been at all reassuring; to the extent Prenda has engaged on
the issue at all, the only answers provided have been evasive to a degree that is almost
comical.
(a) A Very Limited Amount of Early Written Discovery is Appropriate in Light of
Certain Facts Averred by One Alan Cooper of Minnesota, which Suggest
Possible Systemic Fraud, Perjury, Identity Theft, and Lack of Standing
Until there is some kind of reasonable explanation from the Plaintiff showing that
this case is not actually part of a widespread, systemic fraud, the subpoena return date in
Supp. E.R. 8

-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

this case (and in all related cases)
1
should be stayed, so the Court plays no part in
furthering what has been described by some federal Judges as an essentially an extortion
scheme. Malibu Media v. John Does 1-10, C.D. Cal. Case No. 12-cv-3623-ODW-PJW,
Dkt. No. 7, 6/27/12; see also Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 1 (requiring that the federal rules should
be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of
every action and proceeding.)
If Prenda Law would simply identify the Alan Cooper who it claims is the true
principal of Ingenuity 13, LLC and AF Holdings, LLC, or even confirm that such a
person actually exists (notwithstanding the allegations of Alan Cooper of Minnesota), this
ex parte application would not be necessary. Essentially, whether or not there is another
Alan Cooper is the million-dollar question. However, Prenda Law has explicitly stated that
it will not address any of the troubling factual circumstances raised by Mr. Cooper of
Minnesota, or answer any questions on this topic, unless it is compelled to do so.
Accordingly, Movant respectfully requests leave of Court to propound the following
limited written discovery, prior to a Rule 26(f) conference:
(b) Proposed Special Interrogatories
First Special Interrogatory: Other than the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is
represented by attorney Paul Godfread, is there another Alan Cooper who is currently the
principal
2
of Ingenuity 13, LLCyes or no?
Second Special Interrogatory: If the answer to the first interrogatory is yes, state all
contact information for this Alan Cooper, including current home address, business
address, and telephone number.
Third Special Interrogatory: Other than the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is
represented by attorney Paul Godfread, was there ever another Alan Cooper who was, in
the past, the principal of Ingenuity 13, LLCyes or no?

1
On December 3, 2012, Movant here filed a Notice of Related Cases for all of the AF Holdings,
LLC and Ingenuity 13, LLC cases pending in the Central District of California.

2
Principal will be defined broadly to mean officer, director, manager, member, etc.
Supp. E.R. 9

-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Fourth Special Interrogatory: If the answer to the third interrogatory is yes, state all
contact information for this Alan Cooper, including all known home addresses, business
addresses, and telephone numbers.
Fifth Special Interrogatory: Other than the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is
represented by attorney Paul Godfread, is there another Alan Cooper who is currently the
principal of AF Holdings, LLCyes or no?
Sixth Special Interrogatory: If the answer to the fifth interrogatory is yes, state all
contact information for this Alan Cooper, including current home address, business
address, and telephone number.
Seventh Special Interrogatory: Other than the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is
represented by attorney Paul Godfread, was there ever another Alan Cooper who was, in
the past, the principal of AF Holdings, LLCyes or no?
Eighth Special Interrogatory: If the answer to the seventh interrogatory is yes, state
all contact information for this Alan Cooper, including all known home addresses, business
addresses, and telephone numbers.
Ninth Special Interrogatory: If the answer to the third interrogatory is yes, state each
position this Alan Cooper held at Ingenuity 13, LLC and the dates such position was held.
Tenth Special Interrogatory: If the answer to the seventh interrogatory is yes, state
each position this Alan Cooper held at AF Holdings, LLC and the dates such position was
held.
Eleventh Special Interrogatory: Was the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is
represented by attorney Paul Godfread ever a principal, even unwittingly, of Ingenuity 13,
LLC?
Twelfth Special Interrogatory: Was the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is
represented by attorney Paul Godfread ever a principal, even unwittingly, of AF Holdings,
LLC?
Thirteenth Special Interrogatory: On November 26, 2012, when undersigned
counsel emailed Brett Gibbs to ask for a routine extension request, Mr. Gibbs responded by
Supp. E.R. 10

-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

email I would have to check with our client about that request. Just an FYI, our client
usually does not like to grant these types of requests on short notice unless there is a
reasonable chance that settlement may occur in the case. Later, Mr. Gibbs purported to
have an answer on his query to the client regarding an extension. Who is the client
contact at Ingenuity 13, LLC that Mr. Gibbs spoke with on this matter? Note, no details of
the communication are being requested, just the name of the client contact.
Fourteenth Special Interrogatory: Reference is made to the following civil actions
filed by AF Holdings, LLC and Ingenuity 13, LLC in the Northern District of California:
4:2012-cv-02049-PJH; 3:2012-cv-02393-CRB; 5:2012-cv-02394-LHK; 3:2012-cv-02396-
EMC; 3:2012-cv-02404-SC; 4:2012-cv-02411-PJH; 3:2012-cv-02415-CRB; 4:2012-cv-
03248-PJH; 3:2012-cv-04218-WHA; 5:2012-cv-04219-LHK; 5:2012-cv-04446-EJD;
5:2012-cv-04447-RMW; 5:2012-cv-04448-EJD; 3:2012-cv-04982-CRB; 3:2012-cv-
04216-JSW; 3:2012-cv-04217-RS; 5:2012-cv-04445-LHK; 3:2012-cv-04449-SC; 3:2012-
cv-04450-MMC; 3:2012-cv-04976-JSW; 3:2012-cv-04977-WHA; 4:2012-cv-04978-PJH;
5:2012-cv-04979-LHK; 5:2012-cv-04980-EJD; 3:2012-cv-04981-RS. With respect to the
copyright assignments attached to the complaints in these actions, as Exhibit B thereto,
which all appear to have a similar signature by Alan Cooper, please state whether the
person who signed these assignments was the Alan Cooper of Minnesota who is
represented by attorney Paul Godfreadyes or no?
Fifteenth Special Interrogatory: If the answer to the fourteenth interrogatory is no,
then state all contact information for the person that did sign these documents, including all
known home addresses, business addresses, and telephone numbers.
(c) Proposed Document Demands
First Document Demand: For each person you identified in response to special
interrogatories one through ten, and fifteen, produce this persons government-issued
picture identification.
Second Document Demand: For each person you identified in response to special
interrogatories two and four, produce all documents or other records evidencing the
Supp. E.R. 11

-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

position(s) this person held at Ingenuity 13, LLC.
Third Document Demand: For each person you identified in response to special
interrogatory six and eight, produce all documents or other records evidencing the
position(s) this person held at AF Holdings, LLC.
Fourth Document Demand: Produce the original signature of Alan Cooper on the
verified petition filed by Mr. Gibbs in In the Matter of a Petition by Ingenuity 13, LLC,
E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:11-mc-JAM-DAD, ECF No. 1, 10/28/11.
3

Fifth Document Demand: Reference is made to the following civil actions filed by
AF Holdings, LLC and Ingenuity 13, LLC in the Northern District of California: 4:2012-
cv-02049-PJH; 3:2012-cv-02393-CRB; 5:2012-cv-02394-LHK; 3:2012-cv-02396-EMC;
3:2012-cv-02404-SC; 4:2012-cv-02411-PJH; 3:2012-cv-02415-CRB; 4:2012-cv-03248-
PJH; 3:2012-cv-04218-WHA; 5:2012-cv-04219-LHK; 5:2012-cv-04446-EJD; 5:2012-cv-
04447-RMW; 5:2012-cv-04448-EJD; 3:2012-cv-04982-CRB; 3:2012-cv-04216-JSW;
3:2012-cv-04217-RS; 5:2012-cv-04445-LHK; 3:2012-cv-04449-SC; 3:2012-cv-04450-
MMC; 3:2012-cv-04976-JSW; 3:2012-cv-04977-WHA; 4:2012-cv-04978-PJH; 5:2012-cv-
04979-LHK; 5:2012-cv-04980-EJD; 3:2012-cv-04981-RS. With respect to the copyright
assignments attached to the complaints in these actions, as Exhibit B thereto, which all
appear to have a similar signature by Alan Cooper, please produce each of the original
assignment documents for inspection.
(d) Counsel Have Met and Conferred on These Issues But Counsel for Plaintiff
Would Not Address the Alan Cooper Issues and Will Oppose this Application
Undersigned counsel conferred with plaintiffs counsel Brett Gibbs by both email
and telephone regarding the issues raised in this application. A copy of the written meet
and confer correspondence on the Alan Cooper issue is attached to the supporting
declaration hereto as Appendix 4. When last we spoke, Mr. Gibbs reiterated that he would

3
A copy of Ingenuity 13s verified petition executed by Alan Cooper is attached as Exhibit E
to the Letter Mr. Coopers attorney filed with the Minnesota courts (the complete ECF letter filing
from Coopers attorney is attached hereto as Appendix 1).

Supp. E.R. 12

-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

not produce any of the requested information without being compelled to do so and I
advised him I would be making this kind of more formal request, which he indicated he
would oppose. Decl. of Morgan E. Pietz 6.
This ex parte application is based on this application, the accompanying
memorandum of points and authorities in support hereof, the declaration of Morgan E.
Pietz and appendices thereto, on the pleadings and records on file in this action, and on any
testimony proffered at a hearing on this issue, if any.

Respectfully submitted,
DATED: December 18, 2012 THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
/s/ Morgan E. Pietz
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Attorney for Putative John Doe(s)
Appearing on Caption
Supp. E.R. 13

-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this day, the above document was submitted to the CM/ECF
system, which sent notification of such filing(s) to the plaintiff, which is registered for
electronic service.

Respectfully submitted: December 18, 2012 THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
/s/ Morgan E. Pietz
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM

Supp. E.R. 14

-i-
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PUTATIVE JOHN DOES EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
TAKE EARLY DISCOVERY AND FOR A FURTHER STAY OF THE SUBPOENA RETURN DATE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301


Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.


Walsh

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
PUTATIVE JOHN DOES EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE
EARLY DISCOVERY AND FOR A
FURTHER STAY OF THE SUBPOENA
RETURN DATE

Case 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW Document 23-1 Filed 12/18/12 Page 1 of 19 Page ID
#:224
Supp. E.R. 15

-ii-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................................................................................................ iii
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES....................................................... 1
(a) Introduction and Summary .................................................................................. 1
(a) Factual Background Regarding Alan Cooper, Ingenuity 13, and AF Holdings .. 4
(b) Applicable Law.................................................................................................... 8
(c) The Requested Early Discovery is Relevant to the Issue of Plaintiffs Standing
to Sue for Copyright Infringement and is Also Relevant to Uncovering a
Possible Fraud on the Court and/or Undisclosed Financial Interests in the Case 8
(d) Prejudice to the Plaintiff Can be Easily Avoided .............................................. 11
(e) Need for the Requested Discovery Outweighs the Minimal Prejudice to Plaintiff
11
(f) Need for Ex Parte Relief to Preserve the Ability of Movant to File a Meaningful
Motion to Quash ................................................................................................ 12
(g) Even if the Court Denies John Does Request for Limited Early Discovery, the
Court Should Still Order a Brief Stay of the ISP Subpoena Return Date.......... 13
(h) Local Rule 7-19 Statement ................................................................................ 14
(i) Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 15

#:225
Supp. E.R. 16

-iii-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

!"#$#
AF Holdings LLC v. John Doe
C.D. Cal. Case No. 12-cv-5709-ODW, ECF No. 9, p. 2, 10/19/12................................... 3
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distribs.
69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. Cal. 1995)................................................................................ 8
Bautista v. Los Angeles County
216 F.3d 837, 842-843 (9th Cir. 2000).............................................................................. 3
Combs v. Rockwell Int'l Corp.
927 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1991) ............................................................................................. 9
Forsberg v. Pefanis,
261 F.R.D. 694, 702 (N.D. Ga. 2009) ............................................................................... 8
Gillespie v. Civiletti
629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980) ..................................................................................... 4
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.
322 U.S. 238, 246, 64 S. Ct. 997, 88 L. Ed. 1250, 1944 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 675 (1944) ... 8
Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 110
No. 2:12-cv-01642-RGK-SSx, slip op. at 4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2012) ............................. 3
Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1 though 9,
S.D. Cal. Case No. 3:12-cv-1436, ECF No. 23, 11/08/12................................................. 2
Righthaven, LLC v. Democractic Underground, LLC
791 F. Supp. 2d 968, 973 (D. Nev. 2011)(Case No. 10-cv-1356-RLH-GWF, ECF No.
116, 6/14/11)...................................................................................................................... 9
Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc.
208 F.R.D. 273 (N.D. Cal. 2002) ...................................................................................... 8
#:226
Supp. E.R. 17

-iv-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.
402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................. 9
Sunlust Pictures, Inc. v. Tuan Nguyen
M.D. Fl. Case No. 8:12-CV-1685-T-35MAP.................................................................... 6
Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corp. v. Deepinder Dhindsa
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65753, No. 10-00335 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ....................................... 8
Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc.
709 F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir. 1983) ..................................................................................... 8
Other Authorities
Blacks Law Dictionary, Eighth Ed., p. 246........................................................................ 9
S. Balganesh, The Uneasy Case Against Copyright Trolls, 86 S. CAL. L. REV.
(forthcoming May 2013), *28 ......................................................................................... 8

#:227
Supp. E.R. 18

-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
(a) Introduction and Summary
Plaintiff Ingenuity 13, LLC is a shell entity organized under the laws of laws of the
Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis. It has filed dozens of copyright infringement cases
across the country alleging that ISP subscribers illegally downloaded pornography. Prenda
Law, Inc., which represents Ingenuity 13, LLC as counsel, has filed hundreds of such
lawsuits against tens of thousands of John Doe defendants over the last two plus years, on
behalf of a variety of pornographer clients. However, not a single one of the many Prenda
Law cases has ever been decided on the merits (other than on default). In 2011, Judge Koh
ordered Prenda to disclose how many of the thousands of people Prenda had sued had it
ever actually served. The answer then was that out of 200 some odd lawsuits against
approximately 15,000 John Does, it had served zero (0) people with complaints.
1

Nevertheless, Prenda has made a small to perhaps medium sized fortune over the
past few years collecting settlements with ISP subscribers whom it has threatened with
suit, accusing them of using the BitTorrent file sharing protocol to illegally download
pornography. Prenda has pioneered a new business model that is based on using the
Courts subpoena power, and leveraging the social stigma associated with pornography, to
shake down ISP subscribers for quick copyright infringement settlements of a few
thousand dollars each. For the most part, Prendas business is essentially predicated on a
single threat: pay Prenda a few thousand dollars, or Prenda will publicly accuse the ISP
subscriber of downloading pornography.
One major problem with this schemeand this is an issue that Prenda is perpetually
dancing around; telling one Court one thing, and another Court something differentis

1
AF Holdings v. Does 1-135, N.D. Cal. No. 5:11-cv-3336-LHK, ECF No. 43-1, 2/4/12, p 4. (our
records indicate that no defendants have been served in the below-listed cases). Since this
emperor has no clothes moment this spring, Prenda has actually served several dozen people
nationwide, to try and make an example out of them. As an effective way to shame its adversaries,
and as a warning to the thousands of people it threatens with suit, Prenda lists the names of the
people it has named or served with pornography lawsuits on its website:
http://wefightpiracy.com/suits-against-individuals.php
#:228
Supp. E.R. 19

-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

that ISP subscriber does not necessarily equal the actual John Doe defendant. That is, just
because someone happens to pay the Internet bill for a household does not mean that
person is actually the John Doe infringer who used the IP address to download something
illegally. Particularly when ISP subscribers have open or unencrypted WiFi networks that
are not encrypted (i.e., no password is required to join the network), very often, the actual
infringer can be a teenage kid next door, or, indeed, anyone with access to the wireless
network.
For a time, Prenda was getting away with filing lawsuits, issuing subpoenas, getting
lists of names from the ISPs, and then simply putting on a full court press, like a debt
collector, to try and collect from ISP subscribers. Prenda used the full toolkit to try and
leverage settlement: threats and harassing calls from settlement negotiators working at
call centers, robo-calls at all hours, etc. Particularly early on, Prenda would generally just
assume that whomever happened to pay the Internet bill was the actual defendant, and then
threaten this person with a lawsuit accordingly. When faced with the expense and
uncertainty of retaining counsel to contest the case, or paying a few thousand dollars to
Prenda avoid having ones name dragged through the mud many peopleincluding many
innocent peoplechose to simply pay the ransom.
More recently, and with good reason, federal courts have become increasingly
skeptical of Prendas business model. First, based on jurisdictional and venue concerns,
courts put a stop to the big, hundred-Doe or even thousand-Doe lawsuits where Prenda
sued John Doe defendants from all over the country in a single action. Next, Prenda and
others started filing multiple defendant lawsuits against groups of Does who all resided in a
given judicial district. Courts began throwing these lawsuits out too, rejecting the so-called
swarm joinder theory, which is now being consistently repudiated by district courts in
the Ninth Circuit. E.g., Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does 1 though 9, S.D. Cal. Case No.
3:12-cv-1436, ECF No. 23, 11/08/12 (the majority view among district courts within the
Ninth Circuit is that allegations of swarm joinder are alone insufficient for joinder. . . Doe
Defendants alleged conduct therefore lacks the type of very definite logic relationship
#:229
Supp. E.R. 20

-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

required to permit joinder.); quoting Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 842-
843 (9th Cir. 2000).
The instant case (as well as all the related Ingenuity 13, LLC and AF Holdings, LLC
cases) represents the latest incarnation of Prendas business model: actions against a single
John Doe defendant, with the increased costs passed on to ISP subscribers in the form of
higher settlement demands. However, Judge Wright, of the Central District of California,
who was assigned all of the AF Holdings cases pending there, recently zeroed in on
precisely what is wrong with these single Doe cases. After all the AF Holdings cases in the
Central District were transferred to Judge Wright, he vacated all prior orders authorizing
ISP subpoenas and issued an order to show cause asking plaintiff to justify why early
discovery should be allowed,
AF Holdings must demonstrate to the Court, in light of the
Courts above discussion,
2
how it would proceed to uncover
the identity of the actual infringer once it has obtained
subscriber informationgiven that the actual infringer may be
a person entirely unrelated to the subscriberwhile also
considering how to minimize harassment and embarrassment of
innocent citizens. AF Holdings LLC v. John Doe, C.D. Cal.
Case No. 12-cv-5709-ODW, ECF No. 9, p. 2, 10/19/12
(emphasis added).
Judge Wright is spot-on: until the plaintiff can put forth some kind of credible discovery
plan showing how it will go from obtaining ISP subscriber information to identifying

2
The above discussion Judge Wright referred to was a discussion of all the reasons it is incorrect
to simply assume that an ISP subscriber is the actual defendant. The subpoenas to the ISPs may
only lead to the person paying for the internet service and not necessarily the actual infringer, who
may be a family member, roommate, employee, customer, guest, or even a complete stranger.
Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 110, No. 2:12-cv-01642-RGK-SSx, slip op. at 4 (C.D. Cal. Oct.
10, 2012). AF Holdings LLC v. John Doe, C.D. Cal. Case No. 12-cv-5709-ODW, ECF No. 9, p.
1-2, 10/19/12

#:230
Supp. E.R. 21

-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

actual infringing defendants, the subpoenas are premature. Once Prenda has a list of ISP
subscriber info, that is all it needs or really wants to execute its business model; it will
simultaneously threaten to sue and seek to settle with ISP subscribers, while also
sometimes telling the Court that these people have no standing to object since they are not
yet named as parties. Prenda Law has this two-step down pat: tell the ISP subscribers they
are defendants and threaten to sue them, and then tell the Courts the ISP subscribers are
merely targets for discovery, in an attempt to explain why almost none of the ISP
subscribers are ever served.
3

Although the ISP subpoenas are a necessary first step in identifying a defendant,
they are not sufficient to make it very likely that the subpoenas seeking to identify ISP
subscribers will result in identification of actual John Doe defendants, as required by
Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980) (early discovery to identify
John Does authorized when it is very likely to identify actual defendants).
Particularly in light of the potential for abuse in this kind of lawsuit, and Prendas
track record of settling or dismissing most actions without prejudice at or near the
service deadline, the plaintiff should be required to put forward a more complete
discovery plan before being allowed to avail itself of the Courts subpoena power.
(a) Factual Background Regarding Alan Cooper, Ingenuity 13, and AF Holdings
Movant believes that Prenda should be compelled to provide some answers on the
Alan Cooper issue, and right away, in view of the following factsall of which seem to
suggest a possible pattern whereby current/former close associates of John Steele are being
fraudulently held out as corporate representatives of AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13:
(1) There is a gentleman from Minnesota named Alan Cooper who formerly worked
as a caretaker on a property owned by John Steele. Appendix 1; Appendix 2 4.

3
This two-step is issue that will be briefed in further detail in Movants opposition to Prendas
completely frivolous motion for sanctions (ECF No. 22) that it filed in violation of the 21-day safe
harbor, and without even an attempting to meet and confer.
#:231
Supp. E.R. 22

-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(2) John Steele was the name partner in the predecessor firm to Prenda Law, Inc.,
which was called Steele Hansemeier PLLC, and, at least until recently, Mr. Steele clearly
remained closely associated with Prenda Law, Inc. See Appendix 1, Exhibits A through D.
(3) Mr. Steele has alternatively identified himself as both of counsel with Prenda
Law (Exhibit A to Appendix 1) and not an attorney with any law firm (Appendix 3, pp.
11:2512:7), depending on who was asking and when. However, regardless of whatever is
Mr. Steeles current story, it appears to the undersigned that Mr. Steele has been pulling the
strings at Prenda Law with respect to its national pornography lawsuit settlement
business.
(4) Mr. Steele bragged to his caretaker Alan Cooper about a copyright scheme
Appendix 1, p 1., and, according to Mr. Cooper Steele had told me on at least one
occasion that if anyone asked about companies that I should call him. Appendix 2, 8.
(5) After Mr. Cooper became suspicious, and searched online, he found out that
Prenda Law had been using the name Alan Cooper as the supposed principal of AF
Holdings and Ingenuity 13, in various federal court filings, including copyright assignment
forms, and verifications filed on behalf of Ingenuity 13 that use an electronic signature for
Alan Cooper. Appendix 1, Exhibit E, page 8 of 8.
(6) Concerned about his potential personal liability in connection with the scores of
Ingenuity 13 and AF Holdings copyright infringement lawsuits pending across the country,
Mr. Cooper hired a lawyer who asked Prenda Law to confirm that there was another Alan
Cooper who is the true principal of AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13, and that the identity of
Alan Cooper of Minnesota is not being misappropriated. Appendix 1.
(7) Immediately after Mr. Coopers attorney filed a notice of appearance on Mr.
Coopers behalf in an AF Holdings case pending in Minnesota, John Steele attempted to
call Mr. Cooper multiple times, despite the fact that Mr. Cooper was represented by
counsel. Appendix 1.
(8) For about three weeks, Prenda has been dodging the questions asked by Mr.
Coopers attorney, and by the undersigned counsel, about whether there is another Alan
#:232
Supp. E.R. 23

-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Cooper who was the principal of AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13. Prenda refuses to say.
Appendix 4.
(9) Undersigned counsel has asked Brett Gibbs, counsel for plaintiff here, to
produce a verification allegedly signed by Alan Cooper that Mr. Gibbs purported to have in
his possession, under penalty of perjury. Mr. Gibbs has refused to do so. Appendix 4.
(10) At almost the exact same time the Alan Cooper allegations were coming to
light, the curtain was pulled back a bit farther on Prendas operation by a federal Judge in
Florida, in an episode that begins to suggest a pattern of deception with respect to who is
really behind these lawsuits. In Sunlust Pictures, Inc. v. Tuan Nguyen, M.D. Fl. Case No.
8:12-CV-1685-T-35MAP Judge Scriven ordered a principal of Prenda Law, Inc. to attend a
hearing on a John Doe motion, and also ordered a principal of Sunlust Pictures, the
plaintiff in that action, to attend the hearing as well. (The complete hearing transcript is
attached as Appendix 3). According to the transcript, Prendas purported sole principal
Paul Duffy, belatedly notified the Court that he could not attend due to a health issue.
After two prior local counsel sought to withdraw from the matter, Prenda placed an
advertisement in a local newspaper and obtained a new, third local counsel (hired by
plaintiffs counsel here Brett Gibbs) who, after filing a notice of appearance and conferring
with defense counsel, almost immediately sought to withdraw. Sunlust also did not send a
principal to the hearing; rather, it sent John Steeles former paralegal, a man named Mark
Lutz, as the plaintiffs corporate representative for hire. However, upon questioning Mr.
Lutz, Judge Scriven quickly determined that Mr. Lutz had no authority to bind the
company, and that he did not know who owned or managed it. Accordingly, despite a
Court order requiring them to do so, neither Prenda Law nor its client Sunlust Pictures sent
a principal to the hearing.
4
Note in particular page 20 of the transcript where Judge

4
Coincidentally (?) one person who did attend the hearing: John Steele. Mr. Steele started out in
the gallery and purported not to be involved in the case, but after the Court noticed Mr. Lutz
constantly trying to confer with Mr. Steele, the Judge asked Mr. Steele who he was, and then asked
him for answers to some of her questions about Sunlust Pictures, which Mr. Steele provided.
Appendix 3, p. 18:12-24.
#:233
Supp. E.R. 24

-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Scriven orders the purported corporate representative for the plaintiff, Mark Lutz (i.e.,
John Steeles former paralegal), away from the plaintiffs table and dismisses the case for
failure to present a lawful agent, for attempted fraud on the Court by offering up a person
who has no authority to act on behalf of the corporation as its corporate representative and
invites a motion for sanctions. Appendix 3.
(11) The signature used by Alan Cooper of Minnesota on his lease agreement with
John Steele appears to be somewhat similar to the Alan Cooper signature used on various
copyright assignments in Prenda cases:

Image of Authenticated Signature of
Minnesota Alan Cooper from His Lease
with John Steele:
5

Image of Alan Cooper Signature Used
on Copyright Assignment Filed in C.D.
Cal. 12-cv-5709 (Low-number Case):
6

5
This signature is found the last page of the attachment to Allan Coopers sworn affidavit, which
is a copy of his lease with John Steele, a copy of which is filed herewith as Appendix 2.

6
This signature is found on the last page of Exhibit B to the complaint, which is the copyright
assignment agreement for the copyright at issue in the above-referenced action, a copy of which is
filed herewith as Appendix 5.
#:234
Supp. E.R. 25

-8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(b) Applicable Law
As correctly noted by the plaintiff in its own brief seeking early discovery, Courts
within the Ninth Circuit use a balancing test to decide whether motions for expedited
discovery should be granted. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273
(N.D. Cal. 2002) (granting expedited discovery under a balance of hardships analysis).
Under the balancing test standard, a request for expedited discovery should be granted
where a moving party can show that its need for expedited discovery outweighs the
prejudice to the responding party. Id. at 276 (Good cause may be found where the need
for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the
prejudice to the responding party.); see also Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corp. v.
Deepinder Dhindsa, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65753, No. 10-00335 (E.D. Cal. 2010). ECF
No. 8, p. 3, 10/8/12.
(c) The Requested Early Discovery is Relevant to the Issue of Plaintiffs Standing
to Sue for Copyright Infringement and is Also Relevant to Uncovering a
Possible Fraud on the Court and/or Undisclosed Financial Interests in the Case
Moreover, The use of a forged document in defense of a lawsuit prejudices both
the opposing party and the judicial system itself. . .A court may use its inherent powers to
preserve the integrity of the judicial process and prevent the perpetration of fraud on the
court. Forsberg v. Pefanis, 261 F.R.D. 694, 702 (N.D. Ga. 2009); citing Hazel-Atlas
Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 246, 64 S. Ct. 997, 88 L. Ed. 1250, 1944
Dec. Comm'r Pat. 675 (1944).
As the Ninth Circuit has explained, It is well settled that dismissal is warranted
where. . .a party has engaged deliberately in deceptive practices that undermine the
integrity of judicial proceedings: courts have inherent power to dismiss an action when a
party has willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the
orderly administration of justice. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distribs., 69
F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. Cal. 1995); quoting Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d
585, 589 (9th Cir. 1983) (upholding dismissal of complaint pursuant to court's inherent
#:235
Supp. E.R. 26

-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

power where plaintiff's denials of material fact were knowingly false); see also Combs v.
Rockwell Int'l Corp., 927 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming dismissal under the court's
inherent power as appropriate sanction for falsifying a deposition), cert. denied, 502 U.S.
859, 116 L. Ed. 2d 138, 112 S. Ct. 176 (1991).
If there are indeed forged documents in the copyright chain of title, then there are
obvious standing problems with respect to AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13s ability to sue
for copyright infringement. Standing is a particularly important concern in lawsuits like
this because it was on the rocky issue of copyright standing that Righthaven copyright troll
cases foundered.
7
E.g., Righthaven, LLC v. Democractic Underground, LLC, 791 F. Supp.
2d 968, 973 (D. Nev. 2011)(Case No. 10-cv-1356-RLH-GWF, ECF No. 116, 6/14/11)
(dismissing copyright infringement claims brought by copyright troll company taking
assignment to copyrights for lack of standing due to technical problems with the
assignment documentation); see also, generally, S. Balganesh, The Uneasy Case Against
Copyright Trolls, 86 S. CAL. L. REV (forthcoming May 2013), p *28
8
(discussing how
the Righthaven court applied Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., 402 F.3d 881
(9th Cir. 2005), which prohibits bare assignment of a mere right to sue, and noting that As
a functional matter then, Silvers operates as copyright laws rule against both the
assignment of actionable copyright claims and champertous
9
lawsuits).

7
The Righthaven actions, which began in 2010, were the first in the modern era were a company
was purpose-built to take assignment to copyrights and then go into business as a professional
copyright infringement plaintiff. After Judge Hunt of the District of Nevada learned that there was
a problem with Righthavens assignment documents, the result was that all of Righthavens many
infringement lawsuits were eventually dismissed, Righthaven was liquidated, and its copyrights
sold at auction to pay the attorneys fees of the defendants who Righthaven had sued.

8
An abstract to and copy of this forthcoming law review article is available here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2150716

9
Champerty 1. An agreement between an officious intermeddler in a lawsuit and a litigant by
which the intermeddler helps pursue the litigants claim as consideration for receiving part of any
judgment proceeds; specif. an agreement to divide litigation proceeds between the owner of the
litigated claim and a party unrelated to the lawsuit who supports or helps enforce the claim. . .2
#:236
Supp. E.R. 27

-10-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Further, beyond standing, the requested discovery on Alan Cooper is also highly
relevant to determining whether there are undisclosed parties with a pecuniary interest in
the outcome of the litigation, and to potential improper fee splitting. What seems
increasingly likely is that Minnesota Alan Coopers identity was misappropriated, without
his knowledge or consent, in a fraudulent attempt to hide the fact that Prenda Law, Inc.
and/or John Steele are the real parties in interest behind AF Holdings and Ingeunity 13.
The fact that these two shell entities were organized in St. Kitts and Nevis, a notorious
privacy haven, which has strict laws guarding against the recording or disclosure of
corporate ownership information,
10
lends further support to this theory. Moreover, the
hearing transcript from Prendas Sunlust case in Florida suggests that there is a pattern
here: when Courts pry as to who is really behind Prendas lawsuits, Prenda and/or John
Steele attempt to defraud the court. Appendix 3. In Sunlust, when Prenda was ordered to
produce a client principal at a hearing, the person who showed up was a current close
associate of John SteeleSteeles former paralegal, Mark Lutzdespite the fact that, as
the Court determined through questioning, Mr. Lutz had no authority and knew nothing
about the plaintiff entity. From defrauding a Court with respect to producing a purported
agent who lacks authority, it is not then a far leap to imagine that the same thing occurred
with respect to Alan Cooper. That is, Prenda and/or John Steele simply chose another
person Mr. Steele knew (and whose signature they had a copy of), namely Alan Cooper of
Minnesota, and attempted to hold this person out in federal court filings as the principal of
AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 (only without telling Mr. Cooper about it). In short, there
appears to be a possible pattern of Prenda Law, Inc. and/or John Steele seeking to defraud

Hist. A writ available to the party who is the target of a champertous action. Blacks Law
Dictionary, Eighth Ed., p. 246.

10
Managers and final beneficiaries are not registered anywhere, this way they have total
anonymity. http://www.offshorebankshop.com/en/11-saint-kitts-and-nevis-offshore-company-
form-tax-haven-limited-liability.html; see also U.S. Department of Treasury Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network Warning re: St. Kitts and Nevis:
http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/advisory/html/advis26.html
#:237
Supp. E.R. 28

-11-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the Courts on the issue of who is really behind these lawsuits, by falsely holding out straw-
men that have a personal connection to John Steele as company principals.
If Prenda Law, Inc. and/or John Steele (or some other person or entity) are the true
real parties in interest in these cases, then Movant, the public, and the Court (for the
purpose of recusal procedures) have a right to know, and this raises further questions about
improper fee splitting. Even if it turns out that John Steele and/or Prenda are not legally
the real parties in interest, a question remains: how much of the take can the plaintiffs
lawyers keep before they become the de facto real party in interest such that the required
financial disclosure is in order under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 7.1 and L.R. 7.1-1? How much is
allowed pursuant to ethical rules on fee splitting 90%, 70%? The Alan Cooper discovery
will also lead to answers on all of these questions as well. What appears to be going on
here is the definition of what was once called champerty, which, under common law
concepts that are no longer recognized, was a crime as well as a tort.
(d) Prejudice to the Plaintiff Can be Easily Avoided
Generally, Prenda Law complains that when there are delays in cases like this, it
will have difficulty meeting the Rule 4(m) service of process deadline. To remedy any
possible prejudice associated with that issue, Movant would stipulate to a 30-day extension
of that deadline. Indeed, if this lawsuit is allowed to proceed, and Movants identity is
ordered disclosed to Prenda, and Prenda insists on moving forward notwithstanding Rule
11(b)(3), undersigned counsel will urge Movant to waive service.
(e) Need for the Requested Discovery Outweighs the Minimal Prejudice to
Plaintiff
Prenda law can moot the early discovery request (if not the request for a stay of the
subpoena return date), and put the minds of litigants nationwide at ease by providing a
verified response, in its opposition hereto, to a very simple question: is there another Alan
Cooper, other than the gentleman in Minnesota, who is or was the principal of Ingenuity 13
and AF Holdings? Similarly, if this Mr. Cooper did sign a notarized, verified petition by
hand, which Mr. Gibbs has averred, under penalty of perjury, that he kept a copy of, then
#:238
Supp. E.R. 29

-12-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Mr. Gibbs should produce the signature page. See In the Matter of a Petition by Ingenuity
13, LLC, E.D. Cal. Case No. 11-mc-0084-JAM-DAD, ECF No. 1, p. 8 of 8, 10/28/11.
11
By
submitting a one-page affidavit in support of its opposition along with Mr. Coopers
verification page, plaintiff could get the case right back on track. However, Movant
believes that the fact that Prenda has utterly refused to substantively address any of the
very troubling circumstances raised by Alan Cooper of Minnesota speaks volumes.
The requested early discovery is narrow in scope, minimally burdensome, can and
will be propounded promptly, and is necessary for several reasons: (1) to ensure that a
fraud is not being perpetuated, with help of the Courts subpoena power; (2) to address
standing issues associated with possible forged chain of title documents; (3) to determine
whether the plaintiffs lawyers, or some other person or entity, are actually the undisclosed
real parties in interest in this case; (4) to determine whether there is evidence of improper
fee splitting.
(f) Need for Ex Parte Relief to Preserve the Ability of Movant to File a Meaningful
Motion to Quash
Plaintiff Ingenuity 13, LLC sought and obtained leave of court to issue a subpoena
to Comcast seeking to identify the billing contact associated with the Internet account
which, at the relevant time, was assigned the particular IP address which plaintiff alleges
was used to illegally download plaintiffs pornographic movie.
After receiving a subpoena, Comcast checked its records and determined that at the
time alleged in the complaint the IP address at issue was assigned to an Internet account
paid for by Movant. Accordingly, Comcast then notified Movant, as the billing contact for
this account, that unless Movant takes action to quash or otherwise object to the subpoena
Comcast will disclose Movants identity to the plaintiff.
On November 28, 2012, Movant filed an initial ex parte application seeking an
extension of the subpoena return date (ECF no. 13). On December 3, 2012, Magistrate
Judge Walsh held a telephonic conference with counsel for both sides in this action and

11
A copy of this verified petition is included as Exhibit E to Appendix 1 hereto.
#:239
Supp. E.R. 30

-13-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

granted the 30-day stay requested by Movant in the ex parte application, nunc pro tunc to
November 28, 2012. (ECF No. 16). Accordingly, the current subpoena response
deadline is Saturday December 29, 2012. This application for a further stay of the
response deadline is being filed well in advance of that deadline, given the upcoming
Christmas holiday.
12

Movant respectfully requests that the ISP subpoena response deadline in this case be
stayed pending further order of this Court, and that the very troubling questions regarding
Alan Cooper be resolved, or at least addressed, as threshold issues before this case is
allowed to proceed any farther. Movant will be filing a motion to quash, and the
information sought by early discovery is highly relevant thereto. Further, Movant, as well
as the public and the Court (for purposes of considering possible conflicts in connection
with recusal rules) have a right to know if Prenda Law, Inc. and/or John Steele are really
the true parties in interest in this lawsuit.
(g) Even if the Court Denies John Does Request for Limited Early Discovery, the
Court Should Still Order a Brief Stay of the ISP Subpoena Return Date
Even if the Court is not inclined to grant John Does request for limited pre-service
written discovery, Movant would respectfully request that, in the alternative, the Court stay
the return date on the subpoena plaintiff issued to Comcast seeking Movants identity to a
date certain (perhaps a 30-day extension), to allow Movant to file a motion to quash by
then. Here, a 30-day stay of the subpoena return would also be beneficial in that the Notice
of Related Cases filed by undersigned counsel on December 3, 2012, will likely be decided
by Judge Wright by then. Since Prenda Law and similar plaintiffs firms generally prefer to
try and parcel their highly similar cases out to as many different Judges as possible, a
recurring problem in these cases is that after lawyers for John Does become involved and
seek to relate the cases, there end up being motions to quash heard before one Judge, only

12
Undersigned counsel notes that Magistrate Judge Walsh suggested that a further discovery
conference might be in order on this matter, and is filing this application in order to have
something in writing to discuss at such a conference, hopefully in advance of the coming holidays.
#:240
Supp. E.R. 31

-14-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

to have all of the cases then transferred to another Judge, which is clearly a waste of
resources for both the Court and the parties. Again, as noted above, Movant has no
objection to a reasonable continuance of the 4(m) deadline.
(h) Local Rule 7-19 Statement
As required by L.R. 7-19, the contact information for plaintiffs counsel is as follows:
415-325-5900
13

Mr. Gibbs indicated on the phone that he would oppose an application like this one. Decl.
of Morgan E. Pietz 6.
/

13
An issue undersigned counsel has raised with Mr. Gibbs previously, in state court litigation, is
that Mr. Gibbs does not appear to maintain a working fax number:
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/251000
#:241
Supp. E.R. 32

-15-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(i) Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Movant respectfully requests (1) that leave be granted to
propound the specific proposed written discovery identified in Movants ex parte
application; (2) that the subpoena return date be stayed pending further order of this Court,
which shall be re-evaluated after verified responses have been served to the requested
written discovery; or (3) in the alternative, that the subpoena return date be stayed for 30
more days, to permit Movant to file a motion to quash the subpoena plaintiff issued to
Comcast seeking Movants identity.

DATED: December 18, 2012 THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
/s/ Morgan E. Pietz
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM


electronic service.

/s/ Morgan E. Pietz
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
#:242
Supp. E.R. 33

-i-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301


Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.


Walsh

PIETZ

Supp. E.R. 34

-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

I, Morgan E. Pietz, have personal knowledge of the facts alleged herein and hereby declare
as follows:
1. I am an attorney duly admitted to the practice of law in the state and federal
courts of the State of California.
2. I am the attorney principally responsible for the representation of an
individual ISP subscriber who is alleged by Ingenuity 13, LLC to be the John Doe
defendant in Ingenuity 13, LLC v. John Doe, N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:12-cv-04976-JSW. I
also represent the purported John Doe defendant in Ingenuity 13, LLC v. John Doe, C.D.
Cal. Case No. 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW.
3. Attached hereto as Appendix 1 is a true and correct copy of a federal filing
made by the attorney for Alan Cooper in two federal cases in Minnesota. This filing
contains a number of Exhibits which are identified by letter and cited in the
accompanying brief. Exhibit E is a copy of the verified federal court pleading, the
verification page for which was supposedly executed by Alan Cooper. In the Matter of a
Petition by Ingenuity 13, LLC, E.D. Cal. Case No. 11-mc-0084-JAM-DAD, ECF No. 1, p.
8 of 8, 10/28/11.
4. Attached hereto as Appendix 2 is a true and correct copy of a sworn affidavit
executed by Alan Cooper of Minnesota. As explained therein, included as an attachment
thereto is a copy of the lease agreement this Mr. Cooper entered into with John Steele,
which appears to be signed by both men. On information and belief, I believe that John
Steele is closely associated with Prenda Law, Inc.
5. Attached hereto as Appendix 3 is a true and correct copy of a hearing
transcript from Sunlust Pictures, LLC v. Tuan Nguyen, M.D. Fl. 8:12-cv-1685.
6. Attached hereto as Appendix 4 is a true and correct copy of my recent meet
and confer emails with plaintiffs counsel Brett Gibbs seeking clarity on the troubling Alan
Cooper issues. After the last email, I did finally connect with Mr. Gibbs on the telephone,
and he confirmed that he would not provide any of the information I requested of him
Supp. E.R. 35

-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

absent a more formal demand. I advised him I would be making this kind of more formal
demand, which he indicated he would oppose.
7. Attached hereto as Appendix 5 is a true and correct copy of Exhibit B to
the complaint in the low-number case pending in this district, AF Holdings, LLC v. John
Doe, C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:12-cv-05709-ODW-JC, ECF No. 1.
8. I filed an early discovery request similar to this request in a similar case
pending in the Northern District of California, Ingenuity 13, LLC v. John Doe, N.D. Cal.
Case No. 3:12-cv-04976-JSW, ECF No. 12, 12/14/2012.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct.


DATED: December 18, 2012
At Manhattan Beach, California,
/s/ Morgan E. Pietz


electronic service.

/s/ Morgan E. Pietz
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Supp. E.R. 36

-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Supp. E.R. 37
#:247
Supp. E.R. 38
#:248
Supp. E.R. 39
#:249
Supp. E.R. 40
#:250
Supp. E.R. 41
#:251
Supp. E.R. 42
#:252
Supp. E.R. 43
#:253
Supp. E.R. 44
#:254
Supp. E.R. 45
#:255
Supp. E.R. 46
#:256
Supp. E.R. 47
#:257
Supp. E.R. 48
#:258
Supp. E.R. 49
#:259
Supp. E.R. 50
#:260
Supp. E.R. 51
#:261
Supp. E.R. 52
#:262
Supp. E.R. 53
#:263
Supp. E.R. 54
#:264
Supp. E.R. 55
#:265
Supp. E.R. 56
#:266
Supp. E.R. 57
#:267
Supp. E.R. 58
#:268
Supp. E.R. 59
#:269
Supp. E.R. 60
#:270
Supp. E.R. 61
#:271
Supp. E.R. 62
Supp. E.R. 63
Supp. E.R. 64
Supp. E.R. 65
Supp. E.R. 66
Supp. E.R. 67
Supp. E.R. 68
Supp. E.R. 69
UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT
MI DDLE DI STRI CT OF FLORI DA
TAMPA DI VI SI ON
SUNLUST PI CTURES, LLC. , CASE NO: 8: 12- CV- 1685- T- 35MAP
Pl ai nt i f f ,
VS. Tampa, Fl or i da
10: 00 a. m.
TUAN NGUYEN, November 27, 2011
Def endant .
________________________________/
TRANSCRI PT OF MOTI ON HEARI NG
BEFORE THE HONORABLE MARY S. SCRI VEN
UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE
APPEARANCES:
Counsel f or Pl ai nt i f f : J ONATHAN TORRES, ESQUI RE
( Tel ephoni cal l y) 1417 N. Semor an Boul evar d
Sui t e 205
Or l ando, FL 32807
( 407) 953- 5818
j onat hant or r esl l c@gmai l . com
Counsel f or Def endant : GRAHAM W. SYFERT, ESQUI RE
1529 Mar gar et St r eet
Uni t 2
J acksonvi l l e, FL 32204
( 904) 383- 7448
gr aham@syf er t . com
Cour t Repor t er : CLAUDI A SPANGLER- FRY, RPR, CM
Of f i ci al Cour t Repor t er
801 Nor t h Fl or i da Avenue
7t h Fl oor
Tampa, FL 33602
( 813) 301- 5575
cooki ef r y@aol . com
CLAUDI A SPANGLER- FRY, OFFI CI AL U. S. COURT REPORTER
#:279
Supp. E.R. 70
Page 2
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 November 27, 2012
3 * * * * * *
4 THE COURT: Mr . Tor r es, what sor t of noi se ar e you
5 maki ng on t he l i ne?
6 MR. TORRES: I apol ogi ze, I ' mi n t he Cour t house.
7 THE COURT: Al l r i ght .
8 MR. TORRES: I n Or ange Count y.
9 THE COURT: Pl ease cal l t he case.
10 THE CLERK: I n t he mat t er of Sunl ust Pi ct ur es, LLC - -
11 MR. TORRES: I s t hat bet t er ?
12 THE COURT: That ' s bet t er , yes.
13 THE CLERK: - - ver sus Tuan Nguyen, Case Number
14 8: 12- CV- 1685.
15 Counsel and par t i es, pl ease st at e your appear ances,
16 st ar t i ng wi t h par t i es f or t he Pl ai nt i f f .
17 MR. LUTZ: Mar k Lut z, appear i ng on behal f of Sunl ust
18 Pi ct ur es.
19 THE COURT: And f or t he def ense?
20 MR. SYFERT: Your Honor , Gr ahamSyf er t her e on behal f
21 of Tuan Nguyen, who i s al so pr esent i n Cour t t oday.
22 THE COURT: And on t he phone?
23 MR. TORRES: At t or ney J onat han Tor r es, Fl or i da counsel
24 f or Pl ai nt i f f .
25 THE COURT: And Mr . Lut z, wher e' s your coat and t i e
#:280
Supp. E.R. 71
Page 3
1 t hi s mor ni ng? Di d you know you wer e comi ng t o Feder al Cour t ?
2 MR. LUTZ: I di d.
3 THE COURT: Wher e' s your coat and t i e?
4 MR. LUTZ: I apol ogi ze, I di d not wear one.
5 THE COURT: Ar e you an at t or ney bar r ed i n t he St at e of
6 Fl or i da?
7 MR. LUTZ: I amnot , no, I ' ma cor por at e
8 r epr esent at i ve.
9 THE COURT: And who i s your counsel ?
10 MR. LUTZ: I ' msor r y?
11 THE COURT: Who i s your l awyer ?
12 MR. LUTZ: Our counsel i s on t he phone her e.
13 THE COURT: Wher e i s your ot her l awyer ; he hasn' t been
14 per mi t t ed t o wi t hdr aw?
15 MR. LUTZ: He wasn' t abl e t o appear t oday.
16 THE COURT: Mr . Tor r es, ar e you i n t he case or out of
17 t he case?
18 MR. TORRES: No, I ' mst i l l i n t he case, Your Honor . I
19 pr esent ed a mot i on f or t el ephoni c appear ance due t o an
20 emer gency hear i ng conf l i ct i n Or ange Count y and I was al l owed
21 t o appear by phone and by or der t hat was sent t o me yest er day.
22 THE COURT: Wel l , I ' ma l i t t l e conf used. Ther e was a
23 l awyer who moved t o wi t hdr aw, and t her e was anot her l awyer who
24 moved t o appear , t hen he moved t o wi t hdr aw, so who i s on f i r st ,
25 I guess?
#:281
Supp. E.R. 72
Page 4
1 MR. TORRES: Ri ght now, Your Honor , I ' mst i l l on t he
2 case. And t her e i s st i l l di scussi ons wi t h my cl i ent whi ch I
3 have t o conf er wi t h t hem, but r i ght f or now, I ' mt he counsel on
4 t he case, Your Honor .
5 THE COURT: And Mr . Tor r es, how di d you come t o be t he
6 l awyer i n t hi s case?
7 MR. TORRES: Your Honor , I was cont act ed by t he
8 cl i ent , Pr enda Law, i n or der t o - -
9 THE COURT: The cl i ent and Pr enda Law or Pr enda Law?
10 MR. TORRES: Pr enda Law, Your Honor ,
11 THE COURT: And what i s t hei r r el at i on t o you?
12 MR. TORRES: J ust co- counsel ar r angement , Your Honor .
13 THE COURT: And what i s t hat ar r angement ?
14 MR. TORRES: For me t o appear f or any l ocal hear i ngs,
15 Your Honor .
16 THE COURT: Wel l , I got a l et t er f r omsomeone f r omt he
17 Pr enda Law Gr oup sayi ng t hey wer e not r epr esent i ng any par t y i n
18 t hi s case and wer e not i nvol ved i n t he case and had no
19 aut hor i t y t o speak on anyone' s behal f i n t hi s case, so i s
20 Pr enda Law pr i nci pal counsel i n t he case or not ?
21 MR. TORRES: No, Your Honor .
22 THE COURT: So what i s t hei r r el at i onshi p agai n t hen
23 t o you as counsel i n t hi s case?
24 MR. TORRES: Wel l , Your Honor , I was - -
25 THE COURT: I ' msor r y, I ' msor r y, hol d on a second.
#:282
Supp. E.R. 73
Page 5
1 Ms. Vi zza, woul d you pl ease swear t hi s wi t ness, on t he
2 phone, yes.
3 Mr . Tor r es, i f you woul d pl ease r ai se your r i ght hand.
4 Ms. Vi zza.
5 MR. TORRES: Yes.
6 Ther eupon,
7 J ONATHAN TORRES,
8 havi ng f i r st been dul y swor n t o t el l t he t r ut h, t he whol e
9 t r ut h, and not hi ng but t he t r ut h, was exami ned and t est i f i ed as
10 f ol l ows:
11 MR. TORRES: Yes.
12 THE COURT: Al l r i ght , si r . You' r e under oat h, you
13 have t o gi ve t r ut hf ul answer s t o t he quest i ons t hat ar e asked
14 or f ace penal t i es of per j ur y f or f al se answer s.
15 Do you under st and t hat ?
16 MR. TORRES: I under st and.
18 So, st ar t i ng over now, Pr enda i s t he r ef er r i ng l aw
19 f i r mt o your f i r mor t he or i gi nat i ng f i r mor pr i nci pal counsel ?
20 MR. TORRES: My under st andi ng, Your Honor , i s t hat
21 Pr enda Law was t he counsel f or Pl ai nt i f f s and i s st i l l counsel
22 f or Pl ai nt i f f s.
23 I was cont act ed by Br et t Gi bbs i n or der t o be l ocal
24 counsel t o appear on behal f of Pr enda Law.
25 THE COURT: So, Pr enda Law pur por t s t o be t he
#:283
Supp. E.R. 74
Page 6
1 pr i nci pal l aw f i r mi n t hi s case?
2 MR. TORRES: Cor r ect .
3 THE COURT: Di d Pr enda Law f i l e a not i ce of appear ance
4 as pr i nci pal l aw f i r mi n t hi s case?
6 t hey wer e, at one poi nt , counsel i n t he case. I ' mnot sur e i f
7 t hey act ual l y have a cur r ent not i ce of appear ance or not , I ' m
8 not sur e.
9 THE COURT: And what i s your f i nanci al ar r angement
10 wi t h Pr enda Law?
11 MR. TORRES: Wel l , I ' mwor ki ng on a cont i ngency basi s,
12 Your Honor .
13 THE COURT: And what per cent age i s your cut of t he
14 cont i ngency?
15 MR. TORRES: My under st andi ng i s t hat i t ' s 75 per cent ,
16 my under st andi ng, of what ever t he f ees ar e gener at ed, my
17 under st andi ng, at l east .
18 THE COURT: Your s wi l l be 75 per cent and Pr enda' s wi l l
19 be 25 per cent ?
20 MR. TORRES: That i s cor r ect , Your Honor .
21 THE COURT: Who i s pr i nci pal l y r esponsi bl e f or t he
22 case; Pr enda or you?
23 MR. TORRES: Wel l , my under st andi ng i s t hat I was
24 r ecent l y cont act ed i n r egar ds t o t hi s case.
25 My under st andi ng i s t hat I was goi ng t o be pr i mar i l y
#:284
Supp. E.R. 75
Page 7
1 r esponsi bl e and be t he l ocal counsel f or t hi s case, but t he
2 r eason why I pr esent ed a mot i on t o wi t hdr aw i s because j ust
3 r ecent l y I was cont act ed by def ense counsel and was advi sed of
4 cer t ai n i ssues t hat wer e goi ng on i n t he case.
5 THE COURT: When wer e you r et ai ned?
6 MR. TORRES: Wel l , I was cont act ed, I bel i eve, Your
7 Honor , i t was about 15 days ago.
8 THE COURT: And who wer e you cont act ed by?
9 MR. TORRES: I was cont act ed by Mr . Br et t Gi bbs f r om
10 Pr enda Law.
11 THE COURT: And who di d he t el l you was cur r ent
12 counsel i n t he case?
13 MR. TORRES: Wel l , he t ol d me t hat Pr enda Law t hr ough
14 anot her at t or ney l ocal l y was t he cur r ent counsel i n t he case,
15 and t hat ' s why, you know, t hey wer e subst i t ut i ng me f or counsel
16 i n t hi s case, and ei ght ot her cases - - act ual l y seven ot her
17 cases t hat pur por t edl y Pr enda Law was t he counsel on.
18 THE COURT: Gi ve me one second, I need t o l ook up
19 somet hi ng i n t he docket .
20 ( Br i ef pause. )
21 And di d Mr . Wasi nger cal l you?
22 MR. TORRES: No, Your Honor , Mr . Wasi nger appar ent l y
23 pr esent ed a mot i on t o wi t hdr aw or subst i t ut i on of counsel at
24 t hat poi nt .
25 THE COURT: And t hen t he Cour t or der ed t hat he was not
#:285
Supp. E.R. 76
Page 8
1 gr ant ed hi s l eave and di r ect ed t hat he was t o appear at t hi s
2 hear i ng and t hat hi s mot i on f or wi t hdr awal woul d be t aken up at
3 t hi s hear i ng. And di d you see t hat on t he docket when you
4 f i l ed your not i ce of appear ance?
5 MR. TORRES: No, Your Honor , I di d not .
6 THE COURT: Di d you l ook at t he docket when you f i l ed
7 your not i ce of appear ance?
8 MR. TORRES: I pr esent ed t he not i ce of appear ance and
9 di d not see t hat Mr . Wasi nger was st i l l counsel .
10 THE COURT: Di d you l ook at t he docket i s what I asked
11 you?
12 MR. TORRES: I l ooked at - - I di d l ook at t he docket ,
13 per se, I di dn' t - -
14 THE COURT: The answer i s no, you di d not r ead t he
15 docket on t he case you wer e appear i ng i n?
16 MR. TORRES: Cor r ect , Your Honor .
17 THE COURT: And t hen shor t l y af t er you f i l e your
18 not i ce of appear ance, you moved t o wi t hdr aw?
20 THE COURT: And why i s t hat ?
21 MR. TORRES: Wel l , Your Honor , I ' l l be per f ect l y
22 honest wi t h you. Def ense counsel cont act ed me shor t l y
23 t her eaf t er of bei ng counsel of r ecor d, i nst r uct ed me t o cal l
24 hi mi mmedi at el y.
25 And so I - - act ual l y I di d, and l ef t hi ma message,
#:286
Supp. E.R. 77
Page 9
1 t hen he r et ur ned my phone cal l . And t her e was di scussi ons
2 bet ween Def endant and - - Def endant ' s counsel and mysel f i n
3 r egar ds t o t hi s case.
4 The onl y t hi ng t hat - - t he f i r st t hi ng t hat I hear d
5 f r omdef ense counsel was, you know, r at her t han see how t hi s
6 case mi ght be set t l ed or anyt hi ng t o t hat ef f ect , was t he f act
7 t hat t her e wer e - - t her e had been some bar compl ai nt s or
8 somet hi ng t o t hat ef f ect associ at ed wi t h t hi s case or somet hi ng
9 t o t hat ef f ect , and based on t hat st at ement f r omdef ense
10 counsel , I deci ded t o pr esent my mot i on t o wi t hdr aw and have no
11 f ur t her i nvol vement wi t h any of t he cases.
12 THE COURT: Di d you have any cont act wi t h
13 Mr . Wasi nger ?
14 MR. TORRES: No, I di d not , Your Honor .
15 THE COURT: Do you have a wr i t t en cont r act wi t h Pr enda
16 Law Gr oup?
17 MR. TORRES: No, I do not , Your Honor .
18 THE COURT: Have you f i l ed a not i ce of appear ance i n
19 al l of t he ot her cases t hat Mr . Wasi nger has wi t hdr awn f r om?
20 MR. TORRES: Yes, Your Honor .
21 THE COURT: Have you moved t o wi t hdr aw i n al l t hose
22 cases as wel l ?
23 MR. TORRES: Yes, I di d, Your Honor .
24 THE COURT: Have t hose mot i ons been gr ant ed?
25 MR. TORRES: No, Your Honor , based on l ocal r ul e,
#:287
Supp. E.R. 78
Page 10
1 af t er conf er r i ng wi t h counsel , but t hat ' s somet hi ng I ' l l
2 r emedy, Your Honor .
3 THE COURT: I got a l et t er on t he 18t h f r oma
4 Mr . Duf f y at Pr enda Law, I nc.
5 MR. TORRES: Okay.
6 THE COURT: And he advi ses t hat he was r ecent l y made
7 awar e t hat t he Cour t or der ed a pr i nci pal of Pr enda Law t o
8 appear i n per son at t he mot i on t o di smi ss hear i ng schedul ed f or
9 t oday' s dat e.
10 As t he sol e pr i nci pal of Pr enda Law, I nc. , t hat woul d
11 be me. For t he r ecor d, I was never ser ved wi t h not i ce of t he
12 Cour t ' s Or der or ot her wi se made awar e of i t unt i l ver y r ecent l y
13 vi a a phone cal l f r oma f el l ow at t or ney.
14 As an i ni t i al mat t er , I must r espect f ul l y i nf or mt he
15 Cour t I aml ocat ed i n Chi cago and my at t endance woul d r equi r e
16 ai r t r avel and he has had sur ger y on hi s eyes and t hi s and
17 t hat .
18 Then he says, I al so r espect f ul l y quest i on how my
19 appear ance coul d benef i t t he Cour t , par t i cul ar l y si nce I amnot
20 r epr esent i ng anyone, i n i t al i cs, i n t hi s case and have no
21 aut hor i t y t o speak on anyone' s behal f .
22 I t woul d cer t ai nl y - - i t woul d cl ear l y be i mpr oper f or
23 me t o make any st at ement on a pendi ng mat t er i n a j ur i sdi ct i on
24 i n whi ch I amnot l i censed and on behal f of a cl i ent I do not
25 r epr esent . I n l i ght of t he f or egoi ng, I pr ay t hat t he Cour t
#:288
Supp. E.R. 79
Page 11
1 wi l l excuse my at t endance at t hi s hear i ng.
2 Now, i s Pr enda Law, I nc. di f f er ent t han t he ent i t y
3 t hat you ar e deal i ng wi t h?
4 MR. TORRES: Your Honor , my onl y under st andi ng i s t hat
5 Pr enda Law i s t he one t hat has been i n cont act wi t h me. That ' s
6 t he onl y t hi ng I know.
7 To be honest , Your Honor , I r esponded t o an ad f or a
8 l ocal appear ance, t hat ' s al l I di d, Your Honor . And ot her t han
9 t hat , I was br ought i nt o t hese cases, and t hat ' s pr et t y much
10 i t .
11 THE COURT: Who i s Pr enda Law, I nc. ? I s t hat t he
12 per son you' r e l ocal counsel f or ?
13 MR. TORRES: That ' s t echni cal l y my under st andi ng of
14 t he si t uat i on or t he ar r angement , i f you wi l l .
15 THE COURT: Who i s Mr . Gi bbs i n r el at i on t o Mr . Duf f y?
16 MR. TORRES: Wel l , Mr . Gi bbs appar ent l y i s a pr i nci pal
17 at Pr enda Law, t o my under st andi ng.
18 THE COURT: Who i s Mr . Duf f y?
19 MR. TORRES: Mr . Duf f y, I have no cont act wi t h
20 Mr . Duf f y. I ' ve never had any cont act wi t h Mr . Duf f y.
21 THE COURT: Mr . Lut z, who i s t he i ndi vi dual who you
22 j ust spoke t o i n t he Cour t r oomwi t h you?
23 MR. LUTZ: Sor r y?
24 THE COURT: Who i s t hat behi nd you?
25 MR. STEELE: Your Honor , my name i s J ohn St eel e.
#:289
Supp. E.R. 80
Page 12
1 THE COURT: Who ar e you?
2 MR. STEELE: I ' man at t or ney, but not i nvol ved i n t hi s
3 case.
4 THE COURT: You' r e an at t or ney wi t h what l aw f i r m?
5 MR. STEELE: I ' mnot an at t or ney wi t h any l aw f i r m
6 r i ght now, but I have wor ked wi t h Mr . Duf f y i n t he past and I
7 amcer t ai nl y f ami l i ar wi t h t hi s l i t i gat i on j ust because I ' ve
8 been i nvol ved i n many di f f er ent cases l i ke t hi s i n t he past .
9 THE COURT: But not t hi s case?
10 MR. STEELE: Cor r ect .
11 THE COURT: So, Mr . Tor r es, you don' t know who your
12 gener al counsel i s ot her t han Mr . Gi bbs, and you don' t have a
13 wr i t t en agr eement and you j ust answer ed a r andomad and put
14 your name on a docket i n Feder al Cour t ?
15 MR. TORRES: Wel l , Your Honor , I was goi ng t o make a
16 l ocal appear ance f or someone t hat , you know, needed a l ocal
17 counsel , and so I di d.
18 THE COURT: Wel l , you' r e st i l l a l awyer .
20 THE COURT: And Mr . Lut z, di d Mr . Wasi nger speak wi t h
21 you about hi s deci si on not t o appear at t hi s hear i ng?
22 MR. LUTZ: They di d not , no.
23 THE COURT: Do you know who Mr . Duf f y i s?
24 MR. LUTZ: I bel i eve he i s a pr i nci pal of Pr enda Law.
25 THE COURT: And who i s Mr . Gi bbs?
#:290
Supp. E.R. 81
Page 13
1 MR. LUTZ: Mr . Gi bbs i s al so af f i l i at ed wi t h Pr enda
2 Law, I don' t know hi s of f i ci al t i t l e.
3 THE COURT: I s he an at t or ney?
4 MR. LUTZ: I bel i eve so, i n t he St at e of Cal i f or ni a.
5 THE COURT: But not i n t he St at e of I l l i noi s?
6 MR. LUTZ: I can' t say f or sur e.
7 THE COURT: Do you know i f he i s a par t ner i n t he
8 Pr enda Law Gr oup?
9 MR. LUTZ: I do not know hi s of f i ci al t i t l e, no.
10 THE COURT: Who i s your counsel , who i s your l awyer ?
11 MR. LUTZ: Pr enda Law i s one of t hem, t hey r epr esent
12 Sunl ust i n sever al cases, not i n t hi s case, par t i cul ar l y.
13 THE COURT: What does t hat mean; par t i cul ar l y?
14 MR. LUTZ: Wel l , i t ' s not i n t hi s mat t er , t hey
15 r epr esent us i n var i ous di f f er ent cases.
16 THE COURT: So t hey wer e not r et ai ned t o be your
17 l awyer and t hey di d not r ef er t hi s mat t er t o Mr . Tor r es?
18 MR. LUTZ: I don' t know what t hei r af f i l i at i on wi t h
19 Mr . Tor r es i s, of f i ci al l y.
20 THE COURT: Yes, si r .
21 MR. SYFERT: Your Honor , i f I may i nt er j ect , Mr . Lut z
22 used t o wor k f or Mr . St eel e down i n Mi ami . Mr . Lut z was
23 act ual l y a par al egal and debt col l ect or f or Pr enda Law when i t
24 was a mul t i - st at e, mul t i - j ur i sdi ct i onal l aw f i r mbet ween her e
25 and I l l i noi s. That ' s Mr . Lut z.
#:291
Supp. E.R. 82
Page 14
1 So i f he' s - - he shoul d have bet t er i nf or mat i on about
2 t he st r uct ur e of Pr enda Law t han t hi s and pr obabl y has ver y
3 l i t t l e st r uct ur e about t he - - or ver y l i t t l e i nf or mat i on about
4 t he act ual st r uct ur e of Sunl ust Pi ct ur es, Your Honor .
5 THE COURT: Wi l l you swear t hi s wi t ness, Ms. Vi zza,
6 Mr . Lut z.
7 Ther eupon,
8 J OHN LUTZ,
11 f ol l ows:
12 MR. LUTZ: Yes.
13 THE COURT: Mr . Lut z, you' r e under oat h, you have t o
14 gi ve t r ut hf ul answer s or you f ace penal t i es of per j ur y.
16 MR. LUTZ: Yes.
17 THE COURT: What i s your posi t i on wi t h Sunl ust ?
18 MR. LUTZ: I ' ma r epr esent at i ve of t hem.
19 THE COURT: What does t hat mean?
20 MR. LUTZ: Cor por at e r epr esent at i ve.
22 MR. LUTZ: They asked me t o appear on var i ous mat t er s
23 t hr oughout t he count r y.
24 THE COURT: Ar e you an of f i cer of t he company?
25 MR. LUTZ: I ' mnot , no.
#:292
Supp. E.R. 83
Page 15
1 THE COURT: Ar e you aut hor i zed t o bi nd t he company t o
2 any l egal cont r act s?
3 MR. LUTZ: I amnot .
4 THE COURT: Ar e you sal ar i ed?
5 MR. LUTZ: No, 1099.
6 THE COURT: So you ar e a 1099 cont r act ed ent i t y and
7 you j ust go ar ound and si t i n a Cour t and r epr esent your sel f t o
8 be t he cor por at e r epr esent at i ve of t he company?
9 MR. LUTZ: Yes.
10 THE COURT: Mr . Tor r es, di d you know t hi s was
11 Mr . Lut z' s posi t i on, a pai d cor por at e r epr esent at i ve?
13 THE COURT: Who i s t he pr esi dent of Sunl ust ?
14 MR. LUTZ: I ' munawar e.
15 THE COURT: Who i s t he vi ce pr esi dent ?
16 MR. LUTZ: I ' munawar e
17 THE COURT: Who i s t he secr et ar y?
18 MR. LUTZ: I have no i dea.
19 THE COURT: Who owns Sunl ust ?
20 MR. LUTZ: I do not know.
21 THE COURT: Who si gns your checks?
22 MR. LUTZ: I bel i eve somebody i n t he account i ng
23 depar t ment .
24 THE COURT: What i s t hei r name?
25 MR. LUTZ: To be honest wi t h you, I can' t r ead t he
#:293
Supp. E.R. 84
Page 16
1 si gnat ur e.
2 THE COURT: Wher e i s t he account i ng depar t ment
3 l ocat ed?
6 l ocat ed?
7 MR. LUTZ: I ' ve r ecei ved checks f r omCal i f or ni a.
8 THE COURT: How much ar e you pai d mont hl y t o be t he
9 cor por at e r epr esent at i ve?
10 MR. LUTZ: Agai n, i t depends on my appear ances, t he
11 number of appear ances t hat I do.
12 THE COURT: How much wer e you pai d l ast mont h?
13 MR. LUTZ: Appr oxi mat el y $1, 000.
14 THE COURT: And do you have any ot her j ob t han t o
15 ar ound go t o Cour t s r epr esent i ng your sel f t o be t he cor por at e
16 r epr esent at i ve of Sunl ust ?
17 MR. LUTZ: For Sunl ust , no.
18 THE COURT: Do you have any ot her j ob f or t he Pr enda
19 Law hol di ngs t o do anyt hi ng ot her t han go ar ound t he count r y
20 and r epr esent your sel f t o be t hei r cor por at e r epr esent at i ve?
21 MR. LUTZ: I do not wor k f or Pr enda Law.
22 THE COURT: Do you ser ve i n t hi s capaci t y f or any
23 ot her ent i t y t han Sunl ust ?
24 MR. LUTZ: Yes.
25 THE COURT: What compani es?
#:294
Supp. E.R. 85
Page 17
1 MR. LUTZ: Har d Dr i ve Pr oduct i ons woul d be one and
2 Guava, LLC.
3 THE COURT: Do t hey have si mi l ar l awsui t s ar ound t he
4 count r y?
5 MR. LUTZ: They do.
6 THE COURT: Do you r ecei ve a per cent age of t he
7 r ecover y of any of t hese l awsui t s?
8 MR. LUTZ: I do not .
9 THE COURT: Do you know Mr . Duf f y?
10 MR. LUTZ: Not per sonal l y, no.
11 THE COURT: Have you t al ked t o hi mbef or e?
12 MR. LUTZ: I have not , no.
13 THE COURT: I s he your l awyer ?
14 MR. LUTZ: He i s not my at t or ney
15 THE COURT: I s he t he l awyer f or Pr enda Law - - or
16 Sunl ust ?
17 MR. LUTZ: I n var i ous mat t er s, yes.
18 THE COURT: How many mat t er s do you r epr esent Sunl ust
19 i n, i n t he count r y?
20 MR. LUTZ: Appr oxi mat el y a dozen.
21 THE COURT: So hal f of t hemar e l ocat ed her e i n t he
22 Mi ddl e Di st r i ct and t her e ar e ot her s el sewher e?
23 MR. LUTZ: I bel i eve we have t hr ee her e i n t he Mi ddl e
24 Di st r i ct .
25 THE COURT: Mr . Tor r es, I t hought you ent er ed an
#:295
Supp. E.R. 86
Page 18
1 appear ance on f i ve of t hemher e i n t he Mi ddl e Di st r i ct .
2 MR. TORRES: But not f or t hat par t i cul ar company.
3 THE COURT: What was t he ot her company?
4 MR. TORRES: I bel i eve i t ' s FTG Vi deos. I don' t have
5 access t o my comput er at t hi s t i me, Your Honor , because I ' mi n
6 t he Cour t i n Or ange Count y, but I bel i eve one of t hemi s FTG
7 Vi deos.
8 THE COURT: F as i n Fr ank or S as i n Sam?
9 MR. TORRES: F as i n Fr ank, Your Honor .
10 THE COURT: Mr . St eel e, who i s t he pr i nci pal of
11 Sunl ust ?
12 MR. STEELE: I ' msor r y, you' r e aski ng me, ma' am?
14 MR. STEELE: I woul dn' t know.
15 THE COURT: You don' t know who owns Sunl ust ?
16 MR. STEELE: That ' s cor r ect .
17 THE COURT: You don' t know who t he pr esi dent i s?
18 MR. STEELE: I - - t he onl y per son t hat I know t hat ' s
19 i nvol ved wi t h Sunl ust i s Sunny Leone.
20 THE COURT: Sunny Leone?
21 MR. STEELE: I s one of t he peopl e i nvol ved wi t h
22 Sunl ust . That ' s t he onl y per son I ' ve ever - -
23 THE COURT: What i s t he name?
24 MR. STEELE: Sunny Leone.
25 THE COURT: Spel l i t .
#:296
Supp. E.R. 87
Page 19
1 MR. STEELE: S- O- N- N- Y, Leone - -
2 THE COURT: L- E- O- N?
3 MR. STEELE: I bel i eve t her e' s an E at t he end of
4 t hat , I ' mnot cer t ai n.
5 THE COURT: Wher e' s i s he l ocat ed.
6 MR. STEELE: Wel l , I bel i eve i t ' s a she, and I bel i eve
7 t hat t he l ast t i me I hear d, she was i n I ndi a f i l mi ng a maj or
8 mot i on pi ct ur e wi t h some st udi o down t her e, but I don' t keep up
9 wi t h t hat , I don' t r epr esent Sunl ust or anybody anymor e. I no
10 l onger act i vel y pr act i ce l aw.
11 THE COURT: You' r e not pr act i ci ng l aw?
12 MR. STEELE: Cor r ect . I do appear occasi onal l y at
13 hear i ngs on an ad hoc basi s, but I do not have any cur r ent
14 cl i ent s.
15 THE COURT: You st i l l have a bar l i cense i n t he St at e
16 of Fl or i da?
17 MR. STEELE: No, I ' ml i censed onl y i n t he St at e of
18 I l l i noi s.
19 I want t o make ver y cl ear t o t hi s Cour t I ' mnot
20 pur por t i ng i n any way t o be an at t or ney l i censed i n t he St at e
21 of Fl or i da.
22 THE COURT: Have you ever been l i censed i n t he St at e
23 of Fl or i da?
24 MR. STEELE: No.
#:297
Supp. E.R. 88
Page 20
1 Thank you, si r .
2 So, Mr . Lut z, you don' t know who you ser ve f or , you' r e
3 j ust si t t i ng her e i n t he Cour t r oompur por t i ng t o be a cor por at e
4 r epr esent at i ve?
5 MR. LUTZ: I was cont act ed by Sunny Leone sever al
6 mont hs ago.
7 THE COURT: And t ol d what ?
8 MR. LUTZ: She asked me t o - - when t hey needed f or me
9 t o appear f or var i ous r easons, i f I woul d do i t on a
10 r epr esent at i ve basi s.
11 THE COURT: You can si t away f r omt he t abl e, you' r e
12 not a cor por at e r epr esent at i ve of anybody i f you don' t have any
13 i nf or mat i on about t he cor por at i on.
14 You' r e not an of f i cer or pr i nci pal of t he cor por at i on.
15 The Cour t wi l l excl ude you as a pr oper cor por at e ent i t y f or
16 t hi s Def endant .
17 Mr . Tor r es, your mot i on t o wi t hdr aw i s gr ant ed, you
18 ar e r emoved f r omt hi s case. Any ot her l awyer who pur por t s t o
19 come i n t o r epr esent t hi s Def endant woul d need t o f i l e a mot i on
20 f or l eave t o do so.
21 The case i s di smi ssed f or f ai l ur e t o appear at t hi s
22 hear i ng, f or f ai l ur e t o pr esent a l awf ul agent , f or at t empt ed
23 f r aud on t he Cour t by of f er i ng up a per son who has no aut hor i t y
24 t o act on behal f of t he cor por at i on as i t s cor por at e
25 r epr esent at i ve, and t he Cour t wi l l hear , by mot i on, a mot i on
#:298
Supp. E.R. 89
Page 21
1 f or sanct i ons and f ees agai nst t hi s Sunl ust ent i t y and ever yone
2 af f i l i at ed wi t h i t , i ncl udi ng a mot i on agai nst Mr . Wasi nger f or
3 hi s pur posef ul f ai l ur e t o appear at t hi s hear i ng.
4 And a mot i on wi l l al so be hear d on Mr . Duf f y f or hi s
5 l ack of candor i n r el at i on t o hi s connect i on wi t h t hi s mat t er
6 based upon t he r epr esent at i on of Mr . Tor r es t hat he was
7 cont act ed by t he Pr enda Law Gr oup or Pr enda Law, I nc. f or t he
8 pur pose of bei ng r et ai ned as l ocal counsel i n t hi s case and
9 t hat was not pr esent ed t o t he Cour t i n t hi s pur por t ed
10 cor r espondence. The case i s di smi ssed.
11 I i nt end t o advi se t he ot her J udges i n t he Cour t house
12 of t he nat ur e of t hi s mat t er and may r ef er t hi s mat t er t o t he
13 Fl or i da Bar f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs.
14 I s t her e anyt hi ng f ur t her f r omt he Pl ai nt i f f - - I ' m
15 sor r y - - f r omt he def ense?
16 MR. SYFERT: No, Your Honor .
17 Wel l , yes, Your Honor , we have one ot her case t hat was
18 t r ansf er r ed t o Or l ando, same i ssues exi st as i n t hi s case.
19 THE COURT: Who i s t he J udge i n t he case.
20 MR. SYFERT: The Fi r st Ti me - - i t ' s Fi r st Ti me Vi deos
21 ver sus Oppol d, O- P- P- O- L- D.
22 I t was or i gi nal l y f i l ed i n Tampa t hen t r ansf er r ed t o
23 Or l ando. Spaul di ng I bel i eve i s t he J udge, Your Honor .
24 THE COURT: J udge Spaul di ng i s a Magi st r at e J udge. Do
25 you know t he case number ?
#:299
Supp. E.R. 90
Page 22
1 MR. SYFERT: I don' t have t hat wi t h me. I have t he
2 ol d case number f r omt he - -
3 THE COURT: Tampa case?
4 MR. SYFERT: I have - - yeah, t he Tampa case number was
5 8: 12- CV- 1685- MSS- MAP.
6 THE COURT: Al l r i ght . I ' l l t ake a l ook at i t .
7 Mr . Tor r es, a wor d t o t he wi se, si r . When you
8 r epr esent an ent i t y, no mat t er how l i mi t ed your r ol e i s, you' r e
9 pl aci ng your bar number at i ssue and you' r e pl aci ng your name
10 and your goodwi l l at i ssue bef or e a Cour t .
11 And sayi ng you' r e l ocal counsel and you onl y i nt ended
12 t o f i l e on t hei r behal f and pi ck up a smal l f ee f or t hat
13 l i mi t ed r ol e does not absol ve you f r omr esponsi bi l i t y f or
14 maki ng sur e t hat what ever you si gn on t o, what ever you ent er an
15 appear ance on behal f of i s a l egi t i mat e ent i t y wi t h l egi t i mat e
16 concer ns, because you r un a st r ong r i sk t hat you coul d be
17 sanct i oned or l ose your bar l i cense behi nd conduct of t he t ype
18 t hat you' r e wi t nessi ng her e.
19 I hope t hat t hi s i s a l esson t o you about how t o
20 pr oceed goi ng f or war d wi t h char act er s such as t he ones t hat ar e
21 pr esent ed her e.
22 MR. TORRES: Yes, Your Honor , I t ot al l y under st and and
23 t hank you.
24 THE COURT: Thank you.
25 MR. TORRES: AmI excused, Your Honor ?
#:300
Supp. E.R. 91
Page 23
1 THE COURT: You ar e excused.
2 Thi s mat t er i s di smi ssed.
3 MR. SYFERT: Thank you, Your Honor .
5 ( Ther eupon, t he pr oceedi ngs concl uded. )
6 ********
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
#:301
Supp. E.R. 92
Page 24
1 CERTI FI CATE
2
3 STATE OF FLORI DA )
SS
4 COUNTY OF HI LLSBOROUGH )
5
6 I , CLAUDI A SPANGLER- FRY, Of f i ci al Cour t Repor t er f or
7 t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t , Mi ddl e Di st r i ct , Tampa,
8 Di vi si on,
9 DO HEREBY CERTI FY, t hat I was aut hor i zed t o and di d,
10 t hr ough use of Comput er Ai ded Tr anscr i pt i on, r epor t i n
11 shor t hand t he pr oceedi ngs and evi dence i n t he above- st yl ed
12 cause, as st at ed i n t he capt i on her et o, and t hat t he f or egoi ng
13 pages number ed 1 t o 24 i ncl usi ve, const i t ut e a t r ue and cor r ect
14 t r anscr i pt i on of my shor t hand r epor t of sai d pr oceedi ngs and
15 evi dence.
16 I N WI TNESS WHEREOF, I have her eunt o set my hand
17 i n t he Ci t y of Tampa, Count y of Hi l l sbor ough, St at e of Fl or i da,
18 t hi s 29t h day of November , 2012.
19
20 CLAUDI A SPANGLER- FRY, Of f i ci al Cour t Repor t er
21
22
23 BY: / s/ CLAUDI A SPANGLER- FRY
24
25
#:302
Supp. E.R. 93
Activity in Case 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW Ingenuity13 LLC v. John Doe
Notice of Related Case(s)
Morgan Pietz <morganpietz@gmail.com> Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:12 PM
Brett,
I called Prenda's main number earlier today and asked for you. After being put on hold, I was transferred to
your extension. The line rang a few times, then it sounded like the line was picked up, but then the line
immediately went dead, so I did not have an opportunity to leave you a voicemail.
Please give me a call -- I would like to follow up with you regarding not only the issues below, but also some
administrative matters relating to your cases in the Northern District of California.
Best regards,
Morgan
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Morgan Pietz <morganpietz@gmail.com> wrote:
Brett,
For the record, I didnt yell or even raise my voice much less swear at you. I assume you hung up because
you are trying to dodge these troubling question. Please quit with the theatrics.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 7, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Brett Gibbs <blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com> wrote:
Mr. Morgan:
Mr. Morgan, I did not hang up on you. I take offense to your purposefully twisted versions of things. At
the end of our conversation, I said that "it was nice speaking with, I had other things to do and good bye"
[paraphrasing]. That is not "hanging up" on someone, that is called ending a phone conversation (with
respect, I might add). Whether you heard my saying this over your yelling at me is not my fault. You
were swearing at me, and being extremely hostile to me on phone, and I frankly had other things of
import to accomplish on my schedule -- the conversation was ten minutes long and the abuse I was
subjected to was uncalled for. A piece of advice: this is not how you "meet and confer" on an issue. It
simply was not professional.
The issue is entirely irrelevant to the instant matter. I cannot stress this any further -- it is irrelevant. You
are basing relevancy on a letter filed in Minnesota that was ignored by that court. Even that court in
Minnesota recognized the letter for what it truly was -- a conspiracy theory letter with no factual basis. I
don't know how else to explain this to you. As you understand, it is hard (if not impossible) to prove a
negative -- especially to an individual like yourself that has no trust in things aside from his version of
things. Your use of the word "assume" is very apt in this situation.
Gmail - Activity in Case 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW Ingenuity1... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5e8233d0c6&view...
1 of 9 12/13/12 1:59 PM
Supp. E.R. 94
As I told you over the phone, when you asked "Is there another Alan Cooper?", I said, "I am sure there
are hundreds of Alan Coopers in this world." If your question had been framed more pointedly, and not
so vague, maybe I could have provided you with a specific answer.
I don't wish to discuss this matter further with you because of the verbal abuse I experienced in our first
phone call. You know, as well as I, that there is a certain courtesy-code displayed between even
opposing attorneys -- your yelling and use of bad language directed towards me violates those rules. I
would remind you of the following:
As officers of the court with responsibilities to the
administration of justice, attorneys have an obligation to be
professional with clients, other parties and counsel, the
courts and the public. This obligation includes civility,
professional integrity, personal dignity, candor, diligence,
respect, courtesy, and cooperation, all of which are essential
to the fair administration of justice and conflict resolution.
[California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism]
Please be ever mindful of this if we speak in the future.
Regards,
Brett Gibbs
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Morgan E. Pietz <mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com> wrote:
Brett,
This is to confirm a few things, in writing, about our phone call of earlier today.
Prior to hanging up on me, you confirmed that you would not be answering either of my questions
below about (1) your client contact at Ingenuity 13 (not AF holdings, which I clarified today) or (2) a
copy of Alan' Coopers verification in the Ingenuity 13 case in E.D. Cal., which you purported to keep a
copy of, under penalty of perjury. You stated that you viewed these issues as irrelevant to the instant
case, and would not answer them absent a more formal demand. I explained that I disagreed,
because as far as I am concerned, the Alan Cooper issue goes straight to the heart of whether your
client has proper standing, among other, more troubling issues.
Also, to repeat my additional request: if any facts in the Alan Cooper letter filed in Minnesota are
incorrect, then please let me know which fact and why it is incorrect. However, since you have so far
refused to provide any specifics, I can only continue to assume that everything in that letter is correct.
I also note that you again refused to say whether there is another Alan Cooper (other than the
gentleman in Minnesota who filed the letter through counsel) who is/was the principal of AF Holdings
of Ingenuity 13.
Please contact me should you change your mind and decide that you do wish to discuss this matter
further.
Best regards,
Morgan
2 of 9 12/13/12 1:59 PM
Supp. E.R. 95
Re-forward.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Morgan E. Pietz <mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: Activity in Case 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW Ingenuity13 LLC v. John Doe Notice of
Related Case(s)
Brett,
If I am supposedly twisting your words (although you do not say how, or clarify whether you are now
changing your mind), how about a couple of straight answers then, so nothing gets lost in
translation:
(1) Will you tell me the name of your supposed client contact at AF Holdings with whom you
supposedly communicated with last week? I do not want any details of the conversation, just a
name.
(2) Will you produce the original signature to the verification page, identified below, that supposedly
contains "Alan Cooper's" handwritten signature?
And if the answer to these questions is still no, which is what you said earlier today, please explain
why.
Best regards,
Morgan
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Brett Gibbs <blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com> wrote:
Mr. Pietz:
Assume whatever you would like to assume -- that seems to be what you have done throughout
my cases with you.
As for the former, you have grossly misstated the contents of the "very brief conversation from
just prior to the telephonic conference." I think this twisting of my words is intentional -- and I do
not like playing childish and manipulative games. So, I will not be drawn into this baseless banter,
wasting everyone's time and money.
If want to have an honest adult conversation, I will participate. If you want to have a meet and
confer on these issues, I will be available to do that next week. Let me know when you are
available.
Regards,
3 of 9 12/13/12 1:59 PM
Supp. E.R. 96
Brett Gibbs
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Morgan E. Pietz <mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com> wrote:
Brett,
I wanted to follow up on our very brief conversation from just prior to the telephonic conference
with Judge Walsh today regarding the two issues raised in my email below.
This email is to confirm that before Magistrate Judge Walsh joined us on the line, you stated
that you would not be providing me with either the name of your client contact, or a copy of the
original signature version of Alan Cooper's verification in the E.D. Call Petition matter, which
you stated, under penalty of perjury, that you have a copy of in your possession.
In an effort to begin a meet and confer dialogue on the matter, can you please elaborate on the
reason(s) that you are refusing to produce either of these things?
Frankly, I think your refusal to answer the simple question of whether there is another Alan
Cooper (i.e., not Mr. Steele's former caretaker in Minnesota) who is the principal of AF Holdings
and Ingenuity 13 speaks volumes. Until you provide some kind of answer that makes sense,
under penalty of perjury, I am going to assume the worst case scenario here and litigate
accordingly.
If you would like to discuss any of this, please feel free to give me a call.
Best regards,
Morgan
Brett,
Last week you told me that you lacked authority to grant me an extension request and would
have to "check with [your] client" on whether you could grant a modest extension. Then, a
few days later, you purported that you had answer on this issue (although you never did
bother to tell me what your client's response was).
In light of all of the serious questions raised in the Notice of Related Cases (filing receipt
below) regarding who really owns AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13, I'd like you please clarify
something for me: when you said you had to talk to your client last week, with whom did you
speak?
Also, with reference to Exhibit E (a copy of your verified petition in an ED Cal Ingenuty 13
case) to Appendix 1 (of the Notice of Related Cases), please consider this my first, informal
request for a copy of the original signature of Alan Cooper. The verification page, which
recites that it was "Notarized" on the heading, states under Alan Cooper's "/s/" signature that:
"I, Brett L. Gibbs, Esq., hereby confirm per Eastern District of California Local Rule
131(f) that counsel for Plaintiff has a signed original notarized version of the above
Verified Petition."
4 of 9 12/13/12 1:59 PM
Supp. E.R. 97
Please produce a copy of that original signature for my inspection.
Feel free to give me a call if you would like to discuss any of this prior to our 3:00 call with
Magistrate Walsh today.
Best regards,
Morgan
From: <cacd_ecfmail@cacd.uscourts.gov>
Subject: Activity in Case 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW Ingenuity13 LLC v. John Doe Notice of
Related Case(s)
To: ecfnef@cacd.uscourts.gov
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO
NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States
policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to
receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is
required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To
avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.
However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do
not apply.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered by Pietz, Morgan on 12/3/2012 at 12:41 PM PST and
filed on 12/3/2012
Case Name: Ingenuity13 LLC v. John Doe
Case Number: 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW
Filer: John Doe
Document Number: 15
Docket Text:
NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Putative John Doe John Doe.
Related Case(s): 2:12-cv-05709-ODW-JC; 2:12-cv-06635-GHK-RZ;
2:12-cv-06660-GAF-AGR; 2:12-cv-07385-DSF-FFM; 2:12-cv-07386-
DMG-JEM; 2:12-cv-08322-DMG-PJW; 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW
(Attachments: # (1) Appendix 1 - Letter Filed by Counsel for Alan
Cooper in District of Minnesota, # (2) Appendix 2 - Transcript of
Prenda Hearing in Middle District of Florida, # (3) Appendix 3 - Table
of Related Ingenuity 13 and AF Holdings Cases in Central District of
California)(Pietz, Morgan)
5 of 9 12/13/12 1:59 PM
Supp. E.R. 98
2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Brett Langdon Gibbs &nbsp &nbsp blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com, docket@wefightpiracy.com
Morgan E Pietz &nbsp &nbsp mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com, lrudolph@pietzlawfirm.com
2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW Notice has been delivered by First Class U. S. Mail or by
other means BY THE FILER to :
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document
Original filename:_Notice of Related Cases v3.pdf
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=12/3/2012] [FileNumber=14739678-0
] [8fa7b4078f2edcb17f48906046f07118f65a17d9fd4cc4bb72a832a819fbb9d764c
53cad2cb7709c7326429417cf1da8198fa258763750d699bdcfb8302432f5]]
Document description:Appendix 1 - Letter Filed by Counsel for Alan Cooper in District of
Minnesota
Original filename:1 - Alan Cooper - ECF Letter.pdf
] [b67f59fd3ea3af034988085bb0050c0b7bec0b51f4a2a1b9e1a86d884bee70902f8
b185448643eaaf0c168ea094d9bb795cfe18ea0a76694db229c8d4f0ed93b]]
Document description:Appendix 2 - Transcript of Prenda Hearing in Middle District of
Florida
Original filename:2 - Nguyen Hearing Transcript - Tampa.pdf
] [800d30a30660cee9e1e1cd9e2085b2203c5f1560dc35331306948d42d5db2bacbb1
4c9c0de2ba4111a44f943ff62244c47022c110fb78c02cb7bc79c5b6db298]]
Document description:Appendix 3 - Table of Related Ingenuity 13 and AF Holdings Cases
in Central District of California
Original filename:3 - Table of Cases.pdf
] [5ae2ecc869dce997f693775d8ff426a8a3c48b190e25e753128678117c874da161b
d2e4141ae7449e578ee22e9cd67e8a02439f2880ed9596a082b3653152487]]
--
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301
6 of 9 12/13/12 1:59 PM
Supp. E.R. 99
--
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301
--
415-325-5900
NOTICE: THIS EMAIL IS INTENDED TO BE PART OF A SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATION AND IS
NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER FRE RULE 408.
NOTICE:
This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, found at 18 U.S.C. 2510 et. seq.
and is intended to remain confidential and is subject to applicable attorney/client and/or work product
privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in
error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and all attachments. Do
not deliver, distribute or copy this message and/or any attachments and if you are not the intended recipient,
do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information contained in this
communication or any attachments.
Circular 230 Disclosure: Pursuant to recently-enacted U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we are now
required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this
communication, including attachments and enclosures, is not intended or written to be used, and may not be
used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
--
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
7 of 9 12/13/12 1:59 PM
Supp. E.R. 100
Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301
--
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301
--
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301
--
415-325-5900
NOTICE:
intended to remain confidential and is subject to applicable attorney/client and/or work product privileges. If you are
not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately
alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and all attachments. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this
message and/or any attachments and if you are not the intended recipient, do not disclose the contents or take any
action in reliance upon the information contained in this communication or any attachments.
Circular 230 Disclosure: Pursuant to recently-enacted U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we are now required to
8 of 9 12/13/12 1:59 PM
Supp. E.R. 101
advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication, including
attachments and enclosures, is not intended or written to be used, and may not be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party
any tax-related matters addressed herein.
--

9 of 9 12/13/12 1:59 PM
Supp. E.R. 102
f l T I S I H X I I
Case 2:12-cv-05709-ODW-JC Document 1 Filed 07/02/12 Page 16 of 21 Page ID #:19 Case 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW Document 23-7 Filed 12/18/12 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:312
Supp. E.R. 103
C(}PI' RI
(;
I IT .i,SSI
(;N
}I INT .\
(
; R I]HII I]NT
Tlrir
('rr|).t'riglrt
.\rsi-rrtrtrcrt( .\srerrrrcrrt ir datctl cl'l'trtivc ar ul l,)r-.trrtrhct :() l0 l l. h\
.lttrl attltrttl] llcitrttrrc;.rlcr l)rgitirl [-l-C t".\sri-rnr)t")uilrl i\l;liilldjrws, l-l-('.;r NcYis lr[iilr"tl
IrirhiIrtv f rtIII[)rn\
1
"r\rsigltci. 'l.
Irr^rr tlo,rd uttd tlluuhlc ((rtt\idclitliult.
tlr rer'cipt irrrtl rut'flt'irrrrl ul uhich urc lrrrtbt.
;.rckrrrrs lrdte d. t[c purtics r!rcc 1s lirllrrrr,r:
l. r\r1igtl11)L'rll. i\ssignut hctubl irrrvocirblv u.siqns. (rrrl\.c\'.\
ilrid olhel\\.i\e
l.tittlrlr:tr tU.\:ri-utttc'. ulrd itr t'tsl)ct(rVa- \l.tc(jcssors. licurrrccr. arrtl itrrigrtr. all r'iglttr. ritlc lui-l
irtlcrc'rt uut'lrlnitlt'irt urrrl to ttral er-.r'trriir rrirt[. titled..f]ir;rulrrr I)crrilrr.ll'urrrl usrori:rterj rr.irlr
t:trprriulrt lr-.sirlnrtrrrrr rrrtrrtlrcr lr,\tXXll?-i.l.lN.{ {r..tllectrrr-:l\, llrr
-.\\,r,lk.t
unrl rll pt,oprrtt.rrv
r'rglttr tlrrrcirr. intlurlirrg. \\itl'roLrt lirrrilatiolr. lll t:uptrrL,lrtr. lratjcrrrirrks- rlcrir:rr patcrits. tr,ajc
scLrrt ti-glttr. ttrrrtul ri-sllts. arrd lll curttr;rel urtd lieertsing rigltls. alrrl ull ,, laitls atrtl r.irurr.,91.
il(tioll tri lc\[]c(l tti 4111' ,t,' thc tirrcgoitrr. *'hctlrr:l ti()$ knp\\rlt or ltctcal'tt'l, ltl llr"conrr kn'rr,rr. lrr
tllc cvcl)t i\s.'isttol ltits unt liglrt irr tlrc \\inrk ulrich canrtot he axsigrrctl. Assignur :,r!rLrr\ rr)
n'itit'r'cnl't)tt('rllL'n( \\orlrlrt
jdc
oIrutJt riglrt aglinsl .{ssigrtcc. rts tlisllihutg6- ultl .,,.(,r,tr.r',,,r.
il'ttr:ecss:ul'- crrluritcl\ licr:nsc suelr riclrt uur'trluitlc ttr.{ssi*trrtc. Tlrcsr-.riu.lrtr ruul lr rsriq*ctl
tt-r'r\ssigrtcc.
]. Rclrrcsctllittruttr
irltd
\\r;.trr'urttjci.
Arsicttut r'c[)tu\rjr)[s ulll \t;trt';rttts tltll: r1t tltu
\\'utk tr;ts etcirtcd rrrlL'11 5., .\-siqnor. A.sirnor.'s lirll-rinrc L,nll)ht\r.(\ rlulirrl tlre. uurrrsc ul'tlrtir
rl)llll(l!nlt'111. tir irttlc;ltrrtlct)t c(rrtlri.rctor's *.ho asrigrrcr,l all r'ittlrt. tiiJr utrtl intc,rrrr ilr tlrr:ir rrlrl, t,
A''sigltrrt':ib,li\srilrtor ts(ltcrrurrrr'o!all ri-ulrts.titlc:rrrtl irrtcrc'stirrtlrc'tiur_r:itrle lirrrnsul.tlrr
\\'urk lrrtd all intrllctluul
ltrullcrtt'righ(s
pro(i-.ctrrrg thcnr: {ct thr: \\'tirk iurtl llrr. intcllcrlrrll
prrrJ)ctt]'rir:hls
Fruttctirrr
tlrr.rtt arr-'li,cc lrld r..lritr rrilll cnrurnl)rilt)(u\. irrrlurjilrq, riitlrrrul
lirrrititti0rt. rccttrill intttc\tr- [icrrr.rcs. lirttr. r'hut_!!cs (]r' ()tlrL'r
rcslr'ictir.rrr.r:
id t t[rt] rrrc.
tcltttrdttelitxt. dirltilttrtiott. tlr ttlr)dili(irtitin trl tlrc Wur[. thrcr nrrt urrtl rrrllnot vi(]lale llrc riglrts ol'
arrt llrirrl prrrtics rlt thc \\rrrrl' ittr.ltdirt!:. lrut rrol linritcd tr^r. har"lc srr.r'ft\.
1luIlrritr. []rt\i.rr\,.
i:(rl)\ri{hl\. itlld
l!lt!'r}t\:
(r'i
tltc \\'ork is rtut in tlrc
lrublie
dorrririrr: lLnd lt't Ar-:ignor lriLs liril plrrc.r
ilrtl ilulltrxit.'l lu ttluks illd drttcr inttr tllis ALlrl,:tnrcnt. Assigrtur':.tgrce.\ t(, dclt'rrrl. irrrJr.rnltrlr'. lntl
It,rld ltirr'rltlcrs A:rigrtct. it. ul'fitc'rr. dircekrrr rrrtetr r:rtrplur.ccr lirr ur:r t'lairtr:. sLrits or proccrdirrg,
;.rIler:irg lrrctrutr ul' llrrsc rrlr'r;rrrlir'r.
-1. Iirtlirc
'\gluerncrrt.'flri-,.\Slr,rr!t{nt
((rrrslitu(c.,
lhr. r:rrt.il,; il'grer:nrrlt llctucr,.rr
A'rif rttlr i.tlrtl i\:\iutlct $ ith r'drl)urt trr llrc sLrll.|ccl ulirttcr tlrrEitl irfirl \illtrrr\rJcr urrr
l)r.t()t
r)t
rilrllr'il1[}t)t altLriil.t\ a!l uf ttlf rrtr. u t ittcn
(l(
olill-
+ Mrrr"lilicatiutrs. This.{qrcrrrrettt nr.i\'ltu nrrtdil'ir:d illl\ h! ir rrrittcn lrlL.srncnt
sirrtcd lrr lruth r\sri{nur artd A,i\rSncc.
j.
(rUf-r'f
Ultg..L.irt!.
'fhi':\ett:ttttent
shirll trr r.!o\rrr)cd hl urtr.l rtrtirretid irr
Ltcurrtditt'tcu u itlr thu Stutc trl.('alitorrril irnrl thr \irttlt
('rrEuit.
s itltlLrt rir irrc cl'tt'ul t(r .rrrr
r.orrflrct: ul' ll.rvr'. pr irruiIlcr.
Supp. E.R. 104
fr. Sc'velabilit.v. If ottr' or ntotc plnr,isicns erl'ttris Agrrrr'nrrrrt lrc held to he illegal or
unc'nlirrcc:rbltr undtrr irpplicirblr: lau, sudr iltegirl rx ulelrfbrcelblc
lrurtiorris I sh:rtl lx. lilnit.'tl ul,
c.tcludcc! l'rtlttt tltis Agt'certrettt to tlre urininrurn exldnt rt'quiretl su tlrat lhis Agrrrc*rr,rrrr shirll
rttln'twisr rttrrtin it lull liu'cc and r.'fl-rrct iurd cttfrrrccubk in cccordancc with its tr.rr*s.
i, Assignnultl. i\ssigncr ntul arsigtt or otherui\i. lrllrsfcr this Agrr.enrr-.ut $ithout
u( rl r\L'ill rrl' tlrrt.ic*.
.
N.
Peq[rfljpl. Assignors a-trrte ilt tlt* request lnd L.ltp!'tt:,e of Assignr* to cxrallc'iulv
d{)ctttllettts ot
lxrlirrnt
irn.r'lttions rvhiclr .{ssignr.r. utir}- rcqu*tio
J}crfi.ct
thiJassignrnr'nt tlr
uihetu'ise irnlllt'tlt(lrt tlrir Agrcc'rttr'nt. .{ssicilor ilgrtr.s thl( th,* i **ig,rn,.,rt nrirv b* subnritted by
A-.si-snL'c ru thrr l,nitud statcs crlplright otfirr. li) rr..fh:rf rlrr: ;rssignruenl.
t).
('rrrrfidnrtiilit]..
Ncither parrv shdl reveal the rernrs rrI rhis .{grtrcnrrrnt hr lrrl'tlrirrl
p;.1r1! ur)lL.ts onjetr.d lo du ro by I crrurl uf crrrrrpctrnt jutistliction.
lil- .lutisdiutiulr. llrh partv lgruc'r to subnrit lu lhtr exclusirc prrsonul
juriidicriol
lnrl
r cnuc trf tltc cuirtlr trf lltr: lrland ol' Nrr,ir s,ith rcrpcct tc alrv disl:ulcs irrlsirrg htrrluntlc.r.
.'\ssigncc
A[: I-ltrldrngr. Ll-C
Rrr,rlffirl Roecrs, on bclrlll'u[
I lc'lnltr culcr l,)i gital l- l-(i
Alan
('txrpdr'.
trn brlralI ul':
Supp. E.R. 105
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 32 Filed 12/26/12 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:341
Supp. E.R. 106
Supp. E.R. 107

-1-
PUTATIVE JOHN DOES OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
DISQUALIFICATION OF HONORABLE JUDGE OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301

Attorney for Putative John Doe in 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC
INGENUITY 13, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company Organized Under
the Laws of the Federation of Saint
Kitts and Nevis,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.

Case Number(s): 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC

Disqualification Motion Referred to:
Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald

Case Assigned to: Judge Otis D Wright, II
Discovery Referred to: Magistrate Judge
Jacqueline Chooljian

PUTATIVE JOHN DOES
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS
MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION
OF HONORABLE JUDGE OTIS D.
WRIGHT, II

Supp. E.R. 108

-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................3
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY.....................................................................4
II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND ..............................................................................6
(a) The Malibu Media Order and General Background on Pornographic
Copyright Infringement Litigation ..............................................................6
(b) Closer Look at the Malibu Media Litigation in this District: Judge
Klausner Focused on Distinction Between ISP Subscriber and Actual
Defendant ....................................................................................................8
(c) Background on the Related AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 Cases Filed by
Prenda Law, Inc. and the Instant Disqualification Motion........................12
III. ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................16
(a) Legal Standard for Judicial Disqualification.............................................16
(b) The Disqualification Motion is Not Supported by Evidence and is Not
Timely; It Could Have Been Made Back in October When Judge Wright
Was Assigned the First of the Related Cases ............................................17
(c) Prenda Has Not Alleged an Extra Judicial Source for the Purported Bias19
(d) Judge Wrights Prior Orders That Prenda Complains of Were More Than
Justified and Have Actually Been Widely Accepted by Other Judges as
Models for How to Deal With These Kinds of Cases ...............................19
(1) The Malibu Media Order Was Justified, Has Been Subsequently
Endorsed by Judge Klausner, and Widely Adopted by Many Other
Judges Too ......................................................................................19
(2) The AF Holdings OSC re: Early Discovery and the Similar Orders
Issued in the Related Ingenuity 13 Cases Were Also Justified, and
Particularly So in Light of Prendas Past History...........................21
(3) The OSC re: Failure to Serve Issued in Some of the Older AF
Holdings Cases is Also Justified.....................................................24
(e) Prenda is Desperate to Avoid Answering Questions About Alan Cooper,
Systemic Fraud on the Court and the Copyright Office, Forgery, Identity
Theft, and Concealment of the Real Parties in Interest .............................24
IV. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................25

Supp. E.R. 109

-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
!"#$#
AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-96, No. C 11-03335 JSC, 2011 WL 4502413, at *2-3
(N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2011)......................................................................................11
AF Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, 12-cv-5709-ODW..................................................15
AF Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, 12-cv-5709-ODW, ECF No. 9, 10/19/12...............13
AF Holdings, LLC v. Matthew Ciccone, E.D. Mi. No. 12-cv-14442...........................9
Davis v. Board of School Commrs of Mobile County, 517 F. 2d 1044, 1051 (5th Cir.
1975) ..................................................................................................................3, 18
Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-176, -- F.R.D. --, 2012 WL 263491, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.
30, 2012) ............................................................................................................3, 23
E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280, 1295 (9th Cir. 1992) ......19
Guava, LLC v. Comcast Commns, LLC, Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois,
No. 12MR417...........................................................................................................9
Hard Drive Prods. v. Does 1-90, No. C 11-03825 HRL, 2012 WL 1094653, at *2-3
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2012) ......................................................................................11
Hard Drive Prods.v. Does 1-90, No. C 11-03825 HRL, 2012 WL 1094653, at *2-3
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2012) ......................................................................................13
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 127 L. Ed. 2d 474
(1994) .................................................................................................................3, 18
Malibu Media, C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-1642-RGK, ECF No. 27, 7/31/12....................11
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-10, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89286, C.D. Cal.
Case No. 12-cv-3623-ODW, ECF No. 7, 6/27/12 ...................................................5
United States v. Antar, 53 F.3d 568, 574-576 (3d Cir. 1995)................................3, 18
Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926 (9th Cir. 2007) .....................3, 18
Statutes
28 U.S.C. 144......................................................................................................4, 16
28 U.S.C. 455..........................................................................................................16
Supp. E.R. 110

-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Disqualification of Honorable
Judge Otis D. Wright II, (ECF No. 35) (the Disqualification Motion).
The Disqualification Motion is not supported by any declarations alleging that
Judge Wright has a personal bias or prejudice, as required under 28 U.S.C. 144 (in
fact, Section 144 is not even mentioned). Plaintiff failed to aver even a single fact in
support of the Disqualification Motion, so it should be denied for this reason alone.
See L.R. 7-5(b).
1

As to substance, the motion also fails on every count. Generally speaking,
plaintiff argues that Judge Wright has a substantial prejudice against pornography
copyright holders, as supposedly evidenced by four of his decisions: (i) the June
2012 Malibu Media Order,
2
issued in an unrelated case; (ii) the October 2012 orders
in the related AF Holdings cases requiring Prenda Law to explain exactly what it
was going to do with ISP subscriber information prior to being authorized to use the
Courts subpoena power to obtain that information from ISPs; (iii) the December
2012 orders applying the AF Holdings procedure to the newly-related Ingenuity 13
cases; and (iv) the December 2012 orders to show cause re: dismissal of the older
cases for failure to abide the Rule 4(m) deadline (together, the Prior Orders).
The point repeated ad nauseam throughout the Disqualification Motion is that
although Judge Wright is concerned about abuses in these kinds of cases, as
reflected in the Prior Orders, he supposedly did not cite even one example of any
kind of wrongful conduct by either Malibu Media or Prenda Law.

1
This is the second motion in a row plaintiff has filed unsupported by any declarations or other
factual averments of any kind. See Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions Against Attorney Morgan E.
Pietz (ECF No. 22) (summarily denied at ECF No. 31).

2
Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-10, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89286, C.D. Cal. Case No. 12-cv-
3623-ODW, ECF No. 7, 6/27/12. All citations are to Central District of California actions.
Supp. E.R. 111

-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

There are many examples, expressed in federal court orders, chronicling bad
faith litigation conduct by Prenda Law, Inc., its of Counsel Brett Gibbs, and/or
John Steele, who may or may not still be formally associated with Prenda. See
Decl. of Morgan E. Pietz re: Prenda Law, Inc.
3
The first indication of bad faith is
that both Prenda and Malibu Media have filed hundreds of cases against tens of
thousands of John Doe defendants in the past two years, yet not a single one of
these cases has ever reached the merits. Decl. of Morgan E. Pietz re: Prenda Law,
Inc., Exhibit F. Further, Judge Wrights Prior Orders actually did cite to several
cases cataloging a litany of abuses by these plaintiffs.
Moreover, Judge Wright is not alone with respect to concern about the
blizzard of pornographic copyright infringement cases that have recently
inundated the federal courts. In re: BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement
Cases, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61447 (E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2012) Case No. 11-cv-
3995-DRH-GRB, ECF No. 39. Dozens of Judges across the country have expressed
similar concerns, and many, including Judge Klausner of this District, have
specifically cited to Judge Wrights Malibu Media Order with approval. Malibu
Media v. John Does 1-10, C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-1642-RGK, ECF No. 32, 10/10/12
(slip op.); see also fn 7, infra. In short, Judge Wrights Prior Orders are rooted in
precedent, supported by fact, and have been cited approvingly by various courts
around the country.
The true motivation for the Disqualification Motion is that in this action,
Judge Wright has granted the putative John Does request to conduct limited early
discovery on the so-called Alan Cooper issue (ECF No. 32). Even more

3
Similarly, there is no shortage of similar evidence of litigation abuses by Malibu Media. See,
e.g., In re: BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement Cases E.D.N.Y. Case No. 12-cv-1147-
JS-GRB, ECF No. 9, 7/31/12 (In re: Adult Film Cases II); Decl. of Morgan E. Pietz re: Malibu
Medias Abusive Litigation Tactics, filed in Malibu Media v. Does 1-10, C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-
3614, ECF No. 31-1, 9/4/12.

Supp. E.R. 112

-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

specifically, the putative John Doe in this case has presented credibleand still un-
refutedevidence to this Court that Prenda Law, Inc. and/or John Steele appears to
be engaged in a widespread and systemic fraud on the Court, as well as possibly
perjury, and actionable criminal fraud. See Putative John Does Ex Parte
Application for Leave to Take Early Discovery and for a Further Stay of the
Subpoena Return Date, ECF No. 23, 12/18/12 (the Ex Parte re: Alan Cooper).
Clearly, Prenda is trying to avoid the very troubling questions raised in the Ex Parte
re: Alan Cooper, and this motion is a desperation stall tactic.
II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
(a) The Malibu Media Order and General Background on Pornographic
Copyright Infringement Litigation
Much of the focus of the Disqualification Motion concerns the Malibu Media
Order Judge Wright issued in Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-10, 2012 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 89286, C.D. Cal. Case No. 12-cv-3623-ODW, ECF No. 7, 6/27/12.
Despite this non-final order being barely six months old, it has already been cited by
various courts around the country 33 times, and followed 10 times.
4
Most notably,
after all of the Malibu Media cases pending in this district were subsequently
transferred to Judge Klausner, he revisited the Malibu Media Order, citing it with
approval in his order severing all the Does and denying early discovery, even as to
John Doe No. 1. Malibu Media v. John Does 1-10, C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-1642-RGK,
ECF No. 32, 10/10/12 (slip op.) (Malibu Media Order II).
5
Based on the number
of subsequent decisions citing Judge Wrights original Malibu Media Order with

4
Per Lexis Shepards Report run January 9, 2013. See, e.g., AF Holdings LLC v. Doe, 2012 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 159990 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2012); Malibu Media, LLC v. Does, 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 174038 (D. Colo. Dec. 7, 2012).

5
This same order was also filed in each of the related cases, which included 12-cv-3614, one of
several where undersigned counsel made an appearance, and 12-cv-3623, which previously had
been assigned to Judge Wright.

Supp. E.R. 113

-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

approval, it would appear that describing it as widely adopted is more apt than is
describing it as evidence of pervasive bias.
6

Judge Wright concisely explained how this kind of litigation works, as
follows,
The Court is familiar with lawsuits like this one. AF
Holdings LLC v. Does 1-1058, No. 1:12-cv-48(BAH)
(D.D.C. filed January 11, 2012); Discount Video Center,
Inc. v. Does 1-5041, No. C11-2694CW(PSG) (N.D. Cal.
filed June 3, 2011); K-Beech, Inc. v. John Does 1-85, No.
3:11cv469-JAG (E.D. Va. filed July 21, 2011). These
lawsuits run a common theme: plaintiff owns a copyright
to a pornographic movie; plaintiff sues numerous John
Does in a single action for using BitTorrent to pirate the
movie; plaintiff subpoenas the ISPs to obtain the identities
of these Does; if successful, plaintiff will send out demand
letters to the Does; because of embarrassment, many Does
will send back a nuisance-value check to the plaintiff. The
cost to the plaintiff: a single filing fee, a bit of discovery,
and stamps. The rewards: potentially hundreds of
thousands of dollars. Rarely do these cases reach the
merits. Malibu Media Order, p. 6.

6
See also, e.g., Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1 through 13, E.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-1260-JAM-
DAD, ECF No. 30, 10/10/12, fn 3 (Drozd, M.J.) (citing Malibu Media Order and severing all Does
in related Malibu Media cases in Eastern District of California); Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does
1 through 9, S.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-1436-H, ECF No. 23, 11/08/12, p. 6 (Huff, J.) (citing Malibu
Media Order and severing all Does other than Doe No. 1); Patrick Collins, Inc. v. John Does et al,
C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-5267-JVS, ECF No. 21, 11/5/12, p. 7 (Selna, J.) (citing Malibu Media Order
II and severing Does in all Patrick Collins cases filed in Central District of California)

Supp. E.R. 114

-8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Although the passage above was not written about this case, it is nevertheless a
correct description, save perhaps two details. First, as far as undersigned counsel is
aware, not a single one of these pornography cases has ever reached the merits
anywhere in the United States, save for the occasional default judgment. Second,
during the second half of 2012, presumably because Prenda was tired of losing the
argument on swarm joinder, Prenda appears to have stopped suing numerous John
Does in a single federal action, and began targeting individuals one at a time.
7
The
related AF Holdings, LLC and Ingenuity 13, LLC cases filed in this district are all
against a single John Doe defendant, identified by IP address.
(b) Closer Look at the Malibu Media Litigation in this District: Judge
Klausner Focused on Distinction Between ISP Subscriber and Actual
Defendant
In the first sustained foray by so-called copyright trolls into the Central
District of California, starting in February of 2012, Malibu Media, LLC filed a slew
of multiple defendant John Doe mass copyright infringement actions in this district.
8

A common tactic employed by both Malibu Media and Prenda Law, Inc. (which are
different groups, up to much the same thing)
9
is to flaunt courts related case rules.

7
Prenda continues to seek to issue subpoenas by the dozen (or sometimes, hundreds at a time) in
other jurisdictions where it thinks it is more likely to get away with it. See, e.g., AF Holdings, LLC
v. Matthew Ciccone, E.D. Mi. No. 12-cv-14442 (single defendant hundreds of co-
conspirators); Guava, LLC v. Comcast Commns, LLC, Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois,
No. 12MR417 (utilizing state pre-complaint discovery mechanism to subpoena information on 300
ISP subscribers in Computer Fraud and Abuse Act case).

8
Undersigned counsel represented 17 different ISP subscribers who were the subject of Malibu
Media subpoenas issued by Courts of this district.

9
Malibu Media, Patrick Collins, K-Beech, Third Degree Films, Nucorp, Zero Tolerance and
several other pornographers are or were clients of the Miami law firm of Lipscomb Eisenberg &
Baker, PLLC, who steers litigation for those clients nationally, usually through local counsel.
The multiple pornographer clients of Prenda Law, Inc. are listed in the Decl. of Morgan E. Pietz
re: Prenda Law, Inc. at 11.

Supp. E.R. 115

-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The reason for this is simple: both groups hope that by spreading their highly similar
cases
10
out to multiple Judges, at least some of the Judges will authorize the
plaintiffs to issue subpoenas to the ISPsthe single key element in the copyright
troll business model. The result of this tactic in the Malibu Media cases here was
that several different Judges of this district initially took different positions as to the
Malibu Media cases. A few Judges initially authorized the ISP subpoenas. Judge
Wright, however, recognized the potential for abuse in this kind of lawsuit right
from the start, as well as the tenuous nature of plaintiffs swarm joinder theory,
and severed and dismissed all Does other than Doe No. 1, sua sponte. Malibu
Media Order, p. 7.
Judge Wright did not, however, close the courthouse doors to Malibu Media,
or to other pornographers seeking to file copyright infringement cases. To the
contrary, Judge Wright gave Malibu Media the keys to discovery, at least as to
John Doe No. 1, along with a warning that any abuses will be severely punished.
Malibu Media Order, p. 5.
After undersigned counsel brought it to the Courts attention that there were
multiple, highly similar Malibu Media cases pending in this District, all of the cases
were ultimately transferred to Judge Gary Klausner on July 10, 2012. Immediately
upon receiving transfer of all the Malibu Media cases, Judge Klausner issued an
order in each case vacating all prior orders authorizing Malibu Media to issue
subpoenas to ISPs. (Just like what Judge Wright did in the AF Holdings and
Ingenuity 13 cases here). Judge Klausner then issued a series of orders to show
cause, first directing Malibu Media to show why its cases should not be dismissed
for lack of personal jurisdiction, and then ordering that if Malibu Media wanted
leave to issue new ISP subpoenas, it would have to apply again, explaining in
greater detail why such discovery was warranted. Malibu Media, C.D. Cal. No. 12-

10
Each group uses its own set of the same cookie-cutter pleadings, same technical experts, same
attorneys as local counsel, etc.
Supp. E.R. 116

-10-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

cv-1642-RGK, ECF No. 27, 7/31/12. Malibu Media did file a renewed motion for
leave to take early discovery, which undersigned counsel opposed (undersigned
counsel also filed a motion to sever).
Ultimately, Judge Klausner issued a comprehensive order in each of the
Malibu Media cases that not only severed and dismissed all Does other than Doe No.
1, but, more significantly, denied early discovery even as to Doe No. 1, because
Malibu Media failed to meet its burden of showing that the early discovery was
very likely to result in the identification of actual defendant. Malibu Media Order
II, pp. 4-5. Judge Klausner explained,
Plaintiff alleges [b]ecause ISPs assign a unique IP
address to each subscriber and retain subscriber activity
records regarding the IP addresses assigned, the
information sought in the subpoena will enable Plaintiff to
serve defendants and proceed with the case. (Pls Mtn for
Leave 4.)
Plaintiffs argument is unavailing, because the
subscriber information is not a reliable indicator of the
actual infringers identity. Due to the proliferation of
wireless internet and wireless-enabled mobile computing
(laptops, smartphones, and tablet computers), it is
commonplace for internet users to share the same internet
connection, and thus, share the same IP address. Family
members, roommates, employees, or guests may all share a
single IP address and connect to BitTorrent. AF Holdings
LLC v. Does 1-96, No. C 11-03335 JSC, 2011 WL
4502413, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2011); Hard Drive
Prods. v. Does 1-90, No. C 11-03825 HRL, 2012 WL
1094653, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2012). If the
Supp. E.R. 117

-11-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

subscriber has an unsecured network, it is possible that the
actual infringer could be a complete stranger standing
outside the subscribers home, using the internet service
and whos internet activity is being attributed to the
unknowing subscribers IP address. Thus, obtaining the
subscriber information will only lead to the person paying
for the internet service and not necessarily the actual
infringer.
It is even more unlikely that early discovery will
lead to the identities of Defendants given how
commonplace internet usage outside ones home has
become. An increasing number of entities offer publically-
accessible internet service; consider coffee shops,
workplaces, schools, and even cities. Mobile-computing
allows internet users and copyright infringers, to connect
to the internet in any such location. A given entity may
have hundreds or thousands of users in a one to two-month
period. Obtaining the subscriber information in these cases
will only lead to name of the entity and is unlikely to yield
any identifying information about the actual infringer.
Accordingly, granting early discovery for the subscriber
information is not very likely to reveal the identities of
Defendants.
The Court also finds that Plaintiff fails to
demonstrate[] good cause to warrant early discovery.
Based on similar reasons discussed above, it is not even
reasonably likely that early discovery will lead to
Defendants identities and service of process. Hard Drive
Supp. E.R. 118

-12-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Prods.v. Does 1-90, No. C 11-03825 HRL, 2012 WL
1094653, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2012). . . Based
on the forgoing, Plaintiff fails to show that early discovery
is very likely to reveal the identities of Defendants and
fails to demonstrate good cause to warrant early discovery.
Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion. Malibu
Media Order II, p. 4.
Thus, Judge Wright was not the first Judge of this District to deny early discovery
even as to a single John Doe in a case like thisJudge Klausner was, in Malibu
Media II. Judge Klausner also specifically cited to Judge Wrights Malibu Media
Order in support of the Courts decision to sever all of the Does. Id. at. p. 5.
(c) Background on the Related AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 Cases Filed by
Prenda Law, Inc. and the Instant Disqualification Motion
Starting on July 2, 2012 (i.e., about a week after Judge Wright issued the
Malibu Media Order) Mr. Brett Gibbs, who lists himself on the pleadings as of
Counsel to Prenda Law, Inc.,
11
began filing a slew of actions in the Central District
of California on behalf of AF Holdings, LLC and Ingenuity 13, LLC. By September
of 2012, the grand total was 45 cases filed by Mr. Gibbs on behalf of these two
entities, each against a single John Doe defendant identified only by IP address.
All of the AF Holdings cases in this district were transferred to Judge Wright
as related cases, pursuant to Section 3.1 of General Order 08-05, on October 4, 2012.
AF Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, 12-cv-5709-ODW, ECF No. 7, 10/4/12. Shortly
thereafter, Judge Wright issued an Order to Show Cause in the related AF Holdings
cases. AF Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, 12-cv-5709-ODW, ECF No. 9, 10/19/12 (the
AF Holdings OSC re: Early Discovery). It stated,

11
In reality, Mr. Gibbs appears to have a fairly central role in the day-to-day operations of Prenda
Law. See Decl. of Morgan E. Pietz re: Prenda Law, Inc. 8, 12, Exhibit N, p. 132, li. 23-24.
(All page references to the Exhibits to the Decl. of Morgan E. Pietz re: Prenda Law, Inc. are to the
continuous pagination on the bottom right).
Supp. E.R. 119

-13-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court is concerned with the potential for
discovery abuse in cases like this. AF Holdings accuses the
Doe Defendant of illegally copying a pornographic video.
But the only information AF Holdings has is the IP address
of the Doe Defendant. An IP address alone may yield
subscriber information, but that may only lead to the
person paying for the internet service and not necessarily
the actual infringer, who may be a family member,
roommate, employee, customer, guest, or even a complete
stranger. Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 110, No. 2:12-
cv-01642-RGK-SSx, slip op. at 4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 10,
2012). And given the subject matter of AF Holdingss
accusations and the economics of defending such a
lawsuit, it is highly likely that the subscriber would
immediately pay a settlement demandregardless whether
the subscriber is the actual infringer. This Court has a duty
to protect the innocent citizens of this district from this sort
of legal shakedown, even though a copyright holders
rights may be infringed by a few deviants. Thus, when
viewed with the public interest in mind, the Court is
reluctant to allow any fishing-expedition discovery when
all a plaintiff has is an IP addressthe burden is on the
plaintiff to find other ways to more precisely identify the
accused infringer without causing
collateral damage.
Thus, the Court hereby ORDERS AF Holdings TO
SHOW CAUSE in writing within 14 days why early
discovery is warranted in this situation. Under Ninth
Supp. E.R. 120

-14-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Circuit precedent, a plaintiff should ordinarily be allowed
discovery to uncover their identities, but discovery may be
denied if it is (1) clear that discovery would not uncover
the identities, or (2) that the complaint would be dismissed
on other grounds. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642
(9th Cir. 1980). AF Holdings must demonstrate to the
Court, in light of the Courts above discussion, how it
would proceed to uncover the identity of the actual
infringer once it has obtained subscriber information
given that the actual infringer may be a person entirely
unrelated to the subscriberwhile also considering how
to minimize harassment and embarrassment
of innocent citizens. Failure to timely comply with this
order will also result in the dismissal of this case. AF
Holdings OSC re: Early Discovery, pp. 2-3 (emphasis
added).
Plaintiff submitted a response on November 1, 2012, which was generally
underwhelming and particularly cursory with respect to details on the issue
highlighted above in bold.
On December 3, 2012, undersigned counsel, on behalf of the putative John
Doe defendant in Ingenuity 13, LLC v. John Doe, C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-8333, filed a
Notice of Related Cases identifying the multiple Ingenuity 13 cases filed by Penda
in this district as related to the AF Holdings cases already assigned to Judge Wright.
AF Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, 12-cv-5709-ODW, ECF No. 11. On December 19,
2012, all of the Ingenuity 13 cases pending here were also transferred to Judge
Wright as related cases, per General Order 08-05. Ingenuity 13, LLC v. John Doe,
C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-8333, ECF No. 24.
Supp. E.R. 121

-15-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On December 20, 2012, shortly after accepting transfer of the Ingenuity 13
cases, Judge Wright issued minute orders in each of the Ingenuity 13 cases that
essentially adopted in the Ingenuity 13 cases the procedure already put in place in
the AF Holdings OSC re: Early Discovery. See Ingenuity 13, LLC v. John Doe,
C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-8333, ECF No. 28, 12/20/12.
Also on December 20, 2012, for some of the older AF Holdings cases, which
had been filed over 120-days earlier, Judge Wright issued an Order to Show Cause
re: Lack of Service. AF Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, 12-cv-5709-ODW, ECF No. 16.
Plaintiff responded to this order on the Rule 4(m) issue in at least a few of the cases,
on December 27, 2012. See, e.g., id. at ECF No. 18.
On December 31, 2012, plaintiff filed the instant Disqualification Motion in
what appears to be most if not all of the related cases pending before Judge Wright.
Id. at ECF No. 17; Ingenuity 13, No. 12-cv-8333 at ECF No. 37. On January 2,
2013, the Disqualification Motion was referred to Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. On
January 3, 2013, undersigned counsel filed a Request for Leave to File an
opposition, requesting a deadline of January 14, 2013. Ingenuity 13, No. 12-cv-8333
at ECF No. 38.
On January 7, 2013, plaintiff filed an opposition to the Request for Leave to
file an opposition. Id. at ECF No. 39. The focus of this opposition is as follows,
Morgan Pietz has submitted filings in approximately
twenty cases in the Central District on the basis of the fact
that he represents the putative John Doe in this case.
However, Mr. Pietz has not offered a single shred of
evidence to support this assertion. As it stands, Mr. Pietz
could very well be intervening in all of these cases for his
Supp. E.R. 122

-16-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

own ends, with no real client that he is defending. Id. at
p. 1.
12

Although the Court has not yet acted on undersigned Request for Leave to file by
January 14, 2013, since that is the deadline undersigned counsel specified in the
Request for Leave, this opposition to the Disqualification Motion is being filed as of
that date.
III. ARGUMENT
(a) Legal Standard for Judicial Disqualification
Two federal statutes govern disqualification of an Article III Judge: 28 U.S.C.
144 and 28 U.S.C. 455. Section 144 is the statute that specifically contemplates
a motion by a party seeking disqualification, but it has several procedural
requirements that plaintiff has not complied with here (including filing affidavits
with supporting facts, and a certification of counsel that the motion is filed in good
faith). Further, the Disqualification Motion does make anything that could even be
construed as an argument under Section 144.
Accordingly, the only relevant statute at issue here is the statute dealing
primarily with a Judges duty to recuse him or herself. See 28 U.S.C. 455. It
provides, in relevant part, that Any justice, judge or magistrate [magistrate judge]
of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might be reasonably questioned. 28 U.S.C. 455(a). None of the

12
First, this argument of plaintiffs ignores a sworn declaration filed by undersigned counsel in
12-cv-8333 at ECF No. 23-2, 12/18/12 (averring that undersigned counsel represents the
purported John Doe defendant in Ingenuity 13, LLC v. John Doe, C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:12-cv-
08333.) Second, the irony of this allegation is stupendous. One of the allegations in the Ex Parte
re: Alan Cooper is that Prenda Law, Inc. and/or John Steele are actually the real parties in interest
in this action. In other words, all of Prendas systemic frauds seem to suggest a pattern of
deception designed to hide the fact that Prenda has become either the actual or de facto real party
in interest in these cases. Undersigned counsel is prepared to disclose the true identity of the
putative John Doe defendant to the Court. Is Prenda prepared to disclose to the Court who really
has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of this litigation by virtue of having a stake in AF Holdings
and Ingenuity 13?

Supp. E.R. 123
Supp. E.R. 124
Supp. E.R. 125
Supp. E.R. 126
Supp. E.R. 127
Supp. E.R. 128
Supp. E.R. 129
Supp. E.R. 130
Supp. E.R. 131
Supp. E.R. 132
Supp. E.R. 133
Supp. E.R. 134
Supp. E.R. 135
Supp. E.R. 136
Supp. E.R. 137
Supp. E.R. 138
Supp. E.R. 139
Supp. E.R. 140
Supp. E.R. 141
Supp. E.R. 142

-1-
EXHIBITS TO THE DECLARATION OF MORGAN E. PIETZ RE: PRENDA LAW, INC.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301

Company Organized Under the Laws of
the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.



EXHIBITS TO THE DECLARATION
OF MORGAN E. PIETZ RE: PRENDA
LAW, INC.

Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz
Page 1
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 1 of 153 Page ID
#:426
Supp. E.R. 143

-2-
EXHIBITS TO THE DECLARATION OF MORGAN E. PIETZ RE: PRENDA LAW, INC.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

INDEX OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A
Screenshots of the wefightpiracy.com website, 2010 to present
Exhibit B
Illinois Business Entity Listing for Prenda Law, Inc.
Exhibit C
Complaint filed by local counsel for Prenda in Nebraska, showing use by
local counsel of blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com as the email on the pleadings
Exhibit D
Pro Hac Vice application filed by John Steele listing him as of counsel to
Prenda Law as of April 12, 2012
Exhibit E
Example of Prenda demand letter sent to pressure ISP subscribers to settle
Exhibit F
Exhibit A to status report filed by Brett Gibbs in AF Holdings v. Does 1-
135, N.D. Cal. Case No. 5:11-cv-0336-LHK, ECF No. 43-1, 2/24/12,
wherein Mr. Gibbs admits that Prenda Law, Inc. f/k/a Steele Hansemeier,
PLLC had filed 118 multiple-defendant cases, against 15,878 Doe
defendants, but they had served zero (0) John Does in any of these cases
Exhibit G
Declaration of Jesse Nason swearing that he did not live alone, which was
the fact Prenda relied upon to justify naming and serving him
Exhibit H
Judge Hamiltons order in AF Holdings LLC v. John Doe et al., N.D. Cal.
No. 12-cv-2049, ECF No. 45, 1/7/13, denying Prendas motion for leave to
amend the complaint, and explaining why Plaintiffs Further Investigation
of Defendant was insufficient to justify naming and serving the ISP
subscriber Josh Hatfield as the actual defendant in this case.
Exhibit I
Declaration of Josh Hatfield swearing that the facebook any Myspace pages
Prenda wanted to rely upon to justify naming and serving him with a
complaint did not actually belong to Mr. Hatfield
Exhibit J
Letter Alan Coopers attorney Paul Godfread filed on his behalf in two AF
Holdings cases pending in Minnesota
Exhibit K
Sworn affidavit executed by Alan Cooper explaining the bases for his
suspicions that Prenda has misappropriated his identity
Exhibit L
Petition filed by Brett Gibbs in In the Matter of a Petition by Ingenuity 13,
LLC, E.D. Cal. Case No. 11-mc-0084, ECF No. 1, 10/28/11, wherein, Mr.
Gibbs purports to have kept the notarized original signature of Alan Cooper
Exhibit M
Meet and confer emails where Morgan Pietz asks Mr. Gibbs to confirm that
there is another Alan Cooper (other than the man in Minnesota) who was a
principal of AF Holidings and Ingenuity 13, and to produce a copy of the
Rule 27 petition verification page, but Mr. Gibbs stonewalls
Exhibit N
Transcript from November 27, 2012 hearing in Sunlust Pictures, Inc. v.
Tuan Nguyen, M.D. Fl. Case No. 8:12-CV-1685-T-35MAP where Judge
Scriven invites sanctions for Prendas attempted fraud on the court
Exhibit O
Illinois Business Entity Listing for Anti-Piracy Law Group, LLC
Page 2
#:427
Supp. E.R. 144

EXHIBIT A
A
EXHIBIT A
Page 3
#:428
Supp. E.R. 145
Home
About Us
Services
Contact Us
Disclaimer
Steele | Hansmeier Jun 19, 2010 Steele | Hansmeier PLLC is a law rm dedicated to eradicating digital piracy. We
represent prominent content producers and commence legal action against individuals and businesses who steal our
client's content.
Combating Piracy in the Digital Age Jun 19, 2010 Our practice includes addressing the unique legal issues posed by
Internet-based piracy, where the vast majority of infringement occurs under the cover of IP addresses
http://weghtpiracy.com/ Go
DEC JAN JUN
20
2010 2011 2012
21 captures
20 Jan 11 - 23 Nov 12
Close
Steele | Hansmeier PLLC http://web.archive.org/web/20110120173124/http://weghtpirac...
1 of 5 1/9/13 7:06 PM
Page 4
#:429
Supp. E.R. 146
Preserving the Creative Arts Jun 19, 2010 We view our mission as preserving the creative arts for future
generations. If left unchecked, digital piracy represents an existential threat to creative arts professionals around the
world.
Steele | Hansmeier
Go
DEC JAN JUN
20
2010 2011 2012
21 captures
20 Jan 11 - 23 Nov 12
Close
Help
2 of 5 1/9/13 7:06 PM
Page 5
#:430
Supp. E.R. 147
Combating Piracy in the Digital Age
Preserving the Creative Arts
Contact Us
About Us
Steele | Hansmeier PLLC is a Chicago-based law rm that provides legal services to content producers and creative
professionals. Our focus is purusing individuals and businesses who infringe on the copyrights associated with our clients
creative works. Our practice includes addressing the unique legal issues posed by Internet-based piracy, where the vast
majority of infringement occurs under the cover of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.
We view our mission as a small part of the overall effort to preserve the creative arts for future generations. In our view, the
ease with which digital content is pirated represents an existential threat to the future of professional content producers. Our
clients understand all too well the problems posed by the unauthorized redistribution of their copyrighted works, particularly
given the capital investment associated with producing and marketing professional works.
Services
The legal services offered by Steele | Hansmeier PLLC reect the lifecycle of a creative work. Such services include:
Due diligence efforts to determine whether a proposed creative work lacks originality or infringes on another creative
work;
Developing a plan for protecting and enforcing U.S. and international copyrights;
Securing U.S. copyrights and coordinating with third parties to secure international copyrights in both Berne and
non-Berne Convention countries; and
Enforcing U.S. copyrights and coordinating with third parties to enforce international copyrights.
Many of our services involve coordinating with third party attorneys (e.g. international copyright work) and third party
technology providers (e.g. copyright enforcement). Our consistent focus is to provide our clients with strong returns on the
capital they invest in our time and that of our third party service providers.
top
Due Diligence
Before investing substantial capital into the production and/or distribution of a creative work, a creative artist may wish to
conduct a basic level of due diligence into determining the degree to which their work resembles other copyrighted creative
works. The methods for conducting this sort of due diligence vary based on the medium, through most forms of creative
work lend themselves to digital due diligence. For example, an audio le can be digitally ngerprinted based on a variety of
characteristics (e.g. rhythm, length, melody, etc.). This ngerprint can be compared to those of other audio les. Similar
results would then be reviewed to determine whether a copyright issue exists. If such an issue exists, then the creative artist
can attempt to obtain a license from the copyright holder of the original work. A creative artists bargaining power is much
stronger before they invest millions of dollar into marketing and distributing a creative work.
In 2008, Joe Satriani led a copyright infringement lawsuit against the Grammy Award-winning band, Coldplay.
Satrianis suit alleged that Coldplays hit song, Vida la Vida, contained substantial portions of Satrianis, If I
Could Fly. The parties eventually reached an out-of-court monetary settlement for an undisclosed nancial sum.
In addition to avoiding infringement lawsuits, it is important to know whether a given creative work will even be afforded
Go
DEC JAN JUN
20
2010 2011 2012
21 captures
20 Jan 11 - 23 Nov 12
Close
Help
3 of 5 1/9/13 7:06 PM
Page 6
#:431
Supp. E.R. 148
the protection of the copyright laws of the jurisdictions in which the artist intends to market the creative work. Steele |
Hansmeier PLLC offers services to assist creative artists in conducting the forms of due diligence described in this section.
Protection Planning
Another category of services offered by Steele | Hansmeier PLLC is assisting creative artists plan their copyright strategy in
advance of the creation and/or publication of their creative works. Despite the existence of international treaties, such as the
Berne Convention, the world as a whole essentially remains a patchwork of copyright laws with varying degrees of
enforcement. By way of example, a creative artists approach to copyright protection in the United States should look much
different than the artists approach to copyright protection in China. We offer to assist creative artists in developing copyright
protection strategies worldwide.
Securing Copyrights
Once a creative work has been produced and/or published, it is generally important to register a copyright in every country
where the copyright holder may wish to assert their rights. We offer to assist creative artists by coordinating the registration
of their copyrights around the world, as required.
In the United States it is particularly important to register ones copyrights. As a general rule, copyright
registration is a prerequisite to ling a copyright infringement lawsuit in U.S. federal court and a timely ling
will preserve remedies that may be lost indenitely if one does not timely register his or her copyright.
Enforcing Copyrights
Copyright enforcement is a rapidly evolving eld. Recent advances in communications technology have dramatically
lowered the cost and increased the protability of mass-piracy. As piracy evolves, so too must copyright enforcement
strategies. Steele | Hansmeier PLLC offers services on the cutting edge of copyright enforcement, including: 1) DMCA
enforcement services; 2) pirate pursuit services; and 3) advising on comprehensive paradigm shifts in copyright
enforcement.
Disclaimer
Our website is intended to provide only an overview of Steele | Hansmeier PLLC. Nothing on this website is meant to be or
should be relied on as legal advice. Commentary on this website is not necessarily up to date. This website is not intended to
be an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to establish an attorney client privilege.
Links
-Berne Convention
-Copyright Ofce
-Copyright Overview
-Copyright Statutes
-Creative Commons
Resources
-Patry Blog
-Geist Blog (Canadian law)
-IP Watch
Pages
About Us
Go
DEC JAN JUN
20
2010 2011 2012
21 captures
20 Jan 11 - 23 Nov 12
Close
Help
4 of 5 1/9/13 7:06 PM
Page 7
#:432
Supp. E.R. 149
Contact Us
Disclaimer
Services
Latest News
Google ghts piracy
According to an article published on Digital Trends, Google is taking steps to implement several anti-piracy measures,
which will ideally make it more difcult for searchers to located pirated material. First, Google is increasing its
responsiveness to takedown requests of so-called reliable copyright holders. Second, its autocomplete function will lter
out greater amounts of infringing results. [...]
Pixars president discusses copyright laws
According to a recently published article in the Salt Lake Tribune, Ed Catmull, president of Pixar Studios, linked
international copyright protection to Pixars ability to continue investing in the cutting-edge technology thats brought us
such movies as Wall-E, Monsters, Inc., and Up all of which are presumably registered trademarks of Pixar Animation
Studios. At [...]
Robin Hood is the weeks most pirated movie
Ridley Scotts Robin Hood, starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett, is not only popular in the theaters, but also among
the BitTorrent crowd. According to BitTorrent news site, TorrentFreak, Robin Hood, despite its relatively lower IMDB
rating, beat out both Iron Man 2 and the Expendables for the the top spot on the piracy chart [...]
Copyright Steele | Hansmeier PLLC - Design by Kriesi.at - Wordpress Themes
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
ickr
top
Go
DEC JAN JUN
20
2010 2011 2012
21 captures
20 Jan 11 - 23 Nov 12
Close
Help
5 of 5 1/9/13 7:06 PM
Page 8
#:433
Supp. E.R. 150
Pirate Code
Posted on November 14, 2011
Modern-day intellectual property pirates practice many of the customs of their sea-faring forebearers. By way of example, both groups abide
by a set of rules (i.e. a Pirate Code) to provide a structure intended to enhance the effectiveness of piracy operations. A description of
Pirate Codes associated with the likes of such buccaneers as Captain Henry Morgan can be found on Wikipedia: Here
The Pirate Codes of modern-day intellectual property pirates are more focused on assuring that everyone is participating in the distribution of
pirated content. For example, the principles embedded in the BitTorrent protocol assure that every downloader is also an uploader. The rules
of some BitTorrent websites take this principle to more extreme heights. For example, certain private BitTorrent websites require users to
maintain a minimum upload/download ratio. Failure to abide by these principles can result in a lifetime ban-which is not the worst fate
considering the consequences of crossing Blackbeard.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a reply
Google ghts piracy
Posted on December 2, 2010
According to an article published on Digital Trends, Google is taking steps to implement several anti-piracy measures, which will ideally make
it more difcult for searchers to located pirated material. First, Google is increasing its responsiveness to takedown requests of so-called
reliable copyright holders. Second, its autocomplete function will lter out greater amounts of infringing results. Third, Googles AdSense
program will attempt to reduce its presence on websites associated with piracy. Finally, Google indicated that it would tweak its search
algorithm to promote search results linking to legitimate requests.
Posted in Uncategorized
Posted on September 10, 2010
According to a recently published article in the Salt Lake Tribune, Ed Catmull, president of Pixar Studios, linked international copyright
protection to Pixars ability to continue investing in the cutting-edge technology thats brought us such movies as Wall-E, Monsters, Inc., and
Up all of which are presumably registered trademarks of Pixar Animation Studios. At his Utah Valley University speech, Catmull singled out
Prenda Law Inc.
Protecting Intellectual Property
http://weghtpiracy.com/ Go OCT NOV DEC
29
2010 2011 2012
21 captures
20 Jan 11 - 23 Nov 12
Close
Help
Prenda Law Inc. | Protecting Intellectual Property http://web.archive.org/web/20111129000442/http://weghtpirac...
1 of 2 1/9/13 7:09 PM
Page 9
#:434
Supp. E.R. 151
Russia and China as nations where copyright protection is particularly lacking, estimating that up to 90 percent of the value of Pixars
recently-released movies were lost due to poor copyright protection. According to Catmull, if the global community values continuing
innovation in the computer animation eld, it must allow studios to recoup the value of their investment in such innovation.
Posted in Infos | Leave a reply
Go OCT NOV DEC
29
2010 2011 2012
21 captures
20 Jan 11 - 23 Nov 12
Close
Help
Prenda Law Inc. | Protecting Intellectual Property http://web.archive.org/web/20111129000442/http://weghtpirac...
2 of 2 1/9/13 7:09 PM
Page 10
#:435
Supp. E.R. 152
305-748-2102
Welcome
Prenda Law is a law firm that provides legal services to content producers and creative professionals. Our focus is purusing
individuals and businesses who infringe on the copyrights associated with our clients creative works. Our practice includes
addressing the unique legal issues posed by Internet-based piracy, where the vast majority of infringement occurs under
the cover of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.
Pirate Code
Modern-day intellectual property pirates practice many of the customs of their
sea-faring forebearers. By way of example, both groups abide by a set of rules (i.e. a
Pirate Code) to provide a structure intended to enhance the effectiveness of piracy
operations. A description of Pirate Codes associated with the likes of such
buccaneers as Captain Henry Morgan can be found on Wikipedia: Here
The Pirate Codes of modern-day intellectual property pirates are more focused on
assuring that everyone is participating in the distribution of pirated content. For
example, the principles embedded in the BitTorrent protocol assure that every
downloader is also an uploader. The rules of some BitTorrent websites take this
principle to more extreme heights. For example, certain private BitTorrent websites
require users to maintain a minimum upload/download ratio. Failure to abide by
these principles can result in a lifetime ban-which is not the worst fate considering the
consequences of crossing Blackbeard.
Google fights piracy
Google fights piracy
According to an article published on Digital Trends, Google is taking steps to
implement several anti-piracy measures, which will ideally make it more difficult for
Links
Berne Convention
Copyright Office
Copyright Overview
Copyright Statutes
Creative Commons
Resources
Patry Blog
Geist Blog (Canadian law)
IP Watch
Digital Piracy 101
Digital piracy occurs through
several channels. Each of these
channels offers trade-offs
between likelihood of detection,
convenience and content
availability.
Direct File Sharing This most
basic form of piracy involves
friends simply transferring files
directly to one another via an
instant messaging program (e.g.
AIM), e-mail or other similar
means. Direct file sharing is
difficult to detect, but content
availability is limited to the files
held within the peer group.
Home About Us Contact Us Recent Sampling of Cases filed
Go
http://weghtpiracy.com/?page_id=44
SEP DEC JAN
8
2010 2011 2012
5 captures
21 Jan 11 - 8 Dec 11
Close
Help
Prenda Law Inc. http://web.archive.org/web/20111208024257/http://weghtpirac...
1 of 2 1/10/13 7:13 PM
Page 11
#:436
Supp. E.R. 153
searchers to located pirated material. First, Google is increasing its responsiveness to
takedown requests of so-called reliable copyright holders. Second, its autocomplete
function will filter out greater amounts of infringing results. Third, Googles AdSense
program will attempt to reduce its presence on websites associated with piracy.
Finally, Google indicated that it would tweak its search algorithm to promote search
results linking to legitimate requests.
Copyright Laws
According to a recently published article in the Salt Lake Tribune, Ed Catmull,
president of Pixar Studios, linked international copyright protection to Pixars ability
to continue investing in the cutting-edge technology thats brought us such movies as
Wall-E, Monsters, Inc., and Up all of which are presumably registered trademarks
of Pixar Animation Studios. At his Utah Valley University speech, Catmull singled out
Russia and China as nations where copyright protection is particularly lacking,
estimating that up to 90 percent of the value of Pixars recently-released movies were
lost due to poor copyright protection. According to Catmull, if the global community
values continuing innovation in the computer animation field, it must allow studios to
recoup the value of their investment in such innovation.
File Locker Sites This form of
piracy occurs when an individual
uploads content to one of the
many file locker sites (e.g.
Rapidshare) and shares the link,
typically via a content-specific
forum, with the general Internet
population. Third parties then
follow that link to a site where
they download content. File
locker piracy is relatively easy to
detect, but is not an extremely
convenient means of sharing
files. Nor is content availability
as high as in other channels
(though this is changing fast).
Peer-to-peer piracy This form of
piracy occurs when individuals
use a peer-to-peer protocol (e.g.
BitTorrent) to transfer files. The
typical steps in this process
involve using a search function to
locate the desired content, and
then running a software program
that implements a given protocol
to download the desired content.
P2P piracy suffers from easy
detection, but is extremely
convenient and the content
availability is breathtaking.
Virtually any form of content
published in the past 20 years is
available via P2P networks.
Home | About Us | Contact Us | Current Litigation Information
Copyright 2011 Prenda Law Inc.. All Rights Reserved.
Web Design by No.1WebDesign.com.
Go
SEP DEC JAN
8
2010 2011 2012
5 captures
21 Jan 11 - 8 Dec 11
Close
Help
2 of 2 1/10/13 7:13 PM
Page 12
#:437
Supp. E.R. 154
305-748-2102
Welcome
the cover of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. In addition, our firm pursues hackers that break into our client's pay
websites to steal digital content. Prenda Law actually pioneered this litigation.
Prendas Top Pirates (Individual Cases)
California (Phillip Williamson)
Florida (Chris Adekola)
Illinois (Christopher Plotts)
Illinois (Jason Spain)
Florida (William Trout)
Florida (Michael Golzman)
Florida (Paul Williams)
Illinois (Jamie Phiou)
Illinois (Klint Christensen)
Illinois (Edward Neese)
Illinois (Erik Schwarz)
Illinois (Stilian Pironkov)
Illinois (Hyung Kim)
California (Sauel Teitelbaum)
California (Jo Vasquez)
California (Steve Polan)
California (Jeff Goldberg)
California (Isaac Kamins)
California (Francisco Rivas)
California (Jason Angle)
California (Seth Abrahams)
Unfortunately we are unable to list and provide the link to every suit currently pending
throughout the country due to space limitations. However, our firm will be uploading
a sampling of 'Individual' cases that we file each month.
Links
Berne Convention
Copyright Office
Copyright Overview
Copyright Statutes
Creative Commons
Resources
Patry Blog
IP Watch
Go
http://weghtpiracy.com/litigation.php
DEC JAN FEB
14
2011 2012 2013
8 captures
14 Jan 12 - 4 May 12
Close
Help
1 of 2 1/10/13 7:14 PM
Page 13
#:438
Supp. E.R. 155
Web Design by No.1WebDesign.com.
Go
DEC JAN FEB
14
2011 2012 2013
8 captures
14 Jan 12 - 4 May 12
Close
Help
2 of 2 1/10/13 7:14 PM
Page 14
#:439
Supp. E.R. 156
NEWS AND PRESS
Prenda Sues AT&T
and Comcast
2012-08-10
Judge Facciola
Rules in favor of
Prenda Law and
denies all Motions
brought by John
Does
2012-08-14
Judge Howell: AT&T
and Comcast
arguments "have no
merit".
2012-08-14
Why create anything?
Without copyrights, there would be no book stores, concert halls or movie theaters. Digital piracy is an
existential threat to the useful arts and sciences. Our founding fathers enshrined copyright law in the
Constitution, understanding that artistic works are instrumental to social progress.
Stealing is wrong, regardless of whether it involves a DVD from the store or a digital copy via BitTorrent.
While our firm cannot prevent theft, we can prosecute the thieves. We understand the frustration of
creating a movie, book or song, only to watch online pirates use BitTorrent or illegal passwords to steal
your content.
We Can Help.
"It is piracy, not overt online music stores, that is our main
competitor." -Steve Jobs

PRENDA LAW : ANTI-PIRACY PIONEER
At Prenda Law Inc. we assist our clients regarding the acquisition,
protection and exploitation of some of their most valuable assets their
company possesses (such as brands, creative works and
technology). Click here to see our most recent cases.
As the first law firm to successfully pursue widespread copyright
infringement on a contingency fee basis, Prenda Law Inc. helps our
clients preserve their copyrighted work with none of the large,
up-front, costs required by traditional litigation firms. Because our
clients do not pay any fees until and unless there is money recovered
(by settlement or verdict), the contingency fee arrangement is almost always more cost-effective for the
client. Our belief is a copyright holder shouldn't lose money having to pursue criminals stealing its works.
The criminals should.

About the
Firm
Firm
Resources
Attorneys Practice
Areas
Giving Case
Samples
http://weghtpiracy.com/ Go
APR NOV DEC
23
2011 2012 2013
21 captures
20 Jan 11 - 23 Nov 12
Close
Help
Prenda Law INC. http://web.archive.org/web/20121123020150/http://weghtpirac...
1 of 2 1/10/13 7:19 PM
Page 15
#:440
Supp. E.R. 157
THE BLOG
PRENDA LAW INC. INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY ATTORNEYS BLOG
Please visit our blog to find out about the lastest in the anti-piracy wars.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW PRACTICE AREAS
The intellectual property attorneys at Prenda Law Inc. are experienced in a multitude of practice areas
from the creation of copyrights, trademarks and trade secret laws, to the protection of intellectual
property rights, to the legal pursuit of those who infringe on our clients' rights to their intellectual property.
The firm's practice areas include:
copyrights
intellectual property litigation
intellectual property strategy
licensing rights
trade secret actions
trademarks
website hacking prosecution

Home | About the Firm | Firm Resources | Attorneys | Practice Areas | Giving | Case Samples | Terms of Service
2012 Copyright 2011 Prenda Law Inc. All Rights Reserved.
You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include the above copyright notice.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING DISCLAIMER. The contents of this website should not be construed as legal advice on any specific fact or circumstance. Its content was prepared by Prenda Law Inc. (an
Illinois law firm organized as a limited liability company with its principal office at 161 North Clark Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, Illinois 60601, Ph 1-800-380-0840) for general information purposes only.
Your receipt of such information does not create an attorney-client relationship with Prenda Law Inc. or any of its lawyers. You should not act or rely on any of the information contained here without
seeking professional legal advice. Prior results referred to in these materials do not guarantee or suggest a similar result in other matters. Prenda Law Inc.'s lawyers are licensed in Illinois and a limited
number of other jurisdictions. They and the Firm cannot file actions in all states without associating locally licensed attorneys and/or becoming admitted in that jurisdiction for a limited purpose.
Prenda Law Inc. lawyer responsible for the contents of this website is Paul Duffy.
Go
APR NOV DEC
23
2011 2012 2013
21 captures
20 Jan 11 - 23 Nov 12
Close
Help
Prenda Law INC. http://web.archive.org/web/20121123020150/http://weghtpirac...
2 of 2 1/10/13 7:19 PM
Page 16
#:441
Supp. E.R. 158
305-748-2102
Welcome
the cover of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. In addition, our firm pursues hackers that break into our client's pay
websites to steal digital content. Prenda Law actually pioneered this litigation.
About Us
We view our mission as a small part of the overall effort to preserve the creative arts
for future generations. In our view, the ease with which digital content is pirated
represents an existential threat to the future of professional content producers. Our
clients understand all too well the problems posed by the unauthorized redistribution
of their copyrighted works, particularly given the capital investment associated with
producing and marketing professional works.
Whether it is going after infringers who use BitTorrent to steal movies, or hackers who
steal passwords to access pay sites, Prenda Law will continue to lead the way in
protecting copyrighted material on the Internet.
If you are a creative artist who has their content being stolen by pirates, feel free to
contact us. If you are a pirate who steals copyrighted works on the Internet, we hope
to meet you soon.
Links
Berne Convention
Copyright Office
Copyright Overview
Copyright Statutes
Creative Commons
Resources
Patry Blog
IP Watch
Web Design by No.1 Web Design.
Go
http://weghtpiracy.com/about.php
FEB APR MAY
18
2011 2012 2013
4 captures
10 Jan 12 - 18 Apr 12
Close
Help
1 of 1 1/10/13 7:23 PM
Page 17
#:442
Supp. E.R. 159
NEWS AND PRESS
Prenda Sues AT&T
and Comcast
2012-08-10
Judge Howell: AT&T
and Comcast
arguments "have no
merit".
2012-08-14
Judge Facciola
Rules in favor of
Prenda Law and
denies all Motions
brought by John
Does
2012-08-14
Why create anything?
Without copyrights, there would be no book stores, concert halls or movie theaters. Digital piracy is an
existential threat to the useful arts and sciences. Our founding fathers enshrined copyright law in the
Constitution, understanding that artistic works are instrumental to social progress.
Stealing is wrong, regardless of whether it involves a DVD from the store or a digital copy via BitTorrent.
While our firm cannot prevent theft, we can prosecute the thieves. We understand the frustration of
creating a movie, book or song, only to watch online pirates use BitTorrent or illegal passwords to steal
your content.
We Can Help.
"It is piracy, not overt online music stores, that is our main
competitor." -Steve Jobs

PRENDA LAW : ANTI-PIRACY PIONEER
At Prenda Law Inc. we assist our clients regarding the acquisition,
protection and exploitation of some of their most valuable assets their
company possesses (such as brands, creative works and
technology). Click here to see our most recent cases.
As the first law firm to successfully pursue widespread copyright
infringement on a contingency fee basis, Prenda Law Inc. helps our
clients preserve their copyrighted work with none of the large,
up-front, costs required by traditional litigation firms. Because our
clients do not pay any fees until and unless there is money recovered
(by settlement or verdict), the contingency fee arrangement is almost always more cost-effective for the
client. Our belief is a copyright holder shouldn't lose money having to pursue criminals stealing its works.
The criminals should.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW PRACTICE AREAS
The intellectual property attorneys at Prenda Law Inc. are experienced in a multitude of practice areas
from the creation of copyrights, trademarks and trade secret laws, to the protection of intellectual
property rights, to the legal pursuit of those who infringe on our clients' rights to their intellectual property.
The firm's practice areas include:
copyrights
intellectual property litigation
intellectual property strategy
About the
Firm
Firm
Resources
Attorneys Practice
Areas
Giving Case
Samples
Prenda Law INC. http://weghtpiracy.com/
1 of 2 1/14/13 12:49 PM
Page 18
#:443
Supp. E.R. 160
THE BLOG
licensing rights
trade secret actions
trademarks
website hacking prosecution

Prenda Law INC. http://weghtpiracy.com/
2 of 2 1/14/13 12:49 PM
Page 19
#:444
Supp. E.R. 161
Page 20
#:445
Supp. E.R. 162
Suits Against
Individuals
Suits Against Mass
Does
MENU
Recent Cases Against Identied Individuals
Prior to actually naming and serving individuals accused of various civil and criminal acts against our
clients, Prenda Law attempts to reach out and resolve the issue with the infringer/hacker and/or account
holder directly. While we are able to resolve the matter in some cases, some individuals alleged
infringers wish to go to trial over the matter.
Sandipan Chowdhury - 1:12-CV-12105 (MA)
Matthew Burnell - 1:12-CV-01256 (MI)
Cristian Morinico - 2:12-CV-01969-MCE-CKD (CA)
Christopher Sanchez - 1:12-CV-03862-RLV (GA)
Rajesh Patel - 2:12-CV-00262-WCO (GA)
Joseph Skoda - 2:12-CV-01663-JAM-JFM (CA)
June Quantong - 4:12-CV-02411-PJH (CA)
Steven Pecadeso - 3:12-CV-02404-SC (CA)
Joe Navasca - 3:12-CV-02396-EMC (CA)
Chris Rogers - 3:12-CV-01519-BTM-BLM (CA)
Carlos Martinez - 1:12-CV-03567 (IL)
Jason Hawk - 1:12-CV-04236 (IL)
Perry Miloglou - 1:12-CV-05077 (IL)
Ryan Jacobs - 1:12-CV-04240 (IL)
Eleazar Santana - 1:12-CV-04239 (IL)
Julio Baez - 1:12-CV-06405 (IL)
Robert Olson - 1:12-CV-00685-ML-LDA (RI)
John Foster - 3:12-CV-30164-KPN (MA)
Joshua Demelo - 1:12-CV-11851-MBB (MA)
Alec Chrzanowski - 1:12-CV-11842 (MA)
Maxime St. Louis - 4:12-CV-11797-TSH (MA)
Hajime Okuda - 1:12-CV-11850-MLW (MA)
John Grenier - 1:12-CV-11843 (MA)
Jason Martinez - 1:12-CV-11848-PBS (MA)
Mayank Patel - 2:12-CV-06210 (NJ)
Evans Papantouros - 3:12-CV-06013-MAS-TJB (NJ)
About the
Firm
Firm
Resources
Attorneys Practice
Areas
Giving Case
Samples
Prenda Law INC. http://weghtpiracy.com/suits-against-individuals.php
1 of 9 1/14/13 11:48 AM
Page 21
#:446
Supp. E.R. 163
Frederick C. Highfield - 1:12-CV-06033-JEI-AMD (NJ)
Richard Lovejoy - CV-12-196 (ME)
Thomas Lemay - CV-12-197 (ME)
Gary Millican - 2:12-CV-00259 (GA)
Ben Sanders - 2:12-CV-00258-WCO (GA)
Benjamin Curtis - 1:12-CV-03773-CAP (GA)
Robert Unger - 1:12-CV-03665-RLV (GA)
Paul Stapleton - 1:12-CV-00166-WLS (GA)
Perry Jackson - 5:12-CV-00429-MTT (GA)
Reginald Patterson - 3:12-CV-00144-CAR (GA)
Justin Miller - 3:12-CV-00143-CAR (GA)
Nick Klimek - 1:12-CV-03838-TCB (GA)
Tin Lam - 1:12-CV-03771-ODE (GA)
Michael Davidson - 1:12-CV-03772-RWS (GA)
Shainal Nagar - 1:12-CV-03578-TWT (GA)
David Green, Jr. - 1:12-CV-03557-JOF (GA)
Howard Robinson - 1:12-CV-03542-ODE (GA)
Lorenzo Belmontes, Jr - 2:12-CV-01067-KJM-CKD (CA)
Taurence Lopez - 4:12-CV-0741-DCB (AZ)
James Forth - 4:12-CV-00740-CKJ (AZ)
Charlie Burrell - 4:12-CV-00739-FRZ (AZ)
Michael Tekala - 2:12-CV-02157-GMS (AZ)
Zeke Lundstrum - 2:12-CV-02142-SRB (AZ)
Eric Lemnitzer - 2:12-CV-02141-FJM (AZ)
Carl Strickland - 2:12-CV-02140-ROS (AZ)
Andres Chen - 2:12-CV-02151-MEA (AZ)
Jerry Aurilia - 2:12-CV-02139-SPL (AZ)
Kevin Antrosiglio - 2:12-CV-02138-GMS (AZ)
Adam Nichols - 2:12-CV-02156-MHB (AZ)
Ngoc Nguyen - 2:12-CV-02154-FJM (AZ)
Purnell Phillips - 2:12-CV-02137-MEA (AZ)
Jeff Montgomery - 2:12-CV-02153-ROS (AZ)
Brian Trottier - 2:12-CV-02136-GMS (AZ)
Erick Guevara - 2:12-CV-02152-JAT (AZ)
Matthew Michuta - 2:12-CV-02143-DGC (AZ)
Robert Richardson - 2:12-CV-02148-PGR (AZ)
Andrew Simoneschi - 2:12-CV-02147-PGR (AZ)
Taylor Velasco - 2:12-CV-02146-FJM (AZ)
Douglas Buchanan - 2:12-CV-02145-DKD (AZ)
David Harris - 2:12-CV-02144-MHB (AZ)
Walter Szarek - 2:12-CV-2134-SPL (AZ)
John Song - 2:12-CV-02132-GMS (AZ)
Steven Laizure - 2:12-CV-02131-DGC (AZ)
Christopher Heggum - 2:12-CV-02130-LOA (AZ)
Rick Friend - 2:12-CV-02125-NVM (AZ)
AJ Chubbuck - 2:12-CV-02124-DGC (AZ)
Andrew Gutierrez - 2:12-CV-02127-SPL (AZ)
Rim Boltong - 1:12-CV-03482-MHS (GA)
2 of 9 1/14/13 11:48 AM
Page 22
#:447
Supp. E.R. 164
Matthew Taylor - 3:12-CV-00160-TCB (GA)
Danny Chambless - 1:12-CV-03839-AT (GA)
Max Hilmo - 2:12-00263-WCO (GA)
Christopher Eachus - 1:12-CV-06032-JBS-AMD (NJ)
Lazaro Ana Contreras - 1:12-CV-06031-RMB-AMD (NJ)
Steve Sullivan - 1:12-CV-01100 (MI)
Andrew Standley - 2:12-CV-14746-GAD-DRG (MI)
Nicholas Bossard - 1:12-CV-01101 (MI)
Michael Pacheco - 1:12-CV-01102 (MI)
James Davis - 1:12-CV-22149-JEM (FL)
Javier Ubieta - 1:12-CV-22155-CMA (FL)
Erik Diep - 4:12-CV-14459-DPH-RSW (MI)
Nigel Sookdeo - 1:12-CV-22146-CMA (FL)
Vaden Cook - 5:12-CV-14455-SFC-DRG (MI)
James Szewczyk - 2:12-CV-14453-MAG-LJM (MI)
Allen Keehn - 2:12-CV-JAC-MKM (MI)
Joseph Jenkins - 2:12-CV-14450-DML-RSW (MI)
David Olivo - 3:12-CV-01403 (CT)
Elliott Olivas - 3:12-CV-01401-JBA (CT)
Kevin Nevins - 3:12-CV-01404-SRU (CT)
Craig Fenn - 3:12-CV-01402-VLB (CT)
Jonathan J. Abarca - 3:12-CV-01400-SRU (CT)
Udish Sundarrajan - 2:12-CV-01078-GEB-GGH (CA)
Matthew Ciccone - 2:12-CV-14442-GAD-LJM (MI)
Shehzad Lakdawala - 2:12-CV-14444-GCS-MKM (MI)
Jason Hinds - 2:12-CV-14445-AJT-MJH (MI)
Michael Murray - 2:12-CV-14443-GAD-LJM (MI)
Matthew Baldwin - 1:12-CV-11841 (MA)
Michael Nissensohn - 1:12-CV-00687-M-DLM (RI)
Timothy Trafford - 1:12-CV-00686-S-DLM (RI)
Norbert Weitendorf - 1:12-CV-07826 (IL)
Dewey Wilson - CV-2012-900893 (AL)
Adam Sekora - CV-2012-053194 (AZ)
World Timbers - CV-2012-053230 (AZ)
Reza Shemira - 37-2012-00100384 (CA)
Jesse Nason - CV-2012-0057950 (CA)
Samuel Teitelbaum - CV-2011-05628-JCS (CA)
Joe Vasquez - CV-2011-03080-MCE-KJN (CA)
Jeff Goldberg - CV-2011-03074-KJM-CKD (CA)
Jason Angle - CV-2011-03077-JAM-KJN (CA)
Sebastian Lopez - CV-2012-03114 (FL)
Zachary Boudreaux - CV-2012CA-01679 (FL)
Jacob McCullough - CV-2012-21100-JAL (FL)
Tuan Nguyen - CV-2012-01685-MSS-MAP (FL)
Paul Oppold - CV-2012-01686-MSS-AEP (FL)
Lucas Shashek - CV-12-L-927 (IL)
Ronald Trivisonno - CV-2012-L-000531 (IL)
Tom Berry - CV-12-L-95 (IL)
3 of 9 1/14/13 11:48 AM
Page 23
#:448
Supp. E.R. 165
Michael Allison - CV-2012-L-000530 (IL)
Klint Christensen - CV-2011-08338 (IL)
Edward Neese - CV-2011-08340 (IL)
Hyung Kim - CV-2011-08343 (IL)
Robert Reynolds - CV-2012-01104 (IL)
Jeremy Lozano - CV-2012-00812 (MI)
Adam Grote - CI-12-2625 (NE)
Austin Cunningham - C-133,846 (TX)
Josh Hatfield - CV-2012-02049 (CA)
Bobby Rammos - CV-2012-04232 (CA)
Felix Naylor - CV-2012-03566 (CA)
Thang Ngo - CV-2012-02416-WHA (CA)
David Trinh - CV-2012-02393-CRB (CA)
Jason Hawk - CV-2012-04236 (IL)
Kenneth Payne - CV-2012-04234 (IL)
Daniel Frankfort - CV-2012-03571 (IL)
Ali Yang - CV-2012-01079 (CA)
Cory Phan - CV-2012-01076 (CA)
Darryl Lessere - CV-22156-UU (CA)
Unfortunately, due to space limitations, we are unable to list and provide the link to every individual we
are currently suing on behalf of our clients. Also, it is our firm's policy to remove any cases from our site
after we obtain a judgment or settlement. However, this list will be updated on a regular basis, so if you
don't see a particular law suit listed above, feel free to call us at 1-800-380-0840 for more information.
Recent Cases Against Soon-to-be-Identied
Individuals
Prenda Law also files lawsuits on behalf of the firms clients against anonymous hackers and infringers. The traditional
process in these cases is to file a John Doe lawsuit (examples of which are listed below), request discovery from the
court, obtain the wrongdoers identity and either settle with or sue the individual. If you have received a notice from your
Internet Service Provider, then your identifying information is about to be released to our firm. At this stage the firm will
attempt to contact you to see if settlement is a possibility. If it is not, our client will have no option but to put the matter to a
jury of your peers.

1:12-CV-02512-DDD, John Doe, 65.60.170.220
2:12-CV-02158-SRB, John Doe, 70.162.31.215
5:12-CV-00398-HL, John Doe, 72.210.67.50
2:12-CV-06664-GAF-AGR, John Doe 75.142.115.172
2:12-AT-01337, John Doe, 71.92.65.184
2:12-CV-14722-LPZ-RSW, John Doe, 75.114.172.113
2:12-CV-14724-JCO-MAR, John Doe, 71.197.29.106
2:12-CV-00995-EJF, John Doe, 98.202.218.205
2:12-CV-00994-BCW, John Doe, 71.219.136.154
2:12-CV-00993-DAK, John Doe, 65.130.163.107
2:12-CV-00597-RBS-TEM, John Doe, 72.84.95.167
1:12-CV-03568, John Doe, 68.51.101.217
1:12-CV-03569, John Doe, 68.51.101.71
1:12-CV-03570, John Doe, 98.193.34.158
1:12-CV-08030, John Doe, 98.206.40.200
1:12-CV-01398-JES-JAG, John Doe, 99.46.242.157
8:12-CV-01688-JSM-AEP, John Doe, 97.97.62.62
8:12-CV-01689-VCM-TBM, John Doe, 72.91.172.134
4 of 9 1/14/13 11:48 AM
Page 24
#:449
Supp. E.R. 166
8:12-CV-01690-JDW-EAJ, John Doe, 70.119.245.31
8:12-CV-01691-SDM-MAP, John Doe, 24.110.60.96
8:12-CV-01693-SDM-EAJ, John Doe, 68.59.130.7
2:12-AT-01391, John Doe, 69.110.90.245
2:12-AT-01392, John Doe, 75.26.52.50
2:12-AT-01394, John Doe, 69.225.24.38
2:12-AT-01395, John Doe, 68.189.50.101
2:12-AT-01396, John Doe, 98.192.184.147
2:12-AT-01397, John Doe, 67.181.237.255
5:12-CV-05435-PSG, John Doe, 71.141.229.186
7:12-CV-00545-SGW, John Doe, 24.125.96.75
2:12-CV-00520-AWA-DEM, John Doe, 98.183.144.201
2:12-CV-00598-RGD-LRL, John Doe, 108.17.139.77
2:12-CV-00600-RGD-TEM, John Doe, 24.254.194.149
2:12-CV-00601-MSD-LRL, John Doe, 96.249.247.211
2:12-CV-00602-RAJ-LRL, John Doe, 68.107.226.232
2:12-CV-00605-RGD-LRL, John Doe, 98.183.227.97
2:12-CV-07386-DMG-JEM, John Doe, 108.38.135.253
2:12-CV-01064-JAM-GGH, John Doe, 24.10.30.29
2:12-CV-01066-GEB-GGH, John Doe, 67.182.119.178
2:12-CV-01067-KJM-CKD , John Doe, 71.195.119.40
2:12-CV-14720-PDB-LJM, John Doe, 76.247.139.163
2:12-CV-00992-DBP, John Doe, 24.10.145.222
1:12-CV-00677-N, John Doe, 71.45.14.20
1:12-CV-00676-N, John Doe, 99.102.20.29
2:12-CV-00675-N, John Doe, 71.207.173.128
1:12-CV-00674-N, John Doe, 75.138.43.178
1:12-CV-00673-N, John Doe, 50.130.0.12
2:12-CV-01068, John Doe, 76.125.61.233
2:12-CV-01073-KJM-KJN, John Doe, 76.20.26.96
2:12-CV-01075-GEB-DAD, John Doe, 76.20.32.228
2:12-CV-01076-JAM-GGH, John Doe, 98.208.73.220
5:12-CV-02048-HRL, John Doe, 71.202.249.178
3:12-CV-01123-MJR-PMF, John Doe, 24.107.215.180
3:12-CV-02049-EDL, John Doe, 67.161.66.97
3:12-CV-02394-JSC, John Doe, 69.181.134.74
3:12-CV-02393-MEJ, John Doe, 69.181.62.141
3:12-CV-02397-JCS, John Doe, 69.110.5.254
3:12-CV-02416-WHA, John Doe, 71.202.28.31
5:12-CV-02403-PSG, John Doe, 24.7.44.195
5:12-CV-00417-MTT, John Doe, 72.210.66.207
3:12-CV-02417-EDL, John Doe, 67.161.60.39
4:12-CV-05434-DMR, John Doe, 71.202.175.46
4:12-CV-02408-DMR, John Doe, 24.4.210.137
4:12-CV-02411-PJH, John Doe, 67.169.35.65
3:12-CV-02415-CRB, John Doe, 67.160.221.52
2:12-CV-05712-ODW-PJW, John Doe, 71.118.169.163
5 of 9 1/14/13 11:48 AM
Page 25
#:450
Supp. E.R. 167
2:12-CV-05722-JAK-AJW, John Doe, 173.51.46.28
2:12-CV-05725-JFW-JEM, John Doe, 75.38.25.176
2:12-CV-05724-GAF-RZ, John Doe, 76.172.144.175
2:12-CV-01654-MCE-CKD, John Doe, 76.217.185.105
2:12-CV-01656-KJM-GGH, John Doe, 174.134.185.41
2:12-CV-01657-GEB-KJN, John Doe, 98.242.5.13
2:12-CV-01658-WBS-CKD, John Doe, 71.193.7.209
2:12-CV-01659-JAM-KJN, John Doe, 76.126.37.254
2:12-CV-01660-JAM-CKD, John Doe, 67.187.147.237
2:12-CV-01661-MCE-DAD, John Doe, 71.193.7.209
2:12-CV-07401-ODW-JC, John Doe, 76.95.241.163
2:12-CV-07402-ODW-JC, John Doe, 71.189.173.168
2:12-CV-07403-ODW--JC, John Doe, 173.58.144.109
2:12-CV-07404-PA-VBK, John Doe, 24.30.132.99
2:12-CV-07405-ODW-JC, John Doe, 24.205.26.247
2:12-CV-07406-ODW-JC, John Doe, 68.99.190.38
2:12-CV-07407-ODW-JC, John Doe, 76.175.73.72
2:12-CV-07408-ODW-JC, John Doe, 76.168.66.219
2:12-CV-07410-SVW-JEM, John Doe, 66.75.82.94
2:12-CV-05709-MWF-JC, John Doe, 66.27.196.248
2:12-CV-07391-ODW-JC, John Doe, 76.90.118.186
2:12-CV-07387-ODW-JC, John Doe, 76.89.191.106
2:12-CV-07384-ODW-JC, John Doe, 67.49.108.156
2:12-CV-02206-JAM-EFB, John Doe, 76.20.6.100
2:12-CV-02207-KJM-DAD, John Doe, 76.103.65.116
2:12-CV-02204-JAM-EFB, John Doe 75.45.103.31
1:12-CV-01279-LMB-IDD, John Doe, 70.179.91.240
1:12-CV-22147-PAS, John Doe, 74.166.133.168
1:12-CV-22149-JEM, John Doe, 69.84.97.152
1:12-CV-22152-FAM, John Doe, 68.1.71.1
1:12-CV-22157-PAS, John Doe, 174.58.4.112
1:12-CV-22756-CMA, John Doe, 75.74.37.91
1:12-CV-22757-DLG, John Doe, 75.74.108.31
4:12-CV-03253-DMR, John Doe, 76.254.71.44
3:12-CV-03251-JSW, John Doe, 50.131.50.46
3:12-CV-03250-EDL, John Doe, 24.23.170.145
3:12-CV-03249-JCS, John Doe, 24.4.19.164
3:12-CV-03248-NC, John Doe, 99.108.164.117
3:12-CV-05433-LB, John Doe, 76.103.249.187
6 of 9 1/14/13 11:48 AM
Page 26
#:451
Supp. E.R. 168
3:12-CV-01522-LAB-KSC, John Doe, 98.176.216.109
3:12-CV-01519-BTM-BLM, John Doe, 68.8.137.53
3:12-CV-01523-AJB-KSC, John Doe, 72.207.23.163
3:12-CV-01525-LAB-RBB, John Doe, 68.105.113.37
3:12-CV-50176, John Doe, 75.142.52.147
3:12-CV-01115-MJR-DGW, John Doe, 68.187.245.241
3:12-CV-01116, John Doe, 98.240.14.172
3:12-CV-01117, John Doe, 68.52.122.101
3:12-CV-02318-LAB-JMA, John Doe, 72.220.226.162
3:12-CV-02319-AJB-JMA, John Doe, 68.101.166.135
2:12-CV-08331-DMG-PJW, John Doe, 71.189.120.34
2:12-CV-06667, John Doe, 24.176.226.177
2:12-CV-06670, John Doe, 108.23.117.228
2:12-CV-06666, John Doe, 66.74.193.106
2:12-CV-06659, John Doe, 71.106.44.52
2:12-CV-06636, John Doe, 71.106.57.116
2:12-CV-06669, John Doe, 71.118.185.55
2:12-CV-06665, John Doe, 71.254.185.93
2:12-CV-06668, John Doe, 75.128.55.44
1:12-CV-03645-MHS, John Doe, 24.107.165.172
1:12-CV-03647-AT, John Doe, 174.49.64.150
1:12-CV-03646-TCB, John Doe, 24.131.46.64
1:12-CV-03648-SCJ, John Doe, 98.230.128.148
1:12-CV-03645-MHS, John Doe 24.107.165.172
1:12-CV-01399-JES-BGC, John Doe, 67.58.230.16
1:12-CV-01162-PLM, John Doe, 24.35.120.19
1:12-CV-01163-PLM, John Doe, 24.176.5.51
1:12-CV-08429, John Doe, 98.213.86.254
1:12-CV-08431, John Doe 71.194.151.29
1:12-CV-08418, John Doe, 108.68.168.90
1:12-CV-08436, John Doe, 71.239.254.43
1:12-CV-08434, John Doe, 98.193.102.176
1:12-CV-08424, John Doe, 24.1.125.241
1:12-CV-08420, John Doe, 75.57.160.137
1:12-CV-08416, John Doe, 76.202.248.118
1:12-CV-08031, John Doe, 24.14.197.217
1:12-CV-08027, John Doe, 24.1.181.201
1:12-CV-08029, John Doe, 69.245.184.145
1:12-CV-07944, John Doe, 98.226.214.247
1:12-CV-07943, John Doe, 24.14.81.215
1:12-CV-07941, John Doe, 99.141.246.51
2:12-CV-06664, John Doe, 75.142.115.172
2:12-CV-06637, John Doe, 76.169.108.45
2:12-CV-06662, John Doe, 96.248.225.171
2:12-CV-06635, John Doe, 99.12.183.52
2:12-CV-01967, John Doe, 108.91.71.53
2:12-CV-01968, John Doe, 174.134.202.20
2:12-CV-01969-MCE-CKD, John Doe, 98.208.32.103
7 of 9 1/14/13 11:48 AM
Page 27
#:452
Supp. E.R. 169
2:12-CV-08320-ODW-JC, John Doe, 71.106.65.201
2:12-CV-08321-ODW-JC, John Doe 64.183.53.14
2:12-CV-08325-ODW-JC, John Doe, 173.58.57.119
2:12-CV-08327-GAF-AGR, John Doe, 71.104.194.84
3:12-CV-02093-LAB-JMA, John Doe, 72.220.222.3
3:12-CV-04976-JSW, John Doe, 76.102.35.231
3:12-CV-04977-WHA, John Doe, 76.14.13.88
4:12-CV-04978-PJH, John Doe, 50.131.15.143
3:12-CV-04979-LHK, John Doe, 76.126.238.116
3:12-CV-04980-EJD, John Doe, 24.130.232.141
3:12-CV-04981-RS, John Doe, 24.5.245.112
3:12-CV-04982-CRB, John Doe, 67.180.65.8
3:12-CV-04450-MMC, John Doe, 98.234.65.146
3:12-CV-04449-SC, John Doe, 67.160.239.96
5:12-CV-04448-EJD, John Doe, 71.134.226.53
5:12-CV-04447-RMW, John Doe, 71.198.107.59
5:12-CV-04446-EJD, John Doe, 50.131.91.169
5:12-CV-04445-LHK, John Doe, 71.135.105.95
7:12-CV-00544-SGW, John Doe, 66.37.82.174
3:12-CV-00817-JAG, John Doe, 24.254.94.36
3:12-CV-00815-HEH, John Doe, 96.247.199.64
3:12-CV-00813-HEH, John Doe, 72.84.197.14
3:12-CV-00812-JAG, John Doe, 173.53.64.176
3:12-CV-00810-HEH, John Doe, 98.244.115.149
3:12-CV-00808-HEH, John Doe, 74.110.143.212
3:12-CV-00807-REP, John Doe, 71.63.127.97
3:12-CV-00806-JAG, John Doe, 72.196.241.117
3:12-CV-00805-REP, John Doe, 173.53.87.92
2:12-CV-04219, John Doe, 24.7.75.176
2:12-CV-04221, John Doe, 69.181.141.228
2:12-CV-04217, John Doe, 98.207.238.156
2:12-CV-04218, John Doe, 98.248.205.13
2:12-CV-04216, John Doe, 99.47.22.212
2:12-CV-01839, John Doe, 174.66.160.178
2:12-CV-01840, John Doe, 68.101.214.251
2:12-CV-01843, John Doe, 68.8.110.21
NOTE: Neither the Defendants, nor anyone listed as an account holder in any of the above cases have
8 of 9 1/14/13 11:48 AM
Page 28
#:453
Supp. E.R. 170
THE BLOG
been found liable for any wrongdoing at this time. The pleadings listed above are part of the public
record and can be accessed at www.pacer.gov (for federal cases) or the local county where the case
was filed (for state cases).
9 of 9 1/14/13 11:48 AM
Page 29
#:454
Supp. E.R. 171
Page 30
#:455
Supp. E.R. 172

EXHIBIT B
B
EXHIBIT B
Page 31
#:456
Supp. E.R. 173
CORPORATION FILE DETAIL REPORT
Entity Name PRENDA LAW INC. File Number 68212189
Status NOT GOOD STANDING
Entity Type CORPORATION Type of Corp DOMESTIC BCA
Incorporation Date
(Domestic)
11/07/2011 State ILLINOIS
Agent Name PAUL DUFFY Agent Change Date 11/07/2011
Agent Street Address 161 N CLARK ST STE 3200 President Name & Address
Agent City CHICAGO Secretary Name & Address
Agent Zip 60601 Duration Date PERPETUAL
Annual Report Filing
Date
00/00/0000 For Year 2012
Return to the Search Screen

BACK TO CYBERDRIVEILLINOIS.COM HOME PAGE
CORP/LLC - File Detail Report http://www.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/CorporateLlcController
1 of 1 1/9/13 7:38 PM
Page 32
#:457
Supp. E.R. 174

EXHIBIT C
C
EXHIBIT C
Page 33
#:458
Supp. E.R. 175
Page 34
#:459
Supp. E.R. 176
Page 35
#:460
Supp. E.R. 177
Page 36
#:461
Supp. E.R. 178

EXHIBIT D
D
EXHIBIT D
Page 37
#:462
Supp. E.R. 179
Page 38
#:463
Supp. E.R. 180
Page 39
#:464
Supp. E.R. 181
Page 40
#:465
Supp. E.R. 182
Page 41
#:466
Supp. E.R. 183
Page 42
#:467
Supp. E.R. 184

EXHIBIT E
E
EXHIBIT E
Page 43
#:468
Supp. E.R. 185
Page 44
#:469
Supp. E.R. 186
Page 45
#:470
Supp. E.R. 187
Page 46
#:471
Supp. E.R. 188

EXHIBIT F
F
EXHIBIT F
Page 47
#:472
Supp. E.R. 189
Case5:11-cv-03336-LHK Document43-1 Filed02/24/12 Page1 of 6
Page 48
#:473
Supp. E.R. 190
Page 49
#:474
Supp. E.R. 191
Page 50
#:475
Supp. E.R. 192
Page 51
#:476
Supp. E.R. 193
Page 52
#:477
Supp. E.R. 194
Page 53
#:478
Supp. E.R. 195

EXHIBIT G
G
EXHIBIT G
Page 54
#:479
Supp. E.R. 196

-1-
DECLARATION OF JESSE NASON
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301


Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.




Page 55
#:480
Supp. E.R. 197

-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

I, Jesse Nason, have personal knowledge of the facts alleged herein and hereby declare as
follows:
1. I was the defendant in Lightpseed Media Corporation v. Nason, Los Angeles
Superior Court No. NC057950. Counsel for the plaintiff in that case was Mr. Brett Gibbs
of Prenda Law, Inc. Prenda got my name and contact info from my ISP via a prior case
filed by Lightspeed in St. Clair County, Illinois. Lightspeed Media Corporation v. John
Doe, Circuit Court of St. Clair County, IL, No. 11 L 683. Prenda subpoenaed my ISP in
the Illinois case, and then followed up and sued me individually here in Los Angeles
County, where I reside.
2. I understand from my attorney Morgan Pietz that at the first hearing in the
LA case, Mr. Gibbs was asked how he could justify naming and serving me with the
complaint in this case, given his prior admissions that the mere fact that someone is an ISP
bill payer is not enough to conclude that such a person is an actual infringer. My attorney
told me that Mr. Gibbs responded at the hearing by saying that Prenda had done an
investigation and determined that I lived alone.
3. I do not live alone, and have not lived alone for a long time. I have been
married for 9 years, during which time I have always lived with my wife. We have been at
our current address, which is in a high rise apartment building, for the last three years.
4. I did not commit the wrongful acts I was accused of in the case Prenda
brought against me. I attempted to resolve this matter with Prenda by showing them
credible third party evidence (in the form of a November 2011 email chain between me an
the Apple iTunes store) that on the day of the alleged wrongful activity, my iTunes account
was actually hacked. That is, on the day someone supposedly hacked into the Lightspeed
site from my IP address, someone also hacked into my iTunes account. At the time, I had
an open WiFi network. In my apartment, when I go to log on to wireless Internet, there are
usually about 20 or so networks within range of my computer.
Page 56
#:481
Supp. E.R. 198
Page 57
#:482
Supp. E.R. 199

EXHIBIT H
H
EXHIBIT H
Page 58
#:483
Supp. E.R. 200
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
AF HOLDINGS LLC,
Plaintiff, No. C 12-2049 PJ H
v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED
J OHN DOE, et al., COMPLAINT
Defendants.
_______________________________/
Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the complaint came on for hearing before this
court on November 7, 2012. Plaintiff appeared by its counsel Brett L. Gibbs, and defendant
J osh Hatfield appeared by his counsel Nicholas Ranallo. Having read the parties papers
and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, the court hereby
DENIES the motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff AF Holdings LLC holds the copyrights to any number of adult
entertainment videos, and has filed numerous lawsuits asserting copyright infringement
against multiple Doe defendants, based on their alleged unlawful downloading of those
videos from the Internet.
The downloading is alleged to have been accomplished by using online peer-to-peer
file-sharing tool called BitTorrent. The BitTorrent transfer protocol is a file-sharing method
Case4:12-cv-02049-PJH Document45 Filed01/07/13 Page1 of 12
Page 59
#:484
Supp. E.R. 201
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
used for distributing data via the Internet. See, e.g., Diabolic Video Prods., Inc. v. Does 1-
2099, 2011 WL 3100404, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011).
Because the alleged unlawful downloading occurs behind the mask of anonymous
internet protocol (IP) addresses, AF Holdings does not know the identity of the persons
who have utilized BitTorrent to access the copyrighted videos. At most, AF Holdings is
able to identify the alleged infringers by the unique IP address assigned to the Internet
subscriber by the subscriber's Internet Service Provider (ISP). Generally, soon after filing
one of these lawsuits, AF Holdings requests an order authorizing limited expedited
discovery, so it can serve subpoenas on the ISPs in the hope of obtaining the identity of the
Doe defendants based on the IP addresses of their computers.
On J uly 7, 2011, AF Holdings filed a complaint in this district against 135 unidentified
Doe defendants (identified only by IP addresses), alleging that on either April 21, 2011 or
May 2, 2011, each of the 135 Does had infringed AF Holdings copyright by downloading
a video called Sexual Obsession. See AF Holdings v. Does 1-135, No. C-11-3336 LHK
(N.D. Cal.). On J uly 14, 2011, AF Holdings requested expedited discovery in order to
discover the identity of the subscribers associated with the IP addresses. The request was
granted on August 2, 2011. Among the IP addresses implicated in that suit was
67.161.66.97, which is registered to defendant J osh Hatfield (Hatfield).
According to Hatfield, his ISP provided his identifying information to AF Holdings in
October 2011. After obtaining this information, AF Holdings did nothing for three months
although it did dismiss a number of the Does identified by certain IP addresses (but not
Hatfield). On J anuary 19, 2012, noting that more than 190 days had passed since the filing
of the complaint (and more than 150 days since the order authorizing expedited discovery)
the court issued an order to show cause why the Doe defendants should not be dismissed
based on AF Holdings failure to effectuate service on any identified Doe.
On February 22, 2012, the court ordered AF Holdings to provide certain
supplementary information. On February 28, 2012, AF Holdings filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the claims against Does identified by 19 of the IP addresses (not including the
Page 60
#:485
Supp. E.R. 202
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
address associated with Hatfield). On March 27, 2012, the court dismissed the case in its
entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), due to AF Holdings failure to
effectuate service on any of the defendants.
Approximately four weeks later, on April 24, 2012, AF Holdings filed the present
action, asserting two claims of direct copyright infringement (reproduction and distribution)
and one claim of contributory infringement against an unidentified Doe defendant, and
another cause of action for negligence, against Hatfield, based on Hatfields alleged failure
to secure his Internet connection against unlawful downloading by third parties.
AF Holdings alleged that the Doe defendant had performed the actual downloading
and distribution, via the IP address that was registered to Hatfield, and that Hatfield
allowed the Doe defendant to use his Internet connection to illegally download, republish,
and distribute copies of the copyrighted video. However, AF Holdings did not allege any
copyright infringement or contributory infringement claims against Hatfield.
After Hatfield moved to dismiss the negligence claim, AF Holdings filed a first
amended complaint (FAC), which again asserted claims of copyright infringement against
the Doe defendant, and a claim of negligence against Hatfield, based on an alleged third
partys use of Hatfields Internet connection to commit the infringement, and Hatfields
failure to secure his Internet connection and/or failure to monitor the unidentified third
partys use of his Internet connection. In a footnote on page 1, AF Holdings stated that [a]t
this stage of the litigation, [p]laintiff does not know if [d]efendant Doe is the same individual
as J osh Hatfield. FAC at 1, n.1.
On J une 30, 2012, Hatfield moved to dismiss the negligence claim asserted in the
FAC. In its opposition, filed J uly 16, 2012, AF Holdings asserted that it had not alleged that
Hatfield knowingly facilitated and actively participated in anyones infringement, but rather
that Hatfield was a concededly ignorant but alleged careless defendant. AF Holdings
argued that its claim against Hatfield was purely based on a theory of negligence and a
duty to secure ones Internet connection.
On September 4, 2012, the court issued an order granting the motion, on the basis
Page 61
#:486
Supp. E.R. 203
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
that an allegation of non-feasance (failure to secure Internet connection) cannot support a
claim of negligence in the absence of facts showing the existence of a special relationship;
and that the negligence claim was preempted by the Copyright Act. Finding that
amendment would be futile, the court dismissed the negligence claim with prejudice. Since
that was the only claim asserted against Hatfield, he was effectively dismissed from the
case (although the order framed the issue solely in terms of dismissal of the negligence
cause of action).
The order added that with regard to the Doe defendant, more than 120 days had
passed since the case had been filed, and there was no indication in the docket that the
Doe defendant had been served and no request for expedited discovery to learn the Doe
defendants identity had been filed. The court ordered AF Holdings to file a proof of
service no later than October 4, 2012, showing service on the Doe defendant, and stated
that if the proof of service was not filed by that date, the case would be dismissed under
Rule 4(m).
AF Holdings did not file a proof of service. However, on September 28, 2012, it filed
the present motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (SAC), to allege two
claims of copyright infringement (reproduction and distribution) and a claim of contributory
infringement against Hatfield (who was no longer in the case as of the date of the order
dismissing the sole claim asserted against him in the FAC).
The proposed SAC did not name a Doe defendant. However, with the exception of
having no Doe defendant and no cause of action for negligence, it was almost entirely
identical to the FAC. The primary difference was that every incidence of Doe defendant in
the FAC had been replaced by defendant or defendant Hatfield in the proposed SAC.
At the November 7, 2012 hearing, the court advised counsel for AF Holdings that he
would have to persuade the court that he had discovered additional evidence, based on the
same identification of a defendant that he had known about for more than a year. The
court gave counsel one week to submit a revised proposed SAC that demonstrated
diligence and that supported the alleged new facts asserted by counsel. The court also
Page 62
#:487
Supp. E.R. 204
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
indicated that it would prefer to resolve the case on the merits, rather than simply
dismissing it for failure to serve, but that its concern was with lack of diligence on the part of
AF Holdings, and whether the alleged new facts were sufficient to state a claim.
On November 14, 2012, AF Holdings filed a revised proposed SAC. The revised
SAC is identical to the prior proposed SAC, except that it includes a section headed
Plaintiffs Further Investigation of Defendant. In this section, AF Holdings alleges that it
initiated an online Internet investigation on September 8, 2012, which
determined [d]efendants general online presence, from which AF Holdings concluded
that Hatfield had a large Internet presence and that that presence demonstrated
[d]efendants knowledge of computers and the Internet, Revised Proposed SAC 30;
located a Facebook page purportedly attributed to a J osh Hatfield
living in the Bay Area fitting the age range of [d]efendant, which stated that the individual
likes movies pretty much any movie, id. 31;
located a MySpace page purportedly attributed to a J osh Hatfield
living in the Bay Area fitting the age range of [d]efendant, stating that the individual goes
by the moniker Mistah HAT and has pictures of his various activities including, but not
limited to, playing video games, id. 32;
conducted a search on September 8, 2012 relating to Hatfields
address (assertedly an 8-unit apartment building on Lenox Ave. in Oakland), and
discovered a recent listing by a real estate agent for an apartment in that building that
was advertised as being available on 3/1/12, id. 33 (including lengthy quotation from
rental ad);
called the agent who had listed the rental and left a message, but
never received a call back, id. 34;
was able to obtain no information about Hatfields neighbors or
whether he in fact had any neighbors, id. 34;
conducted more research on September 8, 2012 regarding the
buildings other potential residents, which indicated that while a residential building, it had
Page 63
#:488
Supp. E.R. 205
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
a few tenants who were running their businesses out of their units, id. 35;
performed a skip trace on Hatfield on October 9, 2012, and
discovered that he was 33 years old, was in fact living at the Lenox Ave. address, was
living with a 30-year old female with a different last name, and that [t]here was no
indication that the two were married, id. 36-37;
discovered on or around the same time that Hatfield has a criminal
record, based on offenses that occurred in Oregon in 1999 and 2001, although [t]he actual
violation charged [is] unclear, id. 38;
found no evidence that Hatfield has a wireless Internet network or
that if such wireless Internet connection existed, that such network was unsecured (i.e.,
without password protection), id. 39;
searched the courts docket in this case and found no declaration
under oath from Hatfield stating that he had not infringed on AF Holdings work, id. 40.
Based on the above, AF Holdings asserts that it had a good faith basis to name
J osh Hatfield as the infringing [d]efendant in this case, in view of the fact that Hatfield was
the subscriber assigned to the IP number 67.161.66.97 by his ISP in April 2011, and was
the only person with direct access to the account during this period, and also considering
that any then unknown or unconfirmed information would bear out through the discovery
process. Id. 41.
DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 requires that a plaintiff obtain either consent of
the defendant or leave of court to amend its complaint once the defendant has answered,
but leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); see also,
e.g., Chodos v. West Pub. Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (leave to amend
granted with extreme liberality). The Ninth Circuit has held that discovery of new facts
after a complaint was filed may warrant granting leave to amend. Wittmayer v. United
States, 118 F.2d 808, 809 (9th Cir. 1941).
Page 64
#:489
Supp. E.R. 206
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
The effect of this policy of granting motions to amend with extreme liberality is that
the moving party need only a reason why amendment is required, and the burden then
shifts to the opposing party to convince the court that justice requires denial. See, e.g.,
DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). Leave to amend is
thus ordinarily granted unless the amendment is futile, would cause undue prejudice to the
defendants, or is sought by plaintiffs in bad faith or with a dilatory motive. Foman v. Davis,
371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Smith v. Pacific Properties and Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101
(9th Cir. 2004). In addition, amendments seeking to add claims are to be granted more
freely than amendments adding parties. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Nevada Power Co., 950
F.2d 1429, 1432 (9th Cir. 1991).
B. Plaintiffs Motion
AF Holdings asserts that, after further investigation since filing its [FAC], it has a
reasonable basis to name and serve [d]efendant Hatfield as the direct and contributory
infringer in this case. Specifically, AF Holdings claims that since filing the FAC, it has
discovered new information about [Hatfields] interactions on the computer and living
situation (among other things), which information it asserts allows it to have a good faith
basis to name J osh Hatfield as the infringing [d]efendant in this case.
AF Holdings contends that the motion is timely, and that in order to respond to the
courts order requiring filing of a proof of service showing service on the Doe defendant, it
must first must file an amended complaint to name the infringer.
AF Holdings argues that there is no prejudice to Hatfield, because as of this date the
court has not held a case management conference, and has set no deadline for requesting
leave to amend the pleadings. AF Holdings also asserts that it is acting in good faith in
seeking to amend the complaint.
In opposition, Hatfield argues that the case should be dismissed pursuant to Rule
41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the courts order to file a proof of
service on the Doe defendant; and second, that leave to amend should be denied. At the
hearing, the court denied the motion to dismiss, and also denied a motion filed by AF
Page 65
#:490
Supp. E.R. 207
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Holdings to strike the opposition.
With regard to the motion for leave to amend, Hatfield argues that AF Holdings bad
faith is evident. He asserts that AF Holdings has strung him along for months on the
premise that it was unaware of the identity of the infringer, and was unable to determine the
identity without formal discovery and indeed, filed two complaints based on this position.
In addition, Hatfield notes that AF Holdings filed an opposition to the prior motion to dismiss
the FAC, in which it explicitly stated that Hatfield was concededly ignorant regarding the
alleged infringement.
Nevertheless, Hatfield asserts, on September 4, 2012, only a few hours after the
court issued the order dismissing the negligence cause of action, counsel for AF Holdings
sent an email threatening to sue him as the infringer unless he agreed to pay a particular
settlement demand. Given AF Holdings prior position that Hatfield had no knowledge of
the alleged infringement, and its failure to sue him for copyright infringement, Hatfield
contends that this email, sent mere hours after the court dismissed the negligence claim,
constituted an improper threat and clearly shows AF Holdings bad faith.
In a somewhat related argument, Hatfield asserts that AF Holdings unduly delayed
in seeking leave to amend. Hatfield contends that AF Holdings knew or should have known
of the facts and theories raised by the proposed amendments when it filed the prior
versions of the complaint, but that in any event, AF Holdings has known of his identity for
more than a year, and nonetheless failed to seek leave to amend to substitute him for the
Doe defendant.
Since there has been no discovery relevant to this case since AF Holdings was
granted expedited discovery to learn the identities of the owners of the implicated IP
addresses in AF Holdings v. Does 1-135, and since AF Holdings previously indicated that
Hatfield was a concededly ignorant account holder and does not explain what this new
information is that it claims supports the proposed amendment, Hatfield argues that there
is no reason AF Holdings could not have conducted its investigation earlier before wasting
the time and resources of this court.
Page 66
#:491
Supp. E.R. 208
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Hatfield argues in addition that AF Holdings has made no real effort to justify its own
delay in this matter, and also has not established that Hatfield will not be prejudiced if the
motion is granted. Hatfield contends that unlike the negligence claim, much of the
evidence for the copyright claim would consist of fleeting electronic evidence which may
be lost due to the passage of time, and that allowing AF Holdings to proceed with this claim
would thus be prejudicial.
Finally, Hatfield argues that leave to amend would be futile, as AF Holdings is barred
by principles of equitable and judicial estoppel from alleging that Hatfield is the infringer of
its copyrighted works.
As noted above, in determining whether to grant leave to amend, the court must
consider whether the proposed amendment is futile, whether it would cause undue
prejudice to the defendant, and whether it is sought by plaintiff in bad faith or with a dilatory
motive. These factors do not carry equal weight, as delay, by itself, may be insufficient to
justify denial of a motion for leave to amend, and it is the consideration of prejudice to the
opposing party that carries the greatest weight. Eminence Capital LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,
316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Bowles v. Read, 198 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir.
1999). On the other hand, egregious, unexplained delay alone may in certain
circumstances provide a sufficient basis for denying leave to amend. See
AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 953 (9th Cir. 2006).
With regard to futility, the court is not persuaded by Hatfields argument that the
proposed amendment would be futile based on equitable estoppel and judicial estoppel.
Both equitable estoppel and judicial estoppel are affirmative defenses. See, e.g.,
Powertech Tech. Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 872 F.Supp. 2d 924, 934-35 (2012) (equitable
estoppel); Coble v. DeRosia, 823 F.Supp. 2d 1048, 1050 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (judicial
estoppel). For that reason, assuming the court were to grant leave to amend, any such
argument would be more appropriately raised in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
As for Hatfields argument that he will be prejudiced because of the fleeting nature
of electronic evidence, AF Holdings asserts in its reply that because Hatfield was previously
Page 67
#:492
Supp. E.R. 209
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
named as a defendant in the negligence claim, he had an obligation to preserve evidence
that could be used in this case. However, the negligence claim was dismissed on
September 4, 2012, and Hatfield had no continuing duty to preserve evidence after that
date.
After AF Holdings filed the present action naming the Doe defendant and Hatfield,
but did not sue Hatfield for infringement and even stated that it was not its intention to sue
him for infringement, Hatfield had no reason to know, until AF Holdings filed the present
motion for leave to amend, that he was in danger of being sued for copyright infringement.
This is arguably prejudicial, although it may not be sufficient to qualify as substantial
prejudice in order to justify denial of leave to amend. See Monongo Band of Mission
Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990).
The court does find, however, that AF Holdings delayed unduly in seeking leave to
amend, and that its conduct is at least suggestive of bad faith. As noted above, the
complaint in this action was filed on April 24, 2012. Thus, when AF Holdings filed its
motion for leave to amend the complaint to add Hatfield as a defendant and to assert new
claims against him or to substitute Hatfield in place of the Doe defendant the 120-day
limit for service had already passed more than a month previously. Even though the
complaint in this case was filed only five months before the motion for leave to amend was
filed, there is no dispute that AF Holdings has had the identifying information for Hatfield
since it obtained the information in the prior AF Holdings v. Does 1-135 case in October
2011.
While the prior case was dismissed without prejudice, and AF Holdings was thus
within its rights to file another suit naming a Doe defendant, AF Holdings did not file a
complaint against Hatfield for infringement. Indeed, in the FAC in the present case, filed on
J une 14, 2012, AF Holdings asserted that it did not know if the Doe defendant was the
same individual as Hatfield; and in its J uly 16, 2012 opposition to Hatfields motion to
dismiss the FAC, AF Holdings stated unequivocally that it was not accusing Hatfield of
infringement, and that Hatfield was a concededly ignorant but alleged careless defendant.
Page 68
#:493
Supp. E.R. 210
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
It was only after the court dismissed the negligence claim (with the result that no claim
remained against Hatfield) that AF Holdings decided that it would sue Hatfield for
infringement (unless Hatfield offered a sum of money to settle the case).
In addition, the court notes that the investigation AF Holdings claims to have
conducted apparently commenced on September 8, 2012 which was four days after the
date the court dismissed the negligence claim and AF Holdings threatened to sue Hatfield
as the infringer.
The court finds further that the new allegations in the revised proposed SAC are
vague and speculative, and do not demonstrate diligence or add any substance to the
claims. The allegation that AF Holdings discovered that Hatfield has a large Internet
presence is conclusory and appears to be based on pure speculation about social media
accounts that may or may not be registered to Hatfield. The lengthy quotation from the
rental ad is irrelevant to the claims asserted in the complaint; at most, it simply supports AF
Holdings claim that Hatfield lives in an 8-unit building. In addition, the alleged research
about Hatfields neighbors is contradicted by the alleged research regarding the other
residents of the building, as AF Holdings claims to have discovered no information about
Hatfields neighbors, and to have simultaneously learned that a few [unidentified] tenants
in Hatfields building were/are running businesses out of their apartments. In any event,
this research sheds no light on the alleged infringement.
Similarly, the allegation that Hatfield is sharing the apartment with someone of the
opposite sex, and that there is no indication that the two are married is meaningless, as is
the allegation that AF Holdings found no evidence that Hatfield has a wireless connection.
Finally, the allegation that Hatfield has a criminal record is vague as to the offenses
charged or any other details.
In short, the revised proposed SAC alleges no facts showing that Hatfield infringed
AF Holdings copyrighted material, apart from the facts that were previously alleged and
that have been known to AF Holdings for more than a year in particular, that the IP
connection through which the material was downloaded is registered to Hatfield.
Page 69
#:494
Supp. E.R. 211
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
o
u
r
t
F
o
r

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

o
f

C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, AF Holdings motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint is DENIED. In addition, for the reasons stated at the hearing, AF
Holdings motion to strike Hatfields opposition to the motion is DENIED, as is Hatfields
request that the case be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: J anuary 7, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J . HAMILTON
United States District J udge
Page 70
#:495
Supp. E.R. 212

EXHIBIT I
I
EXHIBIT I
Page 71
#:496
Supp. E.R. 213
Page 72
#:497
Supp. E.R. 214
Page 73
#:498
Supp. E.R. 215

EXHIBIT J
J
EXHIBIT J
Page 74
#:499
Supp. E.R. 216
Page 75
#:500
Supp. E.R. 217
Page 76
#:501
Supp. E.R. 218
Page 77
#:502
Supp. E.R. 219
Page 78
#:503
Supp. E.R. 220
Page 79
#:504
Supp. E.R. 221
Page 80
#:505
Supp. E.R. 222
Page 81
#:506
Supp. E.R. 223
Page 82
#:507
Supp. E.R. 224
Page 83
#:508
Supp. E.R. 225
Page 84
#:509
Supp. E.R. 226
Page 85
#:510
Supp. E.R. 227
Page 86
#:511
Supp. E.R. 228
Page 87
#:512
Supp. E.R. 229
Page 88
#:513
Supp. E.R. 230
Page 89
#:514
Supp. E.R. 231
Page 90
#:515
Supp. E.R. 232
Page 91
#:516
Supp. E.R. 233
Page 92
#:517
Supp. E.R. 234
Page 93
#:518
Supp. E.R. 235
Page 94
#:519
Supp. E.R. 236
Page 95
#:520
Supp. E.R. 237
Page 96
#:521
Supp. E.R. 238
Page 97
#:522
Supp. E.R. 239
Page 98
#:523
Supp. E.R. 240
Page 99
#:524
Supp. E.R. 241

EXHIBIT K
K
EXHIBIT K
Page 100
#:525
Supp. E.R. 242
Page 101
#:526
Supp. E.R. 243
Page 102
#:527
Supp. E.R. 244
Page 103
#:528
Supp. E.R. 245
Page 104
#:529
Supp. E.R. 246
Page 105
#:530
Supp. E.R. 247
Page 106
#:531
Supp. E.R. 248
Page 107
#:532
Supp. E.R. 249

EXHIBIT L
L
EXHIBIT L
Page 108
#:533
Supp. E.R. 250
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Steele Hansmeier PLLC.
415-325-5900

Attorney for Petitioner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter Of a Petition By )
)
INGENUITY13 LLC, ) No.
)
) Judge:
)
) VERIFIED PETITION TO
) PERPETUATE TESTIMONY
)
____________________________________)

1. Petitioner Ingenuity13 LLC by and through its undersigned attorney, hereby
petitions this Court for an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 authorizing the
issuance of subpoenas duces tecum to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) listed on Exhibit A to
this petition.
2. Petitioner is limited liability company organized and existing under the laws
of the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis. Petitioner produces adult entertainment content and this
content is being unlawfully reproduced and distributed over the Internet via the BitTorrent file
transfer protocol. An individual or individuals wrongfully reproduced and distributed Petitioners
copyrighted works via the BitTorrent protocol in violation of Petitioners exclusive rights under
United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101, et seq. Petitioner anticipates bringing a civil action
against the person or persons engaging in such unlawful activity. This action would be cognizable in
a United States court as United States courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright actions.
Without knowing the identity or identities of the anonymous infringers, Petitioner has no means to
Case 2:11-mc-00084-JAM-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/28/11 Page 1 of 8
Page 109
#:534
Supp. E.R. 251
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
VERIFIED PETION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY

name and serve the individual or individuals in an action with summons and complaint. The purpose
of this petition is to ascertain these identity or identities.
3. Petitioner seeks the name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and
Media Control Access number of each account holder associated with the Internet Protocol (IP)
addresses listed on Exhibit B to this petition. Each of the IP addresses was identified by Petitioners
agents as being associated with infringing activity on the corresponding dates and times listed on
Exhibit B. The reasons to perpetuate the testimony are multiple. First, without this information
Petitioner has no means to name and serve a complaint on the infringing parties. Second, on
information and belief, this information is destroyed in the regular course of business and will be
unavailable to Petitioner after it is destroyed. An example of an ISPs data retention policy is shown
as Exhibit C. Finally, under the Cable Communications Policy Act, 47 U.S.C. 551(c)(2)(B), a court
order is necessary to discover an account holders identity.
4. The names and addresses of the person or persons whom Petitioner expects to
be adverse parties are unknown to Petitioner. The individual or individuals responsible for infringing
Petitioners works are known to Petitioner only by an IP addressa number that is assigned to
devices, such as computers, that are connected to the Internet. Petitioner used geolocation to trace
the IP addresses of the expected adverse party or parties to a point of origin within the State of
California.
5. The name and address of each responding party is set forth on Exhibit A to
this petition. Petitioner is seeking the name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and Media
Control Access number of each account holder associated with the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses
listed on Exhibit B to this petition.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
6. Petitioner is the owner of the copyright for the motion picture set forth in
Exhibit D to this petition.
7. As set forth below, Petitioner has actionable claims for direct and contributory
copyright infringement and a claim for civil conspiracy against the individual or individuals who
Page 110
#:535
Supp. E.R. 252
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

engaged in infringing activities via the IP addresses set forth on Exhibit B hereto based on the
parties use of the BitTorrent protocol to illegally reproduce and distribute Petitioners work(s).
A. The Unknown Infringers used BitTorrent to Infringe Petitioners Copyrights
8. BitTorrent is a modern file sharing method (protocol) used for distributing
data via the Internet. BitTorrent protocol is a decentralized method of distributing data. Instead of
relying on a central server to distribute data directly to individual users, the BitTorrent protocol
allows individual users to distribute data among themselves by exchanging pieces of the file with
each other to eventually obtain a whole copy of the file. When using the BitTorrent protocol, every
user simultaneously receives information from and transfers information to one another.
9. The BitTorrent protocol is an extremely popular method for transferring data.
A group of individuals transferring data among one another (the swarm) will commonly include
peers from many, if not every, state in the United States and several countries around the world. And
every peer in the swarm participates in distributing the file to dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of
other peers.
10. The BitTorrent protocol is also an extremely popular method for unlawfully
copying, reproducing, and distributing files in violation of the copyright laws of the United States. A
broad range of copyrighted albums, audiovisual files, photographs, software, and other forms of
media are available for illegal reproduction and distribution via the BitTorrent protocol.
11. Efforts at combating BitTorrent-based copyright infringement have been
stymied by BitTorrents decentralized nature. Because there are no central servers to enjoin from
unlawfully distributing copyrighted content, there is no primary target on which to focus anti-piracy
efforts. Indeed, the same decentralization that makes the BitTorrent protocol an extremely robust and
efficient means of transferring enormous quantities of data also acts to insulate it from anti-piracy
measures.
12. The infringing parties in this action were all observed using the BitTorrent
protocol to unlawfully reproduce and distribute Plaintiffs copyrighted work by exchanging pieces
with one another either directly or via a chain of data distribution.
Page 111
#:536
Supp. E.R. 253
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

B. Each infringer installed a BitTorrent Client on his or her computer
13. The individual or individuals associated with the infringing activity installed a
BitTorrent Client onto his or her computer(s). Normal commercial computers do not come pre-
loaded with BitTorrent software. Each infringer must have separately installed on their respective
computers special software that allows peer-to-peer sharing of files by way of the Internet. The
infringers use software known as BitTorrent clients. Among the most popular BitTorrent clients are
Vuze (formerly Azureus), Torrent, Transmission and BitTorrent 7, although many others are used
as well.
14. Once installed on a computer, the BitTorrent Client serves as the users
interface during the process of uploading and downloading data using the BitTorrent protocol.
C. The Initial Seed, Torrent and Tracker
15. A BitTorrent user who wants to upload a new file, known as an Initial
Seeder, starts by creating a torrent descriptor file using the client he or she installed onto his or
her computer. The Client takes the target computer file, the initial seed, in this case, one of the
copyrighted Works, and divides it into identically sized groups of bits known as pieces. The Client
then gives each one of the computer files pieces, in this case, pieces of one of the copyrighted
works, a random and unique alphanumeric identifier known as a hash and records these hash
identifiers in the torrent file.
16. When another peer later receives a particular piece, the hash identifier for that
piece is compared to the hash identifier recorded in the torrent file for that piece to test whether the
piece is free of errors. In this way, the hash identifier works like an electronic fingerprint to identify
the source and origin of the piece and ensure that the piece is authentic and uncorrupted.
17. Torrents files also have an announce section, which specifies the Uniform
Resource Locator (URL) of a tracker and an info section, containing (suggested) names for
the files, their lengths, the piece length used, and the hash identifier for each piece, all of which are
used by the Client on peer computers to verify the integrity of the data they receive. The tracker is
a computer or set of computers that a torrent file specifies and to which the torrent file provides
Page 112
#:537
Supp. E.R. 254
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5

peers with the URL address(es). The tracker computer or computers direct a peer users computer to
another peer users computer that have particular pieces of the file, in this case, one of the copyright
Works on them, and facilitates the exchange of data among the computers. Depending on the
BitTorrent Client, a tracker can either be a dedicated computer (centralized tracking) or each peer
can act as a tracker (decentralized tracking).
D. Torrent Sites
18. Torrent Sites are websites that index torrent files that are currently being
made available for copying and distribution by the people using the BitTorrent protocol. There are
numerous torrent websites, such as www.torrentz.eu or thepiratebay.org.
19. Upon information and belief, each infringer went to a torrent site to upload
and download one of the Petitioners copyrighted Works.
E. Uploading and Downloading a Work Through a BitTorrent Swarm
20. Once the initial seeder has created a torrent and uploaded it onto one or more
torrent sites, then other peers begin to download and upload the computer file to which the torrent is
linked (here, one of the copyright Works) using the BitTorrent Client that the peers installed on their
computers.
21. The BitTorrent protocol causes the initial seeds computer to send different
pieces of the computer file, here, one of the copyrighted Works, to the peers who are seeking to
download the computer file. Once a peer receives a piece of the computer file, it starts transmitting
that piece to other peers. In this way, all of the peers and seeders are working together in what is
called a swarm.
22. Here, each infringing peer member participated in a swarm through digital
handshakes, the passing along of computer instructions, uploading and downloading, and by other
types of transmissions.
23. In this way, and by way of example only, one initial seeder can create a
torrent that breaks a movie up into hundreds of piece saved in the form of a computer file, like the
Works here, upload the torrent file onto a torrent site, and deliver a different piece of the computer
Page 113
#:538
Supp. E.R. 255
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6

file to each of the peers. The receiving peers then automatically begin delivering the piece they just
received to the other peers in the same swarm.
24. Once a peer, here an infringer, has downloaded the full file, the BitTorrent
Client reassembles the piece and the peer is able to view the video. Also, once a peer has
downloaded a full file, that peer becomes known as an additional seed because it continues to
distribute the torrent file which, in this case, was one of the copyrighted Works.
F. Petitioners Computer Investigators Identified Each Infringers IP Address as an
Infringer of Petitioners Copyright Works

25. Petitioner retained 6881 Forensics, LLC (6881) to identify the IP addresses
used by the individual or individuals that were misusing the BitTorrent protocol to unlawfully
distribute Petitioners copyrighted Work.
26. 6881 used forensic software, BitTorrent Auditor to audit a swarm for the
presence of infringing transactions.
27. 6881 extracted the resulting data gathered from the investigation, reviewed the
evidence logs, and isolated the transactions and the IP addresses associated with the copyrighted
work listed on Exhibit D hereto.
28. The IP addresses and hit dates contained on Exhibits B accurately reflects
what is contained in the evidence logs and show that:
(A) Each infringer copied a piece of one of Petitioners copyrighted work;
and
(B) Each infringer was part of a BitTorrent swarm.
29. 6881s technician analyzed each BitTorrent piece distributed by the IP
addresses listed on Exhibit B and verified that each piece consisted of part of the copyrighted work.
30. In order for petitioner to be able to take appropriate action to protect its
copyrighted work under 17 U.S.C. 101, et seq, petitioner must be authorized issuance of
subpoenas duces tecum to the ISPs listed on Exhibit A to this petition.
31. No prior application has been made for the relief sought herein.
Page 114
#:539
Supp. E.R. 256
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7

WHEREFORE, petitioner requests that an order be made and entered directing that petitioner
may compel the production of documents to the extent of determining the name, current (and
permanent) addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Media Access Control addresses of
the person or persons whose IP addresses are listed in Exhibit B from the ISPs listed on Exhibit A
for the purposes of determining the true identity of unknown infringers. To further support its
Petition, Petitioner attaches as Exhibit F its Memorandum of Law in Support of Petitioners Verified
Petition to Perpetuate Testimony.

Respectfully Submitted,
Ingenuity13 LLC,
DATED: October 28, 2011
By: /s/ Brett L. Gibbs, Esq.
415-325-5900
Attorney for Plaintiff

Page 115
#:540
Supp. E.R. 257
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

8

NOTARIZED VERIFICATION

foregoing information contained in this Verified Petition is, to the best of my knowledge, true and
correct.

DATED: October 28, 2011 _____/S/_Alan Cooper___________
Alan Cooper, Manager of Ingenuity 13 LLC

I, Brett L. Gibbs, Esq., hereby confirm per Eastern District of California Local Rule 131(f)
that counsel for Plaintiff has a signed original notarized version of the above Verified Petition.

DATED: October 28, 2011
415-325-5900

Page 116
#:541
Supp. E.R. 258

EXHIBIT M
M
EXHIBIT M
Page 117
#:542
Supp. E.R. 259
Activity in Case 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW Ingenuity13 LLC v. John Doe
Notice of Related Case(s)
Morgan Pietz <morganpietz@gmail.com> Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:12 PM
Brett,
I called Prenda's main number earlier today and asked for you. After being put on hold, I was transferred to
your extension. The line rang a few times, then it sounded like the line was picked up, but then the line
immediately went dead, so I did not have an opportunity to leave you a voicemail.
Please give me a call -- I would like to follow up with you regarding not only the issues below, but also some
administrative matters relating to your cases in the Northern District of California.
Best regards,
Morgan
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Morgan Pietz <morganpietz@gmail.com> wrote:
Brett,
For the record, I didnt yell or even raise my voice much less swear at you. I assume you hung up because
you are trying to dodge these troubling question. Please quit with the theatrics.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 7, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Brett Gibbs <blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com> wrote:
Mr. Morgan:
Mr. Morgan, I did not hang up on you. I take offense to your purposefully twisted versions of things. At
the end of our conversation, I said that "it was nice speaking with, I had other things to do and good bye"
[paraphrasing]. That is not "hanging up" on someone, that is called ending a phone conversation (with
respect, I might add). Whether you heard my saying this over your yelling at me is not my fault. You
were swearing at me, and being extremely hostile to me on phone, and I frankly had other things of
import to accomplish on my schedule -- the conversation was ten minutes long and the abuse I was
subjected to was uncalled for. A piece of advice: this is not how you "meet and confer" on an issue. It
simply was not professional.
The issue is entirely irrelevant to the instant matter. I cannot stress this any further -- it is irrelevant. You
are basing relevancy on a letter filed in Minnesota that was ignored by that court. Even that court in
Minnesota recognized the letter for what it truly was -- a conspiracy theory letter with no factual basis. I
don't know how else to explain this to you. As you understand, it is hard (if not impossible) to prove a
negative -- especially to an individual like yourself that has no trust in things aside from his version of
things. Your use of the word "assume" is very apt in this situation.
1 of 9 12/13/12 1:59 PM
Page 118
#:543
Supp. E.R. 260
As I told you over the phone, when you asked "Is there another Alan Cooper?", I said, "I am sure there
are hundreds of Alan Coopers in this world." If your question had been framed more pointedly, and not
so vague, maybe I could have provided you with a specific answer.
I don't wish to discuss this matter further with you because of the verbal abuse I experienced in our first
phone call. You know, as well as I, that there is a certain courtesy-code displayed between even
opposing attorneys -- your yelling and use of bad language directed towards me violates those rules. I
would remind you of the following:
As officers of the court with responsibilities to the
administration of justice, attorneys have an obligation to be
professional with clients, other parties and counsel, the
courts and the public. This obligation includes civility,
professional integrity, personal dignity, candor, diligence,
respect, courtesy, and cooperation, all of which are essential
to the fair administration of justice and conflict resolution.
[California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism]
Please be ever mindful of this if we speak in the future.
Regards,
Brett Gibbs
Brett,
This is to confirm a few things, in writing, about our phone call of earlier today.
Prior to hanging up on me, you confirmed that you would not be answering either of my questions
below about (1) your client contact at Ingenuity 13 (not AF holdings, which I clarified today) or (2) a
copy of Alan' Coopers verification in the Ingenuity 13 case in E.D. Cal., which you purported to keep a
copy of, under penalty of perjury. You stated that you viewed these issues as irrelevant to the instant
case, and would not answer them absent a more formal demand. I explained that I disagreed,
because as far as I am concerned, the Alan Cooper issue goes straight to the heart of whether your
client has proper standing, among other, more troubling issues.
Also, to repeat my additional request: if any facts in the Alan Cooper letter filed in Minnesota are
incorrect, then please let me know which fact and why it is incorrect. However, since you have so far
refused to provide any specifics, I can only continue to assume that everything in that letter is correct.
I also note that you again refused to say whether there is another Alan Cooper (other than the
gentleman in Minnesota who filed the letter through counsel) who is/was the principal of AF Holdings
of Ingenuity 13.
Please contact me should you change your mind and decide that you do wish to discuss this matter
further.
Best regards,
Morgan
2 of 9 12/13/12 1:59 PM
Page 119
#:544
Supp. E.R. 261
Re-forward.
From: Morgan E. Pietz <mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com>
Subject: Re: Activity in Case 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW Ingenuity13 LLC v. John Doe Notice of
Related Case(s)
Brett,
If I am supposedly twisting your words (although you do not say how, or clarify whether you are now
changing your mind), how about a couple of straight answers then, so nothing gets lost in
translation:
(1) Will you tell me the name of your supposed client contact at AF Holdings with whom you
supposedly communicated with last week? I do not want any details of the conversation, just a
name.
(2) Will you produce the original signature to the verification page, identified below, that supposedly
contains "Alan Cooper's" handwritten signature?
And if the answer to these questions is still no, which is what you said earlier today, please explain
why.
Best regards,
Morgan
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Brett Gibbs <blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com> wrote:
Mr. Pietz:
Assume whatever you would like to assume -- that seems to be what you have done throughout
my cases with you.
As for the former, you have grossly misstated the contents of the "very brief conversation from
just prior to the telephonic conference." I think this twisting of my words is intentional -- and I do
not like playing childish and manipulative games. So, I will not be drawn into this baseless banter,
wasting everyone's time and money.
If want to have an honest adult conversation, I will participate. If you want to have a meet and
confer on these issues, I will be available to do that next week. Let me know when you are
available.
Regards,
3 of 9 12/13/12 1:59 PM
Page 120
#:545
Supp. E.R. 262
Brett Gibbs
Brett,
I wanted to follow up on our very brief conversation from just prior to the telephonic conference
with Judge Walsh today regarding the two issues raised in my email below.
This email is to confirm that before Magistrate Judge Walsh joined us on the line, you stated
that you would not be providing me with either the name of your client contact, or a copy of the
original signature version of Alan Cooper's verification in the E.D. Call Petition matter, which
you stated, under penalty of perjury, that you have a copy of in your possession.
In an effort to begin a meet and confer dialogue on the matter, can you please elaborate on the
reason(s) that you are refusing to produce either of these things?
Frankly, I think your refusal to answer the simple question of whether there is another Alan
Cooper (i.e., not Mr. Steele's former caretaker in Minnesota) who is the principal of AF Holdings
and Ingenuity 13 speaks volumes. Until you provide some kind of answer that makes sense,
under penalty of perjury, I am going to assume the worst case scenario here and litigate
accordingly.
If you would like to discuss any of this, please feel free to give me a call.
Best regards,
Morgan
Brett,
Last week you told me that you lacked authority to grant me an extension request and would
have to "check with [your] client" on whether you could grant a modest extension. Then, a
few days later, you purported that you had answer on this issue (although you never did
bother to tell me what your client's response was).
In light of all of the serious questions raised in the Notice of Related Cases (filing receipt
below) regarding who really owns AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13, I'd like you please clarify
something for me: when you said you had to talk to your client last week, with whom did you
speak?
Also, with reference to Exhibit E (a copy of your verified petition in an ED Cal Ingenuty 13
case) to Appendix 1 (of the Notice of Related Cases), please consider this my first, informal
request for a copy of the original signature of Alan Cooper. The verification page, which
recites that it was "Notarized" on the heading, states under Alan Cooper's "/s/" signature that:
"I, Brett L. Gibbs, Esq., hereby confirm per Eastern District of California Local Rule
131(f) that counsel for Plaintiff has a signed original notarized version of the above
Verified Petition."
4 of 9 12/13/12 1:59 PM
Page 121
#:546
Supp. E.R. 263
Please produce a copy of that original signature for my inspection.
Feel free to give me a call if you would like to discuss any of this prior to our 3:00 call with
Magistrate Walsh today.
Best regards,
Morgan
Subject: Activity in Case 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW Ingenuity13 LLC v. John Doe Notice of
Related Case(s)
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO
NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States
policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to
receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is
required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To
avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.
However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do
not apply.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
The following transaction was entered by Pietz, Morgan on 12/3/2012 at 12:41 PM PST and
filed on 12/3/2012
Case Number: 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW
Filer: John Doe
Document Number: 15
Docket Text:
NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Putative John Doe John Doe.
Related Case(s): 2:12-cv-05709-ODW-JC; 2:12-cv-06635-GHK-RZ;
2:12-cv-06660-GAF-AGR; 2:12-cv-07385-DSF-FFM; 2:12-cv-07386-
DMG-JEM; 2:12-cv-08322-DMG-PJW; 2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW
(Attachments: # (1) Appendix 1 - Letter Filed by Counsel for Alan
Cooper in District of Minnesota, # (2) Appendix 2 - Transcript of
Prenda Hearing in Middle District of Florida, # (3) Appendix 3 - Table
of Related Ingenuity 13 and AF Holdings Cases in Central District of
California)(Pietz, Morgan)
5 of 9 12/13/12 1:59 PM
Page 122
#:547
Supp. E.R. 264
2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Brett Langdon Gibbs &nbsp &nbsp blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com, docket@wefightpiracy.com
Morgan E Pietz &nbsp &nbsp mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com, lrudolph@pietzlawfirm.com
2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW Notice has been delivered by First Class U. S. Mail or by
other means BY THE FILER to :
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document
Original filename:_Notice of Related Cases v3.pdf
] [8fa7b4078f2edcb17f48906046f07118f65a17d9fd4cc4bb72a832a819fbb9d764c
53cad2cb7709c7326429417cf1da8198fa258763750d699bdcfb8302432f5]]
Document description:Appendix 1 - Letter Filed by Counsel for Alan Cooper in District of
Minnesota
Original filename:1 - Alan Cooper - ECF Letter.pdf
] [b67f59fd3ea3af034988085bb0050c0b7bec0b51f4a2a1b9e1a86d884bee70902f8
b185448643eaaf0c168ea094d9bb795cfe18ea0a76694db229c8d4f0ed93b]]
Document description:Appendix 2 - Transcript of Prenda Hearing in Middle District of
Florida
Original filename:2 - Nguyen Hearing Transcript - Tampa.pdf
] [800d30a30660cee9e1e1cd9e2085b2203c5f1560dc35331306948d42d5db2bacbb1
4c9c0de2ba4111a44f943ff62244c47022c110fb78c02cb7bc79c5b6db298]]
Document description:Appendix 3 - Table of Related Ingenuity 13 and AF Holdings Cases
in Central District of California
Original filename:3 - Table of Cases.pdf
] [5ae2ecc869dce997f693775d8ff426a8a3c48b190e25e753128678117c874da161b
d2e4141ae7449e578ee22e9cd67e8a02439f2880ed9596a082b3653152487]]
--
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301
6 of 9 12/13/12 1:59 PM
Page 123
#:548
Supp. E.R. 265
--
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301
--
415-325-5900
NOTICE: THIS EMAIL IS INTENDED TO BE PART OF A SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATION AND IS
NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER FRE RULE 408.
NOTICE:
This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, found at 18 U.S.C. 2510 et. seq.
and is intended to remain confidential and is subject to applicable attorney/client and/or work product
privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in
error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and all attachments. Do
not deliver, distribute or copy this message and/or any attachments and if you are not the intended recipient,
do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information contained in this
communication or any attachments.
Circular 230 Disclosure: Pursuant to recently-enacted U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we are now
required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this
communication, including attachments and enclosures, is not intended or written to be used, and may not be
used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
--
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
7 of 9 12/13/12 1:59 PM
Page 124
#:549
Supp. E.R. 266
Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301
--
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301
--
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301
--
415-325-5900
NOTICE:
intended to remain confidential and is subject to applicable attorney/client and/or work product privileges. If you are
not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately
alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and all attachments. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this
message and/or any attachments and if you are not the intended recipient, do not disclose the contents or take any
action in reliance upon the information contained in this communication or any attachments.
Circular 230 Disclosure: Pursuant to recently-enacted U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we are now required to
8 of 9 12/13/12 1:59 PM
Page 125
#:550
Supp. E.R. 267
advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication, including
attachments and enclosures, is not intended or written to be used, and may not be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party
any tax-related matters addressed herein.
--

9 of 9 12/13/12 1:59 PM
Page 126
#:551
Supp. E.R. 268

EXHIBIT N
N
EXHIBIT N
Page 127
#:552
Supp. E.R. 269
UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT
MI DDLE DI STRI CT OF FLORI DA
TAMPA DI VI SI ON
SUNLUST PI CTURES, LLC. , CASE NO: 8: 12- CV- 1685- T- 35MAP
Pl ai nt i f f ,
VS. Tampa, Fl or i da
10: 00 a. m.
TUAN NGUYEN, November 27, 2011
Def endant .
________________________________/
TRANSCRI PT OF MOTI ON HEARI NG
BEFORE THE HONORABLE MARY S. SCRI VEN
UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE
APPEARANCES:
Counsel f or Pl ai nt i f f : J ONATHAN TORRES, ESQUI RE
( Tel ephoni cal l y) 1417 N. Semor an Boul evar d
Sui t e 205
Or l ando, FL 32807
( 407) 953- 5818
j onat hant or r esl l c@gmai l . com
Counsel f or Def endant : GRAHAM W. SYFERT, ESQUI RE
1529 Mar gar et St r eet
Uni t 2
J acksonvi l l e, FL 32204
( 904) 383- 7448
gr aham@syf er t . com
Cour t Repor t er : CLAUDI A SPANGLER- FRY, RPR, CM
Of f i ci al Cour t Repor t er
801 Nor t h Fl or i da Avenue
7t h Fl oor
Tampa, FL 33602
( 813) 301- 5575
cooki ef r y@aol . com
CLAUDI A SPANGLER- FRY, OFFI CI AL U. S. COURT REPORTER
Page 128
#:553
Supp. E.R. 270
Page 2
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 November 27, 2012
3 * * * * * *
4 THE COURT: Mr . Tor r es, what sor t of noi se ar e you
5 maki ng on t he l i ne?
6 MR. TORRES: I apol ogi ze, I ' mi n t he Cour t house.
8 MR. TORRES: I n Or ange Count y.
9 THE COURT: Pl ease cal l t he case.
10 THE CLERK: I n t he mat t er of Sunl ust Pi ct ur es, LLC - -
11 MR. TORRES: I s t hat bet t er ?
12 THE COURT: That ' s bet t er , yes.
13 THE CLERK: - - ver sus Tuan Nguyen, Case Number
14 8: 12- CV- 1685.
15 Counsel and par t i es, pl ease st at e your appear ances,
16 st ar t i ng wi t h par t i es f or t he Pl ai nt i f f .
17 MR. LUTZ: Mar k Lut z, appear i ng on behal f of Sunl ust
18 Pi ct ur es.
19 THE COURT: And f or t he def ense?
20 MR. SYFERT: Your Honor , Gr ahamSyf er t her e on behal f
21 of Tuan Nguyen, who i s al so pr esent i n Cour t t oday.
22 THE COURT: And on t he phone?
23 MR. TORRES: At t or ney J onat han Tor r es, Fl or i da counsel
24 f or Pl ai nt i f f .
25 THE COURT: And Mr . Lut z, wher e' s your coat and t i e
Page 129
#:554
Supp. E.R. 271
Page 3
1 t hi s mor ni ng? Di d you know you wer e comi ng t o Feder al Cour t ?
2 MR. LUTZ: I di d.
3 THE COURT: Wher e' s your coat and t i e?
4 MR. LUTZ: I apol ogi ze, I di d not wear one.
5 THE COURT: Ar e you an at t or ney bar r ed i n t he St at e of
6 Fl or i da?
7 MR. LUTZ: I amnot , no, I ' ma cor por at e
8 r epr esent at i ve.
9 THE COURT: And who i s your counsel ?
11 THE COURT: Who i s your l awyer ?
12 MR. LUTZ: Our counsel i s on t he phone her e.
13 THE COURT: Wher e i s your ot her l awyer ; he hasn' t been
14 per mi t t ed t o wi t hdr aw?
15 MR. LUTZ: He wasn' t abl e t o appear t oday.
16 THE COURT: Mr . Tor r es, ar e you i n t he case or out of
17 t he case?
18 MR. TORRES: No, I ' mst i l l i n t he case, Your Honor . I
19 pr esent ed a mot i on f or t el ephoni c appear ance due t o an
20 emer gency hear i ng conf l i ct i n Or ange Count y and I was al l owed
21 t o appear by phone and by or der t hat was sent t o me yest er day.
22 THE COURT: Wel l , I ' ma l i t t l e conf used. Ther e was a
23 l awyer who moved t o wi t hdr aw, and t her e was anot her l awyer who
24 moved t o appear , t hen he moved t o wi t hdr aw, so who i s on f i r st ,
25 I guess?
Page 130
#:555
Supp. E.R. 272
Page 4
1 MR. TORRES: Ri ght now, Your Honor , I ' mst i l l on t he
2 case. And t her e i s st i l l di scussi ons wi t h my cl i ent whi ch I
3 have t o conf er wi t h t hem, but r i ght f or now, I ' mt he counsel on
4 t he case, Your Honor .
5 THE COURT: And Mr . Tor r es, how di d you come t o be t he
6 l awyer i n t hi s case?
7 MR. TORRES: Your Honor , I was cont act ed by t he
8 cl i ent , Pr enda Law, i n or der t o - -
9 THE COURT: The cl i ent and Pr enda Law or Pr enda Law?
10 MR. TORRES: Pr enda Law, Your Honor ,
11 THE COURT: And what i s t hei r r el at i on t o you?
12 MR. TORRES: J ust co- counsel ar r angement , Your Honor .
13 THE COURT: And what i s t hat ar r angement ?
14 MR. TORRES: For me t o appear f or any l ocal hear i ngs,
15 Your Honor .
16 THE COURT: Wel l , I got a l et t er f r omsomeone f r omt he
17 Pr enda Law Gr oup sayi ng t hey wer e not r epr esent i ng any par t y i n
18 t hi s case and wer e not i nvol ved i n t he case and had no
19 aut hor i t y t o speak on anyone' s behal f i n t hi s case, so i s
20 Pr enda Law pr i nci pal counsel i n t he case or not ?
21 MR. TORRES: No, Your Honor .
22 THE COURT: So what i s t hei r r el at i onshi p agai n t hen
23 t o you as counsel i n t hi s case?
24 MR. TORRES: Wel l , Your Honor , I was - -
25 THE COURT: I ' msor r y, I ' msor r y, hol d on a second.
Page 131
#:556
Supp. E.R. 273
Page 5
1 Ms. Vi zza, woul d you pl ease swear t hi s wi t ness, on t he
2 phone, yes.
3 Mr . Tor r es, i f you woul d pl ease r ai se your r i ght hand.
4 Ms. Vi zza.
5 MR. TORRES: Yes.
6 Ther eupon,
7 J ONATHAN TORRES,
10 f ol l ows:
11 MR. TORRES: Yes.
12 THE COURT: Al l r i ght , si r . You' r e under oat h, you
13 have t o gi ve t r ut hf ul answer s t o t he quest i ons t hat ar e asked
14 or f ace penal t i es of per j ur y f or f al se answer s.
18 So, st ar t i ng over now, Pr enda i s t he r ef er r i ng l aw
19 f i r mt o your f i r mor t he or i gi nat i ng f i r mor pr i nci pal counsel ?
21 Pr enda Law was t he counsel f or Pl ai nt i f f s and i s st i l l counsel
22 f or Pl ai nt i f f s.
23 I was cont act ed by Br et t Gi bbs i n or der t o be l ocal
24 counsel t o appear on behal f of Pr enda Law.
25 THE COURT: So, Pr enda Law pur por t s t o be t he
Page 132
#:557
Supp. E.R. 274
Page 6
1 pr i nci pal l aw f i r mi n t hi s case?
2 MR. TORRES: Cor r ect .
3 THE COURT: Di d Pr enda Law f i l e a not i ce of appear ance
4 as pr i nci pal l aw f i r mi n t hi s case?
6 t hey wer e, at one poi nt , counsel i n t he case. I ' mnot sur e i f
7 t hey act ual l y have a cur r ent not i ce of appear ance or not , I ' m
8 not sur e.
9 THE COURT: And what i s your f i nanci al ar r angement
10 wi t h Pr enda Law?
11 MR. TORRES: Wel l , I ' mwor ki ng on a cont i ngency basi s,
12 Your Honor .
13 THE COURT: And what per cent age i s your cut of t he
14 cont i ngency?
15 MR. TORRES: My under st andi ng i s t hat i t ' s 75 per cent ,
16 my under st andi ng, of what ever t he f ees ar e gener at ed, my
17 under st andi ng, at l east .
18 THE COURT: Your s wi l l be 75 per cent and Pr enda' s wi l l
19 be 25 per cent ?
21 THE COURT: Who i s pr i nci pal l y r esponsi bl e f or t he
22 case; Pr enda or you?
23 MR. TORRES: Wel l , my under st andi ng i s t hat I was
24 r ecent l y cont act ed i n r egar ds t o t hi s case.
25 My under st andi ng i s t hat I was goi ng t o be pr i mar i l y
Page 133
#:558
Supp. E.R. 275
Page 7
1 r esponsi bl e and be t he l ocal counsel f or t hi s case, but t he
2 r eason why I pr esent ed a mot i on t o wi t hdr aw i s because j ust
3 r ecent l y I was cont act ed by def ense counsel and was advi sed of
4 cer t ai n i ssues t hat wer e goi ng on i n t he case.
5 THE COURT: When wer e you r et ai ned?
6 MR. TORRES: Wel l , I was cont act ed, I bel i eve, Your
7 Honor , i t was about 15 days ago.
8 THE COURT: And who wer e you cont act ed by?
9 MR. TORRES: I was cont act ed by Mr . Br et t Gi bbs f r om
10 Pr enda Law.
11 THE COURT: And who di d he t el l you was cur r ent
12 counsel i n t he case?
13 MR. TORRES: Wel l , he t ol d me t hat Pr enda Law t hr ough
14 anot her at t or ney l ocal l y was t he cur r ent counsel i n t he case,
15 and t hat ' s why, you know, t hey wer e subst i t ut i ng me f or counsel
16 i n t hi s case, and ei ght ot her cases - - act ual l y seven ot her
17 cases t hat pur por t edl y Pr enda Law was t he counsel on.
18 THE COURT: Gi ve me one second, I need t o l ook up
19 somet hi ng i n t he docket .
20 ( Br i ef pause. )
21 And di d Mr . Wasi nger cal l you?
22 MR. TORRES: No, Your Honor , Mr . Wasi nger appar ent l y
23 pr esent ed a mot i on t o wi t hdr aw or subst i t ut i on of counsel at
24 t hat poi nt .
25 THE COURT: And t hen t he Cour t or der ed t hat he was not
Page 134
#:559
Supp. E.R. 276
Page 8
1 gr ant ed hi s l eave and di r ect ed t hat he was t o appear at t hi s
2 hear i ng and t hat hi s mot i on f or wi t hdr awal woul d be t aken up at
3 t hi s hear i ng. And di d you see t hat on t he docket when you
4 f i l ed your not i ce of appear ance?
6 THE COURT: Di d you l ook at t he docket when you f i l ed
7 your not i ce of appear ance?
8 MR. TORRES: I pr esent ed t he not i ce of appear ance and
9 di d not see t hat Mr . Wasi nger was st i l l counsel .
10 THE COURT: Di d you l ook at t he docket i s what I asked
11 you?
12 MR. TORRES: I l ooked at - - I di d l ook at t he docket ,
13 per se, I di dn' t - -
14 THE COURT: The answer i s no, you di d not r ead t he
15 docket on t he case you wer e appear i ng i n?
16 MR. TORRES: Cor r ect , Your Honor .
17 THE COURT: And t hen shor t l y af t er you f i l e your
18 not i ce of appear ance, you moved t o wi t hdr aw?
20 THE COURT: And why i s t hat ?
21 MR. TORRES: Wel l , Your Honor , I ' l l be per f ect l y
22 honest wi t h you. Def ense counsel cont act ed me shor t l y
23 t her eaf t er of bei ng counsel of r ecor d, i nst r uct ed me t o cal l
24 hi mi mmedi at el y.
25 And so I - - act ual l y I di d, and l ef t hi ma message,
Page 135
#:560
Supp. E.R. 277
Page 9
1 t hen he r et ur ned my phone cal l . And t her e was di scussi ons
2 bet ween Def endant and - - Def endant ' s counsel and mysel f i n
3 r egar ds t o t hi s case.
4 The onl y t hi ng t hat - - t he f i r st t hi ng t hat I hear d
5 f r omdef ense counsel was, you know, r at her t han see how t hi s
6 case mi ght be set t l ed or anyt hi ng t o t hat ef f ect , was t he f act
7 t hat t her e wer e - - t her e had been some bar compl ai nt s or
8 somet hi ng t o t hat ef f ect associ at ed wi t h t hi s case or somet hi ng
9 t o t hat ef f ect , and based on t hat st at ement f r omdef ense
10 counsel , I deci ded t o pr esent my mot i on t o wi t hdr aw and have no
11 f ur t her i nvol vement wi t h any of t he cases.
12 THE COURT: Di d you have any cont act wi t h
13 Mr . Wasi nger ?
14 MR. TORRES: No, I di d not , Your Honor .
15 THE COURT: Do you have a wr i t t en cont r act wi t h Pr enda
16 Law Gr oup?
17 MR. TORRES: No, I do not , Your Honor .
18 THE COURT: Have you f i l ed a not i ce of appear ance i n
19 al l of t he ot her cases t hat Mr . Wasi nger has wi t hdr awn f r om?
20 MR. TORRES: Yes, Your Honor .
21 THE COURT: Have you moved t o wi t hdr aw i n al l t hose
22 cases as wel l ?
23 MR. TORRES: Yes, I di d, Your Honor .
24 THE COURT: Have t hose mot i ons been gr ant ed?
25 MR. TORRES: No, Your Honor , based on l ocal r ul e,
Page 136
#:561
Supp. E.R. 278
Page 10
1 af t er conf er r i ng wi t h counsel , but t hat ' s somet hi ng I ' l l
2 r emedy, Your Honor .
3 THE COURT: I got a l et t er on t he 18t h f r oma
4 Mr . Duf f y at Pr enda Law, I nc.
5 MR. TORRES: Okay.
6 THE COURT: And he advi ses t hat he was r ecent l y made
7 awar e t hat t he Cour t or der ed a pr i nci pal of Pr enda Law t o
8 appear i n per son at t he mot i on t o di smi ss hear i ng schedul ed f or
9 t oday' s dat e.
10 As t he sol e pr i nci pal of Pr enda Law, I nc. , t hat woul d
11 be me. For t he r ecor d, I was never ser ved wi t h not i ce of t he
12 Cour t ' s Or der or ot her wi se made awar e of i t unt i l ver y r ecent l y
13 vi a a phone cal l f r oma f el l ow at t or ney.
14 As an i ni t i al mat t er , I must r espect f ul l y i nf or mt he
15 Cour t I aml ocat ed i n Chi cago and my at t endance woul d r equi r e
16 ai r t r avel and he has had sur ger y on hi s eyes and t hi s and
17 t hat .
18 Then he says, I al so r espect f ul l y quest i on how my
19 appear ance coul d benef i t t he Cour t , par t i cul ar l y si nce I amnot
20 r epr esent i ng anyone, i n i t al i cs, i n t hi s case and have no
21 aut hor i t y t o speak on anyone' s behal f .
22 I t woul d cer t ai nl y - - i t woul d cl ear l y be i mpr oper f or
23 me t o make any st at ement on a pendi ng mat t er i n a j ur i sdi ct i on
24 i n whi ch I amnot l i censed and on behal f of a cl i ent I do not
25 r epr esent . I n l i ght of t he f or egoi ng, I pr ay t hat t he Cour t
Page 137
#:562
Supp. E.R. 279
Page 11
1 wi l l excuse my at t endance at t hi s hear i ng.
2 Now, i s Pr enda Law, I nc. di f f er ent t han t he ent i t y
3 t hat you ar e deal i ng wi t h?
4 MR. TORRES: Your Honor , my onl y under st andi ng i s t hat
5 Pr enda Law i s t he one t hat has been i n cont act wi t h me. That ' s
6 t he onl y t hi ng I know.
7 To be honest , Your Honor , I r esponded t o an ad f or a
8 l ocal appear ance, t hat ' s al l I di d, Your Honor . And ot her t han
9 t hat , I was br ought i nt o t hese cases, and t hat ' s pr et t y much
10 i t .
11 THE COURT: Who i s Pr enda Law, I nc. ? I s t hat t he
12 per son you' r e l ocal counsel f or ?
13 MR. TORRES: That ' s t echni cal l y my under st andi ng of
14 t he si t uat i on or t he ar r angement , i f you wi l l .
15 THE COURT: Who i s Mr . Gi bbs i n r el at i on t o Mr . Duf f y?
16 MR. TORRES: Wel l , Mr . Gi bbs appar ent l y i s a pr i nci pal
17 at Pr enda Law, t o my under st andi ng.
18 THE COURT: Who i s Mr . Duf f y?
19 MR. TORRES: Mr . Duf f y, I have no cont act wi t h
20 Mr . Duf f y. I ' ve never had any cont act wi t h Mr . Duf f y.
21 THE COURT: Mr . Lut z, who i s t he i ndi vi dual who you
22 j ust spoke t o i n t he Cour t r oomwi t h you?
23 MR. LUTZ: Sor r y?
24 THE COURT: Who i s t hat behi nd you?
25 MR. STEELE: Your Honor , my name i s J ohn St eel e.
Page 138
#:563
Supp. E.R. 280
Page 12
1 THE COURT: Who ar e you?
2 MR. STEELE: I ' man at t or ney, but not i nvol ved i n t hi s
3 case.
4 THE COURT: You' r e an at t or ney wi t h what l aw f i r m?
5 MR. STEELE: I ' mnot an at t or ney wi t h any l aw f i r m
6 r i ght now, but I have wor ked wi t h Mr . Duf f y i n t he past and I
7 amcer t ai nl y f ami l i ar wi t h t hi s l i t i gat i on j ust because I ' ve
8 been i nvol ved i n many di f f er ent cases l i ke t hi s i n t he past .
9 THE COURT: But not t hi s case?
10 MR. STEELE: Cor r ect .
11 THE COURT: So, Mr . Tor r es, you don' t know who your
12 gener al counsel i s ot her t han Mr . Gi bbs, and you don' t have a
13 wr i t t en agr eement and you j ust answer ed a r andomad and put
14 your name on a docket i n Feder al Cour t ?
15 MR. TORRES: Wel l , Your Honor , I was goi ng t o make a
16 l ocal appear ance f or someone t hat , you know, needed a l ocal
17 counsel , and so I di d.
18 THE COURT: Wel l , you' r e st i l l a l awyer .
20 THE COURT: And Mr . Lut z, di d Mr . Wasi nger speak wi t h
21 you about hi s deci si on not t o appear at t hi s hear i ng?
22 MR. LUTZ: They di d not , no.
23 THE COURT: Do you know who Mr . Duf f y i s?
24 MR. LUTZ: I bel i eve he i s a pr i nci pal of Pr enda Law.
25 THE COURT: And who i s Mr . Gi bbs?
Page 139
#:564
Supp. E.R. 281
Page 13
1 MR. LUTZ: Mr . Gi bbs i s al so af f i l i at ed wi t h Pr enda
2 Law, I don' t know hi s of f i ci al t i t l e.
3 THE COURT: I s he an at t or ney?
4 MR. LUTZ: I bel i eve so, i n t he St at e of Cal i f or ni a.
5 THE COURT: But not i n t he St at e of I l l i noi s?
6 MR. LUTZ: I can' t say f or sur e.
7 THE COURT: Do you know i f he i s a par t ner i n t he
8 Pr enda Law Gr oup?
9 MR. LUTZ: I do not know hi s of f i ci al t i t l e, no.
10 THE COURT: Who i s your counsel , who i s your l awyer ?
11 MR. LUTZ: Pr enda Law i s one of t hem, t hey r epr esent
12 Sunl ust i n sever al cases, not i n t hi s case, par t i cul ar l y.
13 THE COURT: What does t hat mean; par t i cul ar l y?
14 MR. LUTZ: Wel l , i t ' s not i n t hi s mat t er , t hey
15 r epr esent us i n var i ous di f f er ent cases.
16 THE COURT: So t hey wer e not r et ai ned t o be your
17 l awyer and t hey di d not r ef er t hi s mat t er t o Mr . Tor r es?
18 MR. LUTZ: I don' t know what t hei r af f i l i at i on wi t h
19 Mr . Tor r es i s, of f i ci al l y.
21 MR. SYFERT: Your Honor , i f I may i nt er j ect , Mr . Lut z
22 used t o wor k f or Mr . St eel e down i n Mi ami . Mr . Lut z was
23 act ual l y a par al egal and debt col l ect or f or Pr enda Law when i t
24 was a mul t i - st at e, mul t i - j ur i sdi ct i onal l aw f i r mbet ween her e
25 and I l l i noi s. That ' s Mr . Lut z.
Page 140
#:565
Supp. E.R. 282
Page 14
1 So i f he' s - - he shoul d have bet t er i nf or mat i on about
2 t he st r uct ur e of Pr enda Law t han t hi s and pr obabl y has ver y
3 l i t t l e st r uct ur e about t he - - or ver y l i t t l e i nf or mat i on about
4 t he act ual st r uct ur e of Sunl ust Pi ct ur es, Your Honor .
5 THE COURT: Wi l l you swear t hi s wi t ness, Ms. Vi zza,
6 Mr . Lut z.
7 Ther eupon,
8 J OHN LUTZ,
11 f ol l ows:
12 MR. LUTZ: Yes.
13 THE COURT: Mr . Lut z, you' r e under oat h, you have t o
14 gi ve t r ut hf ul answer s or you f ace penal t i es of per j ur y.
16 MR. LUTZ: Yes.
17 THE COURT: What i s your posi t i on wi t h Sunl ust ?
18 MR. LUTZ: I ' ma r epr esent at i ve of t hem.
20 MR. LUTZ: Cor por at e r epr esent at i ve.
22 MR. LUTZ: They asked me t o appear on var i ous mat t er s
23 t hr oughout t he count r y.
24 THE COURT: Ar e you an of f i cer of t he company?
25 MR. LUTZ: I ' mnot , no.
Page 141
#:566
Supp. E.R. 283
Page 15
1 THE COURT: Ar e you aut hor i zed t o bi nd t he company t o
2 any l egal cont r act s?
3 MR. LUTZ: I amnot .
4 THE COURT: Ar e you sal ar i ed?
5 MR. LUTZ: No, 1099.
6 THE COURT: So you ar e a 1099 cont r act ed ent i t y and
7 you j ust go ar ound and si t i n a Cour t and r epr esent your sel f t o
8 be t he cor por at e r epr esent at i ve of t he company?
9 MR. LUTZ: Yes.
10 THE COURT: Mr . Tor r es, di d you know t hi s was
11 Mr . Lut z' s posi t i on, a pai d cor por at e r epr esent at i ve?
13 THE COURT: Who i s t he pr esi dent of Sunl ust ?
14 MR. LUTZ: I ' munawar e.
15 THE COURT: Who i s t he vi ce pr esi dent ?
16 MR. LUTZ: I ' munawar e
17 THE COURT: Who i s t he secr et ar y?
18 MR. LUTZ: I have no i dea.
19 THE COURT: Who owns Sunl ust ?
20 MR. LUTZ: I do not know.
21 THE COURT: Who si gns your checks?
22 MR. LUTZ: I bel i eve somebody i n t he account i ng
23 depar t ment .
24 THE COURT: What i s t hei r name?
25 MR. LUTZ: To be honest wi t h you, I can' t r ead t he
Page 142
#:567
Supp. E.R. 284
Page 16
1 si gnat ur e.
3 l ocat ed?
6 l ocat ed?
7 MR. LUTZ: I ' ve r ecei ved checks f r omCal i f or ni a.
8 THE COURT: How much ar e you pai d mont hl y t o be t he
9 cor por at e r epr esent at i ve?
10 MR. LUTZ: Agai n, i t depends on my appear ances, t he
11 number of appear ances t hat I do.
12 THE COURT: How much wer e you pai d l ast mont h?
13 MR. LUTZ: Appr oxi mat el y $1, 000.
14 THE COURT: And do you have any ot her j ob t han t o
15 ar ound go t o Cour t s r epr esent i ng your sel f t o be t he cor por at e
16 r epr esent at i ve of Sunl ust ?
17 MR. LUTZ: For Sunl ust , no.
18 THE COURT: Do you have any ot her j ob f or t he Pr enda
19 Law hol di ngs t o do anyt hi ng ot her t han go ar ound t he count r y
20 and r epr esent your sel f t o be t hei r cor por at e r epr esent at i ve?
21 MR. LUTZ: I do not wor k f or Pr enda Law.
22 THE COURT: Do you ser ve i n t hi s capaci t y f or any
23 ot her ent i t y t han Sunl ust ?
24 MR. LUTZ: Yes.
25 THE COURT: What compani es?
Page 143
#:568
Supp. E.R. 285
Page 17
1 MR. LUTZ: Har d Dr i ve Pr oduct i ons woul d be one and
2 Guava, LLC.
3 THE COURT: Do t hey have si mi l ar l awsui t s ar ound t he
4 count r y?
5 MR. LUTZ: They do.
6 THE COURT: Do you r ecei ve a per cent age of t he
7 r ecover y of any of t hese l awsui t s?
8 MR. LUTZ: I do not .
9 THE COURT: Do you know Mr . Duf f y?
10 MR. LUTZ: Not per sonal l y, no.
11 THE COURT: Have you t al ked t o hi mbef or e?
12 MR. LUTZ: I have not , no.
13 THE COURT: I s he your l awyer ?
14 MR. LUTZ: He i s not my at t or ney
15 THE COURT: I s he t he l awyer f or Pr enda Law - - or
16 Sunl ust ?
17 MR. LUTZ: I n var i ous mat t er s, yes.
18 THE COURT: How many mat t er s do you r epr esent Sunl ust
19 i n, i n t he count r y?
20 MR. LUTZ: Appr oxi mat el y a dozen.
21 THE COURT: So hal f of t hemar e l ocat ed her e i n t he
22 Mi ddl e Di st r i ct and t her e ar e ot her s el sewher e?
23 MR. LUTZ: I bel i eve we have t hr ee her e i n t he Mi ddl e
24 Di st r i ct .
25 THE COURT: Mr . Tor r es, I t hought you ent er ed an
Page 144
#:569
Supp. E.R. 286
Page 18
1 appear ance on f i ve of t hemher e i n t he Mi ddl e Di st r i ct .
2 MR. TORRES: But not f or t hat par t i cul ar company.
3 THE COURT: What was t he ot her company?
4 MR. TORRES: I bel i eve i t ' s FTG Vi deos. I don' t have
5 access t o my comput er at t hi s t i me, Your Honor , because I ' mi n
6 t he Cour t i n Or ange Count y, but I bel i eve one of t hemi s FTG
7 Vi deos.
8 THE COURT: F as i n Fr ank or S as i n Sam?
9 MR. TORRES: F as i n Fr ank, Your Honor .
10 THE COURT: Mr . St eel e, who i s t he pr i nci pal of
11 Sunl ust ?
12 MR. STEELE: I ' msor r y, you' r e aski ng me, ma' am?
14 MR. STEELE: I woul dn' t know.
15 THE COURT: You don' t know who owns Sunl ust ?
16 MR. STEELE: That ' s cor r ect .
17 THE COURT: You don' t know who t he pr esi dent i s?
18 MR. STEELE: I - - t he onl y per son t hat I know t hat ' s
19 i nvol ved wi t h Sunl ust i s Sunny Leone.
20 THE COURT: Sunny Leone?
21 MR. STEELE: I s one of t he peopl e i nvol ved wi t h
22 Sunl ust . That ' s t he onl y per son I ' ve ever - -
23 THE COURT: What i s t he name?
24 MR. STEELE: Sunny Leone.
25 THE COURT: Spel l i t .
Page 145
#:570
Supp. E.R. 287
Page 19
1 MR. STEELE: S- O- N- N- Y, Leone - -
2 THE COURT: L- E- O- N?
3 MR. STEELE: I bel i eve t her e' s an E at t he end of
4 t hat , I ' mnot cer t ai n.
5 THE COURT: Wher e' s i s he l ocat ed.
6 MR. STEELE: Wel l , I bel i eve i t ' s a she, and I bel i eve
7 t hat t he l ast t i me I hear d, she was i n I ndi a f i l mi ng a maj or
8 mot i on pi ct ur e wi t h some st udi o down t her e, but I don' t keep up
9 wi t h t hat , I don' t r epr esent Sunl ust or anybody anymor e. I no
10 l onger act i vel y pr act i ce l aw.
11 THE COURT: You' r e not pr act i ci ng l aw?
12 MR. STEELE: Cor r ect . I do appear occasi onal l y at
13 hear i ngs on an ad hoc basi s, but I do not have any cur r ent
14 cl i ent s.
15 THE COURT: You st i l l have a bar l i cense i n t he St at e
16 of Fl or i da?
17 MR. STEELE: No, I ' ml i censed onl y i n t he St at e of
18 I l l i noi s.
19 I want t o make ver y cl ear t o t hi s Cour t I ' mnot
20 pur por t i ng i n any way t o be an at t or ney l i censed i n t he St at e
21 of Fl or i da.
22 THE COURT: Have you ever been l i censed i n t he St at e
23 of Fl or i da?
24 MR. STEELE: No.
Page 146
#:571
Supp. E.R. 288
Page 20
1 Thank you, si r .
2 So, Mr . Lut z, you don' t know who you ser ve f or , you' r e
3 j ust si t t i ng her e i n t he Cour t r oompur por t i ng t o be a cor por at e
4 r epr esent at i ve?
5 MR. LUTZ: I was cont act ed by Sunny Leone sever al
6 mont hs ago.
7 THE COURT: And t ol d what ?
8 MR. LUTZ: She asked me t o - - when t hey needed f or me
9 t o appear f or var i ous r easons, i f I woul d do i t on a
10 r epr esent at i ve basi s.
11 THE COURT: You can si t away f r omt he t abl e, you' r e
12 not a cor por at e r epr esent at i ve of anybody i f you don' t have any
13 i nf or mat i on about t he cor por at i on.
14 You' r e not an of f i cer or pr i nci pal of t he cor por at i on.
15 The Cour t wi l l excl ude you as a pr oper cor por at e ent i t y f or
16 t hi s Def endant .
17 Mr . Tor r es, your mot i on t o wi t hdr aw i s gr ant ed, you
18 ar e r emoved f r omt hi s case. Any ot her l awyer who pur por t s t o
19 come i n t o r epr esent t hi s Def endant woul d need t o f i l e a mot i on
20 f or l eave t o do so.
21 The case i s di smi ssed f or f ai l ur e t o appear at t hi s
22 hear i ng, f or f ai l ur e t o pr esent a l awf ul agent , f or at t empt ed
23 f r aud on t he Cour t by of f er i ng up a per son who has no aut hor i t y
24 t o act on behal f of t he cor por at i on as i t s cor por at e
25 r epr esent at i ve, and t he Cour t wi l l hear , by mot i on, a mot i on
Page 147
#:572
Supp. E.R. 289
Page 21
1 f or sanct i ons and f ees agai nst t hi s Sunl ust ent i t y and ever yone
2 af f i l i at ed wi t h i t , i ncl udi ng a mot i on agai nst Mr . Wasi nger f or
3 hi s pur posef ul f ai l ur e t o appear at t hi s hear i ng.
4 And a mot i on wi l l al so be hear d on Mr . Duf f y f or hi s
5 l ack of candor i n r el at i on t o hi s connect i on wi t h t hi s mat t er
6 based upon t he r epr esent at i on of Mr . Tor r es t hat he was
7 cont act ed by t he Pr enda Law Gr oup or Pr enda Law, I nc. f or t he
8 pur pose of bei ng r et ai ned as l ocal counsel i n t hi s case and
9 t hat was not pr esent ed t o t he Cour t i n t hi s pur por t ed
10 cor r espondence. The case i s di smi ssed.
11 I i nt end t o advi se t he ot her J udges i n t he Cour t house
12 of t he nat ur e of t hi s mat t er and may r ef er t hi s mat t er t o t he
13 Fl or i da Bar f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs.
14 I s t her e anyt hi ng f ur t her f r omt he Pl ai nt i f f - - I ' m
15 sor r y - - f r omt he def ense?
16 MR. SYFERT: No, Your Honor .
17 Wel l , yes, Your Honor , we have one ot her case t hat was
18 t r ansf er r ed t o Or l ando, same i ssues exi st as i n t hi s case.
19 THE COURT: Who i s t he J udge i n t he case.
20 MR. SYFERT: The Fi r st Ti me - - i t ' s Fi r st Ti me Vi deos
21 ver sus Oppol d, O- P- P- O- L- D.
22 I t was or i gi nal l y f i l ed i n Tampa t hen t r ansf er r ed t o
23 Or l ando. Spaul di ng I bel i eve i s t he J udge, Your Honor .
24 THE COURT: J udge Spaul di ng i s a Magi st r at e J udge. Do
25 you know t he case number ?
Page 148
#:573
Supp. E.R. 290
Page 22
1 MR. SYFERT: I don' t have t hat wi t h me. I have t he
2 ol d case number f r omt he - -
3 THE COURT: Tampa case?
4 MR. SYFERT: I have - - yeah, t he Tampa case number was
5 8: 12- CV- 1685- MSS- MAP.
6 THE COURT: Al l r i ght . I ' l l t ake a l ook at i t .
7 Mr . Tor r es, a wor d t o t he wi se, si r . When you
8 r epr esent an ent i t y, no mat t er how l i mi t ed your r ol e i s, you' r e
9 pl aci ng your bar number at i ssue and you' r e pl aci ng your name
10 and your goodwi l l at i ssue bef or e a Cour t .
11 And sayi ng you' r e l ocal counsel and you onl y i nt ended
12 t o f i l e on t hei r behal f and pi ck up a smal l f ee f or t hat
13 l i mi t ed r ol e does not absol ve you f r omr esponsi bi l i t y f or
14 maki ng sur e t hat what ever you si gn on t o, what ever you ent er an
15 appear ance on behal f of i s a l egi t i mat e ent i t y wi t h l egi t i mat e
16 concer ns, because you r un a st r ong r i sk t hat you coul d be
17 sanct i oned or l ose your bar l i cense behi nd conduct of t he t ype
18 t hat you' r e wi t nessi ng her e.
19 I hope t hat t hi s i s a l esson t o you about how t o
20 pr oceed goi ng f or war d wi t h char act er s such as t he ones t hat ar e
21 pr esent ed her e.
22 MR. TORRES: Yes, Your Honor , I t ot al l y under st and and
23 t hank you.
25 MR. TORRES: AmI excused, Your Honor ?
Page 149
#:574
Supp. E.R. 291
Page 23
1 THE COURT: You ar e excused.
2 Thi s mat t er i s di smi ssed.
3 MR. SYFERT: Thank you, Your Honor .
5 ( Ther eupon, t he pr oceedi ngs concl uded. )
6 ********
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 150
#:575
Supp. E.R. 292
Page 24
1 CERTI FI CATE
2
3 STATE OF FLORI DA )
SS
4 COUNTY OF HI LLSBOROUGH )
5
6 I , CLAUDI A SPANGLER- FRY, Of f i ci al Cour t Repor t er f or
7 t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t , Mi ddl e Di st r i ct , Tampa,
8 Di vi si on,
9 DO HEREBY CERTI FY, t hat I was aut hor i zed t o and di d,
10 t hr ough use of Comput er Ai ded Tr anscr i pt i on, r epor t i n
11 shor t hand t he pr oceedi ngs and evi dence i n t he above- st yl ed
12 cause, as st at ed i n t he capt i on her et o, and t hat t he f or egoi ng
13 pages number ed 1 t o 24 i ncl usi ve, const i t ut e a t r ue and cor r ect
14 t r anscr i pt i on of my shor t hand r epor t of sai d pr oceedi ngs and
15 evi dence.
16 I N WI TNESS WHEREOF, I have her eunt o set my hand
17 i n t he Ci t y of Tampa, Count y of Hi l l sbor ough, St at e of Fl or i da,
18 t hi s 29t h day of November , 2012.
19
20 CLAUDI A SPANGLER- FRY, Of f i ci al Cour t Repor t er
21
22
23 BY: / s/ CLAUDI A SPANGLER- FRY
24
25
Page 151
#:576
Supp. E.R. 293

EXHIBIT O
O
EXHIBIT O
Page 152
#:577
Supp. E.R. 294
LLC FILE DETAIL REPORT
Entity Name ANTI-PIRACY LAW GROUP
LLC
File Number 04147731
Status ACTIVE On 11/08/2012
Entity Type LLC Type of LLC Domestic
File Date 11/08/2012 Jurisdiction IL
Agent Name JEFFREY LIVINGSTON Agent Change Date 11/08/2012
Agent Street Address 161 N CLARK ST STE 3200 Principal Office 161 N. CLARK ST. SUITE 3200
CHICAGO, IL 606010000
Agent City CHICAGO Management Type
MBR View
Agent Zip 60601 Duration PERPETUAL
Annual Report Filing
Date
00/00/0000 For Year
Series Name NOT AUTHORIZED TO ESTABLISH SERIES
Return to the Search Screen Purchase Certificate of Good Standing
(One Certificate per
Transaction)

BACK TO CYBERDRIVEILLINOIS.COM HOME PAGE
LLC - File Detail Report http://www.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/CorporateLlcController
1 of 1 1/14/13 1:18 PM
Page 153
#:578
Supp. E.R. 295

i

________________________________________________________________________

JOHN DOES SUPPLEMENTAL EXCERPTS OF RECORD VOLUME II
________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

INGENUITY 13 LLC

Plaintiff-Appellant
and


Movants-Appellants,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant-Appellee,

13-55880; 13-55881; 13-55882;
13-55883; 13-55884; 13-56028

Related Appeal No.:
13-80114


ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I


















iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME II
















/ /


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME III


59-1 - Pietz Reply Decl..........584


61 - Gibbs Reply Decl............632




76-1 - Ex. 1 StarTribune......646







117-1 Pietz Decl..........715




v
TABLE OF CONTENTS








175-3 - Proposed Order........847







/ /


vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME IV


















vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS


Visits Florid.........................1077


and Email) .......1083





Forbes..1114

/ /

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME V




/ /


INGENUITY 13 LLC,

Plaintiff,
v.

J OHN DOE,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW(J Cx)

ORDER RE STATUS CONFERENCE

On December 26, 2012, the Court granted J ohn Does ex parte application for
early discovery, allowing J ohn Doe to propoundprior to a Rule 26(f) conference
the 15 interrogatories and 5 document requests listed in its moving papers. (ECF Nos.
32, 23.) This discovery was to be served within 15 days from the date of the Order,
and must be answered in the 30-day timeframe allotted under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 33 and 34.
1
The Court calculates the latest possible date for this
answer to be February 12, 2013.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS the parties to jointly prepare a status
report, briefly indicating whether this early discovery was propounded and whether an
answer was given in response. This status report must be filed by February 19, 2013.
In addition, the parties are hereby ORDERED to appear for a status conference on
March 4, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., to discuss the status of this early discovery.

1
The deadline may be extended by three days under Rule 6(d) if service was not performed under
Rule 5(b)(2)(A) or (B).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Supp. E.R. 296

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
If the parties indicate in their status report that the early discovery has been
properly propounded and answered, the Court will vacate the March 4, 2013 status
conference.
Failure to comply with this order or failure to appear for the scheduled status
conference may result in sanctions, including monetary sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: J anuary 28, 2013

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Supp. E.R. 297

-1-
PUTATIVE JOHN DOES RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SANCTIONS
FOR RULE 11 AND LOCAL RULE 83-3 VIOLATIONS AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301

Kitts and Nevis,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.

Case Number: 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC

Case Assigned to:
District Judge Otis D Wright, II

Discovery Referred to:
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian

PUTATIVE JOHN DOES RESPONSE
TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
SANCTIONS FOR RULE 11 AND
LOCAL RULE 83-3 VIOLATIONS
AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Case 2:l2-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 52 Filed 02/l9/l3 Page l of 33 Page lD #:740
Supp. E.R. 298

-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................... 2
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY.............................................................................. 4
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND...................................................... 6
(a) Procedural History of Prendas Related AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 Cases in
the Central District of California ......................................................................... 6
(b) Factual Background on Prendas Various Straw Men and Sham Entities......... 11
(1) Alan Cooper: John Steeles Former Caretaker; Victim of Identity Theft........11
(2) Mark Lutz: John Steeles Former Paralegal; Fraudulent Corporate
Representative For Hire...................................................................................12
(3) Salt Marsh a/k/a Anthony Saltmarsh: John Steeles Sisters Roommate
(Boyfriend?) at Arizona Address Linked to Alan Cooper and Other
Prenda Shell Entities; New Prenda Straw Man ...............................................13
(4) The Fraudulent Allen Mooney a/k/a Alan Moay a/k/a Alan Mony
Verification in an Illinois Prenda Case............................................................15
(5) Collusion Between Prenda and the Defendant in Minnesota Case ..............17
(6) Recent Rebranding of Prenda Law and Mr. Gibbs New Career as In
House Counsel for Various Prenda Shell Entities .........................................17
(7) Paul Duffy, John Steele and Paul Hansemier Other Attorneys Who
Share Responsibility with Mr. Gibbs for Overseeing Prendas Fraudulent
Litigation Scheme............................................................................................18
III. ARGUMENT................................................................................................................. 21
(a) All of Prendas Cases Before this Court are Sham Lawsuits Exempted from
the Protections of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine ............................................ 21
(1) The Sham Lawsuit Exceptions to the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine..............21
(2) Intentional Use of Forged Copyright Assignment Agreements in the AF
Holdings Cases Deprive These Cases of Legitimacy......................................23
(3) The Ingenuity 13 CasesIndeed, all of Prendas CasesQualify as
Sham Litigation Because The Cases Are Brought for an Improper
Purpose, Without Regard to the Merits ...........................................................24
(b) Given the Circumstances of These Cases, Prenda Routinely Fails to Comply
with its Rule 11(b)(3) Obligations ..................................................................... 25
(1) Mr. Gibbs Past Statements on the Rule 11 Implications of These Cases.......25
(2) Inquiry Reasonable Under the Circumstances .............................................26
(3) Other Examples of Prendas Shoddy Investigation......................................27
(4) The Snapshot Theory of Copyright Infringement ........................................27
(c) There is No Excuse for Violating the Courts Discovery Order........................ 28
IV. CURSORY REBUTTAL TO MR. GIBBS OSC RESPONSE.................................... 28
V. RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................................................................. 29
Case 2:l2-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 52 Filed 02/l9/l3 Page 2 of 33 Page lD #:74l
Supp. E.R. 299

-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(a) Substantial Monetary Sanction Against Prenda Law, Inc. in an Amount
Sufficient to Have a Significant Deterrent Effect on a Repeat Bad Actor ........ 29
(b) Award of Attorneys Fees and Costs, as Compensatory Sanction, Payable by Mr.
Brett Gibbs......................................................................................................... 30
(c) Striking of the Complaint With Prejudice, and Specific Factual Findings........ 32
(d) Such Other Relief as the Court Deems Just and Proper .................................... 32
VI. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 33

Case 2:l2-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 52 Filed 02/l9/l3 Page 3 of 33 Page lD #:742
Supp. E.R. 300

-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Roman law criminalized calumnia (from which we get the word calumny), which
meant the support of fraudulent, groundless, or frivolous litigation for profit.
1

Over the last two and a half years, attorneys associated with Prenda Law, Inc.
2

have filed at least 348 lawsuits, against over 16,000 John Doe defendants. See
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz re: Prenda Law, Inc., 1920 (ECF No. 40-1, filed
1/14/2013) (Decl. re: Prenda Law). According to the self-proclaimed pioneer of
Prendas copyright troll business model, attorney John L. Steele, in so doing,
Prenda has made a few million dollars.
3
At best, these lawsuits are all
questionablefor all of the reasons previously explained by this Court.
What seems increasingly clear though is that Prenda, and its of counsel
here, Mr. Brett Gibbs, have crossed the Rubicon in these cases, by resorting to fraud,
which includes identity theft, sham offshore shell companies, and forged documents.
The AF Holdings cases are all founded upon forgeries. In each AF Holdings
case before this Court, attached as Exhibit A to the complaint is a forged copyright
assignment agreement supposedly signed by Alan Cooper. This fact transforms
each of these cases into fraudulent, sham litigation, and possibly renders Prenda a
criminal conspiracy. Further, as detailed, infra, Alan Cooper is not the only bogus
client name Prenda has used in its court filings; it appears there are other straw

1
Anthony J. Seebok, The Inauthentic Claim, 64 VAND. L. REV. 61 at p. 75 (2011); citing Max
Radin, Maintenance by Champerty, 24 CAL. L. REV. 48, 59-60 (1936). Vestiges of this sentiment
survive in California, in the form of the seldom-enforced criminal prohibition on barratry. Cal.
Pen. Code 158159.

2
Prenda Law, Inc. was formerly known as Steele Hansemier, PLLC (a Chicago divorce law firm).
Since the name Prenda has lately become somewhat toxic, the lawyers behind this scheme are
now using several aliases, including: Anti-Piracy Law Group, LLC (Prendas newest successor
entity, organized in Illinois); Alpha Law Firm, LLC (Mr. Paul Hansemeiers firm, organized in
Minnesota) and Livewire Holdings, LLC (a newer affiliate listing a business address that is a
UPS store with private mailbox and package services in Washington, D.C.).

3
See http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/10/15/how-porn-copyright-lawyer-john-steele-
justifies-his-pursuit-of-sometimes-innocent-porn-pirates/
Supp. E.R. 301

-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

men (with various connections to John Steele) out there. There is new evidence of
Prenda submitting a fraudulent and unarguably false client verification in a case in
Illinois, and disturbing revelations regarding collusion between Prenda and a
defendant who agreed to stipulate to ISP subpoenas in another case in Minnesota.
Aside from the pattern of fraud with respect to every instance where people
connected to Prendas clients had to be identified to a court, there is another
deeply troubling pattern in this litigation. Mr. Gibbs has repeatedly represented to
various courts that, in his view, the mere fact that a person happens to pay the
Internet bill is not sufficient, by itself, to establish a good faith factual basis for an
allegation that this person is the John Doe defendant in a case like this. Decl. re:
Prenda Law, 2122. Mr. Gibbs has previously concededindeed, he was
specifically warned on this exact point by Jude Seeborgthat under the
circumstances of these cases, further investigation is required to name somebody
in a complaint, to comply with Rule 11(b)(3). Id. Contrary to these several
representations, and in defiance of specific warnings, in several instances Mr. Gibbs
has apparently gone ahead and publicly named people as defendants (or tried to do
so), without conducting the requisite objectively reasonable additional investigation.
The bad faith inherent in shooting first, and identifying targets later,
4
is
substantially compounded given that: (i) these cases are calculated to embarrass
(because the content at issue is pornography); (ii) Prenda makes a point of publicly
shaming named defendants on its website, as a warning to others; and (iii) most
cases are dismissed without prejudice at the first hint of trouble. The whole
enterprise borders on bad faith, at the very least. Further, as detailed, infra, the
Wagar and Denton cases are not the only examples of Prendas shoddy
investigations; undersigned counsel is aware of at least three other, similar cases

4
Boy Racer, Inc. v. Does 1-22, No. 11 C 2984, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 9, 2011) (Shadur,
J.) (Court rejected attorney [John] Steeles effort to shoot first and identify his targets
later, and made clear that suits against a passel of Does would not succeed).
Supp. E.R. 302

-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

where Mr. Gibbs similarly named a defendant recklessly (or tried to), leaving it to
defendants to prove their innocence based on a lax interpretation of Rule 11(b)(3).
Finally, there is simply no excuse for violating the Courts orders to cease
discovery efforts. Mr. Gibbs proffered explanation is that he interpreted the Courts
OSC staying discovery as allowing continued informal discovery. According to
Mr. Gibbs response to the instant OSC,
5

Mr. Gibbs believed and interpreted the October 19, 2012
Orders as only precluding him from engaging in any
formal discovery efforts such as pressuring the ISPs to
respond to the subpoenas that had been served and
precluding him from serving any additional subpoenas.
(Gibbs Decl. 20). ECF No. 49, at 9:20-22.
Yet as confirmed by at least one ISPAT&Tnotwithstanding this representation,
Prenda did in fact pressur[e] the ISPs to respond to the subpoenas notwithstanding
Mr. Gibbss interpretation of the stay order. Decl. of Bart Huffman; Decl. of
Camille D. Kerr.
6
The pressure may have been applied from Mr. Duffys office in
Chicago, but the bottom line is that even under Mr. Gibbs current interpretation of
the stay order, is was violated, more than once, in at least one case. Id.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
(a) Procedural History of Prendas Related AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13
Cases in the Central District of California
On July 2, 2012, Mr. Brett Gibbs, who lists himself on the pleadings as of
Counsel to Prenda Law, Inc.,
7
began filing multiple actions in the Central District

5
Undersigned counsel had about an hour to review Mr. Gibbs response to the OSC prior to filing
this document.

6
Concurrently filed herewith.

7
In reality, Mr. Gibbs appears act as a functional Chief Operating Officer for Prenda Law. There
is evidence that Mr. Gibbs hires Prendas local counsel. Decl. re: Prenda Law, Exhibit L, p.
Supp. E.R. 303

-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

of California on behalf of AF Holdings, LLC and Ingenuity 13, LLC. By September
of 2012, the grand total was 45 cases filed by Mr. Gibbs on behalf of these two
entities, each against a single John Doe defendant identified only by IP address.
All of the AF Holdings cases in this district were transferred to Judge Wright
as related cases, pursuant to Section 3.1 of General Order 08-05, on October 4, 2012.
AF Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, 12-cv-5709-ODW, ECF No. 7, 10/4/12. Shortly
thereafter, Judge Wright issued an Order to Show Cause in the related AF Holdings
cases. AF Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, 12-cv-5709-ODW, ECF No. 9, 10/19/12 (the
AF Holdings OSC re: Early Discovery). The order required Prenda to explain
how it would proceed to uncover the identity of the actual infringer once it has
obtained subscriber informationgiven that the actual infringer may be a person
entirely unrelated to the subscriberwhile also considering how to minimize
harassment and embarrassment of innocent citizens. AF Holdings OSC re: Early
Discovery, pp. 2-3 (emphasis added). Plaintiff submitted a response on November
1, 2012, which did not go into great detail.
On November 28, 2012, after being engaged by the client just before the
subpoena return deadline, undersigned counsel, on behalf of the putative John Doe
defendant in Ingenuity 13, LLC v. John Doe, C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-8333, filed an ex
parte application for a stay of the subpoena return date. ECF No. 13. This ex parte
application was granted, nunc pro tunc, by Magistrate Judge Walsh on December 3,

132:2324; 134:910; 138:1517 (Prendas former local counsel in Florida, while being
questioned by Judge Scriven of Florida, states Well, Mr. Gibbs apparently is a principal at Prenda
Law, to my understanding). There is also evidence that Mr. Gibbs email address
blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com is used as the email of record on Prenda pleadings all over the
country. Decl. re: Prenda Law, 12, Exhibit C (pleading filed in Nebraska by local counsel there,
but using blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com as the email address for counsel of record).

See Decl. of Morgan E. Pietz re: Prenda Law, Inc. 8, 12, Exhibit N, p. 132, li. 23-24. (All
page references to the Exhibits to the Decl. of Morgan E. Pietz re: Prenda Law, Inc. are to the
continuous pagination on the bottom right).
Supp. E.R. 304

-8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2013, extending the subpoena return deadline in 12-cv-8333 until December 29,
2012. ECF No. 16.
On December 3, 2012, undersigned counsel filed a Notice of Related Cases
identifying the multiple Ingenuity 13 cases filed by Prenda in this district as related
to the AF Holdings cases already assigned to Judge Wright. AF Holdings, LLC v.
John Doe, 12-cv-5709-ODW, ECF No. 11. This notice pointed out a number of
similarities between the Ingenuity 13 and AF Holdings cases, and also mentioned,
for the first time, the evidence suggesting a possible misappropriation of the identity
of one Alan Cooper of Minnesota. Id. Shortly thereafter, undersigned counsel, on
behalf of a different client in the Northern District of California, also filed a similar
administrative motion to relate cases in the AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 cases in
the Northern District. See AF Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, N.D. Cal. No. 4:12-cv-
02049-PJH, ECF No. 40, 12/13/12.
On December 17, 2012, Mr. Gibbs filed three sanctions motions against
undersigned counsel. One sanctions motion was filed here in 12-cv-8333, at ECF
No. 22. Another sanctions motion was filed here in 12-cv-5709 at ECF No. 15,
which was somewhat inexplicable given that undersigned counsel had not appeared
in that action (other than to file the Notice of Related Cases). Stranger still, in the
Northern District, a sanctions motion was filed in the low-numbered case, 4:12-cv-
2049-PJH at ECF No. 42, not in the case where undersigned counsel had actually
appeared on behalf of a client (i.e., in Ingenuity 13, LLC v. John Doe, N.D. Cal. No.
3:12-cv-4976-JSW). Notably, none of these sanctions motions asserted that any of
the allegations about Alan Cooper were incorrect. Plaintiffs arguments (that
attempting to relate cases together for coordination constituted a vexatious
multiplication of legal proceedings) were frivolous, and all of the sanctions motions
were denied.
On December 18, 2012, undersigned counsel, on behalf of the putative John
Doe defendant in Ingenuity 13, LLC v. John Doe, C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-8333, filed a
Supp. E.R. 305

-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

second ex parte application seeking a further stay of the subpoena return date, and
also seeking leave to propound limited early discovery to explore the apparent Alan
Cooper fraud. ECF No. 23.
On December 19, 2012, all of the Ingenuity 13 cases pending in the Central
District were also transferred to Judge Wright as related cases, per General Order
08-05. Ingenuity 13, LLC v. John Doe, C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-8333, ECF No. 24.
On December 20, 2012, the Court issued minute orders in each of the
Ingenuity 13 cases that essentially adopted in the Ingenuity 13 cases the procedure
already put in place in the AF Holdings OSC re: Early Discovery. Prior orders
authorizing subpoenas were vacated, and Mr. Gibbs was ordered to do further
explain how a list of ISP subscribers would be used to identify actual infringing
John Doe defendants, prior to being given the keys to discovery. See Ingenuity 13,
LLC v. John Doe, C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-8333, ECF No. 28, 12/20/12.
Also on December 20, 2012, for some of the older AF Holdings cases, which
had been filed over 120-days earlier, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause re:
Lack of Service. AF Holdings, LLC v. John Doe, 12-cv-5709-ODW, ECF No. 16.
Plaintiff responded to this order on the Rule 4(m) issue in at least a few of the cases,
on December 27, 2012. See, e.g., id. at ECF No. 18.
On December 26, 2012, the Court granted undersigneds ex parte application
(ECF No. 23) seeking leave to propound limited written discovery exploring the
Alan Cooper issue. ECF No. 32. That order set a 14-day window in which to
propound the requested written discovery. Id.
On December 31, 2012, plaintiff filed disqualification motions in most (if not
all) of the related cases pending before Judge Wright. E.g., Ingenuity 13, No. 12-cv-
8333 at ECF No. 37. Undersigned counsel filed a comprehensive reply to the
disqualification motion on January 14, 2013. ECF No. 40. On January 15, 2013, the
disqualification motion was denied by Judge Fitzgerald.
Supp. E.R. 306

-10-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On January 4, 2013, undersigned counsel did indeed serve, via overnight mail,
the Court-authorized written discovery delving into the Alan Cooper issue.
Supplemental Decl. of Morgan E. Pietz (Supp. Decl.) 6.
About a week before the Alan Cooper discovery responses were due in the 12-
cv-8333 action, on the evening of January 28, 2013, Mr. Gibbs began voluntarily
dismissing all of the related AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 cases in the Central
District of Californiaall without prejudice.
Mr. Gibbs wrote undersigned counsel on January 29, 2013 stating I will be
entering my notice of withdrawal as counsel of record for Ingenuity13 and AF
Holdings in all cases filed in California. Mr. Paul Duffy will be substituting in as
counsel. Exhibit P. Subsequent to the email from Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Duffy did
substitute in as counsel in most of the Northern District of California AF Holdings
and Ingenuity 13 cases. Paul Duffy has previously represented himself to a Florida
court as Prendas sole principal. On February 6, 2013, Paul Duffy initiated an
attempt to meet and confer about this case, the 12-cv-8333 action, by sending an
email to undersigned counsel requesting to meet and confer about this case. Id.
Undersigned counsel and Mr. Duffy mutually agreed to have a meet and confer
telephone conference about this case (as well as about a few other matters) set for
11:30 a.m. on February 8, 2013. Id.
Around 8:30 a.m. on February 8, 2013, the Court entered the instant Order to
Show Cause re Sanctions on the ECF docket (ECF No. 48, dated February 7, 2013).
Mr. Duffy did not answer the phone when undersigned counsel attempted to call
him, as mutually agreed, at 11:30 a.m. on February 8. Instead, starting on the
afternoon on February 8, 2013, Mr. Duffy began dismissing the final cases left,
mainly in the Northern District of California, which Prenda had filed on behalf of
AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13. (The Central District cases were mostly dismissed
on January 28 and 29, 2013). As of the date hereof, every case in California that
Prenda could dismiss voluntarily, without paying prevailing party attorneys fees (in
Case 2:l2-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 52 Filed 02/l9/l3 Page l0 of 33 Page lD #:749
Supp. E.R. 307

-11-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

other words, all cases except the ones where a defendant had answered), has now
been dismissed. Further, according to a PACER search conducted February 11,
2013, most, but not quite all, of the AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 cases have now
been dismissed nationally, presumably most, if not all of them, without prejudice.
(b) Factual Background on Prendas Various Straw Men and Sham Entities
(1) Alan Cooper: John Steeles Former Caretaker; Victim of Identity Theft
Most of the facts relating to Alan Cooper have already been explained, most
comprehensively in the Decl. re: Prenda Law submitted in support of the opposition
to the disqualification motion (ECF No. 40-1, at 2942).
However, there are two new developments worth reporting: first, Alan
Cooper, through his attorney Paul Godfread, has filed a civil lawsuit against John
Steele, Prenda Law, and others alleging misappropriation of his identity. Exhibit Q.
Second, at a 30(b)(6) deposition of AF Holdings conducted by undersigned counsel
on February 19, 2013, a designated representative for AF Holdings blamed any
potential problems with the Alan Cooper signature on John Steele.
8
According to
AF Holdings 30(b)(6) deponent Paul Hansemeier, AF Holdings sole manager and
sole employee Mark Lutz directed John Steele (Mr. Lutzs former boss at Steele
Hanemeier PLLC) to obtain the signature, and Mr. Steele returned a signed
document.
Prendas unilateral, voluntary dismissal of this action, just prior to the
deadline for a response on the Alan Cooper-focused written discovery, is another
fact pointing to potential fraud, rather than some kind of benign coincidence
involving a second Alan Cooper. Mr. Gibbs response to the instant OSC says that
the complaint is not based on an invalid copyright assignment. Notably though, the
response does not deny that AF Holdings cases are based on a forgery.

8
Given that this deposition was conducted earlier today, in San Francisco, no transcript is yet
available.
Case 2:l2-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 52 Filed 02/l9/l3 Page ll of 33 Page lD #:750
Supp. E.R. 308

-12-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(2) Mark Lutz: John Steeles Former Paralegal; Fraudulent Corporate
Representative For Hire
The episode where Prenda attempted to perpetrate a fraud on the court, in
Sunlust Pictures, Inc. v. Tuan Nguyen, M.D. Fl. Case No. 8:12-CV-1685-T-35MAP,
by holding out John Steeles former paralegal, Mark Lutz, as a principal of Prendas
client has also been previously explained. Decl. re: Prenda Law 3940, Exhibit
N (transcript of hearing where Judge Scriven invites sanctions motion for attempted
fraud on the Court).
However, there are new developments Sunlust casemore fraud. In an
attempt to minimize and explain away the first attempted fraud on the Court and
oppose a John Doe sanctions motion, Prenda apparently submitted what appears to
be a fraudulent declaration to the Court. Specifically, Prenda tried to explain the
absence of a true principal for the client, Sunlust Pictures, at the November 27
hearing by submitting a declaration explaining that the companys true principal,
Daniel Webber was out of the country at the time of the hearing. Sunlust Pictures,
Inc. v. Tuan Nguyen, M.D. Fl. Case No. 8:12-CV-1685-T-35MAP at ECF No. 40-2,
5, 12/20/12 (original, sworn affidavit of Daniel Webber stating he was in India
on November 27, 2012). As defense counsel in Sunlust immediately pointed out,
there were two big problems with this story: first, Daniel Weber spells his name with
one b, not two, and, second, his Twitter feed places him in Los Angeles, not India,
on November 27, 2012. Id. at ECF No. 46 (defendants second motions for
sanctions). Accordingly, after being notified of these inconsistencies by defense
counsel, on December 26, 2012, Prenda, through outside counsel specializing in
white collar criminal deense, filed a purported corrected version of the Daniel
Weber declaration, this time spelling Mr. Webers name correctly, and, more
importantly, changing the key fact that he had actually been in Los Angeles on
November 27, 2011, not India. Id. at ECF No. 44-1, 5 (corrected affidavit stating
that Daniel Weber was actually in Los Angeles on November 27, 2012).
Case 2:l2-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 52 Filed 02/l9/l3 Page l2 of 33 Page lD #:75l
Supp. E.R. 309

-13-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In short, Prenda has shown in Sunlust that when accused of fraud, it attempted
to explain its actions and avoid responsibility by making further (supposedly
inadvertent) misrepresentations.
(3) Salt Marsh a/k/a Anthony Saltmarsh: John Steeles Sisters
Roommate (Boyfriend?) at Arizona Address Linked to Alan Cooper
and Other Prenda Shell Entities; New Prenda Straw Man
A closer and more sustained review of various past Prenda court filings has
revealed new facts suggesting that Alan Cooper is not the only straw man Prenda
has used, when pressed to identify individuals associated with Prendas various
sham entities. Just as Alan Cooper was John Steeles former caretaker, and Mark
Lutz was John Steeles former paralegal, another purported client representative
with a personal connection to John Steele has also recently been discovered. In
various filings in the Northern District of California, when pressed to identify a
client contact on an ADR Certification, Prenda identified a person named Salt
Marsh as the AF Holdings Owner. E.g., AF Holdings v. John Doe, N.D. Cal. No.
12-cv-2396-EMC, ECF No. 8, 7/20/12.
9
Exhibit R.
After the Alan Cooper revelations resulted in newfound scrutiny of Prenda
client contacts, Nicholas Ranallo, an attorney in Northern California did some
digging on Salt Marsh, since that seems like a made up name. Mr. Ranallo
recently summarized his findings in a declaration. Exhibit S (Ranallo Decl.).
This declaration by Mr. Ranallo was filed on February 11, 2013, in opposition to
Prendas emergency motion to stay a pending 30(b)(6) deposition of AF Holdings.
The stay was denied, and the 30(b)(6) deposition of AF Holdings is currently set to

9
A similar ADR Certification, which is mandated in the Northern District of California by Local
Rule 16-8(b), was filed in most if not all Prenda cases in the Northern District of California that
progressed so far as service of process on a named defendant. However, per Mr. Ranallo, in
Prendas most recent ADR Certification, the new client
Supp. E.R. 310

-14-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

occur on February 19, 2013.
10
This N.D. Cal. AF Holdings case, which is one where
the defendant responded to the complaint, is one of the very few AF Holdings or
Ingenuity 13 cases now left anywhere in the country.
Without going into all of the details, which are contained in the Ranallo
declaration, suffice it to say that although Salt Marsh appears to be a bogus name,
but there is a man named Anthony Saltmarsh, who has apparently shared several
residences with John Steeles Sister, Jayme C. Steele. Presumably then, the reputed
owner of AF Holdings, Salt Marsh is actually Anthony Saltmarsh, who is the live-
in boyfriend of John Steeles sister Jayme.
Further, a residential address in Phoenix apparently co-occupied by Anthony
Saltmarsh and Jayme Steele has also been linked to several Prenda straw men and
sham entities, including Alan Cooper. Ranallo Decl. 814. Prenda previously
represented VPR Internationale in various copyright infringement suits. Decl. re:
Prenda Law, 11. According to the Nevada Secretary of State, all officer positions
at VPR Inc. are held by Alan Cooper, and the address given for Mr. Cooper in
each instance is 4532 East Villa Theresa Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85032. Ranallo Decl,
Exhibit D. Similarly, an Internet search of that same address revealed what
appears to be an archived WHOIS record for an Internet domain name registration of
<notissues.com> which lists Alan Cooper as the registrant, technical contact, and
administrative contact, but using johnlsteele@gmail.com as the email address of
record, and 4532 East Villa Theresa Drive, Phoneix, AZ 85032 as the mailing
address of record. Exhbit T. According to public database searches on Anthony
Saltmarsh and Jayme Steele, both of them resided at 4532 East Villa Theresa Drive,
Phoenix, AZ 85032.

10
Undersigned counsel recently appeared as co-counsel with Mr. Ranallo, in connection with the
scheduled AF Holdings 30(b)(6) deposition. See AF Holdings v. John Doe, N.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-
2396-EMC, ECF No. 58, 2/14/13.

Supp. E.R. 311

-15-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In short, it appears that Prenda/John Steele has used his sisters house as a
front for Prendas litigation activities. The name Alan Cooper, at least one Prenda
sham entity, VPR, Inc., and John Steeles personal email account are all linked to
this address. Further, it appears that John Steele has used his sisters apparent live-
in boyfriend Anthony Saltmarsh, or a misleading twist on his name (i.e., Salt
Marsh) as the newest Prenda straw man.
(4) The Fraudulent Allen Mooney a/k/a Alan Moay a/k/a Alan Mony
Verification in an Illinois Prenda Case
A few days before the Alan Cooper revelations came to light, and just the
Sunlust hearing where the attempted fraud on the court occurred, Prenda file a
verified petition for presuit discovery in St. Clair County, Illinois on behalf of
Guava, LLC, another offshore shell company. Guava, LLC v. Comcst, Circuit
Court of St. Clair Count, Illinois, No. 12-MR-417. This petition, (like a more
expansive version of a federal Rule 27 petition) invokes a rule of Illinois state
procedure to seek leave to subpoena IP address records from 330 Internet users, was
required to be verified by rule, and is purportedly verified by Alan Moay. Exhibit
U. The petition also asserted, as a verified fact, that venue is proper because at
least one of the Doe defendants resides in St. Clair County, Illinois. Further,
Comcast transacts business in St. Clair County, Illinois.
Defense counsel in that case, including the undersigned, ultimately picked up
on two problems with this petition: first, the verification is suspicious because Alan
Moay is a bogus name; there is no record of any such person with that name
existing in the United States. There are also other suspicious elements of the
verification: although it purports to be notarized, there is no notary name, seal or
registration number, and the font on the verification is different than the font on the
petition itself. Second, after Comcast ran the records through it database, it was
ultimately revealed that not a single one of the 330 IP addresses at issue were
actually linked to St. Clair County. This is because Comcast does not do business
Supp. E.R. 312

-16-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

there; Charter is the local franchised cable operator. The suit was brought in St.
Clair county, on the basis of demonstrably false venue and jurisdictional allegations,
solely as a matter of forum shopping. Exhibit U, 6; see Exhibit V.
When pressed on the bogus affiant Alan Moay, Prenda changed its story.
Prendas current story (as of 1:00 p.m. on February 18, 2013) is that the verification
does not say Alan Moay at all; rather, it says Alan Mony. The problem with the
new story (aside from the fact the verification says Alan Moay) is that Alan Mony
is also a bogus name. Exhibit V.
However, as noted in the attached reply brief filed recently by undersigned
counsel in St. Clair County, the name Allan Mooney is a name that has been
linked to Prenda previously. Id. According to the Minnesota Secretary of State, a
man named Allan Mooney was previously listed as the manager of MCGIP, LLC,
another shell company plaintiff on whose behalf Prenda has filed various federal
lawsuits. Id. The address for Allan Mooney on the MCGIP business entity detail
was care of Alpha Law Group, LLC, which is the newest firm of Prenda founder
Paul Hansemier. One Alan Mooney is also a current client of Alpha Law / Paul
Hansemeier, in Mooney v. Priceline.Com Incorporated et al., No. 12-cv- 02731-
DWF-JSM (D. Minn. Oct. 26, 2012). Id.
In short, Prenda appears to have filed yet another bogus verification,
11
this
time in state Court in Illinois. The purported affiant links Prendas fraudulent
activities in Illinois to Mr. Paul Hansemeier of Minnesota, who was the other
original founder of Prenda (and whose brother Peter still signs all of the technical
declarations for Prenda).
In response to this allegation of another fraudulent Prenda verification, Mr.
Gibbs retorts that

11
The original bogus pre-suit discovery verification, purportedly signed by Alan Cooper, was
filed by Mr. Gibbs in In the Matter of a Petition by Ingenuity 13, LLC, E.D. Cal. Case No. 11-mc-
0084-JAM-DAD, ECF No. 1.
Supp. E.R. 313

-17-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(5) Collusion Between Prenda and the Defendant in Minnesota Case
Since Prenda has mainly stopped filing swarm joinder suits against multiple
Does, given the trouble that theory has run into in federal Courts, it has now resorted
to new tactics. One example of the new tactics are the state pre-suit discovery cases,
like Guava, LLC v. Comcast, in St. Clair County, discussed above.
However, the other new tactic Prenda has employed is to make a back room
deal with a John Doe it has previously identified, whereby Prenda agrees not to
pursue that person, in exchange for which that person will agree to be named and
served, and stipulate to early discovery against a passel of John Doe co-
conspirators. Apparently, Prenda steers such people (one can imagine Prenda
chooses the people who are particularly worried about their cases) to certain
lawyers, and these lawyers then agree on behalf of the named lead defendant, to
stipulate to far-reaching discovery. Details of this kind of collusion (all in the name
of obtaining ISP subscriber information) are explained in the declaration from the
attorney for Spencer Merkel in Guava, LLC v. Merkel, a Minnesota suit seeking
discovery on Does all over the country. Exhibit W.
(6) Recent Rebranding of Prenda Law and Mr. Gibbs New Career as In
House Counsel for Various Prenda Shell Entities
Recently, Mr. Gibbs has substituted out of various Prenda cases as counsel of
record. Far from washing his hands of his involvement with Prenda though, and
trying to start anew, Mr. Gibbs has simply changed hats. Mr. Gibbs has recently
purported to be in house counsel for at least three different Prenda-related sham
entities.
12
This new role for Mr. Gibbs only further supports the Courts suspicion
that Mr. Gibbs has a pecuniary interest in the Prenda shell companies.

12
According to the February 19, 2013 deposition of AF Holdings 30(b)(6) deponent, Paul
Hansemeier, the amended substitution of attorney form Mr. Gibbs filed in N.D. Cal. 12-cv-4221, at
ECF No. 22 (filed 1/30/13), which identified Mr. Gibbs as In-House Counsel, AF Holdings,
LLC is incorrect, and Mr. Gibbs is now, as of two weeks later, not in house counsel to AF
Holdings. Incidentally, the same day that Mr. Gibbs filed the amended substitution of counsel in
Supp. E.R. 314

-18-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(7) Paul Duffy, John Steele and Paul Hansemier Other Attorneys Who
Share Responsibility with Mr. Gibbs for Overseeing Prendas
Fraudulent Litigation Scheme
Mr. Gibbs surely bears a significant amount of responsibility for Prendas
egregious actions, but he has not acted alonethe fraud here is systematic, and part
of a conspiracy involving several other lawyers and laypeople.
Attorney Paul A. Duffy proclaimed himself the sole principal of Prenda
Law last fall in a letter to the Court in the Sunlust case. Exhibit Y. Mr. Duffy is
admitted to the State Bar of California
13
(although he primarily practices in Chicago;
in addition to California, Mr. Duffy is also admitted Illinois, Massachusetts and
Washington, DC)
14
, and has appeared as counsel for record for Prenda in various
Ingenuity 13 and AF Holdings cases in California. Exhibit Z. Moreover, Mr. Duffy
attempted to meet and confer with undersigned counsel about this case, 12-cv-8333,
indicating he is involved with this particular litigation now before this Court.
Exhibit P.
Attorney John L. Steele, like Mr. Gibbs, also purports to merely be of
counsel to Prenda. Decl. re: Prenda Law, Exhibit D (Steeles April 20, 2012, entry
of appearance as of counsel to Prenda in DC case); but see Exhibit N, p. 139:5
(Steele tells Judge Scriven on November 27, 2012, Im not an attorney with any
law firm right now.) then see Suppl Decl. 15 (After appearing at a February 13,
2013, hearing for Guava, LLC, Steele confirmed to several people that he is still

that action (1/30/13), he also sent out a letter to several hundred ISP subscribers identified in the
St. Clair County Guava, LLC case identifying himself as In-House Counsel, Guava LLC.
Exhibit X. Finally, as noted below, Mr. Gibbs special counsel in this action has also identified
him in the instant OSC response as in-house counsel for Livewire Holdings, LLC, the purported
new owner of AF Holdings (note the letterhead used to send out the Guava letter). ECF No. 49, fn
1.

13
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/224159

14
http://www.wefightpiracy.com/paul-duffy.php
Supp. E.R. 315

-19-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

currently of counsel to Prenda Law). However, together with Paul Hansemier,
Mr. Steele was the founder of Prendas predecessor in interest, Steele Hansemier,
PLLC. Morover, as indicated, supra, in sections II(b)(1)-(3), Mr. Steeles
fingerprints are all over Prendas various frauds. Almost every time Prenda has had
to identify a person connection to a client shell entity, the person Prenda has held
out to the world has been a current or former close associate of John Steele. Mr.
Steele indicates on his LinkedIn page that he sold [his] client book to Prenda Law
in 2011, but in reality, Mr. Steele appears to remain heavily involved in Prenda.
Exhibit AA. For example, in the Forbes article (fn 3, supra) Mr. Steele brags about
Prenda litigation as if he is speaking about himself. Similarly, many lawyers who
deal with Prenda on a regular basis could testify to the fact that inquiries to Prenda
are routinely answered by Mr. Steele himself.
Attorney Paul L. Hansemeier is also one of the founders of this scheme, and
his latest firm, Alpha Law Firm, LLC, appears to be nothing more than Prendas
newest trade name in Minnesota.
15
Like Prenda, the Alpha Law Firm also
represents the shell company Guava, LLC in CFAA / BitTorrent litigation. See
Guava, LLC v. Spencer Merkel, Hennepin County, Minnesota District Court No. 27-
CV-12-20976, Exhibit BB. Alpha Laws counsel of record in the Guava case, Mr.
Michael Dugas, was a former associate for Prenda Law. Exhibit CC. Admittedly,
Mr. Hansemeier has apparently made some attempts to try and distance himself from
Mr. Steele, and the Prenda name, at least on paper, by creating a new firm name for
himself. However, the continued involvement of Alpha Law in the Guava litigation,
as well as the role Mr. Hansemeiers client Allan Mooney may have played in the
bogus verification in the St. Clair County, Illinois Guava case (where Prenda is

15
At the February 19, 2013 30(b)(6) deposition of AF Holdings, Mr. Hansemeier testified that in
cases his Alpha Law Firm settled for AF Holdings, the proceeds were paid and deposited into the
Prenda trust account, not the Alpha Law Firm trust account.
Supp. E.R. 316

-20-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

counsel of record, not Alpha Law) suggests Mr. Hansemeier remains involved
behind the scenes.
Prenda also uses local counsel in many jurisdictions around the country.
With the possible exception of the Dugases in Minnesota, who may be involved in
management, many of these local attorneys appear to have ended up working with
Prenda by answering Craigslist ads, and may not comprehend what they are getting
themselves into. Since Mr. Gibbs is admitted in California, he has been counsel of
record in all of Prendas California cases, since the early days of Steele Hansemeier
(excepting Paul Duffys recent substitution for Mr. Gibbs in a handful of cases in the
Northern District of California).
In terms of non-attorneys participating in Prendas scheme, the top of the list
would be Paul Hansemeiers brother Peter Hansemeier, who has been Prendas
technical expert since the early days of Steele Hansemeier. Close behind Peter
Hansemeier would be Mark Lutz, a man who wears many hats for Prenda. In
addition to being Mr. Steeles former paralegal, Mr. Lutz is a seasoned telephone
solicitor who helps pressure John Doe defendants into settling, and he is also
apparently a fraudulent corporate representative for hire, who is Prendas go-to
person to identify as a client contact in initial disclosures. On its website, Mr. Lutz
is currently listed as a founder of Livewire Holdings, LLC, Prendas newest affiliate,
which has an office at a UPS Store in Washington, DC. Also possibly involved in
this scheme, but to an unknown degree would be John Steeles sister Jayme C.
Steele, her co-habitant (boyfriend?) Anthony Saltmarsh, and Allan Mooney (Paul
Hansemiers client) who is perhaps the Alan Mony currently reputed to be the
principal of Guava, LLC.
In short, Mr. Gibbs has had lots of help in defrauding this Court; several other
attorneys and laypeople connected to Prenda Law are also culpable.
Supp. E.R. 317

-1-
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MORGAN E. PIETZ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301

Kitts and Nevis,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.


Case Assigned to:


SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION
OF MORGAN E. PIETZ

Supp. E.R. 318

-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

I, Morgan E. Pietz, have personal knowledge of the facts alleged herein and hereby
declare as follows:
1. I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California, duly
admitted to the practice of law in the state and federal courts of the State of
California.
2. I represent ISP subscribers who have been targeted by Ingenuity 13,
LLC, through its counsel Prenda Law, Inc. f/k/a Steele Hansemeier PLLC
(Prenda) in copyright infringement cases Ingenuity 13 filed in both the Central
District of California, and the Northern District of California. I also represent other
clients in other cases brought by Prenda on behalf of other entities, sometimes along
with local counsel, in other courts.
3. I represent a putative John Doe defendant in the case indicated on the
caption above.
4. My clients in the Prenda cases, including this case, each received letters
from their ISPs informing them that Prenda was attempting to subpoena their
identity as part of a lawsuit. Generally, my clients are the people who happen to pay
the Internet bill for their household, not necessarily the people who actually
committed the alleged infringement or other wrongful conduct. However, Prenda
constructs its lawsuits so as to make it unclear what exactly is the status of my
clients. The complaint does not exactly come out and say that the ISP subscriber
equals the John Doe defendant. However, the requests for early discovery, seeking
leave to issue ISP subpoenas, generally tend to conflate ISP subscriber with Doe
defendant.
5. A comprehensive Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz re: Prenda Law,
Inc. was previously filed in this action at ECF No. 40-1. Exhibit letters herein are
continued from that prior declaration.
6. I did serve the Alan Cooper written discovery on Mr. Gibbs, via
overnight mail, on January 4, 2013.
Supp. E.R. 319

-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7. Attached as Exhibit P hereto is a true and correct copy of an email
chain I received wherein Mr. Gibbs notified me that Mr. Duffy would be substituting
into this case as counsel of record, and an email where Mr. Duffy attempted to meet
and confer with on 12-cv-8333.
8. Attached as Exhibit Q hereto is a true and correct copy of Alan
Coopers complaint for identity theft, etc.
9. Attached as Exhibit R hereto is a true and correct copy of documents
identifying Salt Marsh as the owner of AF Holdings.
10. Attached as Exhibit S hereto is a true and correct copy of a declaration
attorney Nicholas Ranallo prepared regarding Anthony Saltmarsh.
11. Attached as Exhibit T hereto is a true and correct copy of a website
registration document showing Alan Cooper at an address in Phoenix linked to,
John Steele, his sister and Anthony Saltmarsh.
12. Attached as Exhibit U hereto is a true and correct copy of the petition in
the St. Clair County Guava, LLC case, which appears to be verified by Alan Moay
or Alan Mony.
13. Attached as Exhibit V hereto is a true and correct copy of my reply in
the St. Clair County Guava, LLC case.
14. Attached as Exhibit W hereto is a true and correct copy of the
declaration about the collusion in a Minnesota Guava LLC case.
15. John Steele told me, in front of others, on February 13, 2013 in St. Clair
County that he is currently of counsel to Prenda Law.
16. Attached as Exhibit X hereto is a true and correct copy of a demand
letter, dated January 30, 2013, from the St. Clair County case listing Mr. Gibbs as in
house counsel for Guava, LLC.
17. Attached as Exhibit Y hereto is a true and correct copy of a letter Mr.
Duffy sent to Judge Scriven in Florida wherein he represents that he is the sole
principal of Prenda Law.
Supp. E.R. 320

-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

18. Attached as Exhibit Z hereto is a true and correct copy of Mr. Duffys
bio from the wefightpiracy.com website, accessed February 20, 2013.
19. Attached as Exhibit AA hereto is a true and correct copy of John L.
Steeles LinkedIn profile where he states that he sold [his] client book to Prenda
Law in 2011.
20. Attached as Exhibit BB hereto is a true and correct copy of a complaint
listing wherein Paul Hansemeiers firm Alpha Law Firm, LLC represents Guava,
LLC in Minnesota.
21. Attached as Exhibit CC hereto is a true and correct copy of the
LinkedIn profile for Michael Dugas listing Prenda Law.
22. Attached as Exhibit DD hereto is a true and correct copy of an
unpublished Ninth Circuit sanctions opinion.



DATED: February 20, 2013
Executed this day at Manhattan Beach, California, by

/s/ Morgan E. Pietz
Supp. E.R. 321

EXHIBIT P
P
EXHIBIT P
Supplemental Exhibits - Page 1
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 53-1 Filed 02/20/13 Page 1 of 130 Page ID #:777
Supp. E.R. 322
Notice of Withdrawal as Counsel
Brett Gibbs <blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com> Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:56 PM
Mr. Pietz:
Please be on notice, I will be entering my notice of withdrawal as counsel of record for Ingenuity13 and AF
Holdings in all cases filed in California. Mr. Paul Duffy will be substituting in as counsel.
Regards,
--
415-325-5900
NOTICE:
Gmail - Notice of Withdrawal as Counsel https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5e8233d0c6&view...
1 of 1 2/20/13 12:29 AM
Supp. E.R. 323
Activity in Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Ingenuity13 LLC v. John Doe Order
Morgan Pietz <morganpietz@gmail.com> Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:36 AM
To: Prenda <paduffy@wefightpiracy.com>
Cc: "Morgan E. Pietz" <mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com>, Brett Gibbs <blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com>
No luck reaching you.
Please send me your part of the joint letter on the PO issue in N.D. Cal. No. 12-4976 by close of business
today. This nonsense has gone on long enough. Note that you do NOT have my permission to simply file the
letter. You and Brett have now wasted so much time that circumstances have changed and I need to update
my part.
I am tied up in Court the rest of the day. Have a nice weekend.
Best regards,
Mirgan
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 8, 2013, at 11:31 AM, Morgan Pietz <morganpietz@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul I just tried that number and it went straight to a 'voicemailbox that has not been setup yet.'
I am going to try again two more times, right now.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 7, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Prenda <paduffy@wefightpiracy.com> wrote:
3128526136
On Feb 7, 2013, at 6:33 PM, Morgan Pietz <morganpietz@gmail.com> wrote:
What number should I call?
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Prenda <paduffy@wefightpiracy.com> wrote:
I am representing that I will participate in the conference call that you agreed to participate in
tomorrow. If there is something substantive you would like to talk about then I am all ears. Thanks.
Gmail - Activity in Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Ingenuity13... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5e8233d0c6&view...
1 of 8 2/20/13 12:33 AM
Supp. E.R. 324
Paul,
Since you seem to have an aversion to reading, I'll make this short then: are you representing
that I should consider you as counsel of record in this case or not?
I do plan to speak with you tomorrow at 11:30, at the very least about some other cases, but
whether we will be covering this case depends on your answer to my question above.
Best regards,
Morgan
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Prenda <paduffy@wefightpiracy.com> wrote:
I agreed to have a meet and confer with you tomorrow. If you are canceling please let me
know and we can reschedule. Your email message (below) and your other messages are too
long for me to read but I am happy to talk directly with you about whatever you want. Thanks.
Brett and Paul,
I just noticed that the most recent email to me below appears to be from Paul Duffy not Brett
Gibbs, who I understand has recently moved on to be the purported 'in-house counsel' for
assorted Prenda-related entities.
With respect to the case identified in the subject line, Mr. Gibbs is still counsel of record,
and, as Mr. Gibbs himself correctly pointed out, no substitution has yet been filed making
Paul Duffy counsel of record in this matter.
Accordingly, Paul, if you would like to have a substantive discussion on this case, and the
impending threat of sanctions which neither you nor Brett have responded to, I must insist
that you enter some kind of appearance first. However, I would indeed like to keep our
11:30 a.m. PST phone appointment tomorrow, as I have a number of other matters, where
you are properly counsel of record, which I would like to discuss with you.
I will send you separate emails about those other matters, so that we may have a more
productive conversation tomorrow.
As to this matter, please advise whether I should be speaking to Mr. Duffy, to Mr. Gibbs, or to
both/either of you?
Best regards,
Morgan
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Morgan Pietz <morganpietz@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, at 11:30 PST.
2 of 8 2/20/13 12:33 AM
Supp. E.R. 325
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 6, 2013, at 3:05 AM, Prenda <paduffy@wefightpiracy.com> wrote:
Mr. Pietz - please let me know if you are free to meet and confer by telephone on
Friday, February 8 at 9:am or later your time. Thanks.
On Jan 30, 2013, at 8:18 PM, "Morgan E. Pietz" <mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com> wrote:
Brett,
Since Mr. Duffy has not yet appeared in this case, and, as you correctly note, no
substitution has been filed, much less approved, then, you are quite right: you are
still counsel of record. You know as well as I do that this matter is not concluded; the
Court has not yet approved your voluntary dismissal (the Copyright Report is not
what matters) and the minute order below, as well as my prior notice to you that I am
likely going to be seeking sanctions, clearly mean that litigation here is not quite over
yet. As I am sure you know, a federal Court retains jurisdiction to consider sanctions,
even after a complaint has been dismissed.
Accordingly, I am going to reiterate my request, one final time, for a response to my
query of January 29, about whether you will be responding to the discovery on Alan
Cooper in which the Court has taken an interest. Based on your most recent email, it
does seem clear you are the appropriate (indeed, only) attorney to which it is
appropriate to direct this question.
I am cc'ing Mr. Duffy, both as a courtesy, and in the hopes that if he does seek to
substitute in on your behalf, you and/or he can first answer my other questions below
to allow me to determine whether I would oppose such a request.
Best regards,
Morgan
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Brett Gibbs <blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com> wrote:
Mr. Pietz:
This case has been dismissed, and recently closed by the Court. Please refer to
the Court's docket.
As for any questions regarding Mr. Duffy, you can contact him yourself if you
desire.
As for your statement directed at me, please note that there was no substitution of
counsel form filed in the above-referenced case.
It was a pleasure working with you. Good luck in your future endeavors.
3 of 8 2/20/13 12:33 AM
Supp. E.R. 326
Regards,
Brett Gibbs
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Morgan E. Pietz <mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com>
wrote:
Brett,
I am in receipt of your email of yesterday night informing me that you plan on
attempting to withdraw from this action, as well as the other AF Holdings and
Ingenuity 13 actions in California, and that you hope that Mr. Paul Duffy will be
allowed to substitute in on your behalf in these cases.
With respect to whether I will object to the proposed substitution in this case,
could you please clarify a few things for me:
(1) It is almost now close of business, and I still have not heard back from you
with respect to my query below. Have you forwarded my query to Mr. Duffy, and
from whom, if anyone, should I expect a substantive response?
(2) I note that both on the California State Bar website, and in and recent filings
made by Mr. Duffy in the Northern District of California yesterday and today, Mr.
Duffy lists different addresses, both of which are located in Chicago, IL. I also
note that a couple months ago, Mr. Duffy wrote Judge Scriven in Florida to
explain that he could not travel by air to a hearing she had ordered him to
appear at, due to eye surgery. Is Mr. Duffy able to travel by air now, such that
he could be available to appear in California?
(3) I note that on both the State Bar website, and in Mr. Duffy's recent
appearances in other cases, Mr. Duffy's affiliation is listed as something other
than Prenda Law, Inc. My understanding was that Mr. Duffy was the "sole
principal" of Prenda Law, Inc. and that you were "of counsel" to that firm. Has
the firm been disbanded?
(4) Finally, I understand from other filings that you will now become "in house
counsel" for AF Holdings. Is that correct? What about Ingenuity 13, are you
now also "in house counsel" for Ingenuity 13, LLC.
Please get back to me on these issues so that I can determine whether I will
oppose the proposed substitution.
Best regards,
Morgan
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Morgan E. Pietz <mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com>
wrote:
Brett,
4 of 8 2/20/13 12:33 AM
Supp. E.R. 327
I view your attempt to dodge the Alan Cooper discovery, by unilaterally
dismissing the case without prejudice, as the coup de grce in a series of bad
faith actions in this case. Please be advised, I will likely be seeking sanctions.
In view of the Court's order of earlier today, below, please advise whether you
will be responding to the outstanding written discovery on Alan Cooper. If you
actually respond with properly verified, substantive answers, and produce the
documents demanded to my office, by the original deadline of Monday 2/4/13,
by 5:00 P.M., I will consider refraining from seeking sanctions (depending on
your responses).
Please advise by close of business tomorrow (1/30) whether you will be
responding to the discovery by Monday (2/4).
Best regards,
Morgan
Date: Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:19 AM
Subject: Activity in Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Ingenuity13 LLC v. John
Doe Order
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system.
Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is
unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the
United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case
(including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all
documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed
by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later
charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.
However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and
30 page limit do not apply.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
The following transaction was entered on 1/29/2013 at 11:18 AM PST and
filed on 1/28/2013
Filer:
5 of 8 2/20/13 12:33 AM
Supp. E.R. 328
Document Number: 45
Docket Text:
ORDER RE STATUS CONFERENCE by Judge Otis D.
Wright, II: The parties to jointly prepare a status report,
briefly indicating whether this early discovery was
propounded and whether an answer was given in
response. This status report must be filed by February 19,
2013. In addition, the parties are hereby ORDERED to
appear for a status conference on March 4, 2013, at 1:30
p.m., to discuss the status of this early discovery.If the
parties indicate in their status report that the early
discovery has been properly propounded and answered,
the Court will vacate the March 4, 2013 status conference.
Failure to comply with this order or failure to appear for
the scheduled status conference may result in sanctions,
including monetary sanctions.(lc)
2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Morgan E Pietz mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com, lrudolph@pietzlawfirm.com
Brett Langdon Gibbs docket@wefightpiracy.com,
2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Notice has been delivered by First Class U. S.
Mail or by other means BY THE FILER to :
--
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301
--
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
6 of 8 2/20/13 12:33 AM
Supp. E.R. 329
Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301
--
415-325-5900
NOTICE: THIS EMAIL IS INTENDED TO BE PART OF A SETTLEMENT
NEGOTIATION AND IS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER FRE RULE 408.
NOTICE:
This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, found at 18
U.S.C. 2510 et. seq. and is intended to remain confidential and is subject to applicable
attorney/client and/or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this
message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the
sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and all attachments. Do not deliver,
distribute or copy this message and/or any attachments and if you are not the intended
recipient, do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information
contained in this communication or any attachments.
Circular 230 Disclosure: Pursuant to recently-enacted U.S. Treasury Department regulations,
we are now required to advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax
advice contained in this communication, including attachments and enclosures, is not intended
or written to be used, and may not be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties
under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
--
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301
7 of 8 2/20/13 12:33 AM
Supp. E.R. 330
--

--

--

8 of 8 2/20/13 12:33 AM
#:786
Supp. E.R. 331

EXHIBIT Q
Q
EXHIBIT Q
#:787
Supp. E.R. 332
#:788
Supp. E.R. 333
#:789
Supp. E.R. 334
#:790
Supp. E.R. 335
#:791
Supp. E.R. 336
#:792
Supp. E.R. 337
#:793
Supp. E.R. 338
#:794
Supp. E.R. 339
#:795
Supp. E.R. 340
#:796
Supp. E.R. 341
#:797
Supp. E.R. 342
#:798
Supp. E.R. 343
#:799
Supp. E.R. 344

EXHIBIT R
R
EXHIBIT R
#:800
Supp. E.R. 345
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

415-325-5900


SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

AF HOLDINGS LLC, ) No. 3:12-cv-02396 EMC
)
Plaintiff, ) ADR CERTIFICATION BY PARTIES
v. ) AND COUNSEL
)
JOHN DOE, )
)
Defendant. )
)
____________________________________)

ADR CERTIFICATION BY PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8(b) and ADR L.R. 3-5(b), each of the undersigned certifies that he
or she has:
(1) Read the handbook entitled Dispute Resolution Procedures in the Northern District of
California on the Courts ADR Internet site www.adr.cand.uscourts.gov (Limited
printed copies are available from the clerks office for parties in cases not subject to the
courts Electronic Case Filing program (ECF) under General Order 45);
(2) Discussed the available dispute options provided by the Court and private entities; and
(3) Considered whether this case might benefit from any available dispute resolution options.

Dated: July 20, 2012 __/s/ Salt Marsh, AF Holdings Owner_______
PARTY

Dated: July 20, 2012 ___/s/_Brett L. Gibbs, Esq.,_Trial Counsel____
COUNSEL
Case3:12-cv-02396-EMC Document8 Filed07/20/12 Page1 of 1
#:801
Supp. E.R. 346

EXHIBIT S
S
EXHIBIT S
#:802
Supp. E.R. 347
Nicholas Ranallo, Attorney at Law #275016
371 Dogwood Way
Boulder Creek, CA 95006
Telephone No.: (831) 703 - 4011
Fax No.: (831) 533-5073
Email: nick@ranallolawoffice.com
Attorney for Defendant J oe Navasca

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AF HOLDINGS, LLC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

J OE NAVASCA

Defendants.

Case No. 3:12-cv-02396-EMC

Declaration of Nicholas Ranallo in
Opposition to Motion to Shorten
Time/Motion for Stay of Discovery

DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS RANALLO
1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in the State of California and before the
District Court for the Northern District of California. I am attorney of record for
J oe Navasca, and this declaration is based on personal knowledge of the matters
set forth herein or, to the extent so identified, upon information and belief formed
after reasonable inquiry as described herein.
2. On Friday, February 8, 2013, I received an electronic file from J oe Navasca
comprised of a voicemail recording left at his residence on the same date.
Case3:12-cv-02396-EMC Document55-1 Filed02/11/13 Page1 of 4
#:803
Supp. E.R. 348
Paragraph 5, below, represents my personal transcription of the voicemail
message. I have retained an electronic copy of the message and can provide it to
the court upon request.
3. Upon information and belief, the individual speaking in the voicemail message is
Mark Lutz. This belief is based on my recognition of Mr. Lutz voice from
numerous past conversations with Mr. Lutz in his role as paralegal for Steele
Hansmeier/Prenda Law.
4. On Friday, February 8, 2013, I sent a copy of the voicemail to Brett Gibbs
requesting explanation. Beyond noting that I did not represent J ovino, Mr. Gibbs
provided no information regarding why a law firm that is not formally involved in
this case is seeking settlement from an individual that is not the defendant in this
case, and/or seeking to amend the complaint to name an individual that was
previously eliminated as a likely infringer.
5. The following represents my personal transcription of the February 8 voicemail. I
have endeavored to be as accurate as possible:
Yes, uh, this message is for J ovino. Its, uh, Anti-Piracy Law Group giving you a
call about a couple of letters we mailed you which had to do with the copyright
infringement lawsuit that you are a part of. And..um..yeah, I mean, we havent
entered into a settlement agreement as of yet. And, prior to moving forward and
modifying the complaint to add your name, our client just asked us to give you a
quick call. You know, I suppose if you want to avoid the expense and time that is
associated with a case like this, call us back. We can be reached at (800) 380-
0840. Your reference number is 84080. Thank you.

6. The telephone number identified in the message above is the number listed for
Prenda Law, Inc., on its wefightpiracy.com web site.
#:804
Supp. E.R. 349
7. The reference number noted above corresponds to prior letters from Plaintiff
regarding the allegations of infringement from this case.
SALT MARSH
8. Salt Marsh is the individual identified as an Owner of AF Holdings in ECF
No. 8 in this case, as well as numerous other cases in this district.
9. I am not aware of any individual with the actual name Salt Marsh that is
associated with AF Holdings or J ohn Steele.
10. However, upon information and belief, an individual named Tony or Anthony
Saltmarsh does exist, and has documented associations with J ohn Steeles family
and the mysterious Alan Cooper, as described further herein.
11. Upon information and belief, Tony Saltmarsh previously lived at 4532 E. Villa
Theresa Drive in Phoenix Arizona, 85032. This belief is based upon a past
address search through peoplesmart.com. of the address and Mr. Saltmarsh. A
copy of Mr. Saltmarshs full report is annexed hereto as Exhibit B.
12. Upon information and belief, J ayme Steele also previously lived at 4532 E. Villa
Theresa Drive in Phoenix, Arizona. This belief is likewise based on
peoplesmart.com past address search for Ms. Steele. A copy of this report is
annexed hereto as Exhibit C.
13. Upon information and belief, the 4532 E. Villa Theresa address was also
previously used by VPR, Inc., a former Steele Hansmeier client. This belief is
based on a review of the Nevada Secretary of State entity details attached hereto as
Exhibit D.
#:805
Supp. E.R. 350
14. Upon information and belief, Alan Cooper was identified as, inter alia, the
President and Treasurer of VPR, Inc. and likewise associated with the 4532 East
Villa Theresa address. This belief is likewise based on a review of the Nevada
Secretary of State entity details, a copy of which are annexed hereto as Exhibit D.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration is executed on this 11
th
day of
February, 2013, in Boulder Creek, California.

/s/ Nicholas R. Ranallo_________
Nicholas Ranallo

#:806
Supp. E.R. 351

Exhibit A
#:807
Supp. E.R. 352


INGENUITY 13 LLC,

Plaintiff,
v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.

Case Nos. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW(JCx)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
SANCTIONS FOR RULE 11 AND
LOCAL RULE 83-3 VIOLATIONS

The Court hereby orders Brett L. Gibbs, attorney of record for AF Holdings
LLC and Ingenuity 13 LLC, to appear on March 11, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., to justify his
violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and Local Rule 83-3 discussed
herein.
1

A. Legal Standard
The Court has a duty to supervise the conduct of attorneys appearing before it.
Erickson v. Newmar Corp., 87 F.3d 298, 301 (9th Cir. 1996). The power to punish
contempt and to coerce compliance with issued orders is based on statutes and the
Courts inherent authority. Intl Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512

1
The violations discussed herein were committed in the following related cases: AF Holdings LLC v.
Doe, No. 2:12-cv-6636-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 1, 2012); AF Holdings LLC v. Doe, No.
2:12-cv-6669-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 2, 2012); Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-
6662-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 2, 2012); Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-6668-
ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 2, 2012); Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW(JCx)
(C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 27, 2012). To facilitate this matter, Mr. Gibbs will be given the opportunity to
address these violations together in one hearing rather than in several separate hearings.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 48 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:600 Case3:12-cv-02396-EMC Document55-2 Filed02/11/13 Page2 of 12
#:808
Supp. E.R. 353

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
U.S. 821, 831 (1994). And though this power must be exercised with restraint, the
Court has wide latitude in fashioning appropriate sanctions to fit the conduct. See
Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 76465 (1980).
B. Rule 11(b)(3) Violations
By presenting a pleading to the Court, an attorney certifies thatafter
conducting a reasonable inquirythe factual contentions in the pleading have
evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary
support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11(b)(3). This precomplaint duty to find supporting facts is not satisfied by
rumor or hunch. Bankers Trust Co. v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 959 F.2d 677, 683 (7th
Cir. 1992). The reasonableness of this inquiry is based on an objective standard, and
subjective good faith provides no safe harbor. Golden Eagle Distrib. Corp. v.
Burroughs Corp., 801 F.2d 1531, 1538 (9th Cir. 1986); F.D.I.C. v. Calhoun, 34 F.3d
1291, 1296 (5th Cir. 1994); Knipe v. Skinner, 19 F.3d 72, 75 (2d Cir. 1994). The
Court wields the discretion to impose sanctions designed to deter repetition of the
conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Fed R. Civ. P 11(c)(4).
In Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-6662-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. filed
Aug. 2, 2012), the Court ordered Plaintiff on December 20, 2012, to show cause why
it failed to timely serve the Defendant or, if the Defendant has already been served, to
submit the proof of service. (ECF No. 12.) In response, Plaintiff noted that the delay
was because it waited to receive a response from the subscriber of the IP address
associated with the alleged act of infringement. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff further noted:
Though the subscriber, David Wagar, remained silent, Plaintiffs investigation of his
household established that Benjamin Wagar was the likely infringer of Plaintiffs
copyright. (ECF No. 14, at 2.) Based on this investigation, Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint, substituting Benjamin Wagar for John Doe. (ECF No. 13.)
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint alleges the following in connection with
Benjamin Wagar:
#:809
Supp. E.R. 354

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant Benjamin Wagar (Defendant) knowingly and illegally
reproduced and distributed Plaintiffs copyrighted Video by acting in
concert with others via the BitTorrent file sharing protocol and, upon
information and belief, continues to do the same. (AC 1);
Defendant is an individual who, upon information and belief, is over the
age of eighteen and resides in this District. (AC 4);
Defendant was assigned the Internet Protocol (IP) address of
96.248.225.171 on 2012-06-28 at 07:19:47 (UTC). (AC 4);
Defendant, using IP address 96.248.225.171, without Plaintiffs
authorization or license, intentionally downloaded a torrent file particular
to Plaintiffs Video, purposefully loaded that torrent file into his
BitTorrent clientin this case, Azureus 4.7.0.2entered a BitTorrent
swarm particular to Plaintiffs Video, and reproduced and distributed the
Video to numerous third parties. (AC 22);
Plaintiffs investigators detected Defendants illegal download on 2012-
06-28 at 07:19:47 (UTC). However, this is a [sic] simply a snapshot
observation of when the IP address was observed in the BitTorrent
swarm; the conduct took itself [sic] place before and after this date and
time. (AC 23);
The unique hash value in this case is identified as
F016490BD8E60E184EC5B7052CEB1FA570A4AF11. (AC 24.)
In a different case, Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-6668-ODW(JCx)
(C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 2, 2012), Plaintiff essentially makes the same response to the
Courts December 20, 2012 Order To Show Cause (ECF No. 12): Though the
subscriber, Marvin Denton, remained silent, Plaintiffs investigation of his household
established that Mayon Denton was the likely infringer of Plaintiffs copyright.
(ECF No. 13, at 2.) And based on this information, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 16), similar in all respects to the one filed against Benjamin
#:810
Supp. E.R. 355

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Wagar in Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-6662-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. filed
Aug. 2, 2012), with the following technical exceptions:
Defendant was assigned the Internet Protocol (IP) address of 75.128.55.44
on 2012-07-04 at 07:51:30 (UTC). (AC 4);
Defendant . . . purposefully loaded that torrent file into his BitTorrent
clientin this case, Torrent 3.1.3 . . . . (AC 22);
The unique hash value in this case is identified as
0D47A7A035591B0BA4FA5CB86AFE986885F5E18E. (AC 24.)
Upon review of these allegations, the Court finds two glaring problems that
Plaintiffs technical cloak fails to mask. Both of these are obvious to an objective
observer having a working understanding of the underlying technology.
1. Lack of reasonable investigation of copyright infringement activity
The first problem is how Plaintiff concluded that the Defendants actually
downloaded the entire copyrighted video, when all Plaintiff has as evidence is a
snapshot observation. (AC 23.) This snapshot allegedly shows that the
Defendants were downloading the copyrighted workat least at that moment in time.
But downloading a large file like a video takes time; and depending on a users
Internet-connection speed, it may take a long time. In fact, it may take so long that the
user may have terminated the download. The user may have also terminated the
download for other reasons. To allege copyright infringement based on an IP
snapshot is akin to alleging theft based on a single surveillance camera shot: a photo
of a child reaching for candy from a display does not automatically mean he stole it.
No Court would allow a lawsuit to be filed based on that amount of evidence.
What is more, downloading data via the Bittorrent protocol is not like stealing
candy. Stealing a piece of a chocolate bar, however small, is still theft; but copying an
encrypted, unusable piece of a video file via the Bittorrent protocol may not be
copyright infringement. In the former case, some chocolate was taken; in the latter
case, an encrypted, unusable chunk of zeroes and ones. And as part of its prima facie
#:811
Supp. E.R. 356

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
copyright claim, Plaintiff must show that Defendants copied the copyrighted work.
Feist Publns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). If a download
was not completed, Plaintiffs lawsuit may be deemed frivolous.
In this case, Plaintiffs reliance on snapshot evidence to establish its copyright
infringement claims is misplaced. A reasonable investigation should include evidence
showing that Defendants downloaded the entire copyrighted workor at least a
usable portion of a copyrighted work. Plaintiff has none of thisno evidence that
Defendants completed their download, and no evidence that what they downloaded is
a substantially similar copy of the copyrighted work. Thus, Plaintiffs attorney
violated Rule 11(b)(3) for filing a pleading that lacks factual foundation.
2. Lack of reasonable investigation of actual infringers identity
The second problem is more troublesome. Here, Plaintiff concluded that
Benjamin Wagar is the person who illegally downloaded the copyrighted video. But
Plaintiff fails to allege facts in the Amended Complaint to show how Benjamin Wagar
is the infringer, other than noting his IP address, the name of his Bittorrent client, and
the alleged time of download.
2
Plaintiffs December 27, 2012 Response to the Courts
Order to Show Cause re Lack of Service sheds some light:
Though the subscriber, David Wagar, remained silent, Plaintiffs
investigation of his household established that Benjamin Wagar was the
likely infringer of Plaintiffs copyright. As such, Plaintiff mailed its
Amended Complaint to the Court naming Benjamin Wagar as the
Defendant in this action. (ECF No. 14, at 2.)

The disconnect is how Plaintiff arrived at this conclusionthat the actual infringer is
a member of the subscribers household (and not the subscriber himself or anyone
else)when all it had was an IP address, the name of the Bittorrent client used, the
alleged time of download, and an unresponsive subscriber.

2
This analysis similarly applies in Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-6668-ODW(JCx) (C.D.
Cal. filed Aug. 2, 2012), where Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to show how Mayon Denton is
the infringer.
#:812
Supp. E.R. 357

6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs December 27, 2012 Discovery Status Report gives additional insight
into Plaintiffs deductive process:
In cases where the subscriber remains silent, Plaintiff conducts
investigations to determine the likelihood that the subscriber, or someone
in his or her household, was the actual infringer. . . . For example, if the
subscriber is 75 years old, or the subscriber is female, it is statistically
quite unlikely that the subscriber was the infringer. In such cases,
Plaintiff performs an investigation into the subscribers household to
determine if there is a likely infringer of Plaintiffs copyright. . . .
Plaintiff bases its choices regarding whom to name as the infringer on
factual analysis. (ECF No. 15, at 24.)

The Court interprets this to mean: if the subscriber is 75 years old or female, then
Plaintiff looks to see if there is a pubescent male in the house; and if so, he is named
as the defendant. Plaintiffs factual analysis cannot be characterized as anything
more than a hunch.
Other than invoking undocumented statistics, Plaintiff provides nothing to
indicate that Benjamin Wagar is the infringer. While it is plausible that Benjamin
Wagar is the infringer, Plaintiffs deduction falls short of the reasonableness standard
required by Rule 11.
For instance, Plaintiff cannot show that Benjamin is the infringer instead of
someone else, such as: David Wagar; other members of the household; family guests;
or, the next door neighbor who may be leeching from the Wagars Internet access.
Thus, Plaintiff acted recklessly by naming Benjamin Wagar as the infringer based on
its haphazard and incomplete investigation.
Further, the Court is not convinced that there is no solution to the problem of
identifying the actual infringer. Here, since Plaintiff has the identity of the subscriber,
Plaintiff can find the subscribers home address and determine (by driving up and
scanning the airwaves) whether the subscriber, (1) has Wi-Fi, and (2) has password-
protected his Wi-Fi access, thereby reducing the likelihood that an unauthorized user
outside the subscribers home is the infringer. In addition, since Plaintiff is tracking a
#:813
Supp. E.R. 358

7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
number of related copyrighted videos, Plaintiff can compile its tracking data to
determine whether other copyrighted videos were downloaded under the same IP
address. This may suggest that the infringer is likely a resident of the subscribers
home and not a guest. And an old-fashioned stakeout may be in order: the presence of
persons within the subscribers home may be correlated with tracking datathe
determination of who would have been in the subscribers home when the download
was initiated may assist in discovering the actual infringer.
Such an investigation may not be perfect, but it narrows down the possible
infringers and is better than the Plaintiffs current investigation, which the Court finds
involves nothing more than blindly picking a male resident from a subscribers home.
But this type of investigation requires time and effort, something that would destroy
Plaintiffs business model.
The Court has previously expressed concern that in pornographic copyright
infringement lawsuits like these, the economics of the situation makes it highly likely
for the accused to immediately pay a settlement demand. Even for the innocent, a
four-digit settlement makes economic sense over fighting the lawsuit in courtnot to
mention the benefits of preventing public disclosure (by being named in a lawsuit) of
allegedly downloading pornographic videos.
And copyright lawsuits brought by private parties for damages are different
than criminal investigations of cybercrimes, which sometimes require identification of
an individual through an IP address. In these criminal investigations, a court has some
guarantee from law enforcement that they will bring a case only when they actually
have a case and have confidently identified a suspect. In civil lawsuits, no such
guarantees are given. So, when viewed with a courts duty to serve the public interest,
a plaintiff cannot be given free rein to sue anyone they wishthe plaintiff has to
actually show facts supporting its allegations.
/ / /
/ / /
#:814
Supp. E.R. 359

8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. Local Rule 83-3 Violations
Under Local Rule 83-3, the Court possesses the power to sanction attorney
misconduct, including: disposing of the matter; referring the matter to the Standing
Committee on Discipline; or taking any action the Court deems appropriate.
L.R. 83-3.1. This includes the power to fine and imprison for contempt of the Courts
authority, for: (1) misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to
obstruct the administration of justice; (2) misbehavior of any of its officers in their
official transactions; or, (3) disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process,
order, rule, decree, or command. 18 U.S.C. 401.
The Court is concerned with three instances of attorney misconduct. The first
and second instances are related and concern violating the Courts discovery order.
The third instance concerns possible fraud upon the Court.
1. Failure to comply with the Courts discovery order
In AF Holdings LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-6636-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. filed
Aug. 1, 2012) and AF Holdings LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-6669-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal.
filed Aug. 2, 2012), the Court ordered Plaintiff to cease its discovery efforts relating
to or based on information obtained through any abovementioned Rule 45
subpoenas. (ECF No. 13, at 1; ECF No. 10, at 1.) Further, Plaintiff was required to
name all persons that were identified through any Rule 45 subpoenas. (Id.)
Plaintiff responded on November 1, 2012, and indicated that it did not obtain
any information about the subscribers in both of these cases. (ECF No. 10, at 67,
10.)
3
But in response to the Courts subsequent Orders to Show Cause, Plaintiff not
only named the subscribers, but recounted its efforts to contact the subscriber and find
additional information. (ECF No. 15; ECF No. 18.)
This conduct contravenes the Courts order to cease discovery. Plaintiff has
provided no justification why it ignored the Courts order.

3
This response was filed in AF Holdings LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-5709-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. filed
July 2, 2012).
#:815
Supp. E.R. 360

9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. Fraud on the Court
Upon review of papers filed by attorney Morgan E. Pietz, the Court perceives
that Plaintiff may have defrauded the Court. (ECF No. 23.)
4
At the center of this
issue is the identity of a person named Alan Cooper and the validity of the underlying
copyright assignments.
5
If it is true that Alan Coopers identity was misappropriated
and the underlying copyright assignments were improperly executed using his
identity, then Plaintiff faces a few problems.
First, with an invalid assignment, Plaintiff has no standing in these cases.
Second, by bringing these cases, Plaintiffs conduct can be considered vexatious, as
these cases were filed for a facially improper purpose. And third, the Court will not
idle while Plaintiff defrauds this institution.
D. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Brett L. Gibbs, TO SHOW CAUSE
why he should not be sanctioned for the following:
In AF Holdings LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-6636-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal.
filed Aug. 1, 2012), violating the Courts October 19, 2012 Order
instructing AF Holdings to cease its discovery efforts based on
information obtained through any earlier-issued subpoenas;
In AF Holdings LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-6669-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal.
filed Aug. 2, 2012), violating the Courts October 19, 2012 Order
instructing AF Holdings to cease its discovery efforts based on
information obtained through any earlier-issued subpoenas;
/ / /

4
Although the papers revealing this possible fraud were filed in Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-
cv-8333-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 27, 2012), this fraud, if true, was likely committed by
Plaintiff in each of its cases before this Court.
5
For example, in AF Holdings LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-6669-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 2,
2012), Plaintiff filed a copyright assignment signed by Alan Cooper on behalf of Plaintiffs. (ECF
No. 16-1.)
#:816
Supp. E.R. 361

10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-6662-ODW(JCx) (C.D. Cal.
filed Aug. 2, 2012), violating Rule 11(b)(2) by:
o alleging copyright infringement based on a snapshot of Internet
activity, without conducting a reasonable inquiry; or,
o alleging that Benjamin Wagar is the infringer, without conducting
a reasonable inquiry;
filed Aug. 2, 2012), violating Rule 11(b)(2) by:
o alleging copyright infringement based on a snapshot of Internet
activity, without conducting a reasonable inquiry; or,
o alleging that Mayon Denton is the infringer, without conducting a
reasonable inquiry;
filed Sept. 27, 2012), perpetrating fraud on the Court by
misappropriating the identity of Alan Cooper and filing lawsuits based
on an invalid copyright assignment.
This order to show cause is scheduled for hearing on March 11, 2013, at 1:30
p.m., to provide Mr. Gibbs the opportunity to justify his conduct. Based on the
unusual circumstances of this case, the Court invites Morgan E. Pietz to present
evidence concerning the conduct outlined in this order. The Court declines to sanction
Plaintiffs AF Holdings LLC and Ingenuity 13 LLC at this time for two reasons:
(1) Mr. Gibbs appears to be closely related to or have a fiduciary interest in Plaintiffs;
and; (2) it is likely Plaintiffs are devoid of assets.
If Mr. Gibbs or Mr. Pietz so desire, they each may file by February 19, 2013, a
brief discussing this matter. The Court will also welcome the appearance of Alan
Cooperto either confirm or refute the fraud allegations.
Based on the evidence presented at the March 11, 2013 hearing, the Court will
consider whether sanctions are appropriate, and if so, determine the proper
#:817
Supp. E.R. 362

11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
punishment. This may include a monetary fine, incarceration, or other sanctions
sufficient to deter future misconduct. Failure by Mr. Gibbs to appear will result in the
automatic imposition of sanctions along with the immediate issuance of a bench
warrant for contempt.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 7, 2012

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
#:818
Supp. E.R. 363

Exhibit B
#:819
Supp. E.R. 364
Name Tony Saltmarsh
Age 28
Date of Birth 1/17/1985
Phone Number N/A
Additional Phone
Numbers
603-224-4510, 601-848-5514
Most Recent Address 314 W Monte Cristo Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85023-7420
Aliases/Name
Variations
Anthony J Saltmarsh
Address City, State, Zip Phone Added Updated
Contact Report
Tony SaItmarsh
EmaiI:
b****@comcast.net
Tony SaItmarsh
122 Bow Bog Road
Bow, NH 03304
b****@attbi.com
Tony SaItmarsh
122 Bow Bog Road
Bow, NH 03304
b****@aol.com
Tony SaItmarsh
122 Bow Bog Road
Bow, NH 03304
b****@attbi.com
Tony SaItmarsh
122 Bow Bog Road
Bow, NH 03304
b****@attbi.com
Tony SaItmarsh
122 Bow Bog Road
Bow, NH 03304
601-848-5514
b****@comcast.net
TonySaItmarsh
122 Bow Bog Rd
Bow, NH03304-3902
b****@attb1.com
TonySaItmarsh
122 Bow Bog Rd
Bow, NH03304-3902
b****@geocities.com
TonySaItmarsh
122 Bow Bog Rd
Bow, NH03304-3902
t****@msn.com
TonySaItmarsh
122 Bow Bog Rd
Bow, NH03304-3902
4 addresses were found

Report Expiration
July 30, 2013
#:820
Supp. E.R. 365
314 W Monte Cristo Ave Phoenix, AZ 85023-7420 7/2011 7/2011
4532 E Villa Theresa Dr Phoenix, AZ 85032-1554 4/2009 4/2009
17212 N Scottsdale Rd, Apt
2312
Scottsdale, AZ 85255-9615 2/2007 9/2007
122 Bow Bog Rd Bow, NH 03304-3902 603-224-4510 2007
PossibIe ReIatives
Possible relatives are people who are likely relatives of Tony Saltmarsh based on matching surname and shared addresses.
Please note that this will not include all relatives.
5 possibIe reIatives were found
Aaron A SaItmarsh
AIexander W SaItmarsh
Brandy EiIeen SaItmarsh
Davis
Stephanie L Edwards
Name Age Address
#:821
Supp. E.R. 366

Exhibit C
#:822
Supp. E.R. 367
Name Jayme C Steele
Age 35
Date of Birth 3/30/1977
Phone Number 320-592-0011
Additional Phone
Numbers
702-223-5209, 952-903-5343
Most Recent Address 314 W Monte Cristo Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85023-7420
Aliases/Name
Variations
Jamey Steele
Address City, State, Zip Phone
Added Updated
314 W Monte Cristo Ave Phoenix, AZ 85023-7420
7/2011 7/2011
21251 220th St Mc Grath, MN 56350-4117 320-592-0011
6/2005 11/2006
3743 rvington Ave Miami, FL 33133-6105
2/2000 12/2005
7641 128th St W Saint Paul, MN 55124-9767
12/1995
21468 E Bonanza Way Queen Creek, AZ 85142-3291

21067 220th St Mc Grath, MN 56350-4019 320-592-0011

4532 E Villa Theresa Dr Phoenix, AZ 85032-1554

Contact Report
Jayme C SteeIe
14 addresses were found
Report Expiration
July 30, 2013
#:823
Supp. E.R. 368
4404 Sandhorse Ct Las Vegas, NV 89130-5212 702-223-5209

222 Zamora Ave, Apt 7 Coral Gables, FL 33134-3930

7511 Bristol Village Dr Minneapolis, MN 55438-2562 952-903-5343

3160 Florida Ave Miami, FL 33133-5113

824 Jefferson Ave Miami Beach, FL 33139-5632

5533 Lagorce Dr Miami Beach, FL 33140-2137

PossibIe ReIatives
Possible relatives are people who are likely relatives of Jayme C Steele based on matching surname and shared
addresses. Please note that this will not include all relatives.
4 possibIe reIatives were found
Deborah A SteeIe
EIizabeth N SteeIe
John Lawrence SteeIe Jr
John L J SteeI
Name Age Address
#:824
Supp. E.R. 369

Exhibit D
#:825
Supp. E.R. 370
2/3/13 Entity Details - Secretary of State, Nevada
nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/PrintCorp.aspx?lx8nvq=o9wAXpS7zKVXcR8o3VnvEA%253d%253d 1/2
VPR INC.
Business Entity Informat ion
Status: Default File Date: 11/9/2010
Type: Domestic Corporation Entity Number: E0540532010-2
Qualifying State: NV List of Officers Due: 11/30/2012
Managed By: Expiration Date:
NV Business ID: NV20101804310
Business License
Exp:
11/30/2012
Registered Agent Informat ion
Name: SPIEGEL & UTRERA, P.A. Address 1:
1785 EAST SAHARA
AVENUE, SUITE 490
Address 2: City: LAS VEGAS
State: NV Zip Code: 89104
Phone: Fax:
Mailing Address 1: Mailing Address 2:
Mailing City: Mailing State:
Mailing Zip Code:
Agent Type: Noncommercial Registered Agent
Financial Informat ion
No Par Share Count: 0 Capital Amount: $ 75,000.00
Par Share Count: 75,000.00 Par Share Value: $ 1.00
Officers Include Inactive Officers
President - ALAN COOPER
Address 1:
4532 EAST VILLA THERESA
DR
Address 2:
City: PHOENIX State: AZ
Zip Code: 85032 Country:
Status: Active Email:
Secretary - ALAN COOPER
Address 1:
DR
Address 2:
#:826
Supp. E.R. 371
2/3/13 Entity Details - Secretary of State, Nevada
nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/PrintCorp.aspx?lx8nvq=o9wAXpS7zKVXcR8o3VnvEA%253d%253d 2/2
Treasurer - ALAN COOPER
Address 1:
DR
Address 2:
Director - ALAN COOPER
Address 1:
DR
Address 2:
Actions\Amendments
Action Type: Articles of Incorporation
Document Number: 20100841806-90 # of Pages: 4
File Date: 11/9/2010 Effective Date:
Initial Stock Value: Par Value Shares: 75,000 Value: $ 1.00 No Par Value Shares: 0 ----------------------
------------------------------------------- Total Authorized Capital: $ 75,000.00
Action Type: Initial List
(No notes for this action)
Action Type: Annual List
(No notes for this action)
#:827
Supp. E.R. 372

EXHIBIT T
T
EXHIBIT T
#:828
Supp. E.R. 373
Nameserver Histroy
DB: 53 : Wednesday 30 March 2011 (Old Record)
NS63.DOMAINCONTROL.COM (972893)
NS64.DOMAINCONTROL.COM (970180)
DB: 94 : Thursday 7 June 2012 >>> NOW
No records for this period
Domain may have expired or is not assigned nameservers

DNS record history
No DNS record data yet, this domain has been queued for
checking (Should be an hour or so)
NOTISSUES.COM
NOTISSUES.COM : tissues (en) no (en)
---------------------------
Whois on 17-April-2011
Refresh Data
---------------------------
Whois Server Version 2.0
--SI-VSCompRegistrars---
Domain Name: NOTISSUES.COM
Registrar: godaddy.com, inc.
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
Name Server: NS63.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
Name Server: NS64.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 24-mar-2011
Creation Date: 24-mar-2011
Expiration Date: 24-mar-2012
$0.99 Domains at Go Daddy
GoDaddy.com
Why Pay More? Compare Us! Free Hosting
w/Site Builder & More.
Search Domain or keyword | Login
Domain Names Web Hosting Email Hosting Website Tools Domain Tools
Copyright POLO DOMAINS 2011.
Privacy Statement | Terms | Limits | Domain Generator | Domain Reseller | Cheap Domains
POLO DOMAINS - NOTISSUES.COM Domain Name Info http://whois.polodomains.com/domain/ii72DVXyn7vS4xl-7U...
1 of 3 2/18/13 12:25 PM
#:829
Supp. E.R. 374
>>> Last update of whois database: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 22:43:37 UTC <<<
--SI-VSNotice---
--SI-VSTerms---
--SI-GDDDisclaimer---
--SI-GDDnotRegistrant---
Registrant:
Alan Cooper
4532 E Villa Theresa Dr.
Phoenix, Arizona 85032
United States
Registered through: godaddy.com, inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: NOTISSUES.COM
Created on: 24-Mar-11
Expires on: 24-Mar-12
Last Updated on: 24-Mar-11
Administrative Contact:
Cooper, Alan
United States
4806489301 Fax --
Technical Contact:
Cooper, Alan
United States
4806489301 Fax --
Domain servers in listed order:
NS63.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
NS64.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
---------------------------
Commenter's name
(Your Name)
2 of 3 2/18/13 12:25 PM
#:830
Supp. E.R. 375
Comment Subject
Comment Body
Submit
No comments yet.
3 of 3 2/18/13 12:25 PM
#:831
Supp. E.R. 376

EXHIBIT U
U
EXHIBIT U
#:832
Supp. E.R. 377
#:833
Supp. E.R. 378
#:834
Supp. E.R. 379
#:835
Supp. E.R. 380
#:836
Supp. E.R. 381
#:837
Supp. E.R. 382
#:838
Supp. E.R. 383
#:839
Supp. E.R. 384
#:840
Supp. E.R. 385
#:841
Supp. E.R. 386
#:842
Supp. E.R. 387
#:843
Supp. E.R. 388
#:844
Supp. E.R. 389
#:845
Supp. E.R. 390
#:846
Supp. E.R. 391
#:847
Supp. E.R. 392
#:848
Supp. E.R. 393
#:849
Supp. E.R. 394
#:850
Supp. E.R. 395
#:851
Supp. E.R. 396
#:852
Supp. E.R. 397
#:853
Supp. E.R. 398
#:854
Supp. E.R. 399
#:855
Supp. E.R. 400
#:856
Supp. E.R. 401
#:857
Supp. E.R. 402
#:858
Supp. E.R. 403
#:859
Supp. E.R. 404
#:860
Supp. E.R. 405
#:861
Supp. E.R. 406
#:862
Supp. E.R. 407
#:863
Supp. E.R. 408
#:864
Supp. E.R. 409
#:865
Supp. E.R. 410
#:866
Supp. E.R. 411
#:867
Supp. E.R. 412
#:868
Supp. E.R. 413

EXHIBIT V
V
EXHIBIT V
#:869
Supp. E.R. 414

- 1 -
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ILLINOIS
CONSOLIDATED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOHN DOES MOTIONS TO QUASH
The oppositions filed in this matter only make it increasingly clear that this case is but the
latest example of intentional fraud on the Court by the attorneys associated with Prenda Law, Inc.
(a) Fraud on the Court
First, it is irrefutable that there are at least two obvious lies contained in plaintiffs Rule
224 Petition. Paragraph 6 of the Petition sates, in no uncertain terms, and not on information and
belief, that Venue is proper because at least one of the John Doe Defendants resides in St. Clair
County, Illinois. Further, Comcast transacts business in St. Clair County, Illinois. Petition 6.
As shown by the spreadsheet prepared by Comcast, attached hereto as Exhibit R (table showing IP
addresses by county)
1
, this statement, which was verified under penalty of perjury (although by
whom is anyones guess) is 100% false. According to Comcasts records, not a single John Doe
defendant actually resides in St. Clair County. There is a simple reason for this: Comcast does
not transact business in St. Clair CountyCharter is the franchised cable operator in the area.
Making a stretch argument to try and find a home for a case in St. Clair County is one thing.
Resorting to outright fraud to achieve that goal is another. This is no mere mistake. Particularly in
view of all the other suspiciously convenient mistakes Prenda appears to have made in this case,

1
The Exhibit lettering used here is continued from the Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E.
Pietz re: Prenda Law, Inc, which filed by Mr. Pietz in connection with his Motion to Quash.
GUAVA, LLC,

Petitioner,
v.
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS,
LLC,
Respondent.

Case Number: 12-MR-417

Assigned to Honorable Andrew J. Gleeson

Hearing Date: February 21, 2013
Hearing Time: 11:00 A.M.
Hearing Place: Courtroom 404,
County Bldg., Belleville, IL
#:870
Supp. E.R. 415

- 2 -
and its sordid record of fraud on various other Courts around the country, this Court should see
past any excuse of mere incompetence and recognize this as an intentional and deliberate fraud.
Second, beyond the lie used to establish jurisdiction and venue, the entire petition action
and everything that has flowed from it is all a fraud, because the petition is fraudulently verified.
More than a month ago, attorney Thomas Leverso, on behalf of a John Doe, filed a Rule 237
Petition and related Order to Show Cause pointing out the myriad reasons the verification filed in
this case is not credible. In response to these very serious allegations that Prenda has filed yet
another
2
fraudulent verification, this time here in this action, Prenda has repeated its usual
playbook of ignoring the problem for as long as possible, making procedural objections, and then
trying to explain a fraud as some kind of clerical error. The verification appears to say Alan
Moay, and as Mr. Leverso noted in his Rule 237 Petition, etc., that is a bogus name; according to
an investigator using national databases, there is no record of anyone in the United States with
such a name.
Prendas new story, per its opposition to Mr. Leversos Rule Petition, is that the
verification does not say Alan Moay, rather, it says Alan Mony. Opp to Leverson Motion, p.
5. First of all, this, too, is false. The verification very clearly says Alan Moay. Prenda has been
requested to bring the original verification document to the next hearing to settle this argument;
but if past is prologue, it wont. See Exhibit S (post 2/13 meet and confer email chain).
More importantly though, it now appears that Alan Mony, the supposed new name of
the verifying client, is also a bogus name. The same kind of national database search which
revealed that there is no Alan Moay in the U.S. yields the same results for Alan Mony; its a
bogus name; there is no record of any such person. Exhibit T (investigator report on Alan
Mony). The closest name anywhere in the U.S. is for an Allan Mony with two ls. Id. What
does ring a bell though, as far as Prenda goes, is the name Allan Mooney. A man named Allan
Mooney has previously been listed as the manager of MCGIP, LLC, one of Prendas earlier

2
Another example of a fraudulent verification filed by Prenda, supposedly signed by Alan
Cooper was attached as Exhibit L to the Decl of Morgan E. Pietz. That verification, along with
various copyright assignment agreements also supposedly signed by Alan Cooper on behalf of
Prenda sham entities, is the subject of the scathing Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions from Judge
Wright of the Central District of California, a copy of which was lodged with this Court at the last
hearing. See Ingenuity 13, LLC v. John Doe , C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-8333, ECF No. 48.
#:871
Supp. E.R. 416

- 3 -
mysterious shell company plaintiffs (which Prendas lawyers probably own). See Exhibit U,
(Minnesota Secretary of State business entity detail for MCGIP, LLC.) According to the
Minnesota Secretary of State, the official address for MCGIP, LLC is care of Alpha Law Group,
at Alpha laws office in Minnesota. Alpha Law Group is the newest firm name being used by John
Steeles former (current?) law partner Paul Hansemeier, who is also the brother of Prendas current
preferred technical expert Pete Hansemeier.
3
Further, a man using the email address
amooney29@gmail.com is apparently involved in the online adult entertainment business, per an
Adult Industry News article where Allan Mooney was selling the domain name <orgasms.com>, a
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit V. Finally, one Alan Mooney is also a current client
of Alpha Law / Paul Hansemeier, in Mooney v. Priceline.Com Incorporated et al., No. 12-cv-
02731-DWF-JSM (D. Minn. Oct. 26, 2012). Exhibit W (Hennepin County, Minnesota, complaint
listing Paul Hansemeier of Alpha Law Firm LLC as attorney of record for plaintiff Alan
Mooney).
After Prendas newest story was learned by defense counsel the morning of the 2/13
hearing in this matter,
4
Prendas past connections to a man named Allan Mooney were pointed
out to Prenda in follow up attempt meet and confer emails. Specifically, Prendas past history with
Allan Mooney was detailed, and all three of Prendas lawyers in this case were asked to confirm
that the new story was that the person who verified the petition spells his name Alan Mony.
Prendas response, in its entirety (by way of Mr. Hoerner) was The issues have already been
briefed. See you in court. Accordingly, Mr. Hoerner was then advised that since he was the only
one who had signed the opposition stating that the affiants name is Alan Mony
5
the defendants

3
For background on how John Setele and Paul Hansemeiers firm started this scheme as Steele
Hansemeier, PLLC, but then rebranded as Prenda Law, Inc., refer to the Declaration of Morgan E.
Pietz re: Prenda Law, Inc., 513.

4
This brings up yet another fraud in this case: the proofs of service on Prendas oppositions.
Attorney Morgan Pietz, at least, never received a copy of the opposition that was supposedly
mailed to him on February 11, 2013. Just whose name is on that proof of service anyway? While
this kind of thing is not usually worth making a fuss over, with Prenda, it is part of a pattern, and,
unfortunately, completely typical.

5
All of the other oppositions, other than the one where Prenda says the name of the client is really
Alan Mony were signed by Paul Duffy of Chicago. Presumably, Mr. Hoerner signed the
#:872
Supp. E.R. 417

- 4 -
would proceed on the assumption that this spelling was correct, but would seek costs and fees if
Prenda later decided to try and change its story, given the refusal to meet and confer on the issue.
As noted in Mr. Pietzs motion, and supporting declaration, this is not the first time that
very serious questions have been raised about Prenda using false names to sign to Court
documents, including verifications and declarations offered under penalty of perjury. Pietz
Motion, p. 8; Decl. of Morgan E. Pietz re: Prenda Law, Inc., 2942. In fact, this is not even the
first time that Prenda, after being accused of fraud on the Court, has responded to that fraud with
more fraud; an example which also involved Prendas misspelling of the name of the supposed
affiant. In Sunlust Pictures, LLC v. Nguyen, M.D. Fl. No. 12-cv-1685, Prenda attempted to
perpetrate another fraud on the Court (holding out John Steeles former paralegal as a principal
of Sunlust Pictures), all as stated in the hearing transcript attached as Exhibit N to the Decl. of
Morgan E. Pietz re: Prenda Law, Inc. In an attempt to explain that fraud, Prenda ended up
submitting a fraudulent declaration, where the person signing it supposedly misspelled his own
name on the signature line. The true principal of Sunlust is named Daniel Weber; but the first
declaration which he supposedly signed, and which Prenda filed in their response to the sanctions
motion spelled it Webber with to bs. The first declaration was also full of other lies (i.e., that
Weber was out of the US during the hearing he had been ordered to attend), which defense counsel
there immediately pointed out. Eventually, actual Daniel Weber did file a corrected declaration
attempting to explain away his (attorneys) lies in the previous declaration. The fraudulent first
declaration, which attempted to explain the fraud on the court, is now the subject of a second
sanctions motion. Sunlust Pictures, LLC v. Nguyen, M.D. Fl. No. 12-cv-1685 (ECF No. 46,
12/31/13) attached hereto as Exhibit X.
(b) Merits of Movants Objections to Plaintiffs Rule 224 Petition
Plaintiffs oppositions have no retort to the argument, made by Mr. Pietz in his motion to
quash, that use of a Rule 224 petition here is unnecessary because the plaintiffs are already
sufficiently identified (by I.P. address) that they can be sued for damages without resort to Rule

opposition (to Mr. Leversos motion) containing the name Alan Mony so that Prenda can
pretend there was some transcription error on the spelling over the phone, to explain why it is that
Prenda has misspelled the name of the purported verifying client for a second time in this case,
after being accused of fraud on that issue.
#:873
Supp. E.R. 418

- 5 -
224 discovery. On its face, Rule 224 is narrowly limited to situations where discovery is
necessary, and Gaynor v. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway, 750 N.E.2d 307 (2001)
clarifies that if a plaintiff has enough information already to sue for damages, Rule 224 discovery
should be denied. Here, as in Gaynor, the existence of a parallel action for damages (here, the
Lightspeed case) conclusively proves that Rule 224 discovery is not a condition precedent to
filing a complaint for damages. Even if we accept plaintiffs dubious representation that Guava,
LLC has has no corporate or other relation to Lightspeed Media Corporation (Opp. to Leverso
Motion, p. 1), it does not matter. Regardless of whether Lighspeed and Guava are the same entity
or not, the bottom line is that Prenda has already proven conclusively, through the Lightspeed case,
that in its view, Prenda can file a complaint against a single John Doe defendant, identified only by
IP address, and then make its case using the regular discovery provisions of Rule 201. If suing a
John Doe identified by solely by IP address for damages was sufficient for Prenda in Lightspeed,
why is Rule 224 discovery now suddenly a condition precedent to filing the exact same kind of
suit here now? Prenda has filed hundreds of complaints for damages, based on an IP address
alone; its new position that it now believes Rule 224 discovery is required before it can file such
complaints is another misrepresentation made in bad faith.
Movants cited chapter and verse, black letter law, that when considering a Rule 224
Petition, the Court should apply a Section 2-615 analysis to the claims at issue. See, e.g., Pietz
Motion, pp. 9. Having established that proposition, movants then cited a slew of CFAA cases
6
all
of which clearly establish that plaintiffs claims do not pass muster under a Section 2-615 analysis.
See, e.g., Pietz Motion, pp. 1620. Plaintiff responded to this array of authority in its opposition
with a bit of a curveball. Rather than argue that the allegations in the Petition state a valid claim
under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, plaintiff instead premises its argument on the notion
that a Section 2-615 analysis of the underlying claim is not required in a Rule 224 petition action.
Simply put, plaintiff needs to (re?)-read the many cases cited by movants which establish this point
as black letter law. The closest plaintiff comes to a coherent argument on this issue is the
observation that many of the Rule 224 cases cited by movants involved underlying claims for

6
No cases were needed on the Computer Tampering claim; the relief sought here is barred on the
face of the statute itself, since there are no allegations of a virus or malware. See Pietz Motion, pp.
1920.
#:874
Supp. E.R. 419

- 6 -
defamation, rather than underlying claims for CFAA or Computer Tampering violations. So what?
The point of general standards for analysis is that they can be used in different circumstances.
Whatever the underlying claim at issue, the law is clear that the applicable analysis that should be
applied to Rule 224 petitions is a Rule 2-615 analysis. Plaintiffs are correct to note that illegal
hacking is not protected by the First Amendment; however, neither, for that matter, is defamation
protected by the First Amendment. Plaintiffs entire argument on the Section 2-615 analysis
makes no sense and should be viewed as a tacit admission that the allegations in the Petition, if
true, could not state a causes of action for CFAA or Computer Tampering.
One argument plaintiff does engage with in the oppositions is movants point that the
petition is overbroad insofar as it requests phone numbers, emails and MAC addresses. As argued
in Mr. Pietzs motion, Rule 224 petitions are limited to information needed to identify defendants,
and in most cases, a name and address is sufficient for that purpose. Here, plaintiff wants the
phone numbers, emails and MAC addresses not to identify potential defendants, but because it
wants to hold Internet subscribers responsible for infringement.
7
But Rule 224 does not permit
discovery to reach blame or liability; it is limited to identification of a potential defendant.
Movants cite cases standing for the proposition that this means a name and address, no more.
Plaintiff cites no authority suggesting that phone numbers, emails, or MAC addresses are
appropriate information for a Rule 224 Petition, and there is none.
(c) Response to Plaintiffs Counter Arguments in the Oppositions
Plaintiffs main responsive counter-argument is that movants supposedly do not have
standing to challenge a subpoena seeking their identifying information. First, this argument
ignores this Courts December 12, 2012 order, which explicitly grants ISP subscribers like
movants an opportunity to object this petition action. Second, Rule 224, on its face, provides for a
required hearing. Third, this Court was correct to invite movants to object, because movants
absolutely do have standing to object to the release of their identifying information to a litigant
engaged in a fraudulent, extortionate enterprise. Even if plaintiffs were acting in good faith, and
this entire action was not predicated on various frauds, movants would still have standing to object

7
See also the copy of the Guava, LLC extortion letter being used in this case, which was lodged
with the Court at the 2/13 hearing.
#:875
Supp. E.R. 420

- 7 -
to the release of their information. As expounded in further detail in Mr. Leversos motion (pp. 2-
5), movants here do have standing to object. The court need only look at essentially any reported
appellate case on Rule 224 petitions ever decided to verify this proposition; the challenging party
is almost always the third party about whom information is being sought (i.e., the real party in
interest), not the respondent with the records. Like a subpoena, the Rule 224 petition, seeks to
infringe upon movants legitimate interests to be free of oppression, embarrassment, or undue
burden. See Bush v. Catholic Diocese, 351 Ill.App.3d 588, 591, 814 N.E.2d 135 (3d Dist. 2004);
United States v. Ranieri, 670 F .2d 702,772 (7th Cir. l982) accord Special Mkts. Ins. Consultants,
Inc. v. Lynch, Case No. 11 C 9181, 2012 WLl565348 (N.D. Ill. May 2, 2012).
Plaintiffs other featured argument, that movants do not have approval to proceed
anonymously, is a complete red herring. As the court rightly noted at the February 13, 2013
hearing with respect to the in pro per litigant in attendance, the main issue being litigated right
now is whether the Movants should be identified to the plaintiff. The time to brief the issue
anonymous participation in judicial proceedings, and the potential limited use of a John Doe
pseudonym for purposes of the public docket, is after the court determines whether Movants
should be identified in the first place and if these people are actually sude for damages. Either the
Court is going to deny the petition so that no information is disclosed, or it is going to order that
Comcast identify the Movants to the plaintiff. Plaintiffs position that in order to object to
plaintiffs subpoena seeking to identify you, you need to first identify yourself to the plaintiff is
plainly a Catch 22 that makes no sense.
Most of the balance of plaintiffs oppositions amount to little more than personal attacks on
certain of the defense attorneys involved in this action. With respect to the attacks on Mr. Pietz,
Judge Wrights order from the Central District of California, relating to a series of related cases
where Mr. Pietz was very involved, speaks for itself. Ingenuity 13, LLC v. John Doe , C.D. Cal.
No. 12-cv-8333, ECF No. 48 (copy lodged with the Court at the 2/13 hearing). Since that order
has been issued, Paul Duffy (counsel here) and Prenda Law have more or less dismissed all
Ingenuity 13 and AF Holdings cases in California, and most of them across the countrywhich
could perhaps be viewed as a tacit admission that all of Prendas AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13
#:876
Supp. E.R. 421

- 8 -
cases were also fraudulent upon inceptionjust like the fraudulently verified petition full of lies
about venue and jurisdiction currently before this Court.
Finally, the extortion letter from Brett Gibbs,
8
as in house counsel for Guava, LLC,
clarifies what the movants have suspected all along: that this case is not really a password
hacking CFAA case, but a BitTorrent copyright infringement case in disguise. Mr. Gibbs letter
makes clear that really, the gravamen of the complaint against the John Does is not that they
breached a computer network; its that they engaged in file-sharing on BitTorrent (which is
possibly copyright infringement, but not computer fraud). This only lends further support to the
notion that this whole suit is a transparent attempt to abuse this Courts jurisdiction, and the Rule
224 process, to seek the kind of discovery that Prenda is now routinely denied in copyright
infringement cases in federal court. Again, Prenda has told the Court one thingi.e., that it wants
to sue people under the CFAAbut then done anotheri.e., try and then use the subpoena return
info to bring claims for copyright infringement.
(d) Conclusion
The kind of abuse Prenda Law is up tolying about jurisdiction and venue, systemic filing
of bogus verifications and other documents, filing claims that cannot withstand even basic legal
scrutiny, pressuring people to settle when it knows many such people are probably totally
innocentundermine the very integrity of the legal system. These missteps are not mistakes.
They are part of a calculated scheme that, even without all of the fraud, comes very close to
extortion. However, the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz makes clear that his case is part of a
systemic, calculated national conspiracy, which (particularly if Alan Coopers allegations of
identity theft prove true) may very well be a criminal enterprise. Accordingly, movants
respectfully request that this court follow Judge Wrights lead, and come down on Prenda Law like
a ton of bricks. Prendas various frauds on various courtsincluding this onehave gone on for
long enough. The Rule 224 subpoena should be denied as to the movants, and the next and final
issue the Court should then consider is awarding sanctions and attorneys fees.
As of 12:00 noon PST on Friday February 15, 2013, undersigned counsel is authorized to
report that in addition to Mr. Pietzs clients with IP address numbers 71.229.73.180 and

8
This letter is the second document lodged with the Court at the February 13, 2013 hearing.
#:877
Supp. E.R. 422

- 9 -
67.162.81.65; attorney Thomas Leverso, on behalf of his client with I.P. address number
68.58.68.84; attorney Earl Hubbs, on behalf of his client with IP address number 24.14.130.85;
and attorney Holly A. Reese on behalf of her client with IP address number 79.29.36.240; all join
in this consolidated reply.

DATED: February 15, 2013,

_____________________________________
Morgan E. Pietz (CA Bar No. 260629)*
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301
* Pro Hac Vice
Attorney for Movants

Laura K. Beasley (IL Bar No. 6274537)
JOLEY, NUSSBAUMER, OLIVER,
DICKERSON & BEASLEY, P.C.
8 East Washington Street
Belleville, Illinois 62220
Tel: (618) 235-2020
Fax: (618) 235-9632
Local Counsel for Movants

CERTIFICATE/PROOF OF SERVICE

On this day, I, on oath, state that I on this day I served this notice and true and accurate copies of
the above documents by personal service and/or mailing copies to each entity to whom they were
directed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, proper postage prepaid in full, at a U.S. Postal
Depository on this day before the hour of 4:00 p.m.

Dated: February 15, 2013 _________________________________
Morgan E. Pietz (CA Bar No. 260629)*
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
#:878
Supp. E.R. 423

- 10 -
SERVICE LIST

Kevin T. Hoerner
BECKER, PAULSON, HOERNER &
THOMPSON, P.C.
5111 West Main Street
Belleville, IL 62226

Paul Duffy
PRENDA LAW, INC.
2 North LaSalle Street, 13
th
Floor
Chicago, IL 60602

Attorneys for Petitioner

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
c/o Subpoena Response Team
650 Centerton Road
Moorestown, NJ 08057

In-House Legal For Respondent

John D. Siever
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006-3401

Outside Counsel for Respondent

Andrew Toennies
714 Locust Street
St. Louis, MO 63101

Local Counsel for Respondent
Laura K. Beasley (IL Bar No. 6274537)
JOLEY, NUSSBAUMER, OLIVER,
& BEASLEY, P.C.
8 East Washington Street

Thomas V. Leverso
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS V. LEVERSO
33 West Higgins Road, Suite 3080
South Barrington, IL 6001

Erin K. Russell
THE RUSSELL FIRM
23 South Wacker Drive, 84th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606

Earl Hubbs
RICK REED
6464 West Main, Suite 1B
Belleville, IL 62223

Annie Bode Callahan
SMITH AMUNDSEN
12312 Olive Boulevard, Suite 100
St. Louis, MO 63141

Holly A. Reese
GOLDENBERG HELLER ANTOGNOLI &
ROWAND, P.C.
2227 South State Route 157
P.O. Box 959
Edwardsville, Illinois 62025

Attorneys for ISP Subscribers

#:879
Supp. E.R. 424
TICKET # IP ADDRESS CUSTOMER CITY
CUSTOMER COUNTY CUSTOMER STATE
431809
431810
173.9.253.149
23.25.47.84
24.1.107.63
PEOTONE
ROSELLE
WILL
DUPAGE, COOK
IL
IL
431811
EVANSTON COOK IL
431812 24.1.191.211 CHICAGO
COOK IL
431813 24.1.141.155
24.1.175.233
24.1.75.199
SPRINGFIELD SANGAMON
IL
431814 CHICAGO COOK
431815 DECATUR MACON IL
431816 24.12.113.158 MOUNT PROSPECT
COOK IL
431817 24.1.95.156 CHICAGO COOK IL
431818 24.1.98.146 CHICAGO COOK IL
431819 24.12.116.87 CHICAGO COOK
IL
431820 24.12.160.43 BUFFALO GROVE COOK
I L
431821
24.12.160.5 ROLLING MEADOWS COOK IL
431822 24.12.17.76
CHICAGO COOK IL
431824 24.12.235.189 LIBERTYVILLE LAKE IL
431825 24.12.215.82 EVANSTON COOK IL
431826
24.12.255.78 CHICAGO COOK IL
431827
24.12.30.72 AURORA
KANE, DUPAGE,
ETC IL
431828 24.12.9.239 CHICAGO
COOK IL
431829 24.13.103.83 CHICAGO COOK IL
431830 24.13.118.250 CHICAGO COOK IL
431831 24.13.137.179 CHICAGO COOK
IL
431832 24.13.161.156 SCHAUMBURG DUPAGE IL
431834 24.13.172.38 ARLINGTON HEIGHTS
COOK, LAKE
IL
431835 24.13.178.197
24.13.187.100
24.13.235.108
SCHAUMBURG
GLENDALE HEIGHTS
HIGHLAND PARK
DUPAGE IL
431836
DUPAGE
431837 LAKE IL
431838
431839
431840 24.14.116.211 DEKALB
DEKALB IL
431841 24.14.122.52 BENSENVILLE DUPAGE IL
431842 24.14.13.193 MUNDELEIN LAKE IL
431845 24.14.130.85 CHICAGO COOK IL
431846 24.14.162.27 NORRIDGE COOK IL
431847
24.14.168.183
24.14.175.98
24.14.188.2
CHICAGO COOK IL
431848 TINLEY PARK
COOK
431849 GLEN ELLYN DUPAGE IL
431850 24.14.191.2 GLEN ELLYN DUPAGE
IL
431851 24.14.191.209 GLEN ELLYN DUPAGE IL
431852
24.14.211.234
NEW LENOX
WI LL IL
431853 24.14.22.26 ADDISON
DUPAGE
IL
431854 24.14.226.226 NEW LENOX WILL IL
431855 24.14.50.22 OAK PARK COOK IL
431856 24.15.0.234 WILLOWBROOK DUPAGE IL
431857 24.15.108.237 CREST HILL WILL IL
431858
24.15.188.130 DOWNERS GROVE DUPAGE IL
431859 24.15.194.37 DEERFIELD
LAKE
IL
431860 24.15.21.54 BELLWOOD COOK IL
431861 24.15.225.33 MUNDELEIN COOK IL
431862 24.15.29.44
CHAMPAIGN CHAMPAIGN IL
431863
24.15.48.154 OAK PARK COOK IL
431864 24.15.94.96 LOCKPORT
WILL IL
431865 24.63.77.213 CHESTNUT HILL MIDDLESEX MA
431866 24.7.197.117 CHAMPAIGN CHAMPAIGN IL
431867 24.7.199.112 CHAMPAIGN CHAMPAIGN IL
431868 24.7.214.221
WESTMONT DUPAGE IL
431869 50.129.14.36 CHICAGO COOK IL
431870 50.129.252.207 CHICAGO COOK IL
431871 50.129.68.62 ROCKFORD
WINNEBAGO
IL
431872 50.129.69.141
50.129.92.32
MACHESNEY PARK
DEKALB
WINNEBAGO IL
431873 DEKALB IL
431874 50.140.131.57 ADDISON
DUPAGE
IL
HIGHLIGHT = GEO-CODED RESULTS ONLY
ALL OTHERS FROM ACCOUNT RECORDS
#:880
Supp. E.R. 425
#:881
Supp. E.R. 426
#:882
Supp. E.R. 427
#:883
Supp. E.R. 428
#:884
Supp. E.R. 429
Urgent M&C Request on Guava v. Comcast - St. Clair County 12-MR-417
Morgan E. Pietz <mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com> Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:15 AM
To: Kevin Hoerner <kth@bphlaw.com>
Cc: "paduffy@wefightpiracy.com" <paduffy@wefightpiracy.com>, "johnlsteele@gmail.com"
<johnlsteele@gmail.com>, "jlsteele@wefightpiracy.com" <jlsteele@wefightpiracy.com>,
"lbeasley@ilmoattorneys.com" <lbeasley@ilmoattorneys.com>, "Thomas V. Leverso" <tvleverso@gmail.com>,
Erin Russell <erin@russellfirmchicago.com>, "John D. Seiver" <johnseiver@dwt.com>,
"atoennies@lashlybaer.com" <atoennies@lashlybaer.com>, "holly@ghalaw.com" <holly@ghalaw.com>,
"acallahan@sakawys.com" <acallahan@sakawys.com>
Thanks, Kevin. Just to be clear then, you signed the pleading, and you are now re-confirming that it was
correct: the person who verified the petition in this action is named "Alan Mony."
We will proceed on that basis then.
If you change your story later, after refusing to meet and confer on this now, I am going to have to no choice
but to seek attorneys' fees.
Best regards,
Morgan
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Kevin Hoerner <kth@bphlaw.com> wrote:
The issues have already been briefed. See you in court.

Kevin T. Hoerner
Attorney at Law
Becker, Paulson, Hoerner & Thompson, P.C.
5111 West Main Street
Phone: 618.235.0020
From: morganpietz@gmail.com [mailto:morganpietz@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Morgan E. Pietz
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 10:29 AM
To: paduffy@wefightpiracy.com; Kevin Hoerner; johnlsteele@gmail.com; jlsteele@wefightpiracy.com
Cc: lbeasley@ilmoattorneys.com; Thomas V. Leverso; Erin Russell; John D. Seiver;
atoennies@lashlybaer.com; holly@ghalaw.com; acallahan@sakawys.com
Subject: Urgent M&C Request on Guava v. Comcast - St. Clair County 12-MR-417
Gmail - Urgent M&C Request on Guava v. Comcast - St. Clair... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5e8233d0c6&view...
1 of 4 2/15/13 11:36 AM
#:885
Supp. E.R. 430

John, Paul, and Kevin,

In the interest of advancing the issues in this case, and ensuring that we dont have any more surprises at
the hearing next week, Id like to meet and confer with you on an important new issue in this case,
stemming from your oppositions, on an expedited basis.

In Court yesterday, I asked Kevin if Alan Moay actually exists. That may seem like an unusual question to
ask, but as you know, my experience with the mysterious Alan Cooper involved in your other lawsuits has
conditioned me to be skeptical.

Kevin told me that someone did verify the petition in this case, but that there may have been some kind of
typo on the name, but that he was not sure on the details.

Having now reviewed your opposition to Tom Leversos motion (p. 5), I see that the new story is that the
verification supposedly says Alan Mony not Alan Moay. The verification sure looks like Alan Moay to
me. Since it appears there may be a factual dispute about that point, I would ask you to bring the original
with you to Court next week.

More importantly, the name Alan Mony rings a bell. I note that a man named Allan Mooney has
previously been listed as the manager of MCGIP, LLC, one of Prendas earlier shell company plaintiffs. I
further note that the address for MCGIP, LLC is care of Alpha Law Group, the most recent affiliation for
Johns former (current?) law partner Paul Hansemeier, who is also the brother of Prendas current preferred
technical expert Pete Hansemeier. See the attached Minnesota Secretary of State business entity detail for
MCGIP, LLC. Further, I note that a man with the name Allen Mooney is apparently involved in the online
adult entertainment business, per the attached Adult Industry News article where Allan Mooney was selling
the domain name <orgasms.com>. Finally, I note that one Alan Mooney is also a current client of Alpha
Law / Paul Hansemeier, in Mooney v. Priceline.Com Incorporated et al., No. 12-cv-02731-DWF-JSM (D.
Minn. Oct. 26, 2012) (listing Paul Hansemeier of Alpha Law Firm LLC as attorney of record for plaintiff
Alan Mooney). See the attached copy of the original Hennepin County complaint in that matter.

I further note that this is not the fist time there have been questions about Prenda submitting bogus
verifications (see Alan Cooper). For that matter, it is not the first time a supposed Prenda client has
supposedly had trouble spelling their own name correctly on the signature line of a document where they
swore to tell the truth under penalty of perjury (see Daniel Web[b]er in the Sunlust case, where I
understand that the sanctions motions for both the initial fraud on the Court, and the subsequent fraudulent
declaration trying to explain the first fraud, are still pending).

I note that unlike the other oppositions I received, which were supposedly signed by Paul Duffy, that in the
opposition to Mr. Leversos motion, which was the only one communicating the supposed new spelling for
2 of 4 2/15/13 11:36 AM
#:886
Supp. E.R. 431
your verifying client Alan Mony, Kevin Hoerner signed, rather than counsel from Chicago. Perhaps this is
to maintain plausible deniability so that when it turns out the person's name is really Allan Mooney you
can blame it on a miscommunication over the phone? All of this just seems like a ploy to try and explain
away that there are too many letters for Allan Mooney to be mistaken for Alan Moay.

I would really like to believe that this case is not also a fraud, and that you are not attempting to cover up
one lie with another (again). But like I said, experience has taught me to be skeptical where Prenda is
concerned.

So, in light of all these facts, and in order to give you an opportunity, in good faith, to explain yourself prior
to the hearing, I have two questions:

(1) What is the correct spelling of the name of the person who verified the petition, what is that persons
address, and are "Allen Mooney" of MCGIP fame, and "Alan Moay/Mony" the verifying "client" here, the
same person?

(2) Since you repeatedly note in the oppositions that your verification is legitimate because it is notarized,
what is the name, state, registration number, and business address for the notary who supposedly
witnessed Mr. Al[l]an Moay/Mony/Mooney sign the verification?

Note that these good faith meet and confer questions are separate and apart from the issue of whether it is
appropriate for Tom to use a Rule 237 and OSC procedure to compel you to produce the affiant and notary
to testify at an evidentiary hearing. For sure, we will get to that at the hearing next week.

I would like to incorporate and address your response on these questions into a combined reply, as
courtesy to the Court. In order to give the Judge time to read everything, I plan to file the reply on Friday.
Accordingly, I must insist that you get back to me by tonight (2/14). If this case is not a fraud, then you
should have no problem providing this information, since I assume it must be readily at hand. And then just
bring the original verification with you next week.

Please feel free to give me a call if youd like to discuss.

Best regards,
Morgan

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Morgan E. Pietz <mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com> wrote:
3 of 4 2/15/13 11:36 AM
#:887
Supp. E.R. 432
Paul,
As you know, since I served you with a copy, I filed a motion to quash in this case.
I have not seen any kind of a response to my motion, or to any of the other similar motions filed by the other attorneys
representing other Does. Did you file a response? If you did, or if you are still planning on doing so, please make
sure you serve me with a copy ASAP.
Best regards,
Morgan
P.S. Note that I could not find an email address for Earl Hubbs, who I understand is also counsel for another objecting
John Doe. If anyone else has it, please forward this correspondence to him.
--
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301
--
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301
--
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301
4 of 4 2/15/13 11:36 AM
#:888
Supp. E.R. 433
#:889
Supp. E.R. 434
#:890
Supp. E.R. 435
#:891
Supp. E.R. 436
#:892
Supp. E.R. 437
#:893
Supp. E.R. 438
#:894
Supp. E.R. 439
#:895
Supp. E.R. 440
#:896
Supp. E.R. 441
#:897
Supp. E.R. 442
#:898
Supp. E.R. 443
#:899
Supp. E.R. 444
#:900
Supp. E.R. 445
#:901
Supp. E.R. 446
#:902
Supp. E.R. 447
#:903
Supp. E.R. 448
#:904
Supp. E.R. 449
#:905
Supp. E.R. 450
#:906
Supp. E.R. 451

EXHIBIT W
W
EXHIBIT W
Supp. E.R. 452
Filed in Fourth J udicial District Court
1/25/2013 11:35:44 AM
Hennepin County Civil, MN
Supp. E.R. 453
1/25/2013 11:35:44 AM
Supp. E.R. 454
1/25/2013 11:35:44 AM
Supp. E.R. 455
1/25/2013 11:35:44 AM
Supp. E.R. 456
Exhibit A, page 1 of 6
1/25/2013 11:35:44 AM
Supp. E.R. 457
1/25/2013 11:35:44 AM
Supp. E.R. 458
1/25/2013 11:35:44 AM
Supp. E.R. 459
1/25/2013 11:35:44 AM
Supp. E.R. 460
1/25/2013 11:35:44 AM
Supp. E.R. 461

EXHIBIT X
X
EXHIBIT X
Supp. E.R. 462
2100 M STREET NORTHWEST | SUITE 170-417 | WASHINGTON DC | 20037
P 868-56d-V/lRE (9/173) | F 685-964 V/iRE (9473)
01/30/2013
SENT VTA U.S. MAIL
Re: Guava LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC
12-MR-417 Ref #
This letter is to provide you legal notice that a lawsuit involving you has been led in
St. Clair County, Illinois. The case, Guava LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications,
LLC, was led on November 20, 2012 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois Law Division. The purpose of this letter is to put
you on notice of impending litigation and allow you the opportunity to seek legal
counsel or speak with someone from our ofce regarding this matter.
Our company, Guava LLC, operates computer systems on behalf of our clients, who
are adult content producers. Our computers were breached and our les were stolen.
Our engineers observed your Internet account distributing these les via BitTorrent.
BitTorrent is associated with sucli websites and software as the Pirate Bay and Trans
mission. For more information regarding BitTorrent you may reference online sources.
In the course of discovery, we issued subpoenas to various Internet Service Providers
;o obtain the identifying information of the wrongdoer^OnNovember B
UTC, our engineers observed your IP address,H^^H. trading in
,1;,,P tfere taken from our company's computers. Your ISP^jomcast, turned
over records conrming that you were the account holder of IP^^^^Hon the
date in question. Based on this information, we will seek to hold you (or the person
who used your Internet account) liable for this conduct. For your reference, we have
enclosed a copy of the petition that was led in this lawsuit. Please understand
that if we are forced to proceed against you individually for the acts we observed
your subscriber account committing, the actual complaint naming you as a defendant
could possibly include additional counts, depending on what violations were observed.
Supp. E.R. 463
Supp. E.R. 464
Supp. E.R. 465
Supp. E.R. 466
Supp. E.R. 467
Supp. E.R. 468
Supp. E.R. 469

EXHIBIT Y
Y
EXHIBIT Y
Supp. E.R. 470
renda LawInc.
P r o t e c t i n g I n t e l l e c t u a l P r o p e r t y
Fax: 312. 893. 5677 161 N Cl ark St . , Sui t e 3200, Chi cago, IL 60601 Tel : 312. 880. 9160

w w w . w e f i g h t p i r a c y . c o m
P

November 18, 2012

Paul A. Duffy
Prenda Law, Inc.
161 N. Clark St. Ste 3200
Chicago, IL 60601

Honorable Judge Mary S. Scriven
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse
801 North Florida Ave.
Tampa, FL 33602

Re: Order at Dkt. 17 in Case no. 8:12-cv-01685-MSS-MAP

Dear Judge Scriven:

I have very recently been made aware that the Court ordered a principal of Prenda Law, Inc. to appear in person at a
motion to dismiss hearing scheduled for November 27, 2012 in case number 8:12-cv-01685-MSS-MAP. (Dkt. 17.) As the
sole principal of Prenda Law, Inc. (Prenda), that would be me. For the record, I was never served with notice of the
Courts order or otherwise made aware of it---until very recently via a phone call from a fellow attorney.

As an initial matter, I must respectfully inform the Court that I am located in Chicago, Illinois and my attendance at the
hearing would require air travel. Due to a recent surgery on my eye, my doctor has ordered me not to travel by air due to
the high risk of catastrophic injury or death due to changes in air pressure. I will be pleased to provide the Court with a
surgeons note upon request. Further, on November 27, 2012, I have three status hearings at 10:00 a.m. (EST) scheduled
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

I also respectfully question how my appearance could benefit the Court, particularly since I am not representing anyone in
this case and have no authority to speak on anyones behalf. It would clearly be improper for me to make any statement in
a matter pending in a jurisdiction in which I am not licensed and on behalf of a client that I do not represent.

In light of the foregoing statements, I pray that the Court will excuse my attendance at the November 27, 2012 hearing.

cc: Counsel of Record (via e-mail)

Sincerely,

Paul A. Duffy, Esq
Case 8:12-cv-01685-MSS-MAP Document 31 Filed 12/04/12 Page 13 of 23 PageID 159
Supp. E.R. 471
Exhibit A

EXHIBIT Z
Z
EXHIBIT Z
Supp. E.R. 472
Founding Partner Paul Duffy
Nationwide Attorney Network
MENU
Paul A. Duffy, J.D.
For more than 20 years, Mr. Duffy has been fighting to protect his client's
intellectual property rights. He represents the interests of clients before
federal district and state courts involving complex consumer fraud, copyright
infringement analysis and prosecution, licensing rights, sharing agreements,
trademark infringement analysis and prosecution, and website hacking
prosecution.
Mr. Duffy and the other intellectual property attorneys of Prenda Law Inc.
have been leading a nationwide revolution against internet piracy. He has
experience with both prosecution and defense which gives him the ability to
see a case from both perspectives. Mr. Duffy's extensive technical
background, along with his dedication to comprehensive research and
innovative thinking has enabled Prenda Law Inc. to become one of the
leading intellectual property law firms in the United States today.
EDUCATION
Mr. Duffy received his law degree (J.D.) from the DePaul University College
of Law, and his Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in Chemistry with a minor in Physics and Mathematics from
Elmhurst College.
ADMISSIONS AND REGISTRATIONS
State of Illinois
U.S. District Court for each of the Northern, Central and Southern Districts of Illinois
State of California
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
District of Columbia
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Professional Career
Freeborn & Peters, attorney and partner
Winston & Strawn, attorney and partner
Waste Management, environmental engineering
Commonwealth Edison Co., environmental and nuclear engineering
COMMUNITY SERVICE
Mr. Duffy provides pro bono services to three local organizations: the Heartland Alliance, Chicago
Volunteer Legal Services, and the Center for Elder and Disability Law.
About the Firm Firm Resources Attorneys Practice Areas Giving Case Samples
Prenda Law INC. http://www.weghtpiracy.com/paul-duffy.php
1 of 2 2/20/13 12:16 AM
Supp. E.R. 473
THE BLOG
PRENDA LAW INC. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS BLOG
Prenda Law INC. http://www.weghtpiracy.com/paul-duffy.php
2 of 2 2/20/13 12:16 AM
Supp. E.R. 474

EXHIBIT AA
A
EXHIBIT AA
Supp. E.R. 475
PEOPLE ALSO VIEWED
Paul Hansmeier
Partner at Alpha Law Firm LLC
Brett Gibbs
Attorney
Nathan Wersal
Legal Research & Writing
Sirh Ryun Stella Dugas
Associate
Show Wang
Law Student
Valerie Wright
Student at Wheaton College
Chris Knowles
Sales at Unishippers
Jeff Glock
--
Jeffrey Powers
Checkpoint World Team Inc
Coby Cathey
Owner, Resolute Academy
Female Entrepreneurs! - Apply Now to the National Association of Professional Women. Register Free.
www.linkedin.com/in/thepirateslayer/ Contact Info
BACKGROUND
SUMMARY
I defend and protect copyright works. Working with law rms and companies across the country, I help
pursue those intent on stealing copyrighted works on the internet (i.e. "pirates").
My practice, and the work I pioneered has been in over three hundred newspapers and I am regularly
involved in litigation before federal appellate courts and state supreme courts.
My goal is to be hated by pirates, loved by clients, and to enjoy the wonderful life god has given me.
Specialties: Copyright Infringement.
EXPERIENCE
Of Counsel
Various Law Firms
November 2011 Present (1 year 4 months) | Everywhere
If you are reading this, you probably know exactly what I do.
Founding Attorney
Steele Hansmeier PLLC
January 2009 November 2011 (2 years 11 months) | Chicago
Pioneered the concept of going after people who steal copyrighted works on the internet. Sold client book
to Prenda Law in 2011 and now assist attorneys throughout the country in ghting illegal infringement on
the internet.
Founding Attorney
Steele Law Firm
July 2007 January 2010 (2 years 7 months) | Chicago
Founding attorney at Steele Law Firm, a Chicagoland law rm focusing on Family Law matters including
divorce, child support, child custody, adoption, and bankruptcy.
President
Bear Education
January 1999 April 2005 (6 years 4 months)
Managed multiple vocational schools dedicated to computer engineering and network engineering
oriented professions.
PEOPLE SIMILAR TO JOHN
Jenn Spears 3
Attorney at Martson Law Ofces
Connect
rd
269
connections
John Steele
Of Counsel to Various Intellectual Property Firms
Greater Chicago Area Law Practice
Current Various Law Firms
Previous Steele Hansmeier PLLC, Steele Law Firm, Bear Education
Education Georgetown University
Connect Send InMail
3rd
Add Connections Account Type: Basic | Upgrade
Advanced Search... People
Morgan Pietz
Home Prole Contacts Groups Jobs Inbox Companies News More
99
John Steele | LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/prole/view?id=18777857&authType...
1 of 3 2/11/13 6:14 PM
Supp. E.R. 476
Mike O'Horo
Andrew Bleiman
Your connections can introduce
you to someone who knows
John
Get introduced
John Steele
IN COMMON WITH JOHN
Built and sold laptop computer equipment. Trained people in computer networking.
SKILLS & EXPERTISE
Catching those who...
EDUCATION
Georgetown University
BA
Activities and Societies: Magna Cum Laude Phi Beta Kappa
University of Minnesota Law School
JD
RECOMMENDATIONS
SEE MORE
Bruce Beddard
Vice President
Bruce is a great mortgage consultant who works hard to help people understand not only
their mortgage needs, but issues relating to mortgages such as credit scoring, and FHA
loans.
Bruce is also an excellent basketball player!
January 15, 2009, John was with another company when working with Bruce at mTeam Mortgage
Group
GROUPS
HAPPY LAWYERs 8.
Join
Imerman Angels
Join
Link to Chicago
Join
Linked N Chicago (Li
Join
Solo Attorney Practit
Join
e-LEGAL
Join

FOLLOWING
You
1
School
Given (1)
Advanced People
Morgan Pietz
99
2 of 3 2/11/13 6:14 PM
Supp. E.R. 477
Help Center About Press Blog Careers Advertising Talent Solutions Tools Mobile Developers Publishers Language Upgrade Your Account
LinkedIn Corporation 2013
User Agreement Privacy Policy Community Guidelines Cookie Policy Copyright Policy Send Feedback
Advanced People
Morgan Pietz
99
3 of 3 2/11/13 6:14 PM
Supp. E.R. 478

EXHIBIT BB
B
EXHIBIT BB
Supp. E.R. 479
Supp. E.R. 480
Supp. E.R. 481
Supp. E.R. 482
Supp. E.R. 483
Supp. E.R. 484
Supp. E.R. 485
Supp. E.R. 486
Supp. E.R. 487
Supp. E.R. 488
Supp. E.R. 489
Supp. E.R. 490
Supp. E.R. 491
Supp. E.R. 492
Supp. E.R. 493
Supp. E.R. 494
Supp. E.R. 495
Supp. E.R. 496
Supp. E.R. 497
Supp. E.R. 498
Supp. E.R. 499
Supp. E.R. 500
Supp. E.R. 501
Supp. E.R. 502

EXHIBIT CC
C
EXHIBIT CC
Supp. E.R. 503
Full proles for 3rd-degree connections are available
only to premium account holders.
Upgrade your account
PEOPLE ALSO VIEWED
Paul Hansmeier
Partner at Alpha Law Firm LLC
Show Wang
Law Student
Padraigin Browne
Associate Attorney at Shumaker &
Sieffert
Luqman Lawal
Graduate consultant
Heiko Carstens
Senior Manager Consulting FS bei
KPMG
John Steele
Of Counsel to Various Intellectual
Property Firms
Alexis Orenstein
Corporate Associate at Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP
Xiyan Zhang
Attorney, P.E.
Rory Wellever
Associate at Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Reynaldo Quinones
Attorney at Riguer Silva, LLC
Female Entrepreneurs! - Apply Now to the National Association of Professional Women. Register Free.
PEOPLE SIMILAR TO MICHAEL
Reynaldo Quinones
Attorney at Riguer Silva, LLC
Connect
28
connections
Michael Dugas
Associate Attorney at Prenda Law Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota Law Practice
Education University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
Connect Send InMail
3rd
Advanced Search... People
Morgan Pietz
10 10
Michael Dugas | LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pub/michael-dugas/28/b47/91a
1 of 2 2/18/13 6:01 PM
Supp. E.R. 504
Scott Flaherty
Scott can introduce you to
someone who knows Michael
Get introduced
Michael Dugas
Help Center About Press Blog Careers Advertising Talent Solutions Tools Mobile Developers Publishers Language Upgrade Your Account
LinkedIn Corporation 2013
User Agreement Privacy Policy Community Guidelines Cookie Policy Copyright Policy Send Feedback
You
Advanced People
Morgan Pietz
10 10
Michael Dugas | LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pub/michael-dugas/28/b47/91a
2 of 2 2/18/13 6:01 PM
Supp. E.R. 505

EXHIBIT DD
D
EXHIBIT DD
Supp. E.R. 506
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In re: ESTATE OF FERDINAND E.
MARCOS HUMAN RIGHTS
LITIGATION,
CELSA HILAO; ADORA FAYE DE
VERA,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
THE ESTATE OF FERDINAND E.
MARCOS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-15487
D.C. No. 1:03-cv-11111-MLR
MEMORANDUM
*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Manuel L. Real, District J udge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 15, 2012

Honolulu, Hawaii
FILED
OCT 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Case: 11-15487 10/24/2012 ID: 8374723 DktEntry: 27-1 Page: 1 of 4
Supp. E.R. 507
1
The underlying damages judgment in an action against Marcos by Hilao
expired in 2005 pursuant to Hawaiis ten-year statute of limitations for civil
judgments. Haw. Rev. Stat. 657-5.
2
The contempt judgment was issued in 2011, and it covered the failure of
Marcos to pay the courts contempt sanction from 1995 to 2005.
2
Before: REINHARDT, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit J udges.
The Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos (hereinafter Marcos) appeals a
$353,600,000 contempt judgment awarded to a class of human rights victims
(hereinafter Hilao). Marcos argues on appeal that, because the underlying
damages judgment expired in 2005
1
and because the $100,000 per day contempt
sanction upon which the contempt judgment was based was coercive in nature,
2
the
contempt judgment is unenforceable. We review findings of civil contempt and the
amount of a civil contempt sanction for abuse of discretion. FTC v. Affordable
Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228, 1229 (9th Cir. 1999). Underlying factual findings are
reviewed for clear error. Id. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291, and we
affirm.
Marcoss argument is likely waived. The argument that Marcos made in the
district court was that the contempt judgment was unenforceable under state law,
because it had expired under Haw. Rev. Stat. 657-5. The district court rejected
this argument, and Marcos did not appeal that determination, although it did appeal
Supp. E.R. 508
3
Marcos has conceded that a compensatory contempt judgment is
enforceable even when the underlying damages judgment has expired.
3
the decision. Marcos now argues on appeal that the contempt judgment is
unenforceable under federal law, because coercive sanctions are unenforceable
when the underlying damages judgment has expired. This is a new argument, and
we do[] not consider an issue not passed upon below. Dodd v. Hood River Cnty.,
59 F.3d 852, 863 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Marcos
contends that it obliquely made this argument in its December 2010 status report
statement. We agree that this reference was oblique; it was, in fact, a single
sentence of a single paragraph of a five-page memorandum to the district court.
Moreover, the paragraph lacked legal citation and began with Put another way,
suggesting that Marcos was simply restating the state law argument in different
terms. Thus, Marcos did not raise this argument sufficiently for the trial court to
rule on it. Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 515 (9th Cir. 1992)
(quoting In re E.R. Fegert, Inc., 887 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1989)).
Independent of waiver, we reject Marcos argument on the merits. Even if
Marcos is correct that the contempt sanction was coercive, it was also clearly
compensatory.
3
The district court ordered that the $100,000 per day sanction be
paid to the plaintiff, Hilao, not the court. See Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller
Supp. E.R. 509
4
Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 779-80 (9th Cir. 1983). Additionally, the district court
explained that the $100,000 per day amount was necessary and appropriate
because Marcoss contumacious conduct was causing direct harm to Hilao,
including $55,000 per day from lost interest and additional losses due to Marcoss
dilatory tactics. Because a contempt sanction can be both coercive and
compensatory, U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 303-04
(1947); Union of Prof. Airmen v. Alaska Aeronautical Ind., Inc., 625 F.2d 881, 883
(9th Cir. 1979), and because no party has asked the court to allocate the $100,000
per day amount between compensatory and coercive components, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in treating the entirety of the $100,000 per day sanction
as compensatory.
In view of the above, we hold that the $353,600,000 contempt judgment is
properly enforceable by Hilao.
AFFIRMED.
Supp. E.R. 510
Supp. E.R. 511
Supp. E.R. 512
Supp. E.R. 513
Supp. E.R. 514
Exhibit 1
Exhibits to the Declaration of Bart Huffman
Page 1
Supp. E.R. 515
Exhibit 1
Page 2
Supp. E.R. 516
Exhibit 1
Page 3
Supp. E.R. 517
Exhibit 1
Page 4
Supp. E.R. 518

Exhibit 1
Page 5
Supp. E.R. 519
Exhibit 1
Page 6
Supp. E.R. 520
Exhibit 1
Page 7
Supp. E.R. 521

Exhibit 1
Page 8
Supp. E.R. 522
Exhibit 1
Page 9
Supp. E.R. 523

Exhibit 2
Page 10

Supp. E.R. 524

Exhibit 2
Page 11
Supp. E.R. 525

Exhibit 2
Page 12
Supp. E.R. 526

Exhibit 2
Page 13
Supp. E.R. 527

Exhibit 2
Page 14

Supp. E.R. 528

Exhibit 2
Page 15

Supp. E.R. 529

Exhibit 2
Page 16
Supp. E.R. 530

Exhibit 2
Page 17
Supp. E.R. 531

Exhibit 2
Page 18
Supp. E.R. 532

Exhibit 2
Page 19
Supp. E.R. 533

Exhibit 2
Page 20

Supp. E.R. 534

Exhibit 2
Page 21

Supp. E.R. 535

Exhibit 2
Page 22

Supp. E.R. 536

Exhibit 2
Page 23

Supp. E.R. 537

Exhibit 3
Page 24

Supp. E.R. 538

Exhibit 3
Page 25
Supp. E.R. 539

Exhibit 3
Page 26
Supp. E.R. 540

Exhibit 3
Page 27

Supp. E.R. 541

Exhibit 3
Page 28

Supp. E.R. 542

Exhibit 3
Page 29
Supp. E.R. 543

Exhibit 3
Page 30

Supp. E.R. 544

Exhibit 3
Page 31
Supp. E.R. 545

Exhibit 3
Page 32

Supp. E.R. 546

Exhibit 3
Page 33
#:1002
Supp. E.R. 547

Exhibit 3
Page 34

#:1003
Supp. E.R. 548

Exhibit 3
Page 35
#:1004
Supp. E.R. 549

Exhibit 3
Page 36

#:1005
Supp. E.R. 550

Exhibit 3
Page 37
#:1006
Supp. E.R. 551

Exhibit 3
Page 38
#:1007
Supp. E.R. 552

Exhibit 3
Page 39

#:1008
Supp. E.R. 553

Exhibit 3
Page 40

#:1009
Supp. E.R. 554

Exhibit 3
Page 41

#:1010
Supp. E.R. 555

Exhibit 3
Page 42
#:1011
Supp. E.R. 556

Exhibit 3
Page 43
#:1012
Supp. E.R. 557

Exhibit 3
Page 44
#:1013
Supp. E.R. 558

Exhibit 3
Page 45
#:1014
Supp. E.R. 559

Exhibit 3
Page 46

#:1015
Supp. E.R. 560
Exhibit 4
Page 47

Supp. E.R. 561

Exhibit 4
Page 48

Supp. E.R. 562
Supp. E.R. 563
Supp. E.R. 564
Exhibit 1
Exhibits to the Declaration of Camille Kerr
Page 1

Supp. E.R. 565

Exhibit 1
Page 2
Supp. E.R. 566

Exhibit 1
Page 3
Supp. E.R. 567

Exhibit 1
Page 4

Supp. E.R. 568

Exhibit 1
Page 5
Supp. E.R. 569

Exhibit 1
Page 6
Supp. E.R. 570

Exhibit 1
Page 7
Supp. E.R. 571

Exhibit 1
Page 8
Supp. E.R. 572

Exhibit 1
Page 9

Supp. E.R. 573

Exhibit 1
Page 10

#:1029
Supp. E.R. 574

Exhibit 1
Page 11
#:1030
Supp. E.R. 575
Exhibit 2
Page 12

Supp. E.R. 576

Exhibit 2
Page 13
Supp. E.R. 577
Exhibit 2
Page 14

Supp. E.R. 578
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ANDREW J. WAX L E R , SBN 113682
WON M . P ARK, SBN 194333
WAX L E R GARNER BRODSK Y L L P
1960 East Grand Avenue, Suite 1210
El Segundo, Cal ifornia 90245
Telephone: (310)416-1300
Facsimile: (310)416-1310
e-mail: awaxler@wcb-law. com
e-mail: wpark@wcb-law. com
Specially Appearing for Respondent
BRETT L. GIBBS
CE NTRAL DISTRICT OF CAL I FORNI A
I NGENUI TY 13 L L C,
Pl aintiff,
vs.
JOHN DOE,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx)
[Consolidated with Case Nos.:
2:12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669; 2:12-cv-
6662; 2:12-cv-6668]
[Assigned to Judge Otis D. Wright, II ]
DECLARATION OF BRETT L.
GIBBS IN RESPONSE TO THE
COURT'S FEBRUARY 27, 2013
ORDER
[Complaint Fil ed: September 27, 2012]
Date: March 11, 2013
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Dept: 11
Trial date: None set
DECLARATION OF BRETT L. GIBBS
I, Brett L. Gibbs, declare and state as fol l ows:
1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before al l of the courts
in the State of Cal ifornia and the United States District Court for the Central District
of Cal ifornia. I was "Of Counsel" to Prenda Law, Inc., counsel of record for
Pl aintiffs AF Holdings, L L C ("AF Holdings") and Ingenuity 13, L L C ("Ingenuity")
in the actions entitled AF Holdings, Inc. v. Doe, United States District Court for the
Central District of Cal ifornia Case No. 2:12-cv-6636-ODW(JCx) ("Case No.
1
Supp. E.R. 579
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6636"), AF Holdings, Inc. v. Doe, United States District Court for the Central
District of Cal ifornia Case No. 2:12-cv-6669-ODW(JCx) ("Case No. 6669"),
Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, United States District Court for the Central District of
Cal ifornia Case No. 2:12-cv-6662-ODW(JCx) ("Case No. 6662"), Ingenuity 13 LLC
v. Doe, United States District Court for the Central District of Cal ifornia Case No.
2:12-cv-6668-ODW(JCx) ("Case No. 6668") and Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, United
States District Court for the Central District of Cal ifornia Case No. 2:12-cv-8333-
ODW(JCx) ("Case No. 8333" and collectively the "Copyright Litigations"). I have
personal knowledge of the facts set forth below, other than those facts that are
identified as stated on information and belief which I also believe to be true, and I
could and would competently testify to them if called upon to do so.
2. I make this declaration in response to the Court's February 27, 2013
Order.
3. In my Response and Declaration to the Court's February 7, 2013 Order
to Show Cause, I referred to "senior members" of the law firms that employed me in
an "Of Counsel" relationship. By "senior members" of the law firms, I was not
referring to those persons who may have an ownership interest in the law firms, but
rather those attorneys who I was informed communicated with the clients, oversaw
the litigations on behalf of the law firm's clients, and provided me with instructions
and guidelines, which I was informed, originated from the clients. I reported to
those senior members.
4. On M arch 14, 2011,1 was contacted and hired by Steele Hansmeier
P L L C (hereinafter "S&H") in an "Of Counsel" relationship. During my time with
S&H, John Steele and Paul Hansmeier were the attorneys who informed me that
they communicated with S&H' s clients, oversaw the litigations on behalf of those
clients, and provided me with instructions and guidelines, which I was informed,
originated from the clients. I reported to M r. Steele and M r. Hansmeier.
2
Supp. E.R. 580
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. In or around November 2011,1 was informed that S&H, and its book of
business, had been sold to a Chicago firm, Prenda Law, Inc. ("Prenda"). It is my
understanding that the sole principal of Prenda is Paul Duffy. M r. Duffy's business
address is 161 N . Cl ark Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, IL. The telephone number for
Prenda is (800) 380-0840. I was also informed that I would be continuing my work
as "Of Counsel" to Prenda and continue in the same role I had with S&H in
prosecuting copyright cases. During the course of my work with Prenda, M r. Steele
and M r. Hansmeier were the attorneys who informed me that they communicated
with Prenda's clients, oversaw the litigations on behalf of those clients, and
provided me with instructions and guidelines, which I was informed, originated
from the clients. I reported to M r. Steele and M r. Hansmeier.
6. I was informed that M r. Steele and M r. Hansmeier work for or with
Livewire Holdings L L C ("Livewire"). According to Livewire's website, its address
is 2100 M . St. NW, Suite 170-417, Washington D.C. 20037-1233 and telephone
number is (888) 588-WIRE. I am in possession of the personal addresses and
telephone numbers for M r. Steele and M r. Hansmeier. However, out of an
abundance of caution, I did not believe their private addresses and telephone
numbers should be disclosed in a publ icl y fil ed document. If the Court requests the
addresses and telephone numbers, I would request that the information be fil ed
under seal.
7. The Copyright Litigations with respect to AF Holdings related to a
copyrighted work entitled "Popular Demand". "Popular Demand" has a val id
registered copyright issued by the United States Copyright Office, registered by
Heartbreaker Digital L L C ("Heartbreaker") on August 9, 2011 (Popular Demand,
Copyright No. PA0001754383). Pursuant to an assignment agreement dated
December 20, 2011, Heartbreaker assigned the rights to reproduce and distribute the
fil m, "Popular Demand" to AF Holdings. AF Holdings was, and is, a limited
l iabil ity company formed under the laws of the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis.
3
Supp. E.R. 581
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(1
12
13
14
15
16
17
8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Based on information and belief, AF Holdings is located at Springates East,
Government Road, Charlestown, Nevis. I am informed that M ark Lutz is the CEO
of AF Holdings.
8. The Copyright Litigations with respect to Ingenuity 13 were related to
copyrighted works entitled " A Peek Behind the Scenes at a Show" and "Five Fan
Favorites". " A Peek Behind the Scenes at a Show" has a val id registered copyright
issued by the United States Copyright Office, registered by Ingenuity 13 on August
24, 2012 (A Peek Behind the Scenes at a Show, Copyright No. PA0001802629).
"Five Fan Favorites" has a val id registered copyright issued by the United States
Copyright Office, registered by Ingenuity 13 on May 29, 2012 (Five Fan Favorites,
Copyright No. PA0001791654). Ingenuity 13 was, and is, a limited liability
company formed under the laws of the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis. Based
on information and belief, Ingenuity 13 is located at Springates East, Government
Road, Charlestown, Nevis. I am informed that Mark Lutz is the CEO of Ingenuity
13.
9. I believe that M r. Lutz is l iving and working from Las Vegas, NV. I
am informed that M r. Lutz also works for Livewire. According to Livewire's
website, its address is 2100 M . St. NW, Suite 170-417, Washington D.C. 20037-
1233 and telephone number is (888) 588-WIRE. I am not possession of M r. Lutz's
personal address. I am in possession of M r. Lutz's personal telephone number.
However, out of an abundance of caution, I did not believe M r. Lutz's private
telephone number should be disclosed in a publicly fil ed document. If the Court
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
4
Supp. E.R. 582
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
in
28
requests the tel ephone number. I woul d request that the information be f i l ed under
seal .
I decl are under the penal ty of perjury under the l aws of the Uni t ed States of
Amer i ca that the foregoing is true and correct. Thi s decl aration is executed on the
I
s
* day of M arch 2013, in M i l l Val l ey, Cal i f orni a.
BR F 1 T L G I BBS
5
Supp. E.R. 583

i

________________________________________________________________________

JOHN DOES SUPPLEMENTAL EXCERPTS OF RECORD VOLUME III
________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

INGENUITY 13 LLC

Plaintiff-Appellant
and


Movants-Appellants,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant-Appellee,

13-55880; 13-55881; 13-55882;
13-55883; 13-55884; 13-56028

Related Appeal No.:
13-80114


ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I


















iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME II
















/ /


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME III


59-1 - Pietz Reply Decl..........584


61 - Gibbs Reply Decl............632




76-1 - Ex. 1 StarTribune......646







117-1 Pietz Decl..........715




v
TABLE OF CONTENTS








175-3 - Proposed Order........847







/ /


vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME IV


















vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS


Visits Florid.........................1077


and Email) .......1083





Forbes..1114

/ /

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME V




/ /

-1-
REPLY DECLARATION OF MORGAN E. PIETZ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301

Kitts and Nevis,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.


Case Assigned to:


REPLY DECLARATION OF
MORGAN E. PIETZ

Supp. E.R. 584

-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

I, Morgan E. Pietz, have personal knowledge of the facts alleged herein and hereby
declare as follows:
1. I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California, duly
admitted to the practice of law in the state and federal courts of the State of
California.
2. I represent ISP subscribers who have been targeted by Ingenuity 13,
LLC, through its counsel Prenda Law, Inc. f/k/a Steele Hansemeier PLLC
(Prenda) in copyright infringement cases Ingenuity 13 filed in both the Central
District of California, and the Northern District of California. I also represent other
clients in other cases brought by Prenda on behalf of other entities, sometimes along
with local counsel, in other courts.
3. I represent a putative John Doe defendant in the case indicated on the
caption above.
4. My clients in the Prenda cases, including this case, each received letters
from their ISPs informing them that Prenda was attempting to subpoena their
identity as part of a lawsuit. Generally, my clients are the people who happen to pay
the Internet bill for their household, not necessarily the people who actually
committed the alleged infringement or other wrongful conduct. However, Prenda
constructs its lawsuits so as to make it unclear what exactly is the status of my
clients. The complaint does not exactly come out and say that the ISP subscriber
equals the John Doe defendant. However, the requests for early discovery, seeking
leave to issue ISP subpoenas, generally tend to conflate ISP subscriber with Doe
defendant.
5. A comprehensive Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz re: Prenda Law,
Inc. was previously filed in this action at ECF No. 40-1. A Supplemental
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz was previously filed in this action at ECF No. 53.
The lettering of the Exhibits to this Reply Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz is
continued from theses two prior declaration.
Supp. E.R. 585

-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6. Attached as Exhibit EE hereto is a true and correct copy of the
[Amended] Motion for Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel filed by Mr.
Gibbs in AF Holdings, LLC v. Andrew Magsumbol, N.D. Cal. No. 3:12-cv-4221-SC,
ECF No. 22, 1/30/13. On page 2, Mr. Gibbs lists himself as In-House Counsel, AF
Holdings LLC. The prior day, January 29, 2013, Mr. Gibbs had filed a different
version of the same motion (id. at ECF No. 21). The only apparent difference
between the two substitution motions was the addition of the line where Mr. Gibbs
signed for AF Holdings, as in house counsel, in the amended motion.
7. Attached as Exhibit FF hereto is a true and correct copy of the pleading
that Prendas local counsel in St. Clair County, Illinois, Kevin Hoerner, filed in on
or around February 13, 2013, in Guava, LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications,
LLC, Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, No. 12-MR-417. This pleading
states on page 5 that the name of the person who supposedly verified the petition in
that action is Alan Mony. On February 14, 2013, among other questions, I asked
Prendas lawyers to confirm the spelling of the purported client who had signed the
verification, and Mr. Hoerner responded that day (this was the entire response): The
issues have already been briefed. See you in court.
8. Attached as Exhibit GG hereto is a true and correct copy of the
amended verification filed by Prenda on February 21, 2013 in the Guava St. Clair
County action, purportedly executed by someone spelling their name Alan
Mooney.
9. Attached as Exhibit HH hereto is a true and correct copy of an
explanatory organization diagram I prepared for Prenda, etc. I am prepared to
explain this document at the hearing, and can provide documentary support for the
connections.
10. Attached as Exhibit II hereto is a true and correct copy of two Google
Earth maps that I prepared. The first map shows the Wagar residence located at
1411 Paseo Jacaranda, Santa Maria, California 93458. (ECF No. 50, 29). The
Supp. E.R. 586

-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

second map shows the Denton residence located 635 S. Vanderwell Avenue, West
Covina, California 91790. In order to illustrate the range of a WiFi network, both
maps show three circles around the residence, each with different radii: a 100 ft.
circle (green), a 300 ft. circle (yellow), and a 500 ft. circle (red).
11. Attached as Exhibit JJ hereto is a true and correct copy of the manual,
chapter 4, for a wireless router owned by a client of mine in a prior, unrelated case.
The router at issue there was about ten years old, and specified a range of between
300500 ft., per page 4-2. This is simply an example of the kind of signal range
available on a not-state-of-the-art router.



DATED: March 4, 2013,

/s/ Morgan E. Pietz

Supp. E.R. 587
Supp. E.R. 588
Supp. E.R. 589
Supp. E.R. 590
Supp. E.R. 591
Supp. E.R. 592
Supp. E.R. 593
Supp. E.R. 594
Supp. E.R. 595
Supp. E.R. 596
Supp. E.R. 597
Supp. E.R. 598
Supp. E.R. 599
Supp. E.R. 600
Supp. E.R. 601
Supp. E.R. 602
Supp. E.R. 603
Supp. E.R. 604
Supp. E.R. 605
Supp. E.R. 606
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 59-2 Filed 03/04/13
#.1072
Page 20 of 41 Page ID
r
>
r
b
3
o
>
a
T J
!=!
c
y
r.
w
T3
*<
<5
*
Supp. E.R. 607
Supp. E.R. 608
Supp. E.R. 609
Supp. E.R. 610
Supp. E.R. 611
Supp. E.R. 612
Supp. E.R. 613
Supp. E.R. 614
Supp. E.R. 615
Supp. E.R. 616
Supp. E.R. 617
Supp. E.R. 618
Supp. E.R. 619
Supp. E.R. 620
Supp. E.R. 621
Supp. E.R. 622
Supp. E.R. 623
Supp. E.R. 624
Supp. E.R. 625
Supp. E.R. 626
Supp. E.R. 627
Supp. E.R. 628
Supp. E.R. 629
Supp. E.R. 630
Supp. E.R. 631
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ANDREW J. WAX L E R , S BN 113682
WON M . P ARK, S BN 194333
WA X L E R * CARNER B RODS K Y L L P
1960 East Grand Avenue, Suite 1210
El Segundo, Cal ifornia 90245
Telephone: (310)416-1300
Facsimile: (310)416-1310
e-mail: awaxler@wcb-law.com
e-mail: wpark@wcb-law.com
Specially Appearing for Respondent
BRETT L. GIBBS
UNI TED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CAL I FORNI A
Case No. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx)
[Consolidated with Case Nos.:
2:12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669; 2:12-cv-
6662;2:12-cv-6668]
[Assigned to Judge Otis D. Wright, II ]
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATI ON
OF BRETT L. GIBBS IN SUPPORT
OF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN
RESPONSE TO THE COURT' S
FEBRUARY 7, 2013 OSC
[Complaint Fil ed: September 27, 2012]
Date: M arch 11, 2013
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Dept: 11
[Filed Concurrently with Brett Gibbs'
Supplemental Brief- Supplemental
Request for Judicial Notice; Objections
to Evidence and Proposed Order re
Objections to Evidence]
Trial date: None set
I NGENUI TY 13 L L C ,
Pl aintiff,
vs.
JOHN DOE,
Defendant.
Supp. E.R. 632
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATI ON OF BRETT L. GIBBS
I, Brett L. Gibbs, declare and state as fol l ows:
1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before al l of the courts
in the State of Cal ifornia and the United States District Court for the Central District
of Cal ifornia. I was " Of Counsel" to Prenda Law, Inc., counsel of record for
Pl aintiffs AF Holdings, L L C ("AF Holdings") and Ingenuity 13, L L C ("Ingenuity")
in the actions entitled AF Holdings, Inc. v. Doe, United States District Court for the
Central District of Cal ifornia Case No. 2:12-cv-6636-ODW(JCx) ("Case No.
6636"), AF Holdings, Inc. v. Doe, United States District Court for the Central
District of Cal ifornia Case No. 2:12-cv-6669-ODW(JCx) ("Case No. 6669"),
Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, United States District Court for the Central District of
Cal ifornia Case No. 2:12-cv-6662-ODW(JCx) ("Case No. 6662"), Ingenuity 13 LLC
v. Doe, United States District Court for the Central District of Cal ifornia Case No.
2:12-cv-6668-ODW(JCx) ("Case No. 6668") and Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, United
States District Court for the Central District of Cal ifornia Case No. 2:12-cv-8333-
ODW(JCx) ("Case No. 8333" and collectively the "Copyright Litigations"). I have
personal knowledge of the facts set forth below and I could and would competently
testify to them if called upon to do so.
2. I make this declaration in support of Brett L . Gibbs' Supplemental
Brief in response to the Court's February 7, 2013 OSC.
3. I no longer have a relationship with Prenda Law, Inc. or Livewire
Holdings, L L C . I am also no longer counsel of record for any cases involving
Ingenuity and am only counsel of record in one case for AF Holdings pending AF
Holdings retaining new counsel.
4. I first became aware of the allegation that counsel for SBC Internet
Services, L L C dba AT&T Internet Services (" AT&T" ) claimed that a Prenda
employee named Angel a Van Den Hemel contacted counsel for AT&T regarding
the status of a subpoena issued to AT&T in the case entitled AF Holdings LLC v.
1
Supp. E.R. 633
1
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
23
25
26
->7
28
Doe, United States District Court for the Central District of Cal ifornia Case No. 12-
cv-()()5075 after the Court issued its October 19, 2012 order vacating the prior early-
discovery orders when 1 reviewed the decl arations of Bart Huffman and Camil l e D.
Kerr fil ed by Mr. Pietz on February 20, 2013. I did not instruct M s. Van Den Heme!
to fol l ow-up with AT&T's counsel regarding the status of the subpoena after the
Court issued its October 19, 2012 order. In addition, 1 was not aware of any attempt
to fol l ow-up regarding the status of the subpoena until I reviewed Mr. Huffman and
M s. Kerr' s decl arations, I specifical l y advised members of Prenda about the Court's
October 19, 2012 orders vacating the prior earl y discovery orders and advised them
not to attempt to enforce the subpoenas.
5. 1 have never met Salt Marsh or had any direct contact with Sal t M arsh.
! have never forged the signature of "Sal t M arsh." I have al so never met Al an
M oody, Al an M oay, Al an Mony, or Al l an M ooney. 1 have al so never had any direct
contact with Al an M oody, Al an M oay, Al an M ony, or Al l an M ooney. I have never
forged the signature of " Al an M oody" , " Al an M oay" , " Al an M ony" , or " Al l an
1 decl are under the penalty of perjury under the l aws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct. This decl aration is executed on the
M ooney."
4
l h
day of M arch 2013, in M i l l Val l ey, Cal ifornia.
BRETT I GIBBS
Supp. E.R. 634

-1-
DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Nicholas Ranallo, Attorney at Law
SBN 275016
371 Dogwood Way
nick@ranallolawoffice.com
Telephone: (831) 703-4011
Fax: (831) 533-5073

Co-Counsel for Putative John Doe in 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC
Kitts and Nevis,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.


Case Assigned to:


Case Consolidated with Case Nos.:
2:12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669; 2:12-cv-
6662; 2:12-cv-6668

DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS
RANALLO

Supp. E.R. 635

-2-
DECLARATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in the State of California and before
the District Court for the Central District of California. On March 8, 2013, I
filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the Putative Doe in the above-noted
action.
2. Exhibit 1 represents a redacted, but otherwise true and correct copy of a
settlement/demand letter received by a California client in connection with AF
Holdings lawsuit in the Northern District of California.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration is executed on this 8
th
day of March,
2013, in Boulder Creek, California.

/s/ Nicholas R. Ranallo_________
Nicholas Ranallo

Supp. E.R. 636
Supp. E.R. 637
Supp. E.R. 638
Supp. E.R. 639
Supp. E.R. 640
Supp. E.R. 641
Supp. E.R. 642
Supp. E.R. 643

-1-
NOTICE OF LODGING NEWS REPORT ON ALLAN MOONEY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301

Kitts and Nevis,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.


Case Assigned to:


2:12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669; 2:12-cv-
6662; 2:12-cv-6668

NOTICE OF LODGING NEWS
REPORT ON ALLAN MOONEY

Supp. E.R. 644

-2-
NOTICE OF LODGING NEWS REPORT ON ALLAN MOONEY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

NOTICE OF LODGING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the putative Putative John Doe in 2:12-cv-
08333-DMG-PJW by and through counsel, hereby lodges with the Court a true and
correct copy of a Minneapolis StarTribune Article published Sunday March 10,
2013
1
, a copy of which is also attached hereto as Exhibit 1. As relevant here, the
headline for this article would be that Allan Mooney of Minnesota is quoted denying
knowing that his name is being used in connection with federal court filings made
by Prenda Law, Inc. (including in the St. Clair County Guava, LLC action). Further,
Mr. Mooney also denies knowing that he was listed as the organizer for MCGIP,
LLC, a plaintiff Prenda Law, Inc. has represented in numerous copyright
infringement actions. The yellow highlighting to the relevant section of the article
dealing with Allan Mooneys denial of his alleged role in Prenda lawsuits was
applied by undersigned counsel.

DATED: March 10, 2013 THE PIETZ LAW FIRM

/s/ Morgan E. Pietz
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM

1
A copy is available online here: http://www.startribune.com/local/196795991.html
Supp. E.R. 645

EXHIBIT 1
Supp. E.R. 646
Public court document called ConnectionsChart with key
players: John L. Steele , Paul Hansmeier, Peter Hansmeier,
Paul Duffy and Brett Gibbs. (Ingenuity 13 v. John Doe, case
no. 12-cv-8333).
, Federal court filing, Central District, California
Lawyers in BitTorrent copyright trolling
cases under scrutiny
Article by: Dan Browning
Star Tribune
March 10, 2013 - 9:46 PM

One federal judge calls it a modern-day shakedown.
A Minnesota attorney says its merely an effort to hunt down
Internet pirates illegally downloading pornography.
The issue is copyright trolling a practice in which lawyers
threaten lawsuits to wring millions of dollars in settlements from
people suspected of pirating videos online.
Now, defense attorneys have questioned whether a group of men
with ties to Minnesota who are behind hundreds of such suits nationwide have used straw men as copyright holders when
they asked judges to help them obtain the identities of Internet users.
A federal judge in Los Angeles, concerned about what he called a possible fraud on the court, intends to get to the bottom
of the dispute at a hearing Monday afternoon. Attorney John L. Steele is among eight key figures ordered to appear before
U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II to explain themselves or face sanctions that could include fines or jail.
Steele denies any wrongdoing. If people sit back and let a fact-finder ... hear evidence, these conspiracies always dissipate
like fog, he said in a recent interview.
But late Friday, his attorneys filed a motion challenging the judges authority to compel Steele and his associates from
Minnesota and Illinois to appear in the California cases, which were handled by an associate in that state.
How the lawsuits arise
The cases arise from one of the latest forms of Internet piracy, in which people use file-sharing programs such as BitTorrent
to download copyrighted movies. The computers or wireless routers involved can be identified by their Internet protocol, a
numerical address, but the identities of the users are not clear.
The Star Tribune has identified more than 660 federal lawsuits filed by more than a dozen entities who have asked judges to
help them identify thousands of computer users who may have illegally downloaded copyrighted videos.
Then lawyers send those users a settlement demand generally ranging from $1,500 to $4,000 warning that violations
can result in penalties of up to $150,000 if they must go to court.
Steele, a 2006 University of Minnesota Law School graduate licensed in Illinois, has built a national reputation by specializing
in such cases with his one-time partner and former classmate, Paul Hansmeier of Minneapolis.
That was an area we thought we could make a big difference in because there werent too many types of people who were
prosecuting these types of suits, Hansmeier said.
Hansmeier said criticism of the litigation comes from copyright pirates and their attorneys who spread conspiracy theories
because they lose in court.
StarTribune - Print Page http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=196795991
1 of 3 3/10/13 9:21 PM
Supp. E.R. 647
Minnesotans listed
In June 2010, Steele formed Media Copyright Group in Minnesota with Hansmeier as its manager. Hansmeiers brother,
Peter, worked at the firm capturing Internet addresses of suspected copyright infringers. Several months later, the Steele
Hansmeier law firm was formed in Minnesota and began filing lawsuits.
Allan Mooney, a Minnesotan who has brokered the sale of Internet-based businesses, said he introduced his friend Paul
Hansmeier to some contacts in the porn industry. But he denied knowing that he was listed as the sole organizer of MCGIP
LLC, a plaintiff in at least 20 lawsuits filed by Steele Hansmeier or contract attorneys.
Mooney also has been listed in court filings with his name misspelled as an agent for an entity called Guava LLC, which
is registered in the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis in the West Indies. Guava has been the plaintiff in 21 federal lawsuits
since October, including six in Minnesota.
That would be news to me, Mooney said. Im not involved in any of that type of stuff. Im more or less a personal trainer.
Asked about Guava, Paul Hansmeier sent the Star Tribune notarized affidavits in which Mooney declares that hes a
principal officer of Guava and that his standard practice is to decline comment about the company if strangers call.
Mooney did not respond to efforts to verify that statement.
The name of another Minnesotan, Alan Cooper of Isle, appears as a representative of two West Indies entities that have filed
nearly 300 lawsuits nationwide, including nine in Minnesota.
Cooper, a 39-year-old cabin caretaker from the Lake Mille Lacs area, also is named as president, treasurer, secretary and
director of a Nevada company involved in at least two infringement suits. That company listed an address that has been
linked to Steele in public records.
Cooper said he met Steele in 2006 when he agreed to take care of his 3,500-square-foot cabin on 125 acres in rural Aitkin
County.
Cooper filed suit last month in Hennepin County against Steele and others, alleging that the documents bearing his signature
are forgeries and that his name was used without his knowledge or consent.
In Florida, Steele sued Cooper and his attorney for libel, but dropped the suit last week and declined to comment on it.
Judges rulings vary
Presented with lawsuits in copyright trolling cases, some judges have compelled Internet service providers to turn over the
identities of suspected pornography downloaders, while others have not.
Steele and Paul Hansmeier acknowledge that theyve lost some cases, but say that theyve won most of the time, including in
Minnesota. They say their most significant victory came last August in a case filed in Washington, D.C.
In that case, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell refused motions by several major Internet service providers including
Comcast, AT&T and Verizon to quash subpoenas seeking the identities of 1,058 subscribers. Howell wrote that a plaintiff
is entitled to ask them to identify customers who might be illegally downloading movies. But because courts have split on the
issue, she agreed to stay her order pending an appeal.
In an Illinois case, U.S. District Judge Harold Baker refused to issue subpoenas, saying the subscribers might not be the
ones downloading.
The ISPs include a number of universities, such as Carnegie Mellon, Columbia, and the University of Minnesota, as well as
corporations and utility companies, he wrote. The infringer might be the subscriber, someone in the subscribers household,
a visitor with her laptop, a neighbor, or someone parked on the street.
2 of 3 3/10/13 9:21 PM
Supp. E.R. 648
The Electronic Frontier Foundation submitted a brief in the case arguing that the suit should be dismissed and challenging 10
of 11 copyrights the plaintiff claimed were pirated.
Steele withdrew the suit, but declined to explain why.
Fraud on the courts?
Steele Hansmeier has since sold its practice to a Chicago firm called Prenda Law, headed by Paul Duffy.
Steele still works through Prenda Law at times. He declined to comment on the ownership of the entities he represents,
saying that the lawsuits have resulted in death threats.
But at least two federal judges are demanding answers.
In Tampa, Fla., U.S. District Judge Mary S. Scriven dismissed for attempted fraud on the Court a case that had been
brought by an adult film company. And she is a considering sanctions against Steele and others.
The judges ruling came after the film companys attorney of record failed to appear at a November hearing. A corporate
representative named Mark Lutz of Las Vegas, Nev., couldnt answer basic questions and turned to a man in the gallery. It
was Steele. He explained that he has worked on similar cases, but denied involvement in that case.
Lutz told the judge he makes $1,000 to appear as a corporate representative in infringement cases.
Seeking the mastermind
In Los Angeles, Wright has dismissed a number of the copyright cases and has ordered attorney Brett Gibbs of Prenda Law
to explain who pulls the strings. Gibbs identified Steele and Hansmeier, and said Lutz was the CEO of the West Indies
copyright holders.
Defense attorney Morgan Pietz challenged Gibbs assertions last week in a court filing, noting that Lutz had worked as a
paralegal for Steele.This Lutz as mastermind story is simply not credible, Pietz wrote.
Wright then ordered Cooper, Steele, Lutz, the Hansmeier brothers, Duffy and a Prenda Law paralegal from Minnesota to
appear at Mondays hearing to explain the ownership of the firms alleging copyright violations.
If it is true that Alan Coopers identity was misappropriated and the underlying copyright assignments were improperly
executed using his identity, then Plaintiff faces a few problems, Wright wrote.

Star Tribune staff writer Abby Simons contributed to this report. Dan Browning 612-673-4493
2011 Star Tribune
3 of 3 3/10/13 9:21 PM
Supp. E.R. 649
Supp. E.R. 650
Supp. E.R. 651
Supp. E.R. 652
Supp. E.R. 653
Supp. E.R. 654
Supp. E.R. 655
EXHIBIT A
Supp. E.R. 656
Supp. E.R. 657
Supp. E.R. 658
Supp. E.R. 659
Supp. E.R. 660
Supp. E.R. 661
Supp. E.R. 662
Supp. E.R. 663
Supp. E.R. 664
Supp. E.R. 665
Supp. E.R. 666
Supp. E.R. 667
Supp. E.R. 668
Supp. E.R. 669
Supp. E.R. 670
EXHIBIT B
Supp. E.R. 671
Supp. E.R. 672
Supp. E.R. 673
Supp. E.R. 674
Supp. E.R. 675
Supp. E.R. 676
Supp. E.R. 677
Supp. E.R. 678

-1-
NOTICE OF LODGING TRANSCRIPT
OF VOICEMAIL MESSAGES FROM JOHN STEELE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301

Kitts and Nevis,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.


Case Assigned to:


2:12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669; 2:12-cv-
6662; 2:12-cv-6668

NOTICE OF LODGING
TRANSCRIPT OF VOICEMAIL
MESSAGES FROM JOHN STEELE

Supp. E.R. 679

-2-
NOTICE OF LODGING TRANSCRIPT
OF VOICEMAIL MESSAGES FROM JOHN STEELE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

NOTICE OF LODGING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the putative John Doe in 2:12-cv-08333-
DMG-PJW by and through counsel, per the Courts request, hereby lodges with the
Court a copy of the certified transcription of the three voicemail messages played in
Court at the March 11, 2013, hearing in this matter. A true and correct copy of the
certified transcript is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

DATED: March 13, 2013 THE PIETZ LAW FIRM

/s/ Morgan E. Pietz
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Supp. E.R. 680

EXHIBIT 1
Supp. E.R. 681
AUDIO TRANSCRIPTION AUDIO TRANSCRIPTION
2
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5
INGENUITY 13, LLC, A )
6 LIMITED LIABILITY )
COMPANY ORGANIZED UNDER )
7 THE LAWS OF THE )
FEDERATION OF SAINT )
8 KITTS AND NEVIS, )
)
9 PLAINTIFF, )
) CASE NO.
10 VS. ) 2:12-CV-08333-ODW-JC
)
11 JOHN DOE, )
)
12 DEFENDANT. )
___________________________)
13
14
15
16
17 AUDIO TRANSCRIPTION
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 TRANSCRIBED BY KELLI C. NORDEN, CSR NUMBER 7200
Supp. E.R. 682
3
1 MECHANICAL VOICE: FIRST SAVED
2 MESSAGE.
3 JOHN STEELE: ALAN, THIS IS JOHN.
4 I JUST SPOKE WITH YOUR ATTORNEY THAT YOU HAVE FOR
5 MATTERS RELATING TO PRENDA LAW.
6 I -- I SPOKE TO HIM AND HE'S
7 CONFIRMED THAT HE IS NOT REPRESENTING YOU FOR THE
8 VARIOUS CLAIMS AND MATTERS THAT I'M PREPARING
9 AGAINST YOU REGARDING STAYIN' AT MY CABIN AND THE
10 VARIOUS DAMAGES AND OTHER THINGS ASSOCIATED WITH
11 THAT.
12 SO PLEASE CONFIRM IF YOU HAVE A
13 DIFFERENT ATTORNEY THAT'S REPRESENTING YOU IN
14 THOSE -- IN THOSE ISSUES OR IF YOU'LL BE
15 REPRESENTING YOURSELF. I NEED TO REACH OUT AND
16 PREPARE CERTAIN PAPERWORK AND GET YOU THE
17 PAPERWORK.
18 I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU WOULD
19 GIVE ME A CALL BACK. OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU DON'T,
20 I'LL JUST PROCEED WITH, YOU KNOW, FIRST PRIVATE
21 INVESTIGATOR AND PROCESS SERVER.
22 ALL RIGHT. WELL, YOU KNOW THE
23 NUMBER. (708) 669-8131.
24 HAVE A GOOD DAY.
25 MECHANICAL VOICE: END OF MESSAGE.
Supp. E.R. 683
4
1 TO DELETE THIS MESSAGE, PRESS 7. TO SAVE IT IN
2 THE -- RESAVED.
3 -O0O-
4
5 MECHANICAL VOICE: NEXT MESSAGE.
6 JOHN STEELE: ALAN, THIS IS JOHN
7 STEELE. I'VE BEEN NOTIFIED BY ATTORNEY PAUL
8 GODFREAD THAT HE IS NOT REPRESENTING YOU IN THE
9 TWO ILLINOIS CASES THAT YOU'VE RECENTLY SERVED.
10 I'M CALLING BECAUSE PART OF OUR
11 MEET AND CONFER, WHICH BOTH PARTIES ARE OBLIGATED
12 TO COMPLY WITH AND ENGAGE WITH -- ENGAGE IN, WE
13 NEED TO GO OVER WHEN WE'RE GOING TO BE DEPOSING
14 YOU IN THE CASE FILED IN SAINT CLAIR.
15 WE'RE TENTATIVELY SCHEDULING THIS
16 FOR TWO WEEKS FROM TOMORROW. I WOULD LIKE TO TRY
17 TO WORK THIS OUT, WHAT'S A CONVENIENT TIME FOR
18 EVERYONE. IF I HEAR FROM YOU, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD.
19 AND OBVIOUSLY, YOU -- YOU PROBABLY
20 UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO, YOU KNOW,
21 WORK WITH ME ON DOING THIS.
22 IT'S LIKE IF YOU REFUSE TO, YOU
23 KNOW, RETURN MY CALLS OR -- OR ENGAGE IN MANDATORY
24 CONFERENCE, THEN I'M GOING TO HAVE TO BE FORCED TO
25 ASK THE JUDGE TO, YOU KNOW, FORCE YOU TO DO THINGS
Supp. E.R. 684
5
1 AND IT JUST GETS UGLY FROM THERE.
2 SO IF YOU DO DECIDE TO GET AN
3 ATTORNEY IN EITHER OF THOSE MATTERS OR IN THE
4 OTHER CASES WHICH WE'RE FILING AGAINST YOU IN THE
5 UPCOMING WEEKS, PLEASE LET THEM -- HAVE THEM GIVE
6 ME A CALL. THIS NUMBER'S FINE. OTHERWISE, I
7 EXPECT TO HEAR FROM YOU SHORTLY.
8 ALL RIGHT. BYE.
10 TO DELETE THIS MESSAGE, PRESS 7. RESAVED.
11
12 -O0O-
13
14 MECHANICAL VOICE: NEXT MESSAGE.
15 JOHN STEELE: ALAN, THIS IS JOHN
16 STEELE AGAIN.
17 YOU HAVE NOT RESPONDED OR CONTACTED
18 ME REGARDING LITIGATION YOU'RE INVOLVED IN. I
19 KNOW YOU'VE BEEN SERVED WITH A THIRD LAWSUIT. AND
20 THERE ARE MORE COMING. DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT.
21 WELL, OBVIOUSLY, IF I DON'T HEAR
22 FROM YOU, I'M GOING TO START FILING FOR CERTAIN
23 DEFAULT MOTIONS AND START GETTING RELIEF THAT WAY.
24 I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT JUST IGNORING
25 LEGAL MATTERS, IT'S NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. I CAN
Supp. E.R. 685
6
1 GUARANTEE YOU, I'M NOT GOING AWAY.
2 SO I HIGHLY RECOMMEND YOU, AT
3 LEAST, YOU KNOW, FOLLOW THE RULES OF MINNESOTA,
4 ILLINOIS, FLORIDA AND SOME OTHER STATES' SOON
5 CIVIL PROCEDURE BECAUSE, OTHERWISE, YOUR LIFE IS
6 GOING TO GET REALLY COMPLICATED.
7 AND I'M SAYING THIS AS A FRIEND, AS
8 WELL AS OPPOSING COUNSEL. SO YOU CAN REACH ME IF
9 YOU'D LIKE TO DISCUSS SETTING UP A DEPOSITION AND
10 VARIOUS OTHER DISCOVERIES, AND, OF COURSE, ANY
11 SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS YOU'D LIKE TO DO.
12 ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE THE NUMBER.
13 BYE.
15 TO DELETE THIS MESSAGE, PRESS 7. TO SAVE IT IN
16 THE ARCHIVES, PRESS 9. RESAVED.
17
18 (CONCLUSION OF AUDIO TRANSCRIPTION.)
19 -O0O-
20
21
22
23
24
25
Supp. E.R. 686
7
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)SS
2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
3
4 I, KELLI C. NORDEN, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND
5 REPORTER, CERTIFICATE NUMBER 7200, FOR THE STATE
6 OF CALIFORNIA, HEREBY CERTIFY:
7 THE FOREGOING PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN
8 BEFORE ME FROM AUDIO PROVIDED TO ME;
9 THE PROCEEDINGS WERE RECORDED
10 STENOGRAPHICALLY BY ME AND WERE THEREAFTER
11 TRANSCRIBED;
12 THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT IS A TRUE AND
13 CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF MY SHORTHAND NOTES SO TAKEN;
14 I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NEITHER
15 COUNSEL FOR NOR RELATED TO ANY PARTY TO SAID
16 ACTION, NOR IN ANY WAY INTERESTED IN THE OUTCOME
17 THEREOF.
18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO
19 SUBSCRIBED MY NAME THIS 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013.
20
21
22 _______________________________
23
24
25
Supp. E.R. 687
Supp. E.R. 688

-1-
DECLARATION OF MORGAN E. PIETZ RE: FEES AND COSTS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301

Nicholas Ranallo
371 Dogwood Way
Telephone: (831) 703-4011
Fax: (831) 533-5073

Kitts and Nevis,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.


Case Assigned to:


2:12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669; 2:12-cv-
6662; 2:12-cv-6668

PIETZ RE: FEES AND COSTS

Supp. E.R. 689

-2-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1. I am an attorney duly licensed by the State Bar of California and
admitted to the state and federal Courts of the State of California. This declaration
is made to substantiate the fees and costs previously requested. See ECF No. 52 at
31.
2. I am lead counsel for the putative defendant in Ingenuity 13, LLC v.
John Doe, C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-8333-ODW-JC.
3. I graduated from USC Gould School of Law in 2008 and have been
licensed and admitted to practice as an attorney in the State of California since
December, 2008.
4. I previously worked as an associate in the Los Angeles office of a large
global law firm, Paul Hastings, LLP. The focus of the work I did there was
intellectual property, primarily copyright, trademark, trade secret, and anti-trust.
Just before I left Paul Hastings, my billing rate was approximately $450 per hour.
During my second and third years of law school, during the school years, I worked
as a clerk in the legal and business affairs departments of several motion picture and
television studios, where I focused on intellectual property and entertainment issues.
5. In the fall of 2010, I founded The Pietz Law Firm. I continue to focus
primarily on copyright, trademark, trade secret and entertainment matters, mainly
litigation. My billing rate during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court
was $300 an hour, which is the figure used to calculate the total requested attorneys
fees.
6. I have determined that my billing rate is reasonable by consulting three
sources: (i) the Laffey Matrix issued by the United State Department of Justice;
(ii) the Adjusted Laffey Matrix, which is a similar measure used by private law
firms; and (iii) a recent survey of hourly billing rates published by the San Francisco
Daily Journal.
7. According to the Department of Justices Laffey Matrix, a true and
Supp. E.R. 690

-3-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, for the year June 1, 2012 to
May 31, 2013, the benchmark for an attorney with 4-7 years experience (such as me)
is $290 per hour. See Viveros v. Donahoe, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46867 (C.D. Cal. Mar.
27, 2013) (Morrow, J.) (noting that The Laffey Matrix reports that. . .a reasonable rate for
an attorney with four to seven years of experience is $290 an hour [fn 31] but explaining
in footnote 31 that The court's experience suggests that these average rates are somewhat
low for the Los Angeles legal community.)
8. According to the Adjusted Laffey Matrix, a true and correct copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, prepared not by the DOJ, but by private
litigants after reviewing DOJ methodology, the rate for a lawyer with 4-7 years
experience is $383 per hour. See, Kempf v. Barrett Bus. Servs., No. C-06-3161 SC,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89447 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2007) (finding attorneys
requested fees reasonable when compared to rates in the Adjusted Laffey Matrix).
9. According to the August 10, 2012, edition of the San Francisco Daily
Journal, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, the
reasonable hourly rate for attorneys in the Los Angeles area is significantly higher
than the rate suggested by the Laffey Matrix. According to this survey, the 2012
average billing rate in the Los Angeles market was $550 per hour for an associate,
up from $516 per hour in 2011.
10. I have significant skill and experience dealing with this type of case and
with Prenda Law, Inc. in particular. I estimate that I represent approximately 50+
John Doe defendants in similar actions, including several other cases that have been
filed by the same plaintiffs attorneys, Prenda Law, Inc.
11. Based on my (i) big-firm experience, (ii) sustained focus on intellectual
property issues, (iii) practical experience litigating this particular type of case, and
(iv) with reference to the fee benchmarks noted above, I believe that my current
billing rate of $300 per hour is reasonable, if not on the low end for an attorney with
my skill and experience in these types of cases.
Supp. E.R. 691

-4-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

12. I have reasonably expended 120.50 hours in defense of this action. A
true and correct copy of my time billing records for this case to date are attached
hereto as Exhibit D. At $300 an hour, that means total legal fees of $36,150.00.
13. In addition, I have incurred $2,226.26 in costs in connection with this
action, all as detailed in Exhibit D.
14. In addition to my own time, I also engaged my colleague Mr. Nicholas
Ranallo of the Ranallo Law Office to assist me at the two evidentiary hearings held
on the sanctions issue. I viewed Mr. Ranallos help as invaluable, due to his long
history in dealing with Mr. Gibbs and Prenda Law in a variety of cases in the
Northern District of California (where Prenda has been filing cases for longer).
Further, one challenge in preparing for the evidentiary hearings was that its was very
difficult to predict what Prenda and its associated lawyers were going to say, so I
wanted assistance to help rebut any statements that did not comport with reality. As
detailed in the accompanying Declaration of Nicholas Ranallo, a true and correct
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit E, the total for his time and costs to
assist at the two hearings was $1950 for attorney time, and $333.60 in costs.
15. My legal fees and costs together amount to $38,376.26. Adding that
together with Mr. Ranallos fees and costs of $2283.60 works out to a grand total of
attorneys fees and costs requested of $40,659.86. See ECF No. 52 at pp. 30-32.


DATED: April 5, 2013

Executed this day at Manhattan Beach, California by: /s/ Morgan E. Pietz
Supp. E.R. 692

EXHIBIT A
A
EXHIBIT A
#:2292
Supp. E.R. 693
LAFFEY MATRIX -- 2003-2013
(2009-10 rates were unchanged from 2008-09 rates)
Years (Rate for J une 1 - May 31, based on prior year's CPI-U)
Experience 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13
20+years 380 390 405 425 440 465 465 475 495 505
11-19 years 335 345 360 375 390 410 410 420 435 445
8-10 years 270 280 290 305 315 330 330 335 350 355
4-7 years 220 225 235 245 255 270 270 275 285 290
1-3 years 180 185 195 205 215 225 225 230 240 245
Paralegals &
Law Clerks
105 110 115 120 125 130 130 135 140 145
Explanatory Notes:
1. This matrix of hourly rates for attorneys of varying experience levels and paralegals/law clerks has been
prepared by the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. The matrix is
intended to be used in cases in which a "fee-shifting" statute permits the prevailing party to recover "reasonable"
attorney's fees. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k) (Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act); 5 U.S.C.
552(a)(4)(E) (Freedom of Information Act); 28 U.S.C. 2412 (b) (Equal Access to J ustice Act). The matrix
does not apply in cases in which the hourly rate is limited by statute. See 28 U.S.C. 2412(d).
2. This matrix is based on the hourly rates allowed by the District Court in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 572
F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 746 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert.
denied, 472 U.S. 1021 (1985). It is commonly referred to by attorneys and federal judges in the District of
Columbia as the "Laffey Matrix" or the "United States Attorney's Office Matrix." The column headed
"Experience" refers to the years following the attorney's graduation from law school. The various "brackets" are
intended to correspond to "junior associates" (1-3 years after law school graduation), "senior associates" (4-7
years), "experienced federal court litigators" (8-10 and 11-19 years), and "very experienced federal court
litigators" (20 years or more). See Laffey, 572 F. Supp. at 371.
3. The hourly rates approved by the District Court in Laffey were for work done principally in 1981-82. The
Matrix begins with those rates. See Laffey, 572 F. Supp. at 371 (attorney rates) & 386 n.74 (paralegal and law
clerk rate). The rates for subsequent yearly periods were determined by adding the change in the cost of living
for the Washington, D.C. area to the applicable rate for the prior year, and then rounding to the nearest multiple
of $5 (up if within $3 of the next multiple of $5). The result is subject to adjustment if appropriate to ensure that
the relationship between the highest rate and the lower rates remains reasonably constant. Changes in the cost
of living are measured by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for Washington-
Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV, as announced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for May of each year.
4. Use of an updated Laffey Matrix was implicitly endorsed by the Court of Appeals in Save Our Cumberland
Mountains v. Hodel, 857 F.2d 1516, 1525 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en banc). The Court of Appeals subsequently
stated that parties may rely on the updated Laffey Matrix prepared by the United States Attorney's Office as
evidence of prevailing market rates for litigation counsel in the Washington, D.C. area. See Covington v.
District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101, 1105 & n. 14, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1115 (1996).
Lower federal courts in the District of Columbia have used this updated Laffey Matrix when determining
whether fee awards under fee-shifting statutes are reasonable. See, e.g., Blackman v. District of Columbia, 59 F.
Supp. 2d 37, 43 (D.D.C. 1999); Jefferson v. Milvets System Technology, Inc., 986 F. Supp. 6, 11 (D.D.C. 1997);
Ralph Hoar & Associates v. Nat'l Highway Transportation Safety Admin., 985 F. Supp. 1, 9-10 n.3 (D.D.C.
1997); Martini v. Fed. Nat'l Mtg Ass'n, 977 F. Supp. 482, 485 n.2 (D.D.C. 1997); Park v. Howard University,
881 F. Supp. 653, 654 (D.D.C. 1995).
#:2293
Supp. E.R. 694

EXHIBIT B
B
EXHIBIT B
#:2294
Supp. E.R. 695
Years Out of Law School *
Year
Adjustmt
Factor**
Paralegal/
Law
Clerk 1-3 4-7 8-10 11-19 20 +
6/01/12- 5/31/13 1.0258 $170 $312 $383 $554 $625 $753
6/01/11- 5/31/12 1.0352 $166 $305 $374 $540 $609 $734
6/01/10- 5/31/11 1.0337 $161 $294 $361 $522 $589 $709
6/01/09- 5/31/10 1.0220 $155 $285 $349 $505 $569 $686
6/01/08- 5/31/09 1.0399 $152 $279 $342 $494 $557 $671
6/01/07-5/31/08 1.0516 $146 $268 $329 $475 $536 $645
6/01/06-5/31/07 1.0256 $139 $255 $313 $452 $509 $614
6/1/05-5/31/06 1.0427 $136 $249 $305 $441 $497 $598
6/1/04-5/31/05 1.0455 $130 $239 $293 $423 $476 $574
6/1/03-6/1/04 1.0507 $124 $228 $280 $405 $456 $549
6/1/02-5/31/03 1.0727 $118 $217 $267 $385 $434 $522
6/1/01-5/31/02 1.0407 $110 $203 $249 $359 $404 $487
6/1/00-5/31/01 1.0529 $106 $195 $239 $345 $388 $468
6/1/99-5/31/00 1.0491 $101 $185 $227 $328 $369 $444
6/1/98-5/31/99 1.0439 $96 $176 $216 $312 $352 $424
6/1/97-5/31/98 1.0419 $92 $169 $207 $299 $337 $406
6/1/96-5/31/97 1.0396 $88 $162 $198 $287 $323 $389
6/1/95-5/31/96 1.032 $85 $155 $191 $276 $311 $375
6/1/94-5/31/95 1.0237 $82 $151 $185 $267 $301 $363

The methodology of calculation and benchmarking for this Updated Laffey Matrix has been
approved in a number of cases. See, e.g., McDowell v. District of Columbia, Civ. A. No. 00-594
(RCL), LEXSEE 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8114 (D.D.C. June 4, 2001); Salazar v. Dist. of Col.,
123 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2000).
matrix http://www.laffeymatrix.com/see.html
1 of 2 4/4/13 6:50 PM
#:2295
Supp. E.R. 696
* Years Out of Law School is calculated from June 1 of each year, when most law students
graduate. 1-3" includes an attorney in his 1st, 2nd and 3rd years of practice, measured from date
of graduation (June 1). 4-7" applies to attorneys in their 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th years of practice.
An attorney who graduated in May 1996 would be in tier 1-3" from June 1, 1996 until May 31,
1999, would move into tier 4-7" on June 1, 1999, and tier 8-10" on June 1, 2003.
** The Adjustment Factor refers to the nation-wide Legal Services Component of the Consumer
Price Index produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor.
matrix http://www.laffeymatrix.com/see.html
2 of 2 4/4/13 6:50 PM
#:2296
Supp. E.R. 697

EXHIBIT C
C
EXHIBIT C
#:2297
Supp. E.R. 698
#:2298
Supp. E.R. 699
#:2299
Supp. E.R. 700
#:2300
Supp. E.R. 701
#:2301
Supp. E.R. 702

EXHIBIT D
D
EXHIBIT D
#:2302
Supp. E.R. 703
In Reference To: Pre-Service Litigation (Legal Services)
Date By Services Hours Rates Amount
11/26/2012 MP
Legal Services: Review dockets for each Ingenuity 13 and AF
Holdings case filed in C.D. Cal.
2.00 $300.00/hr $600.00
11/28/2012 MP
Legal Services: Review prior case in E.D. Cal.; telephone
conference with attorney for Alan Cooper in Minnesota regarding
standing issue; prepare and file ex parte application seeking stay
of subpoena return date
1.70 $300.00/hr $510.00
11/29/2012 MP Legal Services: Prepare draft of notice of related cases 3.20 $300.00/hr $960.00
12/03/2012 MP
Legal Services: Telephone conference with attorney for Alan
Cooper; revise and file notice of related cases; coordinate
preparation of multiple courtesy copies for all Judges with a related
case; conduct telephonic conference with Magistrate Judge
Walsh; prepare meet and confer correspondence to B. Gibbs
8.10 $300.00/hr $2,430.00
12/07/2012 MP
Legal Services: Telephone conference with B. Gibbs; prepare
correspondence to B. Gibbs recapping that he would not be
answering any meaningful questions about "Alan Cooper"
1.00 $300.00/hr $300.00
12/13/2012 MP
Legal Services: Attempt to contact B. Gibbs, by both email and
telephone, several times, to meet and confer; conduct telephonic
meet and confer conference with B. Gibbs; prepare follow-up
correspondence to B. Gibbs
0.80 $300.00/hr $240.00
12/14/2012 MP
Legal Services: Prepare correspondence to B. Gibbs again
asking for copy of the verification he submitted in E.D. Cal.
Ingenuity 13 case
0.20 $300.00/hr $60.00
12/17/2012 MP
Legal Services: Review frivolous motion for sanctions against
attorney Morgan E. Pietz
0.60 $300.00/hr $180.00
12/18/2012 MP
Legal Services: Prepare and file ex parte application for leave to
take early discovery and to further stay subpoena return date
5.30 $300.00/hr $1,590.00

The Pietz Law Firm
Ingenuity 13 - C.D. Cal. - 12-cv-8333
Invoice 20256
Date Apr 04, 2013
Terms
Service Thru Apr 04, 2013
#:2303
Supp. E.R. 704
12/18/2012 MP
Legal Services: Prepare opposition to plaintiff's frivolous
sanctions motion
2.10 $300.00/hr $630.00
01/03/2013 MP
Legal Services: Prepare request for Leave to to file opposition to
Disqualification Motion to Judge Fitzgerald
0.50 $300.00/hr $150.00
01/04/2013 MP
Legal Services: Prepare and serve written discovery regarding
Alan Cooper
2.30 $300.00/hr $690.00
01/09/2013 MP Legal Services: Prepare opposition to disqualification motion 11.20 $300.00/hr $3,360.00
01/14/2013 MP
Legal Services: Prepare and file Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz
re: Prenda Law, Inc. and exhibits thereto
6.70 $300.00/hr $2,010.00
01/14/2013 MP
Legal Services: Revise and file opposition to disqualification
motion
3.20 $300.00/hr $960.00
01/29/2013 MP
Legal Services: Prepare correspondence to B. Gibbs regarding
attempt to evade discovery by dismissing case and offer to
consider not filing a sanctions motion if meaningful discovery
responses are provided
0.40 $300.00/hr $120.00
01/30/2013 MP
Legal Services: Review correspondence from B. Gibbs regarding
his intention to substitute out of this case with P. Duffy to take
over; prepare correspondence to B. Gibbs and P. Duffy following up
on unanswered questions regarding the Alan Cooper early
discovery that is the subject of the Court's January 29 Order
0.60 $300.00/hr $180.00
02/07/2013 MP
Legal Services: Prepare correspondence to P. Duffy regarding his
attempt to meet and confer about this action (12-cv-8333)
0.30 $300.00/hr $90.00
02/08/2013 MP
Legal Services: Review order to show cause re: sanctions; place
three unsuccessful phone calls to P. Duffy in an attempt to meet
and confer at an appointed time, as previously requested by Mr.
Duffy
0.70 $300.00/hr $210.00
02/15/2013 MP
Legal Services: Outline and prepare response to OSC re:
Sanctions
1.00 $300.00/hr $300.00
02/18/2013 MP Legal Services: Prepare response to OSC re: Sanctions 6.40 $300.00/hr $1,920.00
11/26/2012 MP
2.00 $300.00/hr $600.00
11/28/2012 MP
1.70 $300.00/hr $510.00
12/03/2012 MP
8.10 $300.00/hr $2,430.00
12/07/2012 MP
1.00 $300.00/hr $300.00
12/13/2012 MP
0.80 $300.00/hr $240.00
12/14/2012 MP
Ingenuity 13 case
0.20 $300.00/hr $60.00
12/17/2012 MP
0.60 $300.00/hr $180.00
12/18/2012 MP
5.30 $300.00/hr $1,590.00

The Pietz Law Firm
Invoice 20256
Date Apr 04, 2013
Terms
#:2304
Supp. E.R. 705
02/19/2013 MP
Legal Services: Prepare, revise and file response to OSC re:
Sanctions
4.90 $300.00/hr $1,470.00
02/20/2013 MP
Legal Services: Prepare illustrative exhibit diagramming the
organization of Prenda Law, Inc.
3.50 $300.00/hr $1,050.00
02/21/2013 MP
Legal Services: Prepare correspondence to A. Waxler regarding
joint stipulation to file a reply brief on the sanctions issue
0.50 $300.00/hr $150.00
02/21/2013 MP
Legal Services: Investigate suspected second unwitting straw
man; review new Guava, LLC verification; research "Alan Mooney"
in Minnesota; telephone conference with D. Browning regarding
same
4.20 $300.00/hr $1,260.00
02/25/2013 MP
Legal Services: Investigate suspected second unwitting straw
man, Allan Mooney, in the Guava, LLC v. Comcast case in St.
Clair County, Illinois; telephone conference with K. Larsen, TCF
Bank counsel regarding notary Bob Jones; follow up regarding
same
2.70 $300.00/hr $810.00
03/03/2013 MP Legal Services: Prepare reply re: OSC 3.50 $300.00/hr $1,050.00
03/04/2013 MP
Legal Services: Prepare, revise and file reply re: OSC; prepare
and file declarations and exhibits in support of same; make
inquiries regarding Alan Cooper's willingness to testify
5.40 $300.00/hr $1,620.00
03/07/2013 MP
Legal Services: Prepare exhibits relating to case in chief for
March 11 OSC re: sanctions
8.30 $300.00/hr $2,490.00
03/08/2013 MP
Legal Services: Prepare potential rebuttal exhibits relating to
March 11 OSC re: sanctions; prepare and file opposition to ex
parte application seeking withdrawal of order requiring attendance
of Prenda representatives
6.20 $300.00/hr $1,860.00
11/26/2012 MP
2.00 $300.00/hr $600.00
11/28/2012 MP
1.70 $300.00/hr $510.00
12/03/2012 MP
8.10 $300.00/hr $2,430.00
12/07/2012 MP
1.00 $300.00/hr $300.00
12/13/2012 MP
0.80 $300.00/hr $240.00
12/14/2012 MP
Ingenuity 13 case
0.20 $300.00/hr $60.00
12/17/2012 MP
0.60 $300.00/hr $180.00
12/18/2012 MP
5.30 $300.00/hr $1,590.00

The Pietz Law Firm
Invoice 20256
Date Apr 04, 2013
Terms
#:2305
Supp. E.R. 706
03/09/2013 MP
Legal Services: Prepare examination outline for (i) B. Gibbs; (ii)
J. Steele; (iii) Pl. Hansemeier; (iv) P. Duffy; (v) Pe. Hansemeier; (vi)
A. V.d. Hemel; and (vii) ISP representatives, for March 11 OSC re:
sanctions; prepare correspondence to B. Fox regarding inquiry as
to whether Verizon was ever actually served with Court's discovery
order
4.50 $300.00/hr $1,350.00
03/11/2013 MP
Legal Services: Travel to and from OSC re: sanctions; conduct
examination of B. Gibbs and various other witnesses
6.10 $300.00/hr $1,830.00
03/12/2013 MP
Legal Services: Coordinate preparation of transcript of voicemails
played at 3/11 OSC hearing re: sanctions
0.40 $300.00/hr $120.00
03/13/2013 MP Legal Services: Prepare and file notices of lodging 0.80 $300.00/hr $240.00
03/20/2013 MP
Legal Services: Review declaration filed by A. Waxler regarding
service on the additional parties ordered to appear at the 4/2 OSC
re: Sanctions; prepare correspondence to A. Waxler regarding
additional addresses to be used to effect service
0.50 $300.00/hr $150.00
04/01/2013 MP
Legal Services: Prepare exhibits and examination outlines for 4/2
OSC hearing re: sanctions
10.20 $300.00/hr $3,060.00
04/04/2013 MP Legal Services: Appear at 4/4/13 OSC hearing re: sanctions 0.50 $300.00/hr $150.00
In Reference To: Pre-Service Litigation (Expenses)
Date By Expenses Amount
12/20/2012 MP
Advanced Costs: One to One Messenger & Courier Service, Invoice No. 1357 for
$118
$118.00
12/20/2012 MP
Advanced Costs: One to One Messenger & Courier Service, Invoice No. 1330 for
$118
$118.00
12/20/2012 MP Advanced Costs: Ace Attorney Service, Invoice No. 109038 for $44.00 $44.00
01/10/2013 MP
Advanced Costs: Ace Attorney Service, Invoice 110233, for $113 for delivery of
courtesy copies to Judge on 12/19/12
$113.00
11/26/2012 MP
2.00 $300.00/hr $600.00
11/28/2012 MP
1.70 $300.00/hr $510.00
12/03/2012 MP
8.10 $300.00/hr $2,430.00
12/07/2012 MP
1.00 $300.00/hr $300.00
12/13/2012 MP
0.80 $300.00/hr $240.00
12/14/2012 MP
Ingenuity 13 case
0.20 $300.00/hr $60.00
12/17/2012 MP
0.60 $300.00/hr $180.00
12/18/2012 MP
5.30 $300.00/hr $1,590.00

The Pietz Law Firm
Invoice 20256
Date Apr 04, 2013
Terms
#:2306
Supp. E.R. 707

01/10/2013 MP
Advanced Costs: Ace Attorney Service, Invoice 110233, for $43 for delivery of
$43.00
01/10/2013 MP
Advanced Costs: Ace Attorney Service, Invoice 110233, for $102.38 for delivery of
$102.38
01/21/2013 MP Advanced Costs: Investigator Fee $150.00
02/20/2013 MP
Advanced Costs: Southwest Airlines for round-trip travel by Paul Godfread and Alan
Cooper from MSP to LAX on March 10-11, 2013; Confirmation No. G3AL3H.
$857.20
02/26/2013 MP
Advanced Costs: Oscar Apperti, One to One Messenger & Courier Service, Invoice
No. 1359 for $72
$72.00
03/11/2013 MP Advanced Costs: Oscar Apperti, One-to-One, Inv. 1395 for $72.00 $72.00
03/11/2013 MP
Advanced Costs: Professional Fees for Blair Chintella for:
Mailing: $19.95
Two Notaries: $7.50
Gas/Paper/Toner: $10

TOTAL: $37.45
$37.45
03/18/2013 MP
Advanced Costs: Kelli Norden and Associates, Inv. 82625, for Audiotape
Transcription
$75.00
03/19/2013 MP
Advanced Costs: Katie Thibodeaux, Court Reporter, for transcript of proceedings
March 11, 2013.
$285.60
03/25/2013 MP
Advanced Costs: Ace Attorney Service, Invoice No. 113213 dated 3/21/13, for
delivery of courtesy copies to Judge
$138.63
Total Hours 120.50 hrs
Total Legal Services $36,150.00
Total Expenses $2,226.26
Total Invoice Amount $38,376.26
Previous Balance $0.00
11/26/2012 MP
2.00 $300.00/hr $600.00
11/28/2012 MP
1.70 $300.00/hr $510.00
12/03/2012 MP
8.10 $300.00/hr $2,430.00
12/07/2012 MP
1.00 $300.00/hr $300.00
12/13/2012 MP
0.80 $300.00/hr $240.00
12/14/2012 MP
Ingenuity 13 case
0.20 $300.00/hr $60.00
12/17/2012 MP
0.60 $300.00/hr $180.00
12/18/2012 MP
5.30 $300.00/hr $1,590.00

The Pietz Law Firm
Invoice 20256
Date Apr 04, 2013
Terms
#:2307
Supp. E.R. 708
Balance (Amount Due) $38,376.26
11/26/2012 MP
2.00 $300.00/hr $600.00
11/28/2012 MP
1.70 $300.00/hr $510.00
12/03/2012 MP
8.10 $300.00/hr $2,430.00
12/07/2012 MP
1.00 $300.00/hr $300.00
12/13/2012 MP
0.80 $300.00/hr $240.00
12/14/2012 MP
Ingenuity 13 case
0.20 $300.00/hr $60.00
12/17/2012 MP
0.60 $300.00/hr $180.00
12/18/2012 MP
5.30 $300.00/hr $1,590.00

The Pietz Law Firm
Invoice 20256
Date Apr 04, 2013
Terms
#:2308
Supp. E.R. 709

EXHIBIT E
E
EXHIBIT E
#:2309
Supp. E.R. 710

-1-
DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS RANALLO RE: FEES AND COSTS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301

Nicholas Ranallo
371 Dogwood Way
Telephone: (831) 703-4011
Fax: (831) 533-5073

Kitts and Nevis,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.


Case Assigned to:


2:12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669; 2:12-cv-
6662; 2:12-cv-6668

DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS
RANALLO RE: FEES AND COSTS

#:2310
Supp. E.R. 711

-2-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1. I am an attorney duly licensed by the State Bar of California and
admitted to the state and federal Courts of the State of California.
2. I am co-counsel for the putative defendant in Ingenuity 13, LLC v. John
Doe, C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-8333-ODW-JC.
3. I graduated cum laude from Tulane Law School in May, 2007.
4. I passed the July 2007 New York Bar Examination and was admitted to
practice in July, 2008.
5. I previously worked as an associate for Stern & Montana, LLP from
approximately May, 2008 until September 2010 as a litigation associate.
6. While working at Stern & Montana, I passed the July 2010 California
Bar Exam, and was admitted to practice in this state in January, 2011.
7. I have represented a large number of defendants and putative Doe
defendants accused of similar BitTorrent copyright infringement, including
successfully defendant a number of individuals sued by AF Holdings during its
litigation campaign.
8. I have determined that my billing rate is reasonable by consulting three
sources: (i) the Laffey Matrix issued by the United State Department of Justice;
(ii) the Adjusted Laffey Matrix, which is a similar measure used by private law
firms; and (iii) a recent survey of hourly billing rates published by the San Francisco
Daily Journal.
9. According to the Department of Justices Laffey Matrix, a true and
correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, for the year June 1, 2012 to
May 31, 2013, the benchmark for an attorney with 4-7 years experience (such as me)
is $290 per hour. See Viveros v. Donahoe, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46867 (C.D. Cal. Mar.
27, 2013) (Morrow, J.) (noting that The Laffey Matrix reports that. . .a reasonable rate for
an attorney with four to seven years of experience is $290 an hour [fn 31] but explaining
in footnote 31 that The court's experience suggests that these average rates are somewhat
#:2311
Supp. E.R. 712

-3-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

low for the Los Angeles legal community.)
10. According to the Adjusted Laffey Matrix, a true and correct copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, prepared not by the DOJ, but by private
litigants after reviewing DOJ methodology, the rate for a lawyer with 4-7 years
experience is $383 per hour. See, Kempf v. Barrett Bus. Servs., No. C-06-3161 SC,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89447 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2007) (finding attorneys
requested fees reasonable when compared to rates in the Adjusted Laffey Matrix).
11. According to the August 10, 2012, edition of the San Francisco Daily
Journal, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, the
reasonable hourly rate for attorneys in the Los Angeles area is significantly higher
than the rate suggested by the Laffey Matrix. According to this survey, the 2012
average billing rate in the Los Angeles market was $550 per hour for an associate,
up from $516 per hour in 2011.
12. I have significant skill and experience dealing with this type of case and
with this particular plaintiff. I estimate that I represent approximately 50+ John Doe
defendants in similar actions, including several other cases that have been filed by
the same plaintiffs attorneys, Prenda Law, Inc.
13. Based on my (i) big-firm experience, (ii) sustained focus on intellectual
property issues, (iii) practical experience litigating this particular type of case, and
(iv) with reference to the fee benchmarks noted above, I believe that my current
billing rate of $300 per hour is reasonable, if not on the low end for an attorney with
my skill and experience in these types of cases.
14. I have reasonably expended 6.5 hours in defense of this action. This is
comprised of 6 hours in court on March 11, 2013 and another half hour in court on
April 2, 2013. At a reasonable hourly rate of $300/hour, this amounts to $1950 in
attorney fees.
15. In addition, I have incurred $333.60 in costs associated with this action,
comprised of two round trip tickets from Northern California to LAX, including
#:2312
Supp. E.R. 713

-4-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

$159.80 for the March 11
th
hearing, and an additional $173.80 for the April 2
nd

hearing.
16. In light of the foregoing, the total sum of costs and fees for my work in
this action is $2283.60.


DATED: April 5, 2013

Executed this day at Boulder Creek, California by: /s/ Nicholas Ranallo
Nicholas Ranallo, Declarant
#:2313
Supp. E.R. 714

-1-
DECLARATION OF MORGAN E. PIETZ (APRIL 16, 2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
3770 Highland Avenue, Suite 206
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301

Nicholas Ranallo (SBN 275016)
371 Dogwood Way
Telephone: (831) 703-4011
Fax: (831) 533-5073

Attorneys for Putative John Doe in 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC


Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.


Case Assigned to:


2:12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669;
2:12-cv-6662; 2:12-cv-6668

(APRIL 16, 2013)

Supp. E.R. 715

-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

PIETZ DECLARATION
I, Morgan E. Pietz am over the age of 18, have personal knowledge of the facts alleged
herein, and hereby declare as follows:
1. I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California, duly admitted
to the practice of law in the state and federal courts of the State of California.
2. I represent the ISP subscriber who was targeted by Prenda Law, Inc. as the
supposed John Doe defendant in Ingenuity 13, LLC v. John Doe, C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-
8333. I have also represented other clients similarly threatened by Prenda in other lawsuits
in other jurisdictions.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit KK
1
is a true and correct copy of a news article
from XBiz.com, which is one of the leading adult industry news outlets, dated April 10,
2013, wherein John Steele is quoted in several places. This article was published a week
after this Courts April 2, 2013, OSC hearing.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit LL is a true and correct copy of a legal pleading
John Steele, through counsel, filed with the Florida bar in response to a formal
investigation. Near the end of the pleading, at page 12
2
, Steele explains that he has an
interest in Prenda clients.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit MM is a true and correct copy of the Affidavit of
Blair Chintella, wherein he authenticates the March 5, 2013, meet nad confer emails
between himself and attorney Jacques Nazaire. The emails are at page 27, which is the last
page of Exhibit MM.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit NN is a true and correct copy of the complaint in
AF Holdings, LLC v. Patel, N.D. Ga. No. 12-cv- 262, which is the case Nazaire and
Chintella were meeting and conferring about in Exhibit MM. Note that at page 14, Nazaire

1
Exhibit lettering is continued from prior declarations attaching other exhibits in C.D. Cal. 12-cv-
8333. For the prior exhibits see ECF Nos. 40-1 and 40-2; 53, 53-1, and 53-2; 59-1 and 59-2.
2
All page numbering cites in this declaration refer to the page numbering in the footer in the
bottom right, which also matches the CM/ECF page numbering.
Supp. E.R. 716

-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

is listed as counsel of record for plaintiff AF Holdings, LLC (also note that he lists his
email as blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com). I downloaded this complaint from PACER.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit OO is a true and correct copy of the CM/ECF
docket report for the above referenced AF Holdings v. Patel case in Georgia, current as of
April 12, 2013, which shows that the case was still active as of March 5, 2013, and that
Nazaire remains counsel of record of AF Holdings, LLC. I downloaded this docket report
from PACER.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit PP is a true and correct copy of a Brent Berrys
Remax website listing for the parcel he sold for John Steele. I accessed this information by
going to Brent Berrys listing on the Remax website, here:
http://www.results.net/brent.berry and then clicking on my solds, and searching for the
property in McGrath, MN. The detail for the Steele/Cooper property can be found here:
http://www.results.net/brent.berry/Property/MN/56350/Mcgrath/21251_220th_St
9. I am informed and believe, that as reflected in the pictures, the property
contained two houses, the main log cabin house where Steele stayed when he visited,
located at 21251 220
th
Street, McGrath, MN, and also a smaller house, which is the one
referred to on the lease between Cooper and Steele, located at 21255 220
th
Street, McGrath,
MN, where Mr. Cooper lived. See Exhibit K, 4. Note that in one of the pictures, the fire
pit between the two houses that Berry refers to in his declaration is visible. Also note, at
page 50, in red on the right, the house is listed Sold on 2/28/2013.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit QQ is what I believe is a true and correct copy of
the official reporters transcript from the April 20, 2009, hearing in In re: Bisys Securities
Litigation, S.D.N.Y. No. 04-cv-3840. I downloaded this transcript from this link:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20090420cauleyhearing.pdf
Which I found on the following page of the Wall Street Journals website:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/08/prominent-arkansas-lawyer-probed-over-missing-9-
million/
Supp. E.R. 717

-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

11. In preparing the accompanying reply brief, this declaration, the
accompanying exhibits hereto, and the prior request for leave to prepare this reply, I
reasonably expended an addition fifteen (15) hours of attorney time. Multiplied by my
standard hourly rate of $300 an hour (which I was surprised to see special counsel attack,
given that it is on the low end of the applicable range for an attorney with my experience)
that works out to an additional $4,500 of attorneys fees in this action. In addition, I
anticipate approximately $70 in costs associated with delivery of courtesy copies of these
filing. I view the reply and related filings as made necessary by the late filing of new
arguments by Prenda Senior Management, and by the legal issues broached by the
surprising invocation of the Fifth Amendment.
12. I also note for the record that if the Court had not issued the OSC re:
Sanctions, I would have filed a sanctions motion of my own. This is reflected in meet and
confer correspondence, wherein I offered that if Prenda would respond to the Alan Cooper
discovery, I would refrain from filing a sanctions motion.



DATED: April 16, 2013,
/s/ Morgan E. Pietz

Supp. E.R. 718

EXHIBIT KK
K
EXHIBIT KK
Exhibits to Pietz Dec'l. (April 16, 2013) - 1
#:2718
Supp. E.R. 719
Porn Piracy Lawyer John Steele Says He Shouldn't
Be Sanctioned
By Rhett Pardon, XBIZ.com
Wed, Apr 10 2013 11:00am PDT
Tweet Tweet Recommend
LOS ANGELES Chicago attorney John Steele, who through his law firm has sued thousands for downloading
porn through file-sharing networks and now sees himself at center of accusations over attorney misconduct, says
he shouldn't be sanctioned by a federal judge in Los Angeles.
Steele told XBIZ on Wednesday that while he can't discuss details of his 5th Amendment invocation to the court
two weeks ago, he and his law firm, Prenda Law, have done no wrong.
"Obviously I disagree with some of the bizarre claims of criminal conduct thrown around by people without any
proof," Steele said. "I can say that I never even heard of the case in front of Judge [Otis] Wright until two months
ago, and have never appeared in a California case in my life."
Prenda Law and numerous affiliated attorneys nationwide have filed thousands of porn file-sharing suits during
the past few years, with some describing the enterprise as mass copyright trolling.
But the practice of scooping up thousands upon thousands of John Doe defendants for porn piracy litigation may
be coming to an end as U.S. District Judge Otis Wright weighs his next step against Steele and Prenda Law.
Prenda Law isn't the only law firm to sue defendants fingered by Internet service provider's under threat of
subpoena, but it may be the most notorious. Steele, according to a Los Angeles Times article published today,
has bragged about the huge value of porn-piracy litigation and told Forbes that he has collected as much as $15
million settling such suits.
Today, a San Francisco law firm filed court papers on Steele's behalf, responding to Wright's order to show cause
why sanctions should not be levied.
The plaintiffs, Wright said, bet that "because of embarrassment, many Does will send back a nuisance-value
check to the plaintiff. The cost to the plaintiff: a single filing fee, a bit of discovery, and stamps. The rewards:
potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars."
Prenda's method of operation, according to testimony, was typical of copyright trolls: Obtain IP addresses, send
out letters accusing defendants of piracy while mentioning a $150,000 statutory penalties and then offering lower
figures, sometimes in the low thousands, to make them go away.
Last week, the court invited Steele to testify in response to an order to show cause over a case involving plaintiff
Ingenuity 13 LLC.
But when Steele showed up, he relied on his Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled testimony, and later
Porn Piracy Lawyer John Steele Says He Shouldn't Be Sanction... http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=161511
1 of 3 4/12/13 10:05 AM
#:2719
Supp. E.R. 720
said that the court indicated it would draw reasonable inferences against him.
"However, the reasonable inferences the court may draw against Steele are limited, based on the lack of
evidence against Steele before this court," Steele attorneys said in a response to the court. "Moreover, because
of the criminal nature of these proceedings, where the court has raised and clearly made up its mind against
Steele on questions of fraud and has threatened incarceration, Steeles invocation of the 5th Amendment may
not be used to formulate presumptions against him."
Morgan Pietz, a Manhattan Beach, Calif., attorney who represents several defendants in the Prenda lawsuits told
the Times that "it's unprecedented for a plaintiff's lawyer to invoke the 5th when asked to explain the conduct of
his litigation."
According to Pietz, Prenda Law's strategy began to unravel in Wright's court after he submitted evidence that two
production companies the firm supposedly represented as clients, Ingenuity 13 and AF Holdings, were shell
companies Prenda lawyers set up on the West Indies island of Nevis.
Pietz noted to the court that the Prenda attorneys therefore concealed their direct interest in lawsuits they
ostensibly brought on clients' behalf, which violates court rules.
Wright hasn't said what he'll do about Steele or Prenda Law, but his options could include asking federal
prosecutors to probe the firm, referring lawyers to various state bars for discipline, even disbarment, and
imposing monetary sanctions.
At a hearing last week, Wright delivered a warning to Steele on what might be next: "This court's focus has now
shifted dramatically from the area of protecting intellectual property rights to attorney misconduct. If you say
answering these kinds of questions would incriminate him, I'm inclined to take you at your word."
Steele on Wednesday admitted that the court proceedings are "unusual" and that he's hoping Wright, or a higher
court, will see it his way.
" I am very confident that once the facts are reviewed by Judge Wright, or the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals if
necessary, this latest effort funded by the Electronic Frontier Foundation to stop anti-piracy litigation will fail," he
told XBIZ.

View Document
Tweet Tweet Recommend
Back to List
More Adult Industry News
About / Contact
XBIZ.com | The leading source for adult industry news
XBIZ WORLD | Adult industry magazine for the digital media market
XBIZ PREMIERE | Adult industry magazine for the retail market
XBIZ RESEARCH | Adult industry market research organization
Copyright 2013 Adnet Media. All Rights Reserved. XBIZ is a trademark of Adnet Media.
2 of 3 4/12/13 10:05 AM
#:2720
Supp. E.R. 721
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.
3 of 3 4/12/13 10:05 AM
#:2721
Supp. E.R. 722

EXHIBIT LL
L
EXHIBIT LL
#:2722
Supp. E.R. 723
#:2723
Supp. E.R. 724
#:2724
Supp. E.R. 725
#:2725
Supp. E.R. 726
#:2726
Supp. E.R. 727
#:2727
Supp. E.R. 728
#:2728
Supp. E.R. 729
#:2729
Supp. E.R. 730
#:2730
Supp. E.R. 731
#:2731
Supp. E.R. 732
#:2732
Supp. E.R. 733
#:2733
Supp. E.R. 734
#:2734
Supp. E.R. 735
#:2735
Supp. E.R. 736
#:2736
Supp. E.R. 737
#:2737
Supp. E.R. 738

EXHIBIT MM
M
EXHIBIT MM
#:2738
Supp. E.R. 739
ORIGINAL
Afdavit of Blair Chintella
I, Blair Chintella, do solemnly afrm under the penalties of perjury that the information
contained in this document or statement is the truth:
1.
My name is Blair Chintella and I currently reside in the State of Georgia.
2.
I am an attorney who is licensed to practice law in the State of Georgia.
3.
I have had multiple clients over the last few years who were accused of copyright
infringement, and I have communicated with John Steele and/or Paul Duffy and/or and Mark
Lutz regarding these clients.
First Conversation with Female Answering the Phone
4.
On March 7, 2013, at approximately 3:32 PM, I received a voice mail message from
someone who identied themselves as Tommy Labriola ("Tommy") stating that he was returning
a phone call on behalf of an "attorney Steven Goodhue,"1 and that he (Tommy) could be reached
at "800-380-0840."
5.
Prior to receiving this phone call, I had never heard of a person named Steven Goodhue
or a person named Tommy Labriola.
6.
On March 7, 2013 at approximately 3:35 PM, I called 1-800-380-0840 and a female
voice answered the phone saying: "Law ofce, how may I help you?"
7.
I told her that I was returning a phone call from Tommy who said that he was calling on
behalf Steven Goodhue. In response she said, "We have Mr. John Steele in the ofce or Mark
Lutz, so let me see if maybe they might know what it's in reference to."
Initially, I thought that the message said "Goodview" rather than Goodhue.
#:2739
Supp. E.R. 740
#:2740
Supp. E.R. 741
#:2741
Supp. E.R. 742
#:2742
Supp. E.R. 743
#:2743
Supp. E.R. 744
#:2744
Supp. E.R. 745

EXHIBIT NN
N
EXHIBIT NN
#:2745
Supp. E.R. 746
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AF HOLDINGS, LLC, : Civil Action No.

Plaintiff, :
v.
:
RAJESH PATEL, COMPLAINT
:
Defendant.
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

:
Plaintiff AF Holdings, LLC (Plaintiff), through its undersigned counsel, hereby files
this Complaint requesting damages and injunctive relief, and alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
1. Plaintiff files this action for copyright infringement under the United States
Copyright Act and related civil conspiracy, contributory infringement and negligence claims
under the common law to combat the willful and intentional infringement of its creative works.
Defendant Rajesh Patel (Defendant) knowingly and illegally reproduced and distributed
Plaintiffs copyrighted Video by acting in concert with others via the BitTorrent file sharing
protocol and, upon information and belief, continues to do the same. In using BitTorrent,
Defendants infringement actions furthered the efforts of numerous others in infringing on
Plaintiffs copyrighted works. The result: exponential viral infringement. Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction, statutory or actual damages, award of costs and attorneys fees, and other
relief to curb this behavior.
THE PARTIES
2. Plaintiff AF Holdings, LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing
under the laws of the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis. Plaintiff is a holder of rights to various
Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 1 of 15
#:2746
Supp. E.R. 747
2:12-CV-00262
copyrighted works, and is the exclusive holder of the relevant rights with respect to the
copyrighted creative work at issue in this Complaint.
3. The copyrighted work at issue in this complaint is one of Plaintiffs adult
entertainment videos, Popular Demand (the Video).
4. Defendant is an individual who, on information and belief, is over the age of 18,
resides in this District, and was the account holder of Internet Protocol (IP) address
75.89.36.80 at the time of the alleged infringing activity. An IP address is a number assigned to
devices, such as computers, that are connected to the Internet. In the course of monitoring
Internet-based infringement of its copyrighted content, Plaintiffs agents observed unlawful
reproduction and distribution occurring over IP address 75.89.36.80 via the BitTorrent file
transfer protocol.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the copyright infringement claim
under 17 U.S.C. 101, et seq., (the Copyright Act), 28 U.S.C. 1331 (actions arising under the
laws of the United States), and 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) (actions arising under an Act of Congress
relating to copyrights). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the civil conspiracy,
contributory infringement and negligence claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) because they are so
related to Plaintiffs copyright infringement claim, which is within this Courts original
jurisdiction, that the claims form part of the same case and controversy under Article III of the
United States Constitution.
6. This Court has personal jurisdiction because, upon information and belief,
Defendant either resides in or committed copyright infringement in the State of Georgia.
7. Venue is properly founded in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1391(b) and 1400(a) because Defendant resides in this District, may be found in this District,
#:2747
Supp. E.R. 748
or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims in this action occurred within this
District.
BACKGROUND
8. BitTorrent is a modern file sharing method (protocol) used for distributing data
via the Internet.
9. Traditional file transfer protocols involve a central server, which distributes data
directly to individual users. This method is prone to collapse when large numbers of users
request data from the central server, in which case the server can become overburdened and the
rate of data transmission can slow considerably or cease altogether. In addition, the reliability of
access to the data stored on a server is largely dependent on the servers ability to continue
functioning for prolonged periods of time under high resource demands.
10. Standard P2P protocols involve a one-to-one transfer of whole files between a
single uploader and single downloader. Although standard P2P protocols solve some of the
issues associated with traditional file transfer protocols, these protocols still suffer from such
issues as scalability. For example, when a popular file is released (e.g. an illegal copy of the
latest blockbuster movie) the initial source of the file performs a one-to-one whole file transfer to
a third party, who then performs similar transfers. The one-to-one whole file transfer method can
significantly delay the spread of a file across the world because the initial spread is so limited.
11. In contrast, the BitTorrent protocol is a decentralized method of distributing data.
Instead of relying on a central server to distribute data directly to individual users, the BitTorrent
protocol allows individual users to distribute data among themselves. Further, the BitTorrent
protocol involves breaking a single large file into many small pieces, which can be transferred
much more quickly than a single large file and in turn redistributed much more quickly than a
single large file. Moreover, each peer can download missing pieces of the file from multiple
#:2748
Supp. E.R. 749
sourcesoften simultaneouslywhich causes transfers to be fast and reliable. After
downloading a piece, a peer automatically becomes a source for the piece. This distribution
method contrasts sharply with a one-to-one whole file transfer method.
12. In BitTorrent vernacular, individual downloaders/distributors of a particular file
are called peers. The group of peers involved in downloading/distributing a particular file is
called a swarm. A server which stores a list of peers in a swarm is called a tracker. A computer
program that implements the BitTorrent protocol is called a BitTorrent client. Each swarm is
unique to a particular file.
13. The BitTorrent protocol operates as follows. First, a user locates a small torrent
file. This file contains information about the files to be shared and about the tracker, the
computer that coordinates the file distribution. Second, the user loads the torrent file into a
BitTorrent client, which automatically attempts to connect to the tracker listed in the torrent file.
Third, the tracker responds with a list of peers and the BitTorrent client connects to those peers
to begin downloading data from and distributing data to the other peers in the swarm. When the
download is complete, the BitTorrent client continues distributing data to other peers in the
swarm until the user manually disconnects from the swarm or the BitTorrent client otherwise
does the same.
14. The degree of anonymity provided by the BitTorrent protocol is extremely low.
Because the protocol is based on peers connecting to one another, a peer must broadcast
identifying information (i.e. an IP address) before it can receive data. Nevertheless, the actual
names of peers in a swarm are unknown, as the users are allowed to download and distribute
under the cover of their IP addresses.
#:2749
Supp. E.R. 750
15. The BitTorrent protocol is an extremely popular method for transferring data. The
size of swarms for popular files can reach into the tens of thousands of unique peers. A swarm
will commonly have peers from many, if not every, state in the United States and several
countries around the world. And every peer in the swarm participates in distributing the file to
dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of other peers.
16. The BitTorrent protocol is also an extremely popular method for unlawfully
copying, reproducing, and distributing files in violation of the copyright laws of the United
States. A broad range of copyrighted albums, audiovisual files, photographs, software, and other
forms of media are available for illegal reproduction and distribution via the BitTorrent protocol.
17. Efforts at combating BitTorrent-based copyright infringement have been stymied
by BitTorrents decentralized nature. Because there are no central servers to enjoin from
unlawfully distributing copyrighted content, there is no primary target on which to focus anti-
piracy efforts. Indeed, the same decentralization that makes the BitTorrent protocol an extremely
robust and efficient means of transferring enormous quantities of data also acts to insulate it from
anti-piracy measures. This lawsuit is Plaintiffs only practical means of combating BitTorrent-
based infringement of the Video.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
18. Plaintiff is the exclusive rights holder with respect to BitTorrent-based
reproduction and distribution of the Video.
19. The Video is currently registered in the United States Copyright Office
(Copyright No. PA0001754383). (See Exhibit A to Complaint.) On December 20, 2011, Plaintiff
received the rights to this Video pursuant to an assignment agreement, a true and correct copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. (See Exhibit B to Complaint.)
#:2750
Supp. E.R. 751
20. The torrent file used to access the copyrighted material was named in a manner
that would have provided an ordinary individual with notice that the Video was protected by the
copyright laws of the United States.
21. Plaintiff employs proprietary peer-to-peer network forensic software to perform
exhaustive real time monitoring of the BitTorrent-based swarm involved in distributing the
Video. This software is effective in capturing data about the activity of peers in a swarm and
their infringing conduct.
22. Defendant, using IP address 75.89.36.80, without Plaintiffs authorization or
license, intentionally downloaded a torrent file particular to Plaintiffs Video, purposefully
loaded that torrent file into his BitTorrent client, entered a BitTorrent swarm particular to
Plaintiffs Video, and reproduced and distributed the Video to numerous third parties.
23. Plaintiffs investigators detected Defendants illegal download on
December 4, 2011 at 21:39:23 UTC. However, this is a simply a snapshot observation of when
the IP address was observed in the BitTorrent swarm; the conduct itself took place before and
after this date and time.
24. Defendant was part of a group of BitTorrent users or peers in a single swarma
process generally described abovewhose computers were collectively interconnected for the
sharing of a particular unique file. The particular file a BitTorrent swarm is associated with has a
unique file hashi.e. a unique file identifier generated by an algorithm (hereinafter Hash
Tag.)and common to all of the participants in the swarm.
COUNT I COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT REPRODUCTION
(17 U.S.C. 106(1))

25. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in
the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth fully herein.
#:2751
Supp. E.R. 752
26. Plaintiff is the copyright owner of the Video.
27. Defendant, without authorization, unlawfully obtained a copy of the Video.
28. Normally, Plaintiff offers the Video for purchase. Defendant, however, did not
purchase the Video and/or obtain the Video legally.
29. Defendant used IP address 75.89.36.80 to access the Video on the Internet, and
download the unique file containing the Video onto a hard drive through the unique swarm
associated with the unique Hash Tag using the BitTorrent protocol.
30. Defendants actions constituted copyright infringement of Plaintiffs Video.
31. Defendant knew or had constructive knowledge that his acts constituted copyright
infringement of Plaintiffs Video.
32. Defendants conduct was willful within the meaning of the Copyright Act:
intentional, and with indifference to the Plaintiffs rights.
33. Defendants conduct infringed upon Plaintiffs exclusive rights of reproduction of
the Video that are protected under the Copyright Act.
34. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendants conduct, including, but not limited to,
economic and reputation losses. Plaintiff continues to be damaged by such conduct, and has no
adequate remedy at law to compensate the Plaintiff for all of the possible damages stemming
from Defendants conduct.
35. As Defendants infringement was intentional and willful, the Plaintiff is entitled
to an award of actual damages and/or statutory damages (pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504(c)) at its
own election, exemplary damages, attorneys fees (pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 505), injunctive relief
(pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 502, 503) and the costs of the suit.
///
#:2752
Supp. E.R. 753
COUNT II COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT DISTRIBUTION
(17 U.S.C. 106(3))

the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
37. Plaintiff holds the exclusive rights under the Copyright Act to distribute the
Video.
38. Defendant has used, and continues to use, the BitTorrent file transfer protocol to
unlawfully distribute the Video to other individuals over the Internet by publishing the Video to
hundreds of thousands of BitTorrent users from a computer owned or controlled by Defendant,
which, in essence, served as a distribution server for the Video. In doing so, Defendant violated
Plaintiffs exclusive rights to distribute the Video.
39. Defendant was not given any permission to conduct such reproduction, and
Plaintiff never consented to such.
40. Defendants actions constitute infringement of Plaintiffs copyrights and
exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
41. Defendant knew or had constructive knowledge that his acts constituted copyright
infringement of Plaintiffs Video.
42. Defendants conduct was willful within the meaning of the Copyright Act:
intentional, and with indifference to the Plaintiffs rights.
43. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendants conduct, including but not limited to
economic and reputation losses. Plaintiff continues to be damaged by such conduct, and has no
adequate remedy at law to compensate the Plaintiff for all of the possible damages stemming
from the Defendants conduct.
#:2753
Supp. E.R. 754
44. As Defendants infringement was intentional and willful, the Plaintiff is entitled
to an award of actual damages and/or statutory damages (pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504(c)) at its
own election, exemplary damages, attorneys fees (pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 505), injunctive relief
(pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 502, 503) and the costs of the suit.
COUNT III CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT

46. When users in this unique swarm all possess the same infringing work with the
same exact hash value, it is because each infringer possesses an exact digital copy, containing the
exact bits and pieces unique to that specific file of Plaintiffs original copyrighted work. They
only way this happens in a BitTorrent swarm is through the sharing of these bits and pieces of
each same unique file, with the same unique hash value, between the users in the swarm. In
essence, although hundreds of users may be uploading the copyrighted work, a single user will
receive only the exact parts of a singular upload through that exact swarm, not a compilation of
available pieces from various uploads.
47. Defendant published the Hash Tag to the BitTorrent network.
48. Defendant downloaded, uploaded and distributed the Video to other BitTorrent
users through use of the hash-specified protocol in the unique swarm.
49. As each of the thousands of people who illegally downloaded the movie accessed
this illegal publication, they derived portions of their illegal replication of the file from multiple
persons, including, but not limited to, Defendant.
#:2754
Supp. E.R. 755
50. Defendant knew of the infringement, was conscious of his own infringement, and
Defendant was fully conscious that his actions resulted in multiple other persons derivatively
downloading the file containing Plaintiffs Video.
51. The infringement by the other BitTorrent users could not have occurred without
Defendants participation in uploading Plaintiffs copyrighted works. As such, Defendants
participation in the infringing activities of others is substantial and contributed, for profit, to the
infringing activity of thousands of other peers over the Internet across the world.
52. Defendant profited from this contributory infringement by way of being granted
access to a greater library of other infringing works, some of which belonged to Plaintiff and
some of which belonged to other copyright owners.
COUNT IV CIVIL CONSPIRACY
54. In using the peer-to-peer BitTorrent file distribution method, Defendant engaged
in a concerted action with other unnamed individuals to reproduce and distribute Plaintiffs
Video by exchanging pieces of the Video file in the torrent swarm.
55. Defendant and his co-conspirators downloaded a torrent file, opened it using a
BitTorrent client, and then entered a torrent swarm comprised of other individuals distributing
and reproducing Plaintiffs Video. In participating in said conspiratorial network, Defendant
agreed with others to engage in a concerted tortious action in the network to reproduce and
distribute Plaintiffs Video.
#:2755
Supp. E.R. 756
56. Participants in the torrent swarm have conspired to provide other individuals with
pieces of the Video in exchange for receiving other pieces of the same Video to eventually obtain
a complete copy of the file.
57. In furtherance of this civil conspiracy, Defendant committed overt tortious and
unlawful acts by using BitTorrent software to download the Video from and distribute it to
others, and were willful participants in this joint activity.
58. As a proximate result of this conspiracy, Plaintiff has been damaged, as is more
fully alleged above.
COUNT V NEGLIGENCE
60. In the alternative, Defendant was negligent and/or reckless in allowing a third-
party to commit the allegations of infringement, contributory infringement, and civil conspiracy
described above through his Internet connection.
61. Defendant accessed, or controlled access to, the Internet connection used in
performing the unauthorized copying and sharing of Plaintiffs Video, proximately causing
financial harm to Plaintiff.
62. Defendant had a duty to secure his Internet connection. Defendant breached that
duty by failing to secure his Internet connection.
63. Reasonable Internet users take steps to secure their Internet access accounts
preventing the use of such accounts for an illegal purpose. Defendants failure to secure his
Internet access account, thereby allowing for its illegal use, constitutes a breach of the ordinary
care that a reasonable Internet account holder would do under like circumstances.
#:2756
Supp. E.R. 757
64. In the alternative, Defendant secured his connection, but knowingly permitted an
unknown third party to use his Internet connection to infringe on Plaintiffs Video. Defendant
knew, or should have known, that this unidentified individual used Defendants Internet
connection for the aforementioned illegal activities. Defendant declined to monitor the
unidentified third-party infringers use of his computer Internet connection, demonstrating
further negligence.
65. In the alternative, Defendant knew of, and allowed for, the unidentified third party
infringers use of his Internet connection for illegal purposes and thus was complicit in the
unidentified third partys actions.
66. Upon information and belief, Defendants failure to secure his Internet access
account directly allowed for the copying and sharing of Plaintiffs Video over the BitTorrent
protocol through Defendants Internet connection, and interfered with Plaintiffs exclusive rights
in the copyrighted work.
67. Upon information and belief, Defendant knew, or should have known of, the
unidentified third partys infringing actions, and, despite this, Defendant directly, or indirectly,
allowed for the copying and sharing of Plaintiffs Video over the BitTorrent protocol through
Defendants Internet connection, and interfered with Plaintiffs exclusive rights in the
copyrighted Video.
68. By virtue of his unsecured access, Defendant negligently allowed the use of his
Internet access account to perform the above-described copying and sharing of Plaintiffs
copyrighted Video.
69. Had Defendant taken reasonable care in securing access to this Internet
connection, or monitoring the unidentified third-party individuals use of his Internet connection,
#:2757
Supp. E.R. 758
such infringements as those described above would not have occurred by the use of Defendants
Internet access account.
70. Defendants negligent actions allowed numerous others to unlawfully copy and
share Plaintiffs copyrighted Video, proximately causing financial harm to Plaintiff and
unlawfully interfering with Plaintiffs exclusive rights in the Video.
JURY DEMAND
71. Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this case.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests Judgment and relief as follows:
1) Judgment against Defendant that he has: a) willfully infringed Plaintiffs rights in
federally registered copyrights pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 501; and b) otherwise injured the
business reputation and business of Plaintiff by Defendants acts and conduct set forth in this
Complaint;
2) Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against Defendant for actual damages or
statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504, at the election of Plaintiff, in an amount to be
ascertained at trial;
3) Order of impoundment under 17 U.S.C. 503 & 509(a) impounding all
infringing copies of Plaintiffs audiovisual works, photographs or other materials, which are in
Defendants possession or under his control;
4) As to Count III, that the Court order the Defendant jointly and severally liable to
Plaintiff in the full amount of the Judgment along with the damages associated with the
infringing activities of his co-conspirators;
5) As to Count IV, an order that Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff in the full amount
of Judgment on the basis of a common law claim for contributory infringement of copyright; for
#:2758
Supp. E.R. 759
an award of compensatory damages in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant in an amount
to be determined at trial;
6) On Count IV, in the alternative, an order that Defendant is jointly and severally
liable to the Plaintiff in the full amount of Judgment on the basis of Defendants negligence in
allowing an unidentified third party access his Internet account and, through it, violate Plaintiffs
copyrighted works; for an award of compensatory damages in favor of the Plaintiff and against
Defendant, jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial;
7) Judgment in favor of Plaintiff against the Defendant awarding the Plaintiff
attorneys fees, litigation expenses (including fees and costs of expert witnesses), and other costs
of this action; and
8) Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendant, awarding Plaintiff
declaratory and injunctive or other equitable relief as may be just and warranted under the
circumstances.
AF Holdings, LLC,
DATED: November 2, 2012
By: /s/ Jacques Nazaire

Jacques Nazaire, Esq. (Bar No. 142388)
125 Town Park Drive, Suite 300
Kennesaw, Georgia 30144
Telephone: (415) 325-5900
Email: blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com

#:2759
Supp. E.R. 760
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial as provided by FRCP 38(a).

By: /s/ Jacques Nazaire
Jacques Nazaire, Esq.


#:2760
Supp. E.R. 761

EXHIBIT OO
O
EXHIBIT OO
#:2761
Supp. E.R. 762
4months,CLOSED
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Georgia (Gainesville)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12-cv-00262-WCO
AF Holdings, LLC v. Patel
Assigned to: Judge William C. O'Kelley
Cause: 17:504 Copyright Infringement
Date Filed: 11/02/2012
Date Terminated: 03/18/2013
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
AF Holdings, LLC represented by Jacques Nazaire
Jacques Nazaire, Attorney at Law
Suite 300
125 Town Park Drive
Kennesaw, GA 30144
404-923-0529
Fax: 678-559-0798
Email: nazaire.jacques@gmail.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Rajesh Patel represented by Blair Chintella
Blair Chintella, Esq.
806 Meadowlane Drive
Douglas, GA 31533
404-579-9668
Email: BChintel1@gmail.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Date Filed # Docket Text
11/02/2012 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand led and summon(s) issued. Consent form to
proceed before U.S. Magistrate and pretrial instructions provided. ( Filing fee
$350, receipt number 113E-4243602), led by AF Holdings, LLC.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet)(vld) Please
visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions.
Modied on 11/6/2012 (rth). (Entered: 11/05/2012)
CM/ECF-GA Northern District Court https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?131360250643...
1 of 3 4/12/13 9:35 AM
#:2762
Supp. E.R. 763
11/05/2012 2 Electronic Summons Issued as to Rajesh Patel. (vld) (Entered: 11/05/2012)
11/05/2012 3 AO Form 121 forwarded to Commissioner. (vld) (Entered: 11/05/2012)
11/11/2012 4 Corporate Disclosure Statement by AF Holdings, LLC by AF Holdings,
LLC.(Nazaire, Jacques) (Entered: 11/11/2012)
11/19/2012 5 Corporate Disclosure Statement by AF Holdings, LLC by AF Holdings,
LLC.(Nazaire, Jacques) (Entered: 11/19/2012)
01/15/2013 6 NOTICE Of Filing Summons by AF Holdings, LLC re 2 Electronic Summons
Issued, 1 Complaint, (Nazaire, Jacques) (Entered: 01/15/2013)
01/15/2013 7 Electronic Summons Re-Issued as to Rajesh Patel. (sk) (Entered: 01/15/2013)
01/15/2013 8 NOTICE Of Filing Summons by AF Holdings, LLC re 2 Electronic Summons
Issued, 1 Complaint, (Nazaire, Jacques) (Entered: 01/15/2013)
01/16/2013 9 Electronic Summons Re-Issued as to Rajesh Patel. (sk) (Entered: 01/16/2013)
02/04/2013 10 Return of Service Executed by AF Holdings, LLC. Rajesh Patel served on
2/4/2013, answer due 2/25/2013. (Nazaire, Jacques) Modied on 2/27/2013 to
correct defendant name (sk). (Entered: 02/04/2013)
02/27/2013 11 MOTION for Clerks Entry of Default with Brief In Support by AF Holdings,
LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Proof of Service)
(Nazaire, Jacques) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
02/27/2013 Clerks Entry of Default as to Rajesh Patel. (sk) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
03/01/2013 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Blair Chintella on behalf of Rajesh Patel (Chintella,
Blair) (Entered: 03/01/2013)
03/04/2013 13 MOTION to Set Aside Default with Brief In Support by Rajesh Patel.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Alan Cooper lawsuit, # 2 Exhibit Alan Cooper
declaration, # 3 Exhibit Brett Gibbs declaration, # 4 Exhibit List of Cases, # 5
Exhibit Defendant's Declaration)(Chintella, Blair) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
03/18/2013 14 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice led by AF Holdings, LLC
(Nazaire, Jacques) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
03/18/2013 Clerk's Entry of Dismissal APPROVING 14 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.41(a)(1)(i). (sk) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
03/18/2013 Civil Case Terminated. (sk) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
03/18/2013 15 AO Form 121 forwarded to Commissioner. (sk) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
04/06/2013 16 MOTION for Sanctions with Brief In Support by Rajesh Patel. (Attachments: #
(Exhibit A, # 2Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6
Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11
Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16
2 of 3 4/12/13 9:35 AM
#:2763
Supp. E.R. 764
Exhibit P)(Chintella, Blair) Modied on 4/8/2013 to remove duplicative
wording (sk). (Entered: 04/06/2013)
PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
04/12/2013 12:32:29
PACER Login: th9592 Client Code: Subpoena Defense
Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:12-cv-00262-WCO
Billable Pages: 2 Cost: 0.20
3 of 3 4/12/13 9:35 AM
#:2764
Supp. E.R. 765

EXHIBIT PP
P
EXHIBIT PP
#:2765
Supp. E.R. 766
Brent Berry
Realtor/Auctioneer
3351 Round Lake Blvd
Anoka, MN 55303
brent.berry@results.net
Cell: 612-390-3621
Main: 763-323-8080
Other: 612-412-1313
Brent Berry Search 21251 220th St, Mcgrath, MN 56350 Sign In
Back To Search Next
PROPERTY ACTIONS
Save to Favorites Request Information
Calculate Mortgage Print Brochures
Explore Neighborhoods and Schools Get Map and Directions
E-mail This Listing
0 Tweet Tweet 0
Listing 1 of 4
Share Share Like 0
LISTED BY
Brent Berry
Realtor/Auctioneer
RE/MAX Results
E-mail Me
Cell: 612-390-3621
Main: 763-323-8080
Sold Home - 21251 220th St, Mcgrath, MN 56350 - RE/MAX ... http://www.results.net/brent.berry/Property/MN/56350/Mcgrath...
1 of 3 4/14/13 10:52 PM
#:2766
Supp. E.R. 767
Listed by RE/MAX Results
21251 220th St
Mcgrath, MN 56350
$417,000
MLS ID: 4183515
Request Information
First Name:
Last Name:
E-mail Address:
Phone Number:
Message:
All Fields Required Send
I am interested in receiving more information about MLS ID#
4183515 located at 21251 220th St, Mcgrath, MN 56350
Property Details
MLS ID: 4183515
Style: 2-Story
Year Built: 2006
Bedrooms: 3
Bathrooms: 3 (Full: 0 3/4: 3 1/2: 0 Other: 0)
Status: Sold on 2/28/2013
Parking Type
Description:
Unpaved / Gravel / Dirt 4 cars
New Construction: No
LOT INFORMATION
Acreage: 125
Lot Size: 1884x3204x2640x1320x.
LOCALE
County: Aitkin
School District: Mcgregor
Photo Tour
4 of 18
Neighborhood View Find Properties In Neighborhood
250 feet 250 feet 50 m 50 m
2012 Nokia 2012 Nokia 2013 Microsoft Corporation 2013 Microsoft Corporation
N Road
2 of 3 4/14/13 10:52 PM
#:2767
Supp. E.R. 768
Welcome | Area Properties | My Solds | My Office Locations | My Blog | Contact Me | Privacy Policy | Feedback | RE/MAX Results | OnlineOffice | Mobile Site
Property Information Last Updated: 4/14/2013 at 11:25 PM.
The IDX information is provided exclusively for consumers' personal, non-commercial use, and may not be used for any purpose other than to identify prospective
properties consumers may be interested in purchasing. All data is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed to be accurate by the MLS.
Equal Housing Opportunity
Nationwide, RE/MAX Results REALTORS sell more homes per Associate! Our agents specialize in real estate houses for sale or purchase in Minnesota and Western
Wisconsin; including the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Start your property search at Results.net. Find homes for sale and real estate agents using our real estate
search engine.
All information deemed reliable but not guaranteed. All properties are subject to prior sale, change or withdrawal. Neither broker(s), agent(s) nor WhereToLive.com, Inc. shall be
responsible for any typographical errors, misinformation or misprints, and shall be held totally harmless.
1999-2013 WhereToLive.com, Inc. - Winning Real Estate Solutions
Back To Search Next Listing 1 of 4
3 of 3 4/14/13 10:52 PM
#:2768
Supp. E.R. 769
Brent Berry
Realtor/Auctioneer
3351 Round Lake Blvd
Anoka, MN 55303
brent.berry@results.net
Cell: 612-390-3621
Main: 763-323-8080
Other: 612-412-1313
Brent Berry Search 21251 220th St, Mcgrath, MN 56350 Sign In
Back To Search Next
PROPERTY ACTIONS
Save to Favorites Request Information
Calculate Mortgage Print Brochures
Explore Neighborhoods and Schools Get Map and Directions
E-mail This Listing
0 Tweet Tweet 0
Listing 1 of 4
Share Share Like 0
LISTED BY
Brent Berry
Realtor/Auctioneer
RE/MAX Results
E-mail Me
Cell: 612-390-3621
Main: 763-323-8080
1 of 3 4/14/13 10:53 PM
#:2769
Supp. E.R. 770
Listed by RE/MAX Results
21251 220th St
Mcgrath, MN 56350
$417,000
MLS ID: 4183515
Request Information
First Name:
Last Name:
E-mail Address:
Phone Number:
Message:
All Fields Required Send
I am interested in receiving more information about MLS ID#
4183515 located at 21251 220th St, Mcgrath, MN 56350
Property Details
MLS ID: 4183515
Style: 2-Story
Year Built: 2006
Bedrooms: 3
Bathrooms: 3 (Full: 0 3/4: 3 1/2: 0 Other: 0)
Status: Sold on 2/28/2013
Parking Type
Description:
Unpaved / Gravel / Dirt 4 cars
New Construction: No
LOT INFORMATION
Acreage: 125
Lot Size: 1884x3204x2640x1320x.
LOCALE
County: Aitkin
School District: Mcgregor
Photo Tour
5 of 18
Neighborhood View Find Properties In Neighborhood
250 feet 250 feet 50 m 50 m
2012 Nokia 2012 Nokia 2013 Microsoft Corporation 2013 Microsoft Corporation
N Road
2 of 3 4/14/13 10:53 PM
#:2770
Supp. E.R. 771
Welcome | Area Properties | My Solds | My Office Locations | My Blog | Contact Me | Privacy Policy | Feedback | RE/MAX Results | OnlineOffice | Mobile Site
Property Information Last Updated: 4/14/2013 at 11:25 PM.
The IDX information is provided exclusively for consumers' personal, non-commercial use, and may not be used for any purpose other than to identify prospective
properties consumers may be interested in purchasing. All data is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed to be accurate by the MLS.
Equal Housing Opportunity
Nationwide, RE/MAX Results REALTORS sell more homes per Associate! Our agents specialize in real estate houses for sale or purchase in Minnesota and Western
Wisconsin; including the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Start your property search at Results.net. Find homes for sale and real estate agents using our real estate
search engine.
All information deemed reliable but not guaranteed. All properties are subject to prior sale, change or withdrawal. Neither broker(s), agent(s) nor WhereToLive.com, Inc. shall be
responsible for any typographical errors, misinformation or misprints, and shall be held totally harmless.
1999-2013 WhereToLive.com, Inc. - Winning Real Estate Solutions
Back To Search Next Listing 1 of 4
3 of 3 4/14/13 10:53 PM
#:2771
Supp. E.R. 772

EXHIBIT QQ
Q
EXHIBIT QQ
#:2772
Supp. E.R. 773
#:2773
Supp. E.R. 774
#:2774
Supp. E.R. 775
#:2775
Supp. E.R. 776
#:2776
Supp. E.R. 777
#:2777
Supp. E.R. 778
#:2778
Supp. E.R. 779
#:2779
Supp. E.R. 780
#:2780
Supp. E.R. 781
#:2781
Supp. E.R. 782
#:2782
Supp. E.R. 783
#:2783
Supp. E.R. 784
#:2784
Supp. E.R. 785
#:2785
Supp. E.R. 786
#:2786
Supp. E.R. 787
#:2787
Supp. E.R. 788
Supp. E.R. 789
Supp. E.R. 790
Supp. E.R. 791
Supp. E.R. 792
Supp. E.R. 793
Supp. E.R. 794
Supp. E.R. 795
Supp. E.R. 796
Supp. E.R. 797
Supp. E.R. 798
Supp. E.R. 799

-1-
DECLARATION OF GRAHAM W. SYFERT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301

Kitts and Nevis,

Plaintiff,
v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.


Case Assigned to:


2:12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669; 2:12-cv-
6662; 2:12-cv-6668

DECLARATION OF GRAHAM W.
SYFERT

Supp. E.R. 800

-2-
1
2
3
4
6
7
13
14
19
20
26
27
28
5
8
9
10
11
12
15
16
17
18
21
22
23
24
25
I, Graham W. Syfert, have personal knowledge of the facts alleged herein and
hereby aver as follows:
1. I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of Florida, duly
admitted to the practice of law in the state and federal courts of the State of Florida.

2. I have represented various clients in cases brought by the law firm
Prenda Law, Inc. Notably, I was counsel of record for a defendant in Sunlust
Pictures v. Nguyen, M.D. Fl. No. 8:12-CV-1685 (Sunlust) and conducted the
hearing wherein Mark Lutz was rebuked by Judge Scriven for attempting to defraud
the Court. (See Decl. of Morgan E. Pietz re: Prenda Law, Inc., Exhibit N, ECF No.
40-2).

3. I have reviewed Exhibit LL (ECF No. 117-2 at pp. 6-20) in the above
entitled action and hereby affirm that it is a true and correct copy of John Steele's
answer to the Florida bar complaint I filed against him for impersonating a Florida
Attorney, Florida Bar File 2012-403511(B), and that document that I received from
the Florida Bar in that matter.

4. Red pen mark asterisks were added next to the section captioned
"Affidavit of Mark Lutz" and these asterisk were added by a party other than myself
or the Florida Bar. The ECF filing stamps were added to the top of the document
upon Mr. Pietz's filing, and footer stamps were added to the bottom of the document
(presumably by Mr. Peitz), but no other alterations to the substance of the document
has been made

Supp. E.R. 801

-3-
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of Florida and the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


DATED: April 18th, 2013, executed this day at Duval County, Florida, by

___________________________________
Graham W. Syfert, Declarant

Supp. E.R. 802

-1-
STATUS REPORT IN RESPONSE TO COURTS ORDER REQUESTING CASE
INFORMATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301

371 Dogwood Way
Telephone: (831) 703-4011
Fax: (831) 533-5073



Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.


Case Assigned to:


2:12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669;
2:12-cv-6662; 2:12-cv-6668

STATUS REPORT IN RESPONSE TO
COURTS ORDER REQUESTING CASE
INFORMATION

Supp. E.R. 803

-2-
STATUS REPORT IN RESPONSE TO COURTS ORDER REQUESTING CASE
INFORMATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

REPORT
This report is made in response to the Courts May 6, 2013, order wherein the Court
stated, For the sake of completeness, the Court requests Pietz to assist by filing a
report, within 14 days, containing contact information for: (1) every bar (state and
federal) where these attorneys are admitted to practice; and (2) every judge before
whom these attorneys have pending cases. ECF No. 130 at 11.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a list of pending cases for the Principals,
complete with Judge contact information to the extent it was available. This list also
includes some Prenda cases being conducted by local counsel (i.e., cases where the
Principals are not actually on the pleadings). The information on state court cases
was much more difficult to put together, and undersigned counsel is not confident
that the state court portion of the attached is complete, although I do believe the
federal portion is reasonably complete and accurate. Prenda appears to be focusing
most, if not all, of its recent efforts to obtain ISP information in the circuit courts of
St. Clair County, Illinois.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a list of the state bar associations or other
licensing authorities that handle discipline at the state level, for each estate where the
Principals are licensed to practice law. This was prepared by having my office staff
check the attorney lookup feature with the relevant authority in all fifty states.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a list of all federal district courts where the
Principals have appeared as counsel of record. In each district, the Principals would
either be admitted to the bar of the court, or approved for admission pro hac vice.

DATED: May 17, 2013 THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
/s/ Morgan E. Pietz
Morgan E. Pietz
Supp. E.R. 804

EXHIBIT 1
#:2959
Supp. E.R. 805
Case Name Court Case Number Judge Attorneys for
Plaintiff
Link Note
FEDERAL COPYRIGHT TROLL CASES - (Steele, Hansemeier, Duffy, Gibbs Have Appeared as Attorneys)
1 AF Holdings, LLC v.
Doe
cand 3:2012-cv-02396 Hon. Edward M. Chen
San Francisco Courthouse
Courtroom 5 - 17th Floor
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Chambers: (415) 522-2034
Brett Gibbs
Paul Duffy
https://ecf.
cand.uscou
rts.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?25
4869
Prenda has been
ordered to produce
the original signed
concurrence of "Salt
Marsh" (the name
given for the person
who owns AF
Holdings). As of May
13, 2013, Prenda's
lawyers are currently
attempting to explain
why it seems that
nobody can produce
such a document (see
ECF Nos. 79 and 80).
Doe
casdce 3:2012-cv-01519 Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz
Edward J. Schwartz U.S.
Courthouse
221 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 557-5600
Brett Gibbs https://ecf.
casd.uscour
ts.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?38
7721

Active Cases for John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, Paul Duffy and Brett Gibbs as of May 13, 2013
#:2960
Supp. E.R. 806
Plaintiff
Link Note
Does 1 - 1058
D.C. Cir. 12-7135 N/A - panel not yet assigned Paul Duffy https://ecf.
cadc.uscour
ts.gov/cme
cf/servlet/T
ransportRo
om?servlet
=CaseSum
mary.jsp&c
aseNum=1
2-
7135&incOr
igDkt=Y&in
cDktEntries
=Y
Appelate briefing
Schedule Suspended
Sua Sponte 5/9/13
Does 1-1058
dcdce 1:2012-cv-00048 Hon. Beryl A. Howell
U.S. District Court
333 Constitution Ave NW!
Washington, DC 20001
Chambers: (202) 354-3450
John Steele
Paul Duffy
https://ecf.
dcd.uscourt
s.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?15
2214
Pending interlocutory
appeal to the D.C.
Circuit
Magsumbol
candce 3:2012-cv-04221 Hon. Samuel Conti
San Francisco Courthouse
450 Golden Gate Avenue
415-522-2047
cand.uscou
rts.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?25
8044

6
AF Holdings, LLC v.
Trinh
candce 3:2012-cv-02393 Hon. Charles R. Breyer
San Francisco Courthouse,
450 Golden Gate Avenue,
415-522-2062
Paul Duffy https://ecf.
cand.uscou
rts.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?25
4879
(closed but fee motion
remains)
#:2961
Supp. E.R. 807
Plaintiff
Link Note
Unknown
caedce 2:2012-cv-01662 Hon. John A. Mendez
Robert T. Matsui United States
Courthouse
501 I Street
Courtroom 6, 14th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 930-4091
caed.uscou
rts.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?24
0664

8 Boy Racer, Inc. v.
Williamson
caedce 2:2011-cv-03072 Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.
Courthouse
501 I Street
Telephone: (916) 930-4207
caed.uscou
rts.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?23
1985

9 Duffy v. Godfread
et al
ilndce 1:2013-cv-01569 Hon. John W. Darrah
Everett McKinley Dirksen
United States Courthouse
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Courtroom 1203 | Chambers
1288
Telephone: (312) 435-5619
Paul Duffy https://ecf.i
lnd.uscourt
s.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?28
0638

10 GUAVA, LLC v. DOE ilndce 1:2013-cv-00952 Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber
Chicago, IL 60604
1946
Telephone: (312) 435-7612
lnd.uscourt
s.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?27
9764

#:2962
Supp. E.R. 808
Plaintiff
Link Note
11 Guava, LLC v. Does
1-5
ilndce 1:2012-cv-08000 Hon. John W. Darrah
Chicago, IL 60604
1288
Telephone: (312) 435-5619
lnd.uscourt
s.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?27
5041

12 Ingenuity 13, LLC caedce 2:2011-mc-00084 Hon. John A. Mendez
Courthouse
501 I Street
Telephone: (916) 930-4091
caed.uscou
rts.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?23
1023

13 Ingenuity 13, LLC
v. John Doe
ilndce 1:2012-cv-06131 Hon. Joan H. Lefkow
Chicago, IL 60604
1956
Telephone: (312) 435-5832
lnd.uscourt
s.gov/cgi-
bin/DktRpt.
pl?4840573
01722545-
L_1_0-1

14 MILLENNIUM TGA,
INC. v. COMCAST
CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS
LLC
dcdce 1:2012-mc-00150 Hon. Robert L. Wilkins
U.S. District Court
333 Constitution Ave NW!
Washington, DC 20001
Chambers: (202) 354-3480
John Steele
Paul Duffy
https://ecf.
dcd.uscourt
s.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?15
3133

15 Millennium TGA,
Inc. v. Doe
caedce 2:2011-cv-03080 Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.
Courthouse
501 I Street
Telephone: (916) 930-4207
caed.uscou
rts.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?23
2002

#:2963
Supp. E.R. 809
Plaintiff
Link Note
16 Pacific Century Int'l
LTD v. Strink et al
ilndce 1:2013-cv-00946 Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber
Chicago, IL 60604
1946
Telephone: (312) 435-7612
lnd.uscourt
s.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?27
9757

17 Prenda Law, Inc. v.
Godfread et al
ilsdce 3:2013-cv-00207 Hon. David R. Herndon
750 Old Missouri Avenue
East St. Louis, IL 62201
Chambers Phone (618) 482-
9077
Chambers Fax (618) 482-9195
lsd.uscourt
s.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?61
133

18 Sunlust Pictures,
LLC v. Nguyen
flmdce 8:2012-cv-01685 Hon. Mary S. Scriven
Sam M. Gibbons U.S.
Courthouse
801 North Florida Avenue
Tampa, FL 33602
Chambers 758, (813) 301-
5400
Courtroom 10B, (813) 301-
5710
flmd.uscour
ts.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?27
4150

19 First Time Videos
v. Oppold
flmdce 6:2012-CV-01493-ORL-36KRS Hon. Karla R. Spaulding
(Magistrate) 401 W Central
Blvd, Orlando, FL 32081 Phone
407-835-4320 Hon. Charlene
E. Honeywell Phone 407-835-
3840 (fax) 407-835-3849
flmd.uscour
ts.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?27
6288
Motion for atty fees
pending
FEDERAL COPYRIGHT TROLL CASES - (Prenda Cases Where Prinicipals Have Not Appeared as Counsel of Record)
#:2964
Supp. E.R. 810
Plaintiff
Link Note
Chowdhury
madce 1:2012-cv-12105 Hon. Joseph L. Tauro
1 Courthouse Way
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
(617) 748-9152
(Daniel G.
Ruggiero)
https://ecf.
mad.uscour
ts.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?14
7719

Harris
azdce 2:2012-cv-02144 Hon. G. Murray Snow
United States District Court
Sandra Day O'Connor U.S.
Courthouse
Suite 622
401 W. Washington Street,
SPC80
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 322-7650
(Steven J.
Goodhue)
https://ecf.
azd.uscourt
s.gov/cgi-
bin/DktRpt.
pl?2102954
09398241-
L_1_0-1

22
AF Holdings, LLC v.
Keehn
miedce 2:2012-cv-14451 Hon. Julian Abele Cook
for the Eastern District of
Michigan
Theodore Levin U.S.
Courthouse
231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Room
718
Detroit, MI 48226
Courtroom: Room 716
Chambers Telephone Number:
(313) 234-5100
Case Manager - KaMyra
Doaks: (313) 234-5103
(Jonathan W.
Tappan)
https://ecf.
mied.uscou
rts.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?27
4211

#:2965
Supp. E.R. 811
Plaintiff
Link Note
Olivas
ctdce 3:2012-cv-01401 Hon. Janet Bond Arterton
Richard C. Lee United States
Courthouse
141 Church Street
New Haven, CT 06510
Location: Courtroom 2
Chambers Telephone 203-773-
2456
Clerk's Office Telephone 203-
773-2140
Clerk's Office Fax 203-773-
2334
(Daniel G.
Ruggiero)
https://ecf.
ctd.uscourt
s.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?98
605

Patel
gandce 2:2012-cv-00262 Hon. William C. O'Kelley
1942 Richard B. Russell
Federal Building and United
States Courthouse
75 Spring Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-3309
Gainesville Chambers: 303
Chambers Phone: (678) 450-
2730
(Jacques
Nazaire)
https://ecf.
gand.uscou
rts.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?18
8990
Case has been
dismissed, but John
Doe defendant has
filed a motion for
sanctions against Paul
Hansmeier, John
Steele, Paul Duffy and
Brett Gibbs. The
attorney on the
pleadings is local
counsel Jacques
Nazaire.
25 Guava, LLC v. Ly paedce 2:2012-cv-06724 Hon. Norma L. Shapiro
James A. Byrne U.S.
Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797
(Daniel G.
Ruggiero)
https://ecf.
paed.uscou
rts.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?47
0703

#:2966
Supp. E.R. 812
Plaintiff
Link Note
OTHER FEDERAL CASES - Principals are Counsel of Record
26 C.I.T.C., U.S.A. v.
Gray Lion Logistics,
LLC
ilndce 1:2012-cv-07283 Hon. Ruben Castillo
Chicago, IL 60604
2146
Telephone: (312) 435-5878
lnd.uscourt
s.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?27
3998

27 Clean Harbors
Services Inc v.
Illinois
International Port
District
ilndce 1:2012-cv-07837 Hon. Thomas M. Durkin
Chicago, IL 60604
1764
Telephone: (312) 435-5840
lnd.uscourt
s.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?27
4845

28
Cooper v. Steele,
et al.
Minn. Dist. Ct., Hennepin Cty., 2013
No. 27-CV-13-3463
Paul Hansmeier Paul Hansmeier
represents Prenda Law
29 In re: Paul
Hansmeier
9th Cir. 13-80114 N/A - panel not yet assigned Paul Hansmeier http://ecf.c
a9.uscourts
.gov/cmecf
/servlet/Tra
nsportRoo
m?servlet=
CaseSumm
ary.jsp?cas
eNum=13-
80114&dktT
ype=dktPu
blic&incOrig
Dkt=Y&inc
DktEntries
=Y
Attorney disciplinary
proceeding initiated,
with reference to
pending application for
admission to bar of
Ninth Circuit by Paul
Hansmeier
#:2967
Supp. E.R. 813
Plaintiff
Link Note
30 MILLENNIUM TGA,
INC. v. DOE
dcdce 1:2012-mc-00357 Hon. Judge Robert L. Wilkins
333 Constitution Avenue N.W.
Washington D.C. 20001
Chambers: (202) 354-3480
Duffy, Paul A. https://ecf.
dcd.uscourt
s.gov/cgi-
bin/DktRpt.
pl?7206188
86338033-
L_1_0-1

31 Mooney v. Frito-
Lay, Inc. et al.
mndce 0:2013-cv-00648 Hon. Donovan W. Frank
U.S. District Court
724 Federal Building
316 N. Robert Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Chambers: (651) 848-1290
Chambers E-mail Address:
frank_chambers@mnd.uscourt
s.gov
Paul Hansmeier https://ecf.
mnd.uscour
ts.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?13
0935
Filed by Paul
Hansmeier for "Class
Action Justice
Institute, LLC"
32
OPENMINDED
SOLUTIONS, INC.
v. DOES
dcdce 1:2011-cv-01883 Magistrate Judge John M.
Facciola
333 Constitution Avenue N.W.
Washington D.C. 20001
Chambers: (202) 354-3130
Duffy, Paul A https://ecf.
dcd.uscourt
s.gov/cgi-
bin/DktRpt.
pl?5192604
34400885-
L_1_0-1

33
Padraigin Browne,
et al v. Groupon,
Inc., et al
9th Cir. 13-551118 N/A - panel not yet assigned Brett Gibbs,
Paul Hansmeier
https://ecf.
ca9.uscourt
s.gov/cmec
f/servlet/Tr
ansportRoo
m?servlet=
CaseSumm
ary.jsp&cas
eNum=13-
55118&inc
OrigDkt=Y&
incDktEntri
es=Y
Padraigin Browne
(Hansmeier's wife)
opening brief due
5/29. Hansmeier
admission to 9th circ
still on hold.
#:2968
Supp. E.R. 814
Plaintiff
Link Note
34 Pecover et al v.
Electronic Arts Inc.
candce 4:2008-cv-02820 Hon. Claudia Wilken
Oakland Courthouse
Courtroom 2 ! 4th Floor
1301 Clay Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Chambers (Nikki Riley) (510)
637-3542
cand.uscou
rts.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?23
7324

35 Prenda Law
Incorporated v.
Godfread et al
azdce 2:2013-mc-00030 Hon. Susan R. Bolton
Sandra Day OConnor U.S.
Courthouse, Suite 522
401 West Washington Street,
SPC 50
Phoenix, AZ 85003-2153
Phone: (602) 322-7570 Duffy, Paul A
https://ecf.
azd.uscourt
s.gov/cgi-
bin/DktRpt.
pl?3642396
55678276-
L_1_0-1
(closing soon)
#:2969
Supp. E.R. 815
Plaintiff
Link Note
36 Shames et al. v.
Hansmeier et al.
9th Cir. 12-57206 N/A - panel not yet assigned Paul Hansmeier
Brett Gibbs
https://ecf.
ca9.uscourt
s.gov/cmec
f/servlet/Tr
ansportRoo
m?servlet=
CaseSumm
ary.jsp&cas
eNum=12-
57026&inc
OrigDkt=Y&
incDktEntri
es=Y
Paul Hansemeier has
appeared on behalf of
his father, Gordon
Hansmeier (also a
lawyer), to appeal the
denial of their
objections to the
proposed class
settlement. Gibbs
terminated as counsel
for Gordon Hansmeier
on 4/5/13, per "Notice
of Re-Assignment of
Counsel Within Same
Office," listing "Class
Action Justice
Institute, LLC" as the
law office representing
Gordon Hansmeier;
case "re-assigned"
from Gibbs to Paul
Hansmeier. See ECF
No. 38
37 Wersal v.
LivingSocial, Inc.
mndce 0:2013-cv-00381 Hon. Donovan W. Frank
U.S. District Court
724 Federal Building
316 N. Robert Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Chambers: (651) 848-1290
Paul Hansmeier https://ecf.
mnd.uscour
ts.gov/cgi-
bin/iqquery
menu.pl?13
0417
Filed by Paul
Hansmeier for "Class
Action Justice
Institute, LLC"
#:2970
Supp. E.R. 816
Plaintiff
Link Note
STATE COURT CASES (Organized by County)
39 LW Systems v.
Christopher
Hubbard
Circuit
Court of
St. Clair
County,
Illinois
13-L-0015 Hon. Andrew J. Gleeson
Twentieth Judicial Circuit,
Associate Judge
10 Public Square
618-277-7325
618-277-1398 (Fax)
John Steele
Paul Duffy
Prenda has been
authorized to
subpoena subscriber
records for
*thousands* of IP
addresses, from over
300 ISPs, all pursuant
to an "Agreed Order"
with the lead
defendant,
Christopher Hubbard.
40 Guava, LLC v.
Comcast
Circuit
Court of
St. Clair
County,
Illinois
12-MR-0417 Hon. Andrew J. Gleeson
Associate Judge
10 Public Square
618-277-7325
618-277-1398 (Fax)
John Steele
Paul Duffy
On appeal to Illinois
Court of Appeals
41 Peg Leg
Productions vs.
Charter
Circuit
Court of
St. Clair
County,
Illinois
13-MR-0142 Hon. Robert Haida
Circuit Court Judge
10 Public Square
618-825-2329
618-277-1398 (Fax)
Paul Duffy
(Robert
Sprague)
42 AMATA LLC Circuit
Court of
Cook
County,
Illinois
2012-M1-101630 Unknown STEELE LAW
LLC
1/11/12
43 CAPITAL ONE
BANK
Circuit
Court of
Cook
County,
Illinois
2013-M1-121896 Unknown Paul Duffy 4/4/13
#:2971
Supp. E.R. 817
Plaintiff
Link Note
44 FIRST NORTHERN
CU
Circuit
Court of
Cook
County,
Illinois
45 PARKSIDE OLD
TOWN
Circuit
Court of
Cook
County,
Illinois
46 RIVER PLACE PARK
C
Circuit
Court of
Cook
County,
Illinois
47 BOY RACER INC vs
DOES, JOHN (1
615)
Circuit
Court of
Maimi-
Dade
County
Florida
2011-29024-CA-
01
13-2011-CA-
029024-0000-01
Hon. Marc Schumacher
Circuit Court Judge
Unknown
48 MILLENNIUM TGA
INC FOREIGN
CORP vs JOHN
DOES 1-529
Circuit
Court of
Maimi-
Dade
County
Florida
2011-32619-CA-
01
13-2011-CA-
032619-0000-01
Unknown (Joseph Perea)
49 Cooper v. Steele et
al.
Minnesot
a Fourth
District,
Hennepi
n County
District
Court
27-cv-13-3463 Hon. Ann Leslie Alton, 300
South Sixth Street,
Minneapolis, MN 55487
John Steele
(D), Paul
Hansmeier, Paul
Duffy
Steele answered with
counterclaims, Prenda
defaulted, then
submitted a late
answer, default motion
pending. Hearing on
5/21/2013
#:2972
Supp. E.R. 818
Plaintiff
Link Note
50 Guava, LLC v.
Spencer Merkel
Minnesot
a Fourth
District,
Hennepi
n County
District
Court
27-cv-12-20976 Hon. Tanya M. Bransford, 300
South Sixth Street,
Minneapolis, MN 55487
John Steele
Paul Hansmeier
Case voluntarily
dismissed. Motion for
attorneys fees still
pending / under
advisement.
51 Guava, LLC v. John
Does 1-40
Philadelp
hia
County
Court of
Common
Pleas
Civil
Division
Decemb
er Term,
2012
No. 03387 Hon. Pamela P. Dembe
Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia
City Hall , Room 386
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: 215 686-8334
Fax: 215 567-7328
Unknown
#:2973
Supp. E.R. 819

EXHIBIT 2
#:2974
Supp. E.R. 820
Paul A. Duffy Brett L. Gibbs Paul R. Hansmeier John L. Steele
California
California State Bar
1149 S Hill St Los
Angeles, CA 90015
800-843-9053
Attorney Complaint
Hotline
http://www.calbar.ca.gov
/Attorneys/LawyerRegula
tion/FilingaComplaint.as
px
http://www.calbar.ca.gov
/ContactUs.aspx
California
California State Bar
1149 S Hill St Los
Angeles, CA 90015
800-843-9053
Attorney Complaint
Hotline
http://www.calbar.ca.go
v/Attorneys/LawyerReg
ulation/FilingaComplaint
.aspx
http://www.calbar.ca.go
v/ContactUs.aspx
Minnesota
Lawyers Professional
Responsibility Board
Office of Lawyers
Professional
Responsibility
1500 Landmark Towers
345 St. Peter Street
St. Paul, MN 55102-
1218
(651) 296-3952
(800) 657-3601
http://lprb.mncourts.go
v/Pages/Default.aspx
Illinois
ARDC
One Prudential
Plaza
130 East Randolph
Drive
Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60601-
6219
(312) 565-2600
(800) 826-8625
Fax (312) 565-
2320
http://www.iardc.o
rg/howtocontact_or
ginfo.html
Illinois
ARDC
One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive
Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60601-6219
(312) 565-2600
(800) 826-8625
Fax (312) 565-2320
http://www.iardc.org/ho
wtocontact_orginfo.html
Massachusetts
Board of Bar Overseers
99 High Street
Boston, Massachusetts
02110
(617) 728-8700
http://www.mass.gov/ob
cbbo/complaint.htm
#:2975
Supp. E.R. 821

EXHIBIT 3
#:2976
Supp. E.R. 822
Federal District Courts of Where the Principals Have Appeared as Counsel of
Record and Therefore Must Be Admitted to the Bar, or Appearing Pro Hac Vice
Paul Hansmeier Appearances in Federal Courts as Counsel of Record, Per
PACER 5/13/13
District of Minnesota (e.g., 0:2011-cv-01794)
Southern District of Illinois (see 3:2012-cv-00889)
Southern District of California (see 3:2011-md-02238)
John Steele Appearances in Federal Courts as Counsel of Record, Per PACER
5/13/13
District of the District of Columbia (see 1:12-cv-0048)
Northern District of Illinois (e.g., 1:2010-cv-05603)
Central District of Illinois (see 2:2011-cv-2068)
Southern District of Illinois (see 3:2011-cv-00092)
Paul A. Duffy Appearances in Federal Courts as Counsel of Record, per PACER
5/13/13
Northern District of Illinois (e.g., 1:2011-cv-02798)
Central District of Illinois (e.g., 1:2012-cv-01053)
Southern District of Illinois (e.g., 3:2012-cv-00860)
Northern District of California (e.g., 3:12-cv-02396)
Eastern District of California (e.g., 2:2012-cv-01064)
Southern District of California (e.g., 3:2012-cv-01519)
District of the District of Columbia (see 1:12-cv-0048)
Brett L. Gibbs Appearances in Federal Courts as Counsel of Record, Per PACER
5/13/13
Northern District of California (e.g., 3:2012-cv-02396)
Eastern District of California (e.g., 2:2011-mc-00084)
Central District of California (e.g., 2:2012-cv-08333)
Southern District of California (e.g., 3:2012-cv-01519)
#:2977
Supp. E.R. 823

-1-
DOES RESPONSE TO PAUL DUFFYS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF BOND AND
ORDER STAYING ENFORCEMENT OF MAY 6 AND MAY 21 ORDERS IMPOSING
SANCTIONS AND PENALTIES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301

371 Dogwood Way
Telephone: (831) 703-4011
Fax: (831) 533-5073


Kitts and Nevis,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.


Case Assigned to:


2:12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669;
2:12-cv-6662; 2:12-cv-6668

DOES RESPONSE TO PAUL
DUFFYS MOTION FOR APPROVAL
OF BOND AND ORDER STAYING
ENFORCEMENT OF MAY 6 AND
MAY 21 ORDERS IMPOSING

Supp. E.R. 824

-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The putative John Doe in 12-cv-8333 and his counsel (Doe) hereby
responds to Paul Duffys Motion for Approval of Bond and Order Staying
Enforcement of May 6 and May 21 Orders Imposing Sanctions and Penalties (Bond
Motion) manually-filed May 23, 2013 (ECF No. 170).
The Bond Motion and the bond itself are deficient in several key respects,
accordingly Doe must oppose the instant motion and request that the instant bond
amount be increased, and that the bond be modified to contain certain conditions.
First, no good faith effort has been made to meet and confer about the details
of a supersedeas bond. See Exhibit 1.
Second, the bond is not in a sufficient amount to furnish full security. As
previously explained to Prenda in unanswered meet and confer attempts, the amount
of the appeal bond here should secure: (i) the underlying award, per Fed. R. Civ.
Proc. 62(d) (see also Fed. R. App. Proc. 8); (ii) interest for the anticipated duration
of the appeal;
1
(iii) damages for delay;
2
(iv) costs on appeal per Fed. R. App. Proc.
7;
3
(v) which includes attorneys fees on appeal where, as here, the underlying
statute provides for award of attorneys fees as part of the costs.
4
As detailed in the

1
Fed. Prescription Service, Inc. v. American Phar'm. Asso'c., 636 F.2d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
(affirming district Court stay that mandated that interest would continue to run from date of
judgment).
2
Rand-Whitney Containerboard Ltd. P'ship v. Town of Montville, 245 F.R.D. 65, 68 (D. Conn.
2007) (noting that current Appellate Rules do not contain guidance on amount of supersedeas bond
and looking to former Rule 73(d) which provided that appellant would be liable under a
supersedeas bond for the satisfaction of the judgment in full together with costs, interests, and
damages for delay) (emphasis added).
3
See 20-308 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil 308.31 (if an appellant seeks a stay of
enforcement of the final judgment pending disposition of the appeal under Appellate Rule 8, the
court will fix one bond for both costs [per Appellate Rule 7] and supersedeas).
4
17 U.S.C. 505; see also Azizian v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc., 499 F.3d 950, 958 (9th Cir.
2007) (We agree with the Second, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits and hold that the term "costs on
appeal" in Rule 7 includes all expenses defined as "costs" by an applicable fee-shifting statute,
including attorney's fees); 20-307 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil 307.21 (in a copyright
infringement case, the amount of the appeal bond may be set to cover the appellee's attorney's fees
Supp. E.R. 825

-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

meet and confer correspondence which Prenda has essentially ignored, undersigned
counsel believes full security in this case would be $237,583.60. Calculation of that
amount is explained in detail in Exhibit 1.
5

Third, the bond is due and payable to John Doe which is unclear and might
lead to a check that can never be cashed. It should be made due and payable to The
Pietz Law Firm.
Fourth, either all seven parties (or, perhaps, everyone other than Mr. Gibbs)
should post separate bonds to cover their own joint and several liability, or else a
condition should be placed on the bond such that it can be executed upon following
an affirmation or dismissal of the monetary portion of any appeals for any of the
parties it covers.
Fifth, although the bond purports to secure the payment due and payable by
six different parties (i.e., all parties other than Gibbs), none of those parties have
executed the instrument. See Beatrice Foods Co. v. New England Printing &
Lithographing Co., 930 F.2d 1572, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (bonds should be
interpreted like contracts) cf. EEOC v. Clear Lake Dodge, 60 F.3d 1146, 1155 (5th
Cir. Tex. 1995) (affirming district courts award of sanctions against attorney who
first filed supersedeas bond that was incomplete and insufficient and then filed
second bond which failed to give adequate assurance the bond would be effective
in that it was not executed by a surety with clear authority).
Sixth, in view of the confusion occasioned by Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514
U.S. 300 (1995), and the high likelihood that some or all of the Prenda parties will
seek bankruptcy protection before their various appeals are concluded, an express
condition on the bond is requested protecting against such maneuvering.

as well as other standard cost items on appeal) citing Adsani v. Miller, 139 F.3d 67, 71-79 (2d
Cir. 1998).
5
Exhibit 1 specifies a total bond amount of $207,583.60. The $30,000 increase is on account of
the fact that two new, separate appeals have been filed (for Prenda Law, Inc. and AF Holdings,
LLC) since the initial meet and confer email was sent, at $15,000 each, in appellate costs.
Supp. E.R. 826

-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Specifically, as a condition of this Court accepting the bond, it is requested that all
of the Prenda parties, as well as the surety, be estopped from arguing in any Court
other than this one that execution on the bond should be stayed, avoided or
otherwise forestalled, in connection with bankruptcy proceedings. See Celotex
Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 332 (1995) (Stevens, J. dissenting) (whenever
possible, such questions [i.e., regarding whether execution on a supersedeas bond
can be enjoined in bankruptcy proceedings] should be resolved before the court
accepts the bond as security for collection of the judgment being appealed). The
only valid reason to prohibit executing on the instant bond (as amended and
increased) should be if all of the Prenda parties prevail on the monetary portion of
all of their appeals.
II. BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2013, this Court ordered the Prenda Law, Inc. and it associated
clients and attorneys to pay a sanctions award of $81,319.72 within fourteen days,
with liability jointly and severally payable. ECF No. 130 (the Sanctions Order).
The fourteen days expired May 21, 2013. On Thursday May 16, 2013, Paul
Hansmeier filed an emergency motion to the Ninth Circuit for a stay pending appeal.
Undersigned counsel filed an response thereto on an expedited timeframe (which
was requested by the Court of Appeals, which deemed the motion and emergency
motion) on Friday May 17, 2013. In the response to the emergency appellate
motion, undersigned counsel noted that no attempt had been made to meet and
confer; had Mr. Hansmeier bothered to inquire, he would have been told that a stay
of the monetary portion of the award was agreeable, subject to posting of a full
supersedeas bond on appropriate terms and conditions. However, undersigned
counsel did note an intention to oppose any stay of the non-monetary aspects of the
Courts order. Exhibit 2. The emergency motion for stay pending appeal was
denied by the Court of Appeals on Monday May 20, 2013 (see ECF No. 150). Later
that day, Prenda Law, Inc., through special counsel, filed a notice of appeal (ECF
Supp. E.R. 827

-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

No. 157) with an application attached thereto, seeking a stay of enforcement (ECF
No. 157-1).
The first undersigned counsel heard about a bond, or payment, from any
Prenda party (with the exception of Mr. Gibbs; his motions will be addressed by
separate response) was on Monday May 20, 2013, when Paul Duffy sent a short
email on the subject, offering to post a bond in the amount of 125% of the amount
awarded in the Sanctions Order. Undersigned counsel dutifully responded later that
day (to all parties), outlining a number of concerns about the amount and conditions
that should attach to a supersedeas bond, reiterating concerns raised in the appellate
response papers regarding no stay of the non-monetary aspects of this Courts order,
and requesting that Prenda respond with their views on the substantive topics raised.
Exhibit 1.
On May 21, 2013, this Court issued an Order Denying Ex parte Application
for Stay of Enforcement ; Order to Show Cause Re Attorneys-Fee Award. ECF No.
164. The next day, after close of business on May 22, 2013, still not having heard
anything regarding payment or a bond, undersigned counsel again emailed all
Prenda parties in another attempt to meet and confer regarding appeal bond details.
Exhibit 1. In response to the May 22 query attempting to spur further discussion on
the several points raised by undersigned counsel previously on the bond issue, Mr.
Duffy wrote back You had no substantive points. If you think of some and can
articulate them coherently I would be glad to consider them. Thanks for thinking of
me. Id. Shortly after receiving Mr. Duffys foregoing email, undersigned counsel
pointed out to everyone that such a response was not very helpful, and invited the
rest of the Prenda parties to respond in substantive fashion. Nobody did. Mr. Duffy,
however, did write the whole group one more time, in nonsensical and vaguely
threatening fashion, to indicate that has apparently made a conscious decision
6
to

6
Note that Mr. Duffys last message was not an auto-response, it was sent almost an hour after the
prior message to which it was responding, and it copies everyone, including the cc fields (all of
which would be unusual for an automatic response to a message flagged as SPAM).
Supp. E.R. 828

-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

send undersigned counsels email messages to the SPAM folder. Exhibit 1.
The next day, May 23, 2013, after blatantly evading attempts to actually
discuss appeal bond details, Mr. Duffy filed the instant Bond Motion, reporting to
the Court that Movant attempted to meet and confer with opposing counsel Morgan
Pietz on the type and amount of the bond. . .. ECF No. 170 at 2:4-5. Prenda Law,
Inc., through special counsel, subsequently joined in Duffys Bond Motion on May
31, 2013. ECF No. 173. No other party has joined Mr. Duffys motion to approve
the bond.
Separately, Brett Gibbs is the only party to have filed a response to the
Courts May 21, 2013 OSC (see ECF No. 168) and he subsequently filed his own
motion to be relieved from the Courts Sanctions Order, and from the daily sanctions
penalty (ECF No. 171).
III. ARGUMENT
Civil Rule 62(d) provides,
(d) Stay with Bond on Appeal. If an appeal is taken, the
appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond, except in an
action described in Rule 62(a)(1) or (2). The bond may be given
upon or after filing the notice of appeal or after obtaining the
order allowing the appeal. The stay takes effect when the court
approves the bond. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 62(d).
Similarly, Appellate Rule 8 provides, in relevant part,
Rule 8. Stay or Injunction Pending Appeal
(a) Motion for Stay.
(1) Initial Motion in the District Court. A party must
ordinarily move first in the district court for the following relief:
(A) a stay of the judgment or order of a
district court pending appeal;
(B) approval of a supersedeas bond; or. . .
Supp. E.R. 829

-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Fed. R. App. Proc. 8.
In addition to Appellate Rule 8, which applies only to appellants seeking a
stay pending appeal, Appellate Rule 7 applies in all cases and provides for an
appellate bond to secure costs on appeal. Appellate Rule 7 provides,
In a civil case, the district court may require an appellant to file
a bond or provide other security in any form and amount
necessary to ensure payment of costs on appeal. Rule 8(b) applies
to a surety on a bond given under this rule.
It is important that the language contained in a supersedeas bond be clear and
unambiguous. No federal statute, provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
or provision of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure defines the conditions that
trigger a surety's obligation under a supersedeas bond. Rand-Whitney
Containerboard Ltd. P'ship v. Town of Montville, 245 F.R.D. 65, 67 (D. Conn.
2007).
Although there is little guidance for Courts in setting supersedeas bonds under
the current rules, the former rules provided additional detail, and Courts often still
look to the older rules. Id. at 67 (noting that current Appellate Rules do not contain
guidance on amount of supersedeas bond and looking to former Rule 73(d) which
provided that appellant would be liable under a supersedeas bond for the
satisfaction of the judgment in full together with costs, interests, and damages for
delay); see also Fed. Prescription Service, Inc. v. American Phar'm. Asso'c., 636
F.2d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (affirming district Court stay that mandated that
interest would continue to run from date of judgment).
Where an appellant seeks a stay pending appeal, the bond should cover not
only a supersedeas obligation securing the award below, but it should also cover
costs on appeal per Fed. R. App. 7. See 20-308 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil
308.31 (if an appellant seeks a stay of enforcement of the final judgment pending
disposition of the appeal under Appellate Rule 8, the court will fix one bond for both
Supp. E.R. 830

-8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

costs [per Appellate Rule 7] and supersedeas).
The question of whether costs on appeal includes attorneys fees has divided
some Circuits, but the Ninth Circuit has adopted the majority view that attorneys
fees are recoverable on appeal where they are included as costs in the underlying
statute. Azizian v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc., 499 F.3d 950, 958 (9th Cir. 2007)
(We agree with the Second, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits and hold that the term
"costs on appeal" in Rule 7 includes all expenses defined as "costs" by an applicable
fee-shifting statute, including attorney's fees).
(a) Amount of Bond
Here, the underlying case is a copyright infringement action. See ECF No. 1.
The Copyright Act expressly provides for the award of attorneys fees as part of the
costs. 17 U.S.C. 505. Accordingly, in a copyright infringement case, the
amount of the appeal bond may be set to cover the appellee's attorney's fees as well
as other standard cost items on appeal 20-307 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil
307.21) citing Adsani v. Miller, 139 F.3d 67, 71-79 (2d Cir. 1998).
In California, post-judgment interest is calculated at a set rate of 10% per
year. See Cal. Civ. Code 685.010. In 2011, according to the LA Times, the
average length for an appeal to the Ninth Circuit was 16.2 months.
7
Here, Doe has
rounded down on time, basing their calculation on 10% interest per year for 12
months, which means $8,131.97 in anticipated interest. Doe proposes using the
same figure as damages for delay.
Accordingly, full security for the order below would be $97,583.66.
Turning next to costs on appeal, as further explained in Exhibit 1, Doe
calculates spending $5,000 in hard costs, plus $45,000 in attorneys fees to defend
the initial appeal. However, this case has been appealed by seven different parties,
each of whom has undertaking their own, separate appeal. Accordingly, Doe has
proposed security for each additional appeal (after the first one) in the amount of

7
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/15/local/la-me-9th-circuit-vacancies-20111012
Supp. E.R. 831

-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

$15,000 each. $50,000 + ($15,000 x 6) = $140,000 to secure costs on appeal, per
Fed. R. App. Proc. 7.
Adding the two sums together (security for order below, plus security for
costs on appeal, including attorneys fees on appeal) is how Doe got to the proposed
figure of $237,583.66 for the full supersedeas bond.
(b) Condition: Bond Made Payable to John Doe or The Pietz Law Firm
As noted, the bond as presently constituted is due and payable to John Doe
which is unclear and might lead to a check that can never be cashed. Accordingly,
the bond shall made due and payable to John Doe or The Pietz Law Firm.
(c) Condition: Add Joint and Several Language
The bond does not reflect the fact that each of the parties has been ordered to
pay the fee award jointly and severally. If the Courts order is affirmed on appeal as
to some defendants but not others, this could be problematic, unless: (i) either each
party posts his or its own bond; or (ii) a condition is attached to the bond that it can
be executed upon as long as there is at least one party who fails to have the his or
its liability on the monetary portion of the fee award reversed on appeal.
(d) Condition: All the Debtors Should Sign the Bond
None of the Prenda parties have executed the bond. While having a surety
with valid authority is the most important person to execute the bond, in view of the
additional conditions contemplated herein, and the authority holding that bonds are
interpreted like contracts, the other debtors receiving its benefit should also execute
it. See Beatrice Foods Co. v. New England Printing & Lithographing Co., 930 F.2d
1572, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (bonds should be interpreted like contracts) cf. EEOC v.
Clear Lake Dodge, 60 F.3d 1146, 1155 (5th Cir. Tex. 1995) (affirming district
courts award of sanctions against attorney who first filed supersedeas bond that was
incomplete and insufficient and then filed second bond which failed to give
adequate assurance the bond would be effective in that it was not executed by a
surety with clear authority).
Supp. E.R. 832

-10-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(e) Condition: No Circumvention by Bankruptcy
In Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300 (1995) the Supreme Court held
that it was improper for a victorious creditor-appellee to seek to execute on a
supersedeas bond in defiance of a bankruptcy court stay order expressly enjoining
that action. The Court reasoned that the creditor should have opposed the stay in
bankruptcy court rather than ignoring the stay order and collaterally attacking it by
seeking to execute on the supersedeas bond. In a powerful dissent addressing the
inequity of such a situation, Justice Stevens suggested that in his view whenever
possible, such questions [i.e., regarding whether execution on a supersedeas bond
can be enjoined in bankruptcy proceedings] should be resolved before the court
accepts the bond as security for collection of the judgment being appealed. See
Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 332 (1995) (Stevens, J. dissenting).
Accordingly, Does asks this Court to do just that, and impose a condition on the
bond that the Prenda parties be estopped from seeking to prevent execution on the
bond through bankruptcy proceedings. The only valid reason to prohibit executing
on the instant bond (as amended and increased) should be if all of the Prenda parties
prevail on the monetary portion of their appeals. The need for such a condition is
particularly acute given that Prenda (like Celotex) is likely about to be besieged by a
wide array of Court actions seeking sanctions and fee awards.
Under the unique circumstances of this action, which include the fact that
underlying order below is a sanctions award for fraudulent conduct and the web of
mysterious offshore entities controlled by the Prenda parties, the Court would be
well within its discretion to set such a condition on the bond.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Doe respectfully requests that the
amount of the bond be increased to $237,583.66, and that the bond be conditioned as
explained above.
Supp. E.R. 833

-11-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DATED: June 3, 2013 THE PIETZ LAW FIRM

/s/ Morgan E. Pietz
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Supp. E.R. 834

-1-
DECLARATION OF MORGAN E. PIETZ (JUNE 3, 2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301

371 Dogwood Way
Telephone: (831) 703-4011
Fax: (831) 533-5073



Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.


Case Assigned to:


2:12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669;
2:12-cv-6662; 2:12-cv-6668

(JUNE 3, 2013)

Supp. E.R. 835

-2-
DECLARATION OF MORGAN E. PIETZ (JUNE 3, 2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

PIETZ DECLARATION
I, Morgan E. Pietz am over the age of 18, have personal knowledge of the facts alleged
herein, and hereby declare as follows:
1. I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California, duly admitted
to the practice of law in the state and federal courts of the State of California.
2. I represent the ISP subscriber who was targeted by Prenda Law, Inc. as the
supposed John Doe defendant in Ingenuity 13, LLC v. John Doe, C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-
8333. I have also represented other clients similarly threatened by Prenda in other lawsuits
in other jurisdictions.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of my attempt to meet
and confer with the Prenda parties on the details of a supersedeas bond.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the filing I made in
his recently-filed appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 13-55859 at ECF No. 4,
5/17/13.



DATED: June 3, 2013
/s/ Morgan E. Pietz

Supp. E.R. 836

EXHIBIT 1
#:3298
Supp. E.R. 837
Mr. Duffy's Query Regarding a Bond
5 messages
Morgan E. Pietz <mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com> Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:57 PM
To: Paul Duffy <paduffy@wefightpiracy.com>
Cc: Paul Hansmeier <prhansmeier@thefirm.mn>, John Steele <johnlsteele@gmail.com>, brett.gibbs@gmail.com,
Nicholas Ranallo <nick@ranallolawoffice.com>, "Heather L. Rosing" <HRosing@klinedinstlaw.com>
Mr. Duffy,
I appreciate you reaching out today in an attempt to get payment of the fee award resolved in cooperative
fashion. My understanding is that except for Ms. Rosing, who I believe remains counsel of record for Prenda
Law, Inc., that all of you are now unrepresented by outside counsel (meaning lawyers other than yourselves).
If I am incorrect on that point, please advise.
As to your query, I must reject your offer of 125% of the amount awarded below for the appeal bond securing
a stay pending appeal.
First, I would refer you to the response I filed to Paul Hansmeier's emergency motion to the Ninth Circuit.
Money is only part of the issue. A stay of the non-monetary aspects of the Court's order is a non starter.
Second, 125% of $81,319.72 is not even close to full security for this case. The appeal will likely take at least
a year. Accordingly, adding statutory interest of 10% per year works out to an additional $8,131.97, which I
would double as damages for delay (see e.g., Fed. Prescription Service, Inc. v. American Phar'm. Asso'c.,
636 F.2d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In addition, I must insist upon costs on appeal, per FRAP 7. Since the
order below includes an attorneys fee award, the costs on appeal include estimated attorneys fees associated
with the appeal (of the attorneys' fee award). On the initial appeal, I estimate $5,000 in hard costs, plus
$45,000 in additional attorneys fees, for a FRAP 7 bond total of $50,000 for the first appeal. Now, consider
the fact that rather than joining in a single appeal, each of you have filed separate appeals. So far, there are
five different appeals currently pending. That multiplies my work (and the Court's) considerably. Since I
anticipate being able to re-use some, but not all of the work I do in opposing your multiple appeals, but there
will still be separate costs and legal issues for each, a separate charge for each of the subsequent appeals is
appropriate, albeit at a substantial discount as compared to the lead appeal. If you do choose to try and
consolidate the appeals and briefing, then, obviously, that will take less of everyone's time, meaning that my
ultimate attorneys fees from the appeal may be less then what you have secured with the bond.
Based on the current status, as to amount, I see the math as follows:
$81,319.72 - Amount of original award below
$8,131.97 - Interest (@ 10% per year), based on one-year estimate for appeal
$8,131.97 - Damages for delay
$50,000 - Estimated appellate costs, initial appeal (Hansmeier)
$15,000 - Estimated appellate costs, subsequent appeal 2 (Ingenuity 13)
$15,000 - Estimated appellate costs, subsequent appeal 3 (Steele)
$15,000 - Estimated appellate costs, subsequent appeal 4 (Duffy)
$15,000 - Estimated appellate costs, subsequent appeal 5 (Gibbs)
Gmail - Mr. Duffy's Query Regarding a Bond https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5e8233d0c6&view...
1 of 4 6/3/13 7:24 PM
#:3299
Supp. E.R. 838
If any additional notices of appeal are still being processed or contemplated, add $15,000 for each. However,
based on the docket as of this moment (and assuming no more new appeals), adding everything together
above works out to a total bond amount of $207,583.60 for full security.
Note that my willingness to agree to any of this (as opposed to simply opposing your motion for a stay
pending appeal -- which I think you have to recognize is essentially dead in the water absent my concurrence)
is expressly conditioned upon a speedy agreement, and prompt posting of the bond, on such additional terms,
all to be specified in the bond itself, approved by me at my sole discretion, and executed by *all* parties, and
all as to be publicly filed, for confirmation by the District Court. Note that the bond itself should include
language securing priority over any kind of other creditors, and an express waiver of a right to appeal
execution on the bond following a dismissal of the appeal or affirmation as to *any* party.
One final query as to substance: what form of surety do you propose? That may be a sticking point -- I would
urge you not to get creative.
I am leaving town for a week starting tomorrow. While away, I will not have access to email. I would
encourage you all to think over my proposal, decide if you can live with that number, and forward me your
proposed language for a bond, incorporating all of the points above, all by 5:00 PST on Wednesday 5/29. I
will not seek contempt until I have at least had an opportunity to consider and respond to your detailed
proposal, assuming it is offered in good faith by that deadline.
I look forward to your response.
Best regards,
Morgan
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Paul Duffy <paduffy@wefightpiracy.com> wrote:
Mr. Pietz: In light of the Ninth Circuit's denial of Mr. Hansmeier's motion for a stay, it appears that we will be
moving forward with posting of a supersedeas bond. We are prepared to post a bond in the amount of
125% of the amount awarded in the May 6 Order. Please let me know if your client will stipulate to a stay of
proceedings pending the resolution of an appeal upon posting of that bond.
--
Paul A. Duffy
Attorney
Licensed only in the state of IL, MA, CA, and the District of Columbia
Tel: (312) 880-9160
Fax: (312) 893-5677
161 N. Clark St. Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60601
www.wefightpiracy.com
paduffy@wefightpiracy.com
--
Paul A. Duffy
Attorney
Licensed only in the state of IL, MA, CA, and the District of Columbia
2 of 4 6/3/13 7:24 PM
#:3300
Supp. E.R. 839
Tel: (312) 880-9160
Fax: (312) 893-5677
161 N. Clark St. Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60601
www.wefightpiracy.com
paduffy@wefightpiracy.com
--
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301
Morgan E. Pietz <mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com> Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:29 PM
To: Paul Duffy <paduffy@wefightpiracy.com>
All,
I trust you saw the Court's order issuing additional sanctions, accruing daily, until you pay the fee award or
post a bond.
Since I have not heard anything from any of you in response to my query (now superseded by order of the
Court) as to the specifics of how a bond would work, I wanted to follow up and inquire: were you planning on
complying with the Court's order, and, if so, when?
I am certainly happy to consider a bond, and review any language you may propose, but, at this point, total
radio silence on your part suggests that perhaps you are not taking the Court's orders as to payment of the
fee award very seriously.
Could you kindly indicate by tomorrow on whether and how you plan to tender payment, or whether you
intend to pursue the bond option? If the latter, then please respond to my substantive points, below, ASAP.
Best regards,
Morgan
Prenda <paduffy@wefightpiracy.com> Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:48 PM
3 of 4 6/3/13 7:24 PM
#:3301
Supp. E.R. 840
You had no substantive points. If you think of some and can articulate them coherently I would be glad to
consider them. Thanks for thinking of me.
Morgan E. Pietz <mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com> Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:56 PM
To: Prenda <paduffy@wefightpiracy.com>
Mr. Duffy, (I assume I am talking to Paul Duffy, anyway),
Simply, that is not a helpful comment.
Would anyone else care to respond in substantive fashion?
Best regards,
Morgan
Prenda <paduffy@wefightpiracy.com> Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:40 PM
Cc: Paul Hansmeier <prhansmeier@thefirm.mn>, John Steele <johnlsteele@gmail.com>,
"brett.gibbs@gmail.com" <brett.gibbs@gmail.com>, Nicholas Ranallo <nick@ranallolawoffice.com>, "Heather L.
Rosing" <HRosing@klinedinstlaw.com>
Thanks for your message Sir/Madam! Unfortunately, due to your inappropriate language and messages,
which are within the access of my young children, I must place you in my "spam" filter. Unfortunately, I delete
such messages daily without reading them. I wish you a speedy recovery, and make it a GREAT day!
4 of 4 6/3/13 7:24 PM
#:3302
Supp. E.R. 841

EXHIBIT 2
#:3303
Supp. E.R. 842

- 1 -
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301

Attorneys for Putative John Doe

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL HANSMEIER,

Movant-Appellant

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-55859

On appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of California,
No. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW

PUTATIVE JOHN DOES RESPONSE
TO EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER
CIRCUIT RULE 27-3

Case: 13-55859 05/17/2013 ID: 8633493 DktEntry: 4 Page: 1 of 4 Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 175-2 Filed 06/03/13 Page 7 of 10 Page ID
#:3304
Supp. E.R. 843

- 2 -
RESPONSE
The putative John Doe-appellee (Doe) in this action, by and through counsel,
hereby responds to the Emergency Motion Under Circuit Rule 27-3 filed by movant
appellant Paul Hansmeier (Hansmeier ) on May 16, 2013 (ECF No. 3).
(a) Stay of the Award of Compensatory Civil Sanctions
Assuming one precondition is first satisfied, Doe would not oppose a stay
pending appeal on the payment of the monetary portion of the Courts order below.
The precondition is that Hansmeier first post a supersedeas bond, sufficient to fully
secure payment of the fee award below, plus estimated interest, plus appellate costs
per Fed. R. App. Proc. 7, all in an amount and on such conditions as to be
determined by the district court. See Fed. R. App. Proc. 8(a)(2)(E). Had Hansmeier
attempted to confer on the instant emergency motion before filing it, or notified
undersigned counsel it was coming, counsel for Doe would have been happy to
convey this information to Hansmeier.
The need for a substantial bond to secure payment of costs and fees from
Prenda is not an idle request. Prenda Law, Inc. and its associated lawyers are an
organization that is rapidly falling apart. They have dismissed the vast majority of
their pending court cases across the countrycases which are their sole source of
revenue. Meanwhile, as the days go by, they are increasingly being hit with new
motions and orders to show cause for sanctions in various courts
1
where they have
tried, with mixed success, to escape from the consequences of their actions. Further,
the lawyers and the entities involved here are likely the subject of potential criminal
investigations, including an IRS investigation, flowing from the courts formal
referrals in the sanctions order below. In short, there may not be any solvent persons

1
E.g., AF Holdings, LLC v. Patel, N.D. Ga. No. 2:2012-cv-00262, ECF Nos. 16, 30 (motions for
sanctions); AF Holdings, LLC v. Harris, D. Ariz. No. 2:12-cv-02144-GMS, ECF No. 51, 5/17/13
(Court ordering plaintiffs counsel to show cause as to why Plaintiff and/or counsel should not be
sanctioned pursuant to the Courts inherent power and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for filing a fraudulent
document with this Court.)
#:3305
Supp. E.R. 844

- 3 -
around to collect from for much longer. Further, as will be detailed in briefing on
the merits, the lawyers interests in these cases (as well as their assets, one
presumes) are hidden behind a web of Nevis LLCs and mysterious offshore trusts.
These are all complicated factual issues, with which the district court is already
familiar, which is why the district court should set the amount and terms of the bond.
In short, although Doe does not believe that Hansmeier has very convincing
grounds for a stay pending appeal, and that he is not likely to prevail on the merits,
2

Doe would stipulate to a stay of the monetary portion of the order below simply to
facilitate eventual collection.
(b) Stay of the Award of Compensatory Civil Sanctions
With respect to the non-monetary aspects of the Courts order below, Doe
feels differently. Aside from the monetary award, the remainder of the Courts order
below is essentially addressed to protecting the public from the harm being
perpetrated by Prenda in its so-called copyright troll lawsuits, aspects of which
have been found to be fraudulent.
First of all, the bell cannot be un-rung, the horse is already out of the barn, etc.
Whatever damage the courts order was going to do to Mr. Hansmeiers reputation is
already done. Mr. Hansmeier himself notes the widespread circulation of the courts
order below in the media. What good then does a stay do? Further, it is not as if
this case burst into the public eye all of a sudden, only when the court issued its
ordervarious news outlets have been scrutinizing Prenda for months.
3
If Mr.
Hansmeier successfully chips away at any piece of the courts order below here on
appeal, at that time he will certainly be free to update the appropriate Judges,

2
See F.J. Hanshaw Enters. v. Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1141 (9
th
Cir. 2001)
(affirming district courts award of double attorneys fees as compensatory civil sanction, which is
exactly what the district court did here).
3
E.g., April 9, 2013, LA Times, A federal judge takes on copyright trolls, Hiltzik, Michael,
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/09/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20130410; See also
http://arstechnica.com/search/?query=prenda%20&pagenum=5&sort=relevance&sortdir=desc
(collecting Ars Technicas Prenda coverage going back to 2012).
#:3306
Supp. E.R. 845

- 4 -
licensing authorities, investigators, and the media with the results of the appeal. But
staying the district courts order now will do precisely nothing with respect to
rehabilitating Mr. Hansmeiers reputation in the meantime.
A United States District Court, after extensive briefing, and two evidentiary
hearings, has made a finding that, there is little doubt that that Steele, Hansmeier,
Duffy, Gibbs suffer from a form of moral turpitude unbecoming of an officer of the
court. He and the other principals of Prenda also been found to have engaged in
brazen misconduct and relentless fraud. Obviously, these are very serious
concerns, and the courts and public with whom Hansemeier is transacting business
should absolutely be informed and appraised of these findings, even if an appeal is
underway.
Accordingly, Doe respectfully requests that the stay pending appeal be
conditionally granted as to the monetary portion of the courts order below, subject
to posting of a supersedeas bond in an amount and on such conditions as determined
by the district court, and that the stay be denied as to the non-monetary aspects of
the courts order below.

DATED: May 17, 2013 THE PIETZ LAW FIRM

/s/ Morgan E. Pietz
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
#:3307
Supp. E.R. 846

-1-
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING IN PART AND CONDITIONALLY GRANTING IN PART PAUL
DUFFYS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF BOND AND ORDER STAYING ENFORCEMENT OF MAY 6
AND MAY 21 ORDERS IMPOSING SANCTIONS AND PENALTIES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301

371 Dogwood Way
Telephone: (831) 703-4011
Fax: (831) 533-5073

Kitts and Nevis,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.


Case Assigned to:


2:12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669;
2:12-cv-6662; 2:12-cv-6668

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING IN
PART AND CONDITIONALLY
GRANTING IN PART PAUL
DUFFYS MOTION FOR APPROVAL
OF BOND AND ORDER STAYING
ENFORCEMENT OF MAY 6 AND
MAY 21 ORDERS IMPOSING

Supp. E.R. 847

-2-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court has duly considered Paul Duffys Motion for Approval of Bond and
Order Staying Enforcement of May 6 and May 21 Orders Imposing Sanctions and
Penalties (Bond Motion) manually-filed May 23, 2013 (ECF No. 170), and the
response thereto filed by the putative John Doe in 12-cv-8333 and his counsel and
hereby ORDERS as follows:

(1) The bond already posted with the Court is conditionally approved as
security for this Courts Sanctions Order (ECF No. 130) subject to the
following conditions, each of which shall be deemed a part of the bond
itself:
a. The bond shall be payable to and enforceable by John Doe or The
Pietz Law Firm
b. The bond is made joint and several and may be executed upon if any
of the parties to the bond fails to reverse the monetary portion of this
Courts Sanctions Order (ECF No. 130) on appeal as to him or it. In
other words, if the fee award survives as against any party, the bond
may be executed upon even if other parties prevail on appeal.
c. The Prenda parties, as well as the surety, are estopped from arguing
in any Court other than this one that execution on the bond should
be stayed, avoided or otherwise forestalled. This expressly includes
an attempt to circumvent execution of the bond through bankruptcy
proceedings. The only valid reason to prohibit executing on the
instant bond (as amended) should be if all of the Prenda parties
prevail on the monetary portion of all of their appeals, as determined
by this Court.
d. The surety, and each Prenda party relying upon the bond for security
shall execute and acknowledgment recognizing the validity of these
conditions. Any party who fails to execute and file such an
Supp. E.R. 848

-3-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

acknowledgment on the docket within 7 days shall be deemed in
violation of this Courts order.
(2) Further, the Prenda parties shall be required to post an additional bond
in the amount of $135,933.66 (which is the $237,583.66 total, minus
the $101,650.00 bond that the Prenda parties other than Mr. Gibbs have
already posted) to cover costs on appeal, which includes attorneys fees
since the underlying case is a copyright case. Azizian v. Federated Dep't
Stores, Inc., 499 F.3d 950, 958 (9th Cir. 2007). The additional bond
shall be subject to all the same conditions as the bond noted above.
Failure to post the additional bond within 14 days shall result in the
imposition of additional sanctions.

Due to the unique circumstances of this action, which include the fact that
underlying order below is a sanctions award for fraudulent conduct and the web of
mysterious offshore entities controlled by the Prenda parties, the above conditions
are necessary to effect justice.

DATED: ______________ ______________________________
Honorable Otis D. Wright, II
United States District Judge
Supp. E.R. 849

O


INGENUITY 13 LLC,

Plaintiff,
v.

J OHN DOE,

Defendant.

Case Nos. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW(J Cx)

ORDER RE SUPERSEDEAS-BOND
REQUIREMENT AND MAY 21, 2013
SANCTIONS ORDER [178], [180],
[181]

The Court issues this order to resolve several pending issues and requests.
These include the following:
Stipulation Between Movant Brett L. Gibbs and Attorney Morgan E. Pietz
(ECF No. 178);
Paul Hansmeiers Emergency Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration
of the Courts J une 6 Order, or in the Alternative, for an Order Staying
Imposition of the J une 6 Order Pending Appeal (ECF No. 180);
Prenda Laws Notice of Appeal and Emergency Motion to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeal Re: the District Courts Amended Order Denying in Part
and Conditionally Granting in Part Respondent Paul Duffys Motion for
Approval of Bond and Order Staying Enforcement of May 6 and May 21
Orders Imposing Sanctions and Penalties (ECF No. 181).
/ / /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Supp. E.R. 850

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On J une 11, 2013, the Court issued its Amended Order concerning the
supersedeas-bond requirement. (ECF No. 177.) The order imposed additional
conditions, including terms upon which the bond may be executed and an additional
bond in the amount of $135,933.66. The order allowed the Prenda parties seven days
to acknowledge these conditions and fourteen days to post the additional bond.
1
Upon
reconsideration, the Court hereby extends both deadlines to J uly 15, 2013. Failure to
meet this new deadline will result in the imposition of monetary sanctions. The Court
will not consider any further motions to reconsider or stay enforcement in this matter.
Further, although the Prenda parties bond was not posted with the Court until
May 22, 2013two days after the deadlinethe Court finds that there was a good-
faith effort on their part to obtain the bond. The bond was obtained on May 16, 2013.
(ECF No. 174.) Therefore, the Court hereby VACATES its May 21, 2013 Order
imposing sanctions of $1,000 per day, per person or entity as to each of the Prenda
parties.
To the extent Paul Hansmeiers Emergency Motion and Prenda Laws
Emergency Motion seeks relief not mentioned above, those Motions are DENIED.
(ECF Nos. 180, 181.)
Finally, the Court notes that the posted bond conspicuously omits Gibbs as an
obligee. The Court also recognizes Gibbs inability to pay and his dissociation with
the Prenda parties. But the Court cannot grant his stipulation with Defendant Doe as
to the applicability of the bond: the Court cannot compel the Prenda parties to post a
bond on Gibbss behalf. (See ECF No. 178.)
In light of Gibbs circumstances, the Court hereby VACATES its May 21,
2013 Order imposing sanctions as to Gibbs and waives the Rule 62(d) bond
requirement as to Gibbs. Nevertheless, the Court notes that Gibbs remains jointly and

1
The Prenda parties refer to the parties named as obligees on the bond posted on May 23, 2013:
Ingenuity 13 LLC, J ohn Steele, Paul Hansmeier, Paul Duffy, AF Holdings LLC, and Prenda Law,
Inc. (ECF No. 174.)
Supp. E.R. 851

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
severally liable with the Prenda parties for the May 6, 2013 sanctions and takes no
position with respect to the enforceability of the Prenda parties bond in the event
Gibbs is the sole party ultimately found liable on appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
J une 17, 2013

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
Supp. E.R. 852
Supp. E.R. 853
Supp. E.R. 854
Supp. E.R. 855
Supp. E.R. 856
Supp. E.R. 857
Supp. E.R. 858
Supp. E.R. 859
Supp. E.R. 860
DENIED
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
ODW 06-21-13
DENIED
Supp. E.R. 861
Supp. E.R. 862
Supp. E.R. 863
Supp. E.R. 864
Supp. E.R. 865
Supp. E.R. 866
Supp. E.R. 867
Supp. E.R. 868
Supp. E.R. 869
Supp. E.R. 870
Supp. E.R. 871
Supp. E.R. 872
Supp. E.R. 873
Supp. E.R. 874
Supp. E.R. 875
Supp. E.R. 876
Supp. E.R. 877
Supp. E.R. 878
Supp. E.R. 879
Supp. E.R. 880
Supp. E.R. 881

i

________________________________________________________________________

JOHN DOES SUPPLEMENTAL EXCERPTS OF RECORD VOLUME IV
________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

INGENUITY 13 LLC

Plaintiff-Appellant
and


Movants-Appellants,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant-Appellee,

13-55880; 13-55881; 13-55882;
13-55883; 13-55884; 13-56028

Related Appeal No.:
13-80114


ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I


















iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME II
















/ /


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME III


59-1 - Pietz Reply Decl..........584


61 - Gibbs Reply Decl............632




76-1 - Ex. 1 StarTribune......646







117-1 Pietz Decl..........715




v
TABLE OF CONTENTS








175-3 - Proposed Order........847







/ /


vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME IV


















vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS


Visits Florid.........................1077


and Email) .......1083





Forbes..1114

/ /

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME V




/ /

O


INGENUITY 13 LLC,

Plaintiff,
v.

J OHN DOE,

Defendant.

Case Nos. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW(J Cx)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [201]

J ohn Steele moves for reconsideration of the Courts denial of his Emergency
Motion to Vacate Orders and for Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 199.) Steele argues
that he was deprived of due process because he was not given an opportunity to be
heard on previous motions filed with the Court. After considering the papers filed in
support and opposition to this Motion and the arguments made at the J uly 12, 2013
hearing, the Court DENIES Steeles Motion and directs Morgan Pietz and Nicholas
Ranallo to file a regularly noticed motion for sanctions.
Steeles instant two-page Motion is essentially a motion to reconsider his prior
Motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 197.) That earlier-filed Motion asked the
Court to vacate the additional-bond requirement of $135,933.66, and to impose
sanctions against Morgan Pietz and Nicholas Ranallo for three reasons: (1) Pietz and
Ranallo failed to properly serve papers on Steele and other pro se parties (ECF
No. 197, at 23); (2) this failure to serve amounted to a deprivation of due process
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Supp. E.R. 882

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
because Steele did not have the opportunity to respond to Pietz and Ranallo (ECF
No. 197, at 34); and (3) Pietz and Ranallos unbroken pattern of failing to serve
papers amounted to fraud on the court (ECF No. 197, at 45). Steele now asks the
Court to reconsider its denial of that Motion.
There are two roads to reconsideration, Rules 59(e) and 60(b). Rule 60(b)
permits a court to relieve a party of an order for several enumerated reasons, such as
mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(13, 6). With respect to the any other reason prong, Ninth
Circuit case law allows a party to seek relief under this catchall provision only when
the party demonstrates extraordinary circumstances warranting a courts favorable
exercise of discretion. Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir.
2002). To satisfy its burden under this lofty standard, a party must prove both (1) an
injury and (2) circumstances beyond its control. Id.
Rule 59(e) allows a party to move to alter or amend a judgment. But this Rule
can only be invoked to reconsider a decision on the merits. It cannot be used to attack
legal issues collateral to the main cause of actionissues to which Rule 59(e) was
never intended to apply. White v. N.H. Dept of Empt Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 451
(1982).
The Local Rules further elucidate the proper bases for which a party may seek
reconsideration:
(a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court
before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not
have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of
such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of
law occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest showing
of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such
decision. L.R. 7-18.
Additionally, [n]o motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or
written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion. Id.
/ / /
Supp. E.R. 883

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Steeles instant Motion for Reconsideration fails on every front. First, he does
not assert a proper legal basis for reconsideration. Steele cites no law in his Motion.
And during the hearing, Steele claimed that his basis for reconsideration was his Fifth
Amendment right to due process. Exactly how this translates to a legal basis for
reconsideration is anyones guess. Steeles Motion offers nothing new for the Court
to considerhe uses it only as a vehicle to rehash his earlier-rejected arguments.
Second, assuming this is a proper motion for reconsideration, the Court finds
that any failure by Pietz and Ranallo to serve papers to Steele was caused by Steeles
own incompetence. On May 16, 2013, Steele filed his Request for Approval of
Substitution of Attorney, where he requested to represent himself in place of his
attorney Thomas Mazzucco. (ECF No. 143.) But in the Request and the
accompanying forms, Steele entered his address incorrectlynot once, but four
times.
1
And because the Clerk of Court entered on the docket Steeles address as
shown, it is very likely that correspondence sent via mail since May 16, 2013, never
reached Steele. Nevertheless, it is Steeles duty to ensure that the Court has his proper
address. See L.R. 41-6 (authorizing the Court to dismiss an action for a pro se partys
failure to update his address with the Court). And Steele has a duty to provide the
Court with not only his current address, but also his telephone number, fax number,
and email address. See id.; L.R. 83-2.7. Steele cannot skirt this duty merely because
he is in pro sethe Local Rules apply whether a party is represented by an attorney or
in pro se. L.R. 1-3 (Persons appearing pro se are bound by these rules, and any
reference in these rules to attorney or counsel applies to parties pro se unless the
context requires otherwise.).
Third, Pietz and Ranallo had no duty to serve Steele the vast majority of
documents that he complains about not having been served. It is undisputed that
Steele was represented by attorneys between March 8, 2013, and May 16, 2013so

1
Steele left off a 1 from his address and incorrectly entered it as 111 Lincoln Road, Suite 400,
Miami Beach, FL 33139. (ECF No. 143.)
Supp. E.R. 884

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Pietz and Ranallo had no duty in that timeframe to separately serve Steele in addition
to his attorneys. (ECF Nos. 81, 101.) Prior to that time, the Court ordered Brett
Gibbs to serve relevant papers to Steele in his individual capacity. (ECF No. 66.) Of
the 21 documents Steele complains about, only 6 of them were filed after May 16,
2013. (ECF No. 197, at 2.) And of these six documents, one was a report filed by
Pietz to the Court (ECF No. 148), while the other five pertain to motions filed by
other parties and did not involve Steele (ECF Nos. 175, 183, 184, 190, 191.) None of
these six allegedly unserved documents required a response from Steele. The Court
sees no possible prejudice to Steele even if he was never served with these six
documents.
Fourth, although Steele seems to contend that this lack of service prejudiced
him, because he was nonetheless involved in the motions filed by his cohorts through
his joint and several liability for the Court-ordered sanctions, evidence suggests that
Steele had actual knowledge despite any failure by Pietz and Ranallo to properly serve
him. Pietz presents an email chain suggesting that Steele was centrally involved in the
entire supersedeas bond issue, with Steele commenting, Philip [Vineyard], Great
motion. (Pietz Decl., Ex. 2.) Moreover, Steeles intimate knowledge of the case
docketin sufficient detail to point out the documents that have not been served
further suggests that he had actual knowledge of the papers filed by Pietz and Ranallo.
(See e.g., ECF No. 197, at 2.) This raises the question how Steele was able to do this
given his assertions at the hearing that he did not log onto CM/ECF or otherwise see
the case docket.
Finally, the Court notes that the Prenda parties (J ohn Steele, Paul Duffy, Paul
Hansmeier, Peter Hansmeier, Mark Lutz, AF Holdings LLC, Ingenuity 13 LLC, and
Prenda Law, Inc.) continue to act in concert. Philip Vineyards email chain, addressed
to a number of these Prenda parties, confirms this. Also, the similarities in the
substance, formatting, footers, and service list of the three Notices to the Court, filed
by Mark Lutz, Paul Hansmeier, and Peter Hansmeier, in relation to Steeles instant
Supp. E.R. 885

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion further indicate that at least the four of them are in cahoots. (ECF Nos. 201
204.) The concurrent filing of their papers are another indication of their relatedness.
Even without these indicia, the Court has already determined that the Prenda parties
have a history of conspiring togetherthere is nothing to suggest that they have
stopped. (ECF No. 130.)
Based on these findings, the Court finds Steeles Motion meritless and
frivolous. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider whether sanctions should be
awarded to Pietz and Ranallo for the expense of defending this Motion, one where
Steele sought sanctions against them for their failure to serve.
Pietz and Ranallo are hereby directed to file a regularly noticed motion for
Rule 11 sanctions against Steele in connection with his filing of this Motion. A
hearing should be noticed for the motion no later than August 26, 2013. The Court
hereby reminds Steele that failure to timely oppose the motion may result in the
automatic imposition of the requested sanctions. L.R. 7-12.
Steeles Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED. Steele is advised that
the Federal Pro Se Clinic is located in the United States Courthouse at 312 N. Spring
Street, Room G-19, Main Street Floor, Los Angeles, California 90012. The clinic is
open on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays between the hours of 9:30 a.m. to
12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The Federal Pro Se Clinic offers free, on-site
information and guidance to individuals who are representing themselves in federal
civil actions. Steele is encouraged to visit the clinic for advice concerning his case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
J uly 18, 2013

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
Supp. E.R. 886
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

28 Altamont Avenue
415-381-3104
brett.gibbs@gmail.com

In Propria Persona



INGENUITY 13 LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 2:12-CV-08333-ODW (JCx)

Judge: Hon. Otis D. Wright, II
Magistrate Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Chooljian

DECLARATION OF BRETT L.
GIBBS SUPPORTING MOTION
FOR INDICATIVE RULING

Date: November 18, 2013
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Ct. Room: 11 Spring St. Floor

I, Brett L. Gibbs, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney at law, licensed to practice in California, and admitted in
the United States District Court in the Central District of California. My address is 28
Altamont Avenue, Mill Valley, CA, 94941.
2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a document entitled
Release and Settlement Agreement, sent to me via email on May 16, 2013 from the
email address lutzy199@gmail.com.
Supp. E.R. 887
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
DECLCARATION OF BRETT L. GIBBS SUPPORTING MOTION NO. 2:12-CV-08333-ODW

3. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a document entitled
Indemnity Agreement, sent to me via email on May 16, 2013 from the email address
lutzy199@gmail.com.
4. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a document entitled,
in part, Ongoing Obligations, sent to me via email on May 22, 2013 from the email
address pduffy@pduffygroup.com.
5. Attached as Exhibit D are true and correct copies of a emails sent to me
on February 7, 2013 and April 12, 2012 from the email address
johnlsteele@gmail.com.
6. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a document entitled,
in part, Prenda Law Profit and Loss Detail, which was deposited into a Dropbox
account on my computer in early 2013.
7. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of a document entitled, in
part, Prenda Law Balance Sheet Detail, which was deposited into a Dropbox
account on my computer in early 2013.
8. Attached as Exhibit G, are true and correct .pdf copies of Google Street
View images of the home located at 635 South Vanderwall Avenue, West Covina,
California 91790.
Supp. E.R. 888
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

9. I received a phone call from Paul Hansmeier (Hansmeier) in March,
2011 asking if I would be interested in working for a law firm called Steele Hansmeier
PLLC.
10. Hansmeier had been my assigned roommate during my first year at the
University of Minnesota Law School (2004-2005). Before that phone call from
Hansmeier, however, I had not spoken with him since transferring to the University of
California, Hastings College of Law in 2005.
11. In March of 2013, I was nearing the end of 20 months of debilitating
surgeries, radiation and chemotherapy treatments for brain cancer. I had been unable
to work in the legal field since my diagnosis had forced me to leave my job with a
small Oakland law firm. When Hansmeier contacted me, I was still not ready to
return to a full-time position.
12. I accepted Hansmeiers offer to work at Steele Hansmeier, handling all
litigation in California. There was an explicit understanding that I would only work as
many hours per week as I and my doctors thought advisable.
13. I worked for Steele Hansmeier PLLC and its successor, Prenda Law, Inc.,
from late March 2011 until late February 2013. Until mid-2012, I worked entirely out
of my home.
14. I have testified in several courts, through declarations and in person,
regarding the operations of Steele Hansmeier PLLC and Prenda Law, Inc., and my
Supp. E.R. 889
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

knowledge of the activities and roles of John Steele, Paul Hansmeier and Paul Duffy
in those companies. In all instances, I have testified truthfully.
15. During the period that I worked for Steele Hansmeier PLLC and Prenda
Law, Inc., I talked with John Steele and/or Paul Hansmeier weekly, sometimes daily,
and sometimes several times per day. I have telephone billing records of hundreds of
hours of calls with these individuals during this period.
16. After the May 6 Order was filed, Paul Hansmeier telephoned me in an
attempt to persuade me to work in concert with the Principals on the appeal.
17. When Mark Lutz and John Steele filed bar complaints against me, Mark
Lutz (or someone on his behalf) forwarded a copy of his complaint to Dan Browning,
a reporter at the Minneapolis Star Tribune, from the email address
admin@livewireholdings.com, signed: Regards, Mark.
18. Approximately one month before I left Prenda Law, Paul Hansmeier told
me, in a telephone conversation, that he and John Steele each owned 50% of a side-
business called Under the Bridge Consulting. I did not understand the implications of
this statement until seeing payments to Under the Bridge Consulting in the accounting
documents attached as Exhibits E and F.
19. After reviewing Exhibits E and F, I have concluded that Prenda Law had
other bank accounts besides the one operating account which is detailed in those
Exhibits.
Supp. E.R. 890
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5

20. I believe that I was intentionally misled by John Steele and Paul
Hansmeier in many ways. I unknowingly filed documents containing the forged
signature of Alan Cooper. I testified that I complied with this Courts October 19,
2012 Order vacating early discovery because of false statements to me by Paul
Hansmeier. I was completely unaware that they were seeding films on The Pirate
Bay, misusing the identity of Alan Cooper, pretending that Plaintiffs which they
owned were independent clients in which they had no financial interest, and engaging
in a range of deceptive and fraudulent activities.
21. Prior to the August 28, 2013 hearing in the Navasca case, I had not seen
or known of the Engagement Letter which Duffy questioned me about at that
hearing. I believe that it was created after the fact to misrepresent my supposed role
and downplay the day-to-day involvement of Steele, Hansmeier, and Duffy.
22. I apologize to this Court for mischaracterizing the property at 635 South
Vanderwall Avenue in West Covina as a very large estate. I did not intend to
mislead this Court by using this erroneous subjective characterization. I hope that this
Court understands that what it first perceived as a lie was an inadvertent mistake that
was not intended to deceive.
23. I did not knowingly ignore any Court order in this case. I did not ever
testify or act in bad faith before this Court.
Supp. E.R. 891
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6

24. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct based on my own personal knowledge,
except for those matters stated on information and belief, and those matters I believe
to be true. If called upon to testify, I can and will competently testify as set forth
above.
DATED: October 17, 2013.
By: /s/ Brett L. Gibbs
BRETT L. GIBBS

Supp. E.R. 892

"#$%&%' (
Supp. E.R. 893

RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (the Agreement) is entered into as of May 16, 2013 (Effective Date),
by and between Brett Gibbs (Gibbs) and Paul Duffy, John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, Prenda Law Inc., Steele
Hansmeier PLLC, Alpha Law Firm LLC. (Releasees)

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby irrevocably acknowledged, Brett Gibbs agrees
as follows:

Gibbs and his agents, principals, attorneys, heirs, executors, administrators, predecessors, successors, assigns and
privies hereby remise, release, and forever discharge Releasees, and all of their agents, principals, partners, officers,
directors, employees, associates, attorneys, insurers, heirs, executors, administrators, predecessors, successors,
affiliated entities, assigns, privies, spouses and all other persons, firms or corporations, which are or might be claimed
to be liable for any acts related to Mr. Gibbs employment by Prenda Law Inc., Steele Hansmeier PLLC, Alpha Law
Firm LLC, or any acts committed by Releasees against Gibbs from the beginning of time through the date of this
agreement.

Gibbs recognizes and understands that he is releasing the aforementioned liability for any act or omission occurring
from the beginning of time up to and including the date of this Agreement which relates to Gibbs and Releasees,
regardless of whether or not Gibbs knew of said act, omission or of any injury relating thereto.

1. Independent Counsel. Each party acknowledges that they have read, reviewed, and fully considered the
terms of this Agreement, has had the opportunity to consult with legal counsel, has made such
investigation of facts pertinent hereto as it deems necessary and appropriate, and fully understands the
terms and effect of this Agreement and executes the same freely of their own accord.

2. Venue. The venue for any action seeking to enforce or construe the meaning of this Agreement or the
obligations of the Parties under here shall be a court of competent jurisdiction in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.

3. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and
to their respective successors and legal representatives.

4. Nonwaiver. No provision of this Agreement shall be adjudged waived unless any such waiver is signed
by the party against whom the waiver is asserted. The waiver by any party of a breach of any provision
of this Agreement shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach.

5. Severability. If any provision or application of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable then
any such provisions shall be deemed severed from this Agreement and the remaining provisions and
applications of this Agreement shall not be affected, but rather shall remain valid and enforceable.

6. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and supersedes any and all other
understandings and agreements between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and no
representation, statement or promise not contained herein shall be binding on either party. This
Agreement may be modified only by a written amendment duly signed by each party.

7. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of all parent
companies, affiliates, subsidiaries, related companies, defendants, franchisees, successors and
assigns.

8. Jointly Drafted. The parties to this Agreement have cooperated in the drafting and preparation of this
Agreement. Therefore, this Agreement shall not be construed against either party on the basis that they
independently drafted this Agreement.

___________________________
Brett Gibbs
May 16, 2013
Supp. E.R. 894

"#$%&%' &
Supp. E.R. 895
INDEMNITY AGREEMENT

TO: Paul Hansmeier and John Steele (Indemnitees)

FROM: Brett Gibbs

FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION (the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby irrevocably acknowledged) the undersigned
hereby indemnifies and saves harmless the Indemnitees from and against
any and all claims, demands, actions, suits, losses, costs, charges,
expenses, damages and liabilities whatsoever which the Indemnitee may
pay, sustain, suffer or incur by reason of or in connection with the appeal
of the May 6, 2013 order issued by Judge Wright in Case No. 2:12-cv-
8333-ODW(JCx) including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
all costs and expenses (including legal expenses) incurred in connection
with any such loss or damage.

________________________
Brett Gibbs
May 16, 2013
Supp. E.R. 896

"#$%&%' (
Supp. E.R. 897
Supp. E.R. 898
Supp. E.R. 899

"#$%&%' (
Supp. E.R. 900
Fwd: Insurance contact
Inbox x
Brett Gibbs <blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com> Feb 7
to me
From: Brett Gibbs <blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:12 PM
Subject: Fwd: Insurance contact
From: John Steele <johnlsteele@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:34 PM
Subject: Insurance contact
The insurance company is named pearl insurance and their number is 800.322.2488.
--
Move to Inbox More
Fwd: Insurance contact - brett.gibbs@gmail.com - Gmail https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&view=btop&ver=1no6pwc8s6k...
1 of 1 10/3/13 12:49 PM
Supp. E.R. 901
Brett Gibbs <brett.gibbs@gmail.com>
Fwd: policy
Brett Gibbs <blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com> Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM
To: Brett Gibbs <brett.gibbs@gmail.com>
From: John Steele <johnlsteele@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Subject: Fwd: policy
From: Lied, Jason <jason.lied@pearlinsurance.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:26 PM
Subject: RE: policy
To: John Steele <johnlsteele@gmail.com>
No bother at all. Ive attached it. If you need anything else, please let me know.
Thanks!

Pearl Insurance can be your Total Solutions Provider! Ask for more information about our
General Liability, Workers Compensation, Directors & Officers, Employment Practices
Liability, Business Owners and much more!
Jason Lied Regional Director
Pearl Insurance | 1200 E. Glen Ave., Peoria Heights, IL 61616
TF: 888.619.2023 M: 309.219.1620 F: 866.817.9009 E: jason.lied@pearlinsurance.com
www.pearlinsurance.com | Coverage That's Right For You
PEARL COMPANIES CONFIDENTIALITY: This communication, including attachments, is for exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may
contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, or distribution or
the taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this communication and destroy all copies [v1.0.001].
Gmail - Fwd: policy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=19104b5dbc&view...
1 of 2 10/3/13 12:50 PM
Supp. E.R. 902
From: John Steele [mailto:johnlsteele@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 1:36 PM
To: Lied, Jason
Subject: policy

Jason,

Sorry to bother you, but can you resend me a copy of the current Prenda Law malpractice policy?
Thanks!

John
--
415-341-5318
NOTICE:
4018_001.pdf
941K
Gmail - Fwd: policy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=19104b5dbc&view...
2 of 2 10/3/13 12:50 PM
Supp. E.R. 903

"#$%&%' "
Supp. E.R. 904
Page 1 of 7
Prenda Law
Profit and Loss Detail 01/03/13
January through December 2012
Type Date Num Name Memo Clr Split Amount Balance
Ordinary Income/Expense
Income
Legal Fee Income
Deposit 01/03/12 Pirates Chase Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 205,654.84 205,654.84
Deposit 01/03/12 Pirates Chase Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 200.00 205,854.84
Check 01/05/12 5096 Steele Hansmeier Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 -2,000.00 246,532.16
Deposit 02/01/12 Pirates From xx6943 Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 158,349.28 445,141.08
Check 02/29/12 ELEC WD Pirates To xx6943 Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 -3,357.59 734,519.29
Deposit 05/01/12 Pirates From xx6943 Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 132,523.14 1,067,636.17
Deposit 05/01/12 Pirates Adjustment for Duplicate Item Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 -2,000.00 1,068,686.17
Deposit 09/14/12 Pirates Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 3,947.00 1,819,878.59
Check 10/01/12 ELEC WD Pirates Deposit proc 2x on 8/10/12 Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 -2,000.00 1,817,878.59
Check 11/30/12 ELEC WD Pirates Bluepay returned payment 53 IOLTA xx7456 -100.00 1,817,778.59
Deposit 12/04/12 WIRE Pirates Transfer to Operating ! 53 OPERATING xx7365 49,628.42 1,867,407.01
General Journal 12/07/12 Pirates Transfer to Operating (Deposits from 11/30-12/3/12) ! 53 OPERATING xx7365 14,118.34 1,881,525.35
Deposit 12/14/12 Pirates Unidentified 53 IOLTA xx7456 100.00 1,881,625.35
General Journal 12/18/12 TRANS Pirates Transfer to Operating (Deposits from 12/5-12/7/12) ! 53 OPERATING xx7365 8,766.74 1,890,392.09
Deposit 12/19/12 Old check from Law Office of Linardakis 53 OPERATING xx7365 2,000.00 1,892,392.09
Deposit 12/21/12 Pirates Transfer from IOLTA 53 OPERATING xx7365 11,585.00 1,903,977.09
Check 12/27/12 WIRE Law Office of Linardakis Return for Check inadvertantly deposited on 12/19/12 53 OPERATING xx7365 -2,000.00 1,901,977.09
General Journal 12/31/12 TRANS 53 OPERATING xx7365 30,000.00 1,931,977.09
Total Legal Fee Income 1,931,977.09 1,931,977.09
Total Income 1,931,977.09 1,931,977.09
Gross Profit 1,931,977.09 1,931,977.09
Expense
1099 Staff
Sirh-Ryun Wi Dugas
Check 12/05/12 1019 Sirh-Ryun Wi Dugas 53 OPERATING xx7365 3,300.00 3,300.00
Total Sirh-Ryun Wi Dugas 3,300.00 3,300.00
Mark Lutz
Check 01/03/12 5077 Mark Lutz Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 4,102.19 4,102.19
Total Mark Lutz 4,102.19 4,102.19
Kerry Steele
Check 06/08/12 5217 Kerry Steele Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,948.43 1,948.43
Total Kerry Steele 1,948.43 1,948.43
Alison Perelman
Check 11/02/12 1010 Alison Perelman Oct., 2012 53 OPERATING xx7365 1,848.00 1,848.00
Check 11/30/12 1091 Alison Perelman November, 2012 - 146 Hours 53 OPERATING xx7365 1,752.00 3,600.00
Total Alison Perelman 3,600.00 3,600.00
Kathleen Momot
Check 09/28/12 5 Kathleen Momot 53 OPERATING xx7365 1,813.73 1,813.73
Check 11/02/12 1011 Kathleen Momot October, 2012 Payroll 53 OPERATING xx7365 2,916.67 4,730.40
Check 11/30/12 1093 Kathleen Momot November, 2012 payroll 53 OPERATING xx7365 2,916.67 7,647.07
Check 11/30/12 1093 Kathleen Momot Separate check issued 53 OPERATING xx7365 -2,100.00 5,547.07
Check 11/30/12 1092 Kathleen Momot Nov. Payroll 53 OPERATING xx7365 2,916.67 8,463.74
Check 11/30/12 1092 Kathleen Momot Less separate check 53 OPERATING xx7365 -816.67 7,647.07
Check 12/20/12 1128 Kathleen Momot Advance 53 OPERATING xx7365 300.00 7,947.07
Total Kathleen Momot 7,947.07 7,947.07
James Waleford
Check 08/02/12 10000 James Waleford Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 2,215.83 2,215.83
Check 08/31/12 5293 James Waleford Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 2,533.33 4,749.16
Check 09/28/12 2 James Waleford 53 OPERATING xx7365 2,333.33 7,082.49
Check 11/02/12 1009 James Waleford October, 2011 Payroll 53 OPERATING xx7365 2,333.33 9,415.82
Check 11/30/12 1088 James Waleford November, 2012 payroll 53 OPERATING xx7365 3,333.33 12,749.15
Check 11/30/12 1088 James Waleford Less separate check 53 OPERATING xx7365 -690.33 12,058.82
Check 11/30/12 1090 James Waleford Less separate check 53 OPERATING xx7365 -2,000.00 13,392.15
Check 11/30/12 1095 James Waleford Less separate check 53 OPERATING xx7365 -2,000.00 14,725.48
Check 11/30/12 1088 James Waleford November, 2012 payroll (partial) 53 OPERATING xx7365 -643.00 13,392.15
Total James Waleford 12,749.15 12,749.15
Total 1099 Staff 33,646.84 33,646.84
Transfer to xx6240
Check 08/10/12 ELEC WD Chase Bank Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 8,800.00 8,800.00
Total Transfer to xx6240 37,640.00 37,640.00
Supp. E.R. 905
Page 2 of 7
Reimbursable Expenses
Relocation Expenses
Check 06/26/12 WIRE James Waleford Moving Expenses Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,600.00 1,600.00
Check 12/21/12 1131 James Waleford Moving expenses 53 OPERATING xx7365 144.00 1,744.00
Total Relocation Expenses 1,744.00 1,744.00
Copyright
Check 02/21/12 5135 Chase Card Services Copyright Charges Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 795.00 795.00
Total Copyright 795.00 795.00
Reimbursable Expenses - Other
Check 04/12/12 5175 Paul Hansmeier Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 2,006.78 2,006.78
Check 05/03/12 WIRE Paul A. Duffy Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 4,000.00 6,006.78
Check 05/08/12 5194 Paul A. Duffy Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,005.00 7,011.78
Check 05/30/12 5195 Patricia A. Kaneshiro-Miller, RMR-C Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 144.00 7,155.78
Check 06/04/12 5181 John Steele Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 964.85 8,120.63
Check 06/06/12 WIRE Steve Yuen Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 3,400.00 11,520.63
Check 06/08/12 5217 Kerry Steele Re: Sunlust Pictures Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 551.57 12,072.20
Check 06/20/12 5219 Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,000.00 13,072.20
Check 07/02/12 5137 Seth Abrahams Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 82.67 13,154.87
Check 07/02/12 5138 Seth Abrahams Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 82.67 13,237.54
Check 07/05/12 5225 Brett Gibbs Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 952.99 14,190.53
Check 07/09/12 5227 Michael Dugas Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 37.01 14,437.73
Check 07/27/12 5253 Paul A. Duffy Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 270.00 14,707.73
Check 07/30/12 5231 Paul A. Duffy Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 567.00 15,274.73
Check 07/30/12 5254 Matt Jenkins Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 107.00 15,381.73
Check 07/30/12 5255 Matt Jenkins Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 107.00 15,488.73
Check 09/04/12 5287 Brett Gibbs Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 14,685.42 30,174.15
Check 09/04/12 5292 Brett Gibbs Karl reimbursement Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,633.33 31,807.48
Check 09/12/12 WIRE John Steele Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 747.00 32,554.48
Check 10/03/12 5275 Michael Dugas Filing fees Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 210.00 32,764.48
Check 10/03/12 5296 Michael Dugas Filing fees Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 104.40 32,868.88
Check 10/16/12 5169 Samuel Teitelbaum Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 55.00 32,923.88
Check 10/19/12 5277 Peter Hansmeier Arte / Mullen case Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 292.00 33,215.88
Check 11/14/12 1082 Paul A. Duffy Guava v Doe 12-cv-1661 53 OPERATING xx7365 350.00 33,565.88
Check 12/04/12 1104 Brett Gibbs November, 2012 Admin Expenses 53 OPERATING xx7365 5,250.48 38,816.36
Total Reimbursable Expenses - Other 38,816.36 38,816.36
Total Reimbursable Expenses 41,355.36 41,355.36
Parking Expenses
Check 02/09/12 5107 Clerk, Circuit & County Courts IL Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 28.00 28.00
Check 07/19/12 5232 Hennepin County Government Center Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 42.00 70.00
Check 11/29/12 1087 Michael Dugas 11/2012 Expense Reimbursement 53 OPERATING xx7365 8.00 78.00
Total Parking Expenses 78.00 78.00
Payroll Service Fees
Check 01/04/12 ELEC WD ADP Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 47.27 47.27
Deposit 02/06/12 ADP From xx6943 Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 -3.13 91.41
Check 02/08/12 5110 ADP Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 115.00 206.41
Check 07/13/12 ELEC WD ADP Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 77.00 1,023.16
Deposit 07/16/12 ADP Refund Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 -2.72 1,020.44
Check 11/13/12 1078 ADP ADP Fees (To close old Chase account) 53 OPERATING xx7365 68.30 1,546.24
Check 11/21/12 ELEC WD ADP 53 OPERATING xx7365 68.00 1,614.24
Total Payroll Service Fees 1,737.24 1,737.24
Process Server Fees
Check 01/03/12 5065 PPS Services Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 190.00 190.00
Check 01/20/12 5104 LRI Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 65.00 255.00
Check 03/08/12 5158 David Kozubal Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 136.28 501.28
Check 05/29/12 5200 Hester Services, Inc. Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 35.00 686.28
Check 09/04/12 5251 Northshore Process Servers Lightspeed v. Tom Berry Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 85.00 771.28
Check 09/26/12 5290 Hester Services, Inc. Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 5.00 776.28
Check 10/26/12 5276 Federal Process Servers AF Holdings v Drew Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 50.00 826.28
Check 11/02/12 1007 Delaware Attorney Services Inv. # 12108507 53 OPERATING xx7365 117.80 944.08
Check 11/13/12 1070 Special Delivery Process Servers AF Holdings v Roeum Hean 12-cv-1449 MN 53 OPERATING xx7365 65.00 1,009.08
Check 11/19/12 1016 Terry Botts AF Holdings 53 OPERATING xx7365 80.00 1,089.08
Check 12/03/12 1096 Elite Process Serving, Inc. # 58618 (James Valentino) 53 OPERATING xx7365 65.00 1,154.08
Check 12/03/12 1096 Elite Process Serving, Inc. # 58619 (Marcelina Mendoza) 53 OPERATING xx7365 65.00 1,219.08
Check 12/03/12 1097 Elite Process Serving, Inc. # 76639 (Mooney v Priceline) 53 OPERATING xx7365 100.00 1,319.08
Check 12/05/12 ELEC WD Allen-Hope & Associates 53 OPERATING xx7365 116.81 1,685.89
Check 12/06/12 1108 Legal Process of Minnesota, LLC Mooney v Priceline 53 OPERATING xx7365 95.00 1,780.89
Total Process Server Fees 1,780.89 1,780.89
Local Counsel Payments
Commission
Check 11/07/12 1012 Tim Anderson 10/12 Cases 53 OPERATING xx7365 4,425.00 4,425.00
Check 12/03/12 1099 Tim Anderson Settlements received 53 OPERATING xx7365 270.00 4,695.00
Supp. E.R. 906
Page 3 of 7
Check 12/04/12 1102 Jonathan Wells Tappan 11/2012 Commission 53 OPERATING xx7365 375.00 5,070.00
Check 12/14/12 1122 Steven Goodhue 12/2012 53 OPERATING xx7365 1,500.00 6,570.00
Check 12/26/12 1134 Sam Trenchi AF Holdings v Stein Hals 53 OPERATING xx7365 630.00 7,200.00
Check 12/31/12 WIRE Daniel Ruggiero $14.900 @ 15% 53 OPERATING xx7365 2,235.00 9,435.00
Check 12/31/12 1136 Jacques Nazaire $11,500 @ 15% 53 OPERATING xx7365 1,725.00 11,160.00
Check 12/31/12 1137 Jonathan Wells Tappan $5,000 @ 15% 53 OPERATING xx7365 750.00 11,910.00
Check 12/31/12 1138 Steven Goodhue 01/2013 53 OPERATING xx7365 1,500.00 13,410.00
Check 12/31/12 1139 Curtis Hussey 01/2013 53 OPERATING xx7365 500.00 13,910.00
Total Commission 13,910.00 13,910.00
Filing Fees & Legal Expenses
Check 01/09/12 5089 Tim Anderson Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 2,130.00 2,130.00
Check 01/11/12 5092 Raphael Whitford Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 510.00 2,640.00
Check 03/12/12 5162 Doug McIntyre Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 350.00 2,990.00
Check 06/11/12 5215 Tim Anderson Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 350.00 4,294.72
Check 06/14/12 5211 Steven Goodhue Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 602.00 4,896.72
Check 07/09/12 5142 Tim Anderson Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 6,325.00 11,221.72
Check 08/07/12 5265 Curtis Hussey Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,830.59 13,052.31
Check 08/20/12 5282 Jacques Nazaire Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,125.00 14,177.31
Check 08/20/12 5283 Curtis Hussey Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 435.00 14,612.31
Check 11/07/12 1072 Steven Goodhue Reimbursement 53 OPERATING xx7365 6,000.00 21,962.31
Check 11/07/12 1073 Steven Goodhue Reimbursement 53 OPERATING xx7365 6,000.00 27,962.31
Check 11/13/12 1079 Jonathan Wells Tappan AF Holdings v Burnell 53 OPERATING xx7365 350.00 28,312.31
Check 11/13/12 1080 Curtis Hussey Lightspeed State / Oldroyd Filing Fees (Advanced) 53 OPERATING xx7365 84.00 28,396.31
Check 11/13/12 1080 Curtis Hussey Guava AL Filing Fees (Advanced) 53 OPERATING xx7365 350.00 28,746.31
Check 11/13/12 1080 Curtis Hussey Quad AL Filing fees (Advanced) 53 OPERATING xx7365 3,150.00 31,896.31
Check 11/13/12 1080 Curtis Hussey Quad MS Filing fees (to be paid) 53 OPERATING xx7365 1,050.00 32,946.31
Check 11/28/12 1084 Daniel Ruggiero Postage 53 OPERATING xx7365 400.00 33,346.31
Check 11/28/12 1085 Sam Trenchi AF Holdings v Christopher Barton 53 OPERATING xx7365 350.00 33,696.31
Check 11/28/12 1085 Sam Trenchi AF Holdings v Stein Hals 53 OPERATING xx7365 350.00 34,046.31
Check 12/03/12 1098 Alan Greenstein Nov. 2012 case work reimbursement 53 OPERATING xx7365 200.00 34,246.31
Check 12/03/12 1099 Tim Anderson Deposition / Witness fees 53 OPERATING xx7365 1,650.00 35,896.31
Check 12/05/12 1107 Jonathan Wells Tappan Additional 11/2012 Comm Due 53 OPERATING xx7365 375.00 36,271.31
Check 12/20/12 WIRE Isaac F. Slepner Mongomery Cty., PA Filing 258.00 + 3.25 Subpoena 53 OPERATING xx7365 261.25 36,532.56
Check 12/20/12 WIRE Isaac F. Slepner Montgomery Cty., PA Filing 258.00 + 3.25 Subpoena 53 OPERATING xx7365 261.25 36,793.81
Check 12/20/12 WIRE Isaac F. Slepner Bucks Cty., PA Filing 215.75 + $3.25 Subpoena 53 OPERATING xx7365 219.00 37,012.81
Check 12/20/12 WIRE Isaac F. Slepner Delaware Cty., PA FIling $257.50 + $50 1st filing + $25 Motion + $3.25 Subpoena 53 OPERATING xx7365 353.75 37,366.56
Check 12/20/12 WIRE Isaac F. Slepner Chester Cty., PA Filing + $4.00 subpoena 53 OPERATING xx7365 165.00 37,531.56
Check 12/20/12 WIRE Isaac F. Slepner Philadelphia filing fee 53 OPERATING xx7365 321.48 37,853.04
Check 12/21/12 WIRE Jacques Nazaire Balance of 10/2012 Filing Fees 53 OPERATING xx7365 2,800.00 40,653.04
Check 12/26/12 1134 Sam Trenchi Less service fees already paid 53 OPERATING xx7365 -100.00 40,553.04
Total Filing Fees & Legal Expenses 40,553.04 40,553.04
Local Counsel Payments - Other
Check 01/09/12 5090 Doug McIntyre Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 4,180.00 4,180.00
Check 03/12/12 5160 Michael O'Malley Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 2,920.00 7,100.00
Check 06/08/12 WIRE Kevin Hoerner Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 8,431.11 15,531.11
Check 07/09/12 5141 Doug McIntyre Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,831.00 17,362.11
Check 07/27/12 WIRE George Banas Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 3,150.00 20,512.11
Check 08/10/12 5268 Kevin Hoerner Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 916.65 21,428.76
Total Local Counsel Payments - Other 21,428.76 21,428.76
Total Local Counsel Payments 75,891.80 75,891.80
Reimbursement
Check 01/03/12 5082 Mark Lutz Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 682.37 682.37
Deposit 02/06/12 Prenda Law Trust Account From xx6943 Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 -7,184.80 -6,502.43
Check 02/06/12 5119 John Steele Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 10,300.00 3,797.57
Check 02/27/12 ELEC WD John Steele Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 300.00 10,147.49
Check 03/01/12 ELEC WD John Steele Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 6,300.00 16,447.49
Check 03/19/12 ELEC WD Steele Hansmeier Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 300.00 16,747.49
Check 04/04/12 5172 Joseph Perea Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 300.00 17,047.49
Total Reimbursement 21,510.88 21,510.88
Credit Card Processing Fees
Check 01/05/12 ELEC WD Bluepay, Inc. Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 3,281.17 3,281.17
Check 01/12/12 ELEC WD Bluepay, Inc. Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 25.00 3,306.17
Check 02/15/12 ELEC WD American Express Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,872.82 9,357.95
Check 03/05/12 ELEC WD American Express Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 338.88 22,096.56
Check 05/09/12 ELEC WD Pay Simple Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 27.06 39,247.86
Supp. E.R. 907
Page 4 of 7
Check 07/10/12 ELEC WD Transfirst Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 80.30 65,251.77
Check 08/10/12 ELEC WD Transfirst Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,069.51 66,543.54
Check 10/23/12 ELEC WD Gateway Services 53 OPERATING xx7365 109.60 131,617.27
Check 12/06/12 ELEC WD Bluepay, Inc. 53 OPERATING xx7365 15.60 131,672.87
Check 12/06/12 ELEC WD Bill Matrix 53 OPERATING xx7365 3.50 131,676.37
Check 12/07/12 ELEC WD Bluepay, Inc. 53 OPERATING xx7365 1,457.63 133,216.30
Total Credit Card Processing Fees 133,345.30 133,345.30
Payroll Tax
Check 01/03/12 ELEC WD Payroll Tax - MN Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,628.17 1,628.17
Check 02/29/12 ELEC WD ADP Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 10,559.71 12,187.88
Deposit 03/02/12 ADP Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 -6,653.56 5,534.32
Deposit 03/13/12 ADP Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 -591.75 22,674.69
Check 12/05/12 ELEC WD ADP 53 OPERATING xx7365 4,369.83 97,322.40
Total Payroll Tax 102,489.32 102,489.32
Payments to Old Owners
Check 01/03/12 WIRE Paul Hansmeier Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 90,000.00 95,100.00
Check 03/02/12 ELEC WD Under the Bridge Consulting Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 100,000.00 460,421.28
Check 04/04/12 5176 Under the Bridge Consulting Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 150,000.00 610,421.28
Check 05/04/12 WIRE Under the Bridge Consulting Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 40,000.00 664,541.28
Check 05/29/12 5202 Under the Bridge Consulting Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 100,000.00 765,077.89
Check 07/03/12 5228 Paul A. Duffy Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 4,080.00 924,157.89
Check 07/09/12 5230 Under the Bridge Consulting Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 125,000.00 1,049,157.89
Check 07/25/12 WIRE John Steele Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 400.00 1,049,557.89
Check 08/01/12 WIRE Under the Bridge Consulting Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 81,000.00 1,130,557.89
Check 08/30/12 WIRE Paul A. Duffy Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 8,769.56 1,139,627.45
Check 08/30/12 WIRE John Steele Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 13,779.33 1,153,406.78
Check 09/07/12 WIRE John Steele Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 4,800.00 1,273,206.78
Supp. E.R. 908
Page 5 of 7
Check 12/04/12 WIRE Duffy Law Group November, 2012 53 OPERATING xx7365 10,000.00 1,333,806.78
Check 12/11/12 WIRE Under the Bridge Consulting 53 OPERATING xx7365 10,000.00 1,343,806.78
Total Payments to Old Owners 1,343,806.78 1,343,806.78
Advertising and Promotion
Check 01/03/12 5063 Jay Kopita Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 250.00 250.00
Total Advertising and Promotion 10,297.18 10,297.18
Bank Service Charges
Check 03/01/12 FEE Chase Bank Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 50.00 50.00
Check 07/16/12 FEE Chase Bank Account Settlement Fee Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 66.91 116.91
Check 07/26/12 FEE Chase Bank Transfer to xx6240 Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 50.00 166.91
Check 08/15/12 FEE Chase Bank Account analysis fee Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 255.42 422.33
Check 09/17/12 FEE Chase Bank Account settlement charge Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 288.19 710.52
Check 10/11/12 FEE Fifth Third Bank 53 OPERATING xx7365 183.68 894.20
Check 10/15/12 FEE Chase Bank Account settlement charge Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 276.37 1,170.57
Check 11/13/12 FEE Fifth Third Bank 53 OPERATING xx7365 504.00 1,674.57
Check 11/14/12 ELEC WD FEE ON RET'D ITEM 53 INACTIVE IOLTA xx7217 25.00 1,699.57
Check 12/12/12 ELEC WD Fifth Third Bank 53 OPERATING xx7365 415.63 2,115.20
Total Bank Service Charges 2,115.20 2,115.20
Dues and Subscriptions
Check 02/17/12 ELEC WD ULC of Chicago Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 772.42 772.42
Check 05/21/12 ELEC WD ULC of Chicago Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,208.67 1,981.09
Check 08/03/12 5260 PACER Service Center Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 519.40 2,500.49
Check 08/07/12 5261 Brett Gibbs PACER quarterly fees Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 220.50 2,720.99
Check 08/20/12 5284 Sacramento Bee Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 7.25 2,728.24
Check 10/05/12 ELEC WD ULC of Chicago Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,133.22 3,861.46
Check 11/01/12 1003 PACER Service Center Account SH6174 - Quarterly Dues 53 OPERATING xx7365 213.50 4,074.96
Total Dues and Subscriptions 4,074.96 4,074.96
Insurance Expense
Check 09/28/12 ELEC WD CNA Insurance Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 498.21 498.21
Check 11/09/12 1076 Pearl Insurance ID # 1-16KNKV 53 OPERATING xx7365 3,467.43 3,965.64
Total Insurance Expense 3,965.64 3,965.64
Meals and Entertainment
Check 01/31/12 ELEC WD American Express Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 798.64 798.64
Check 05/31/12 WIRE Capital One Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 6,000.00 6,798.64
Check 11/14/12 ELEC WD American Express 53 OPERATING xx7365 18,291.37 25,990.01
Check 12/12/12 ELEC WD American Express 53 OPERATING xx7365 751.48 26,741.49
Total Meals and Entertainment 26,741.49 26,741.49
Office Expenses
Check 03/01/12 5159 Maria Campbell Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 145.00 145.00
Check 03/26/12 5166 Maria Campbell Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 215.00 360.00
Check 04/03/12 5173 Mark Lutz Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 44.93 404.93
Check 04/10/12 5174 Werner Printing Company, Inc. Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,392.45 1,797.38
Check 04/19/12 5180 Maria Campbell Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 140.00 1,937.38
Check 04/30/12 5187 PayPal Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 35.86 2,203.24
Check 05/31/12 5204 Erica Tranese Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 70.70 5,225.61
Check 06/20/12 5182 Michael Dugas Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 28.16 5,543.77
Check 10/26/12 ELEC WD Deluxe Business Products Check Printing 53 OPERATING xx7365 379.48 6,418.25
Check 11/07/12 1074 Postmaster - Las Vegas, NV Packing tape 53 OPERATING xx7365 3.49 6,421.74
Check 11/13/12 ELEC WD Amazon.Com 53 OPERATING xx7365 176.98 6,598.72
Check 12/07/12 1112 Kathleen Momot Water (F&E 11/14/12) 53 OPERATING xx7365 5.00 6,603.72
Check 12/07/12 1112 Kathleen Momot Water, Trashbags, Raid (WM 11/29/12) 53 OPERATING xx7365 18.34 6,622.06
Check 12/07/12 1112 Kathleen Momot Water,TP,Soda,etc (WM 12/7/12) 53 OPERATING xx7365 33.96 6,656.02
Check 12/07/12 1112 Kathleen Momot Water (WM 12/2/12) 53 OPERATING xx7365 7.96 6,663.98
Check 12/14/12 1121 ALCAN Printer Supplies & Repair HP P1102w cartridges 53 OPERATING xx7365 162.15 6,826.13
Check 12/21/12 ELEC WD Library of Congress 53 OPERATING xx7365 35.00 6,861.13
Check 12/21/12 ELEC WD Library of Congress 53 OPERATING xx7365 35.00 6,896.13
Total Office Expenses 6,896.13 6,896.13
Payroll
Check 01/03/12 5062 Charles Piehl Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 2,603.83 2,603.83
Check 01/03/12 5078 Joseph Perea Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 3,413.95 6,017.78
Check 01/03/12 5079 Douglas Wahlgren Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 729.07 6,746.85
Check 01/04/12 5095 Juan Rodriguez Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 261.60 8,690.27
Check 02/02/12 5117 Erica Tranese Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 2,292.74 24,548.91
Check 02/06/12 5121 Steele Law Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 3,268.12 28,233.03
Total Payroll 286,012.14 286,012.14
Postage and Delivery
Check 02/21/12 5135 Chase Card Services Postage Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 18.95 168.93
Check 11/07/12 1074 Postmaster - Las Vegas, NV 53 OPERATING xx7365 18.95 187.88
Check 12/11/12 1115 Postmaster - Las Vegas, NV Mail to Brett Gibbs 53 OPERATING xx7365 18.95 206.83
Check 12/21/12 1131 James Waleford Postage charge 53 OPERATING xx7365 -18.95 206.83
Supp. E.R. 909
Page 6 of 7
Check 12/21/12 1132 Alison Perelman Postage Reimbursement 53 OPERATING xx7365 18.95 225.78
Total Postage and Delivery 244.73 244.73
Legal & Professional Fees
Check 01/04/12 5091 Neil Rubin Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,220.00 1,220.00
Check 01/05/12 5081 Carey, Danis & Lowe, LLC Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 240.00 1,460.00
Check 01/18/12 5051 Mediacom Communication Corp Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 20.20 1,480.20
Check 01/23/12 5012 RCN Telecom Service of Ilinois, LLC Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 20.20 1,500.40
Check 01/27/12 5058 RCN Telecom Service of Ilinois, LLC Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 20.20 1,520.60
Check 01/30/12 5038 Comcast Legal Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 3,750.00 5,270.60
Check 01/30/12 5039 Comcast Legal Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 360.00 5,630.60
Check 01/30/12 5099 Maria Pierantozzi Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 466.00 6,096.60
Check 01/31/12 5071 Cricket Communications Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 26.80 6,123.40
Check 02/03/12 5041 AOL Legal Department Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 89.00 6,212.40
Check 02/17/12 5016 WideOpenWest Illinois, Inc. Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 60.40 6,272.80
Check 02/17/12 5123 Clerk of Courts Miami-Dade County Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 401.00 6,673.80
Check 02/27/12 5057 Level 3 Communications, Inc. Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 26.80 6,700.60
Check 03/12/12 5124 Office of the Secretary of State Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 120.00 6,820.60
Check 03/19/12 5163 Infield Barr Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 750.00 7,570.60
Check 04/10/12 5103 Century Link Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 60.00 7,630.60
Check 04/24/12 5183 Infield Barr Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 450.00 8,298.40
Check 04/27/12 5179 Level 3 Communications, Inc. Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 120.00 8,418.40
Check 04/30/12 5178 EComp Consultants Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 5,000.00 13,418.40
Check 05/08/12 5193 Becker, Paulson, Hoemer & Thompson, PC Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 4,109.17 17,527.57
Check 06/22/12 5150 US Treasury Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,750.00 19,277.57
Check 06/28/12 5222 Aaron Notary Services Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 75.00 19,352.57
Check 07/02/12 5149 Nathan Wersel Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,561.34 20,913.91
Check 07/05/12 5147 Madison County Circuit Clerk Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 431.50 21,345.41
Check 07/09/12 5145 Clerk of Superior Court Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 259.50 21,604.91
Check 07/10/12 5146 Clerk of Superior Court Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 257.50 21,862.41
Check 07/11/12 5140 Becker, Paulson, Hoemer & Thompson, PC Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 4,766.67 26,629.08
Check 08/01/12 5256 Clerk of Courts Miami-Dade County Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 2.50 31,631.58
Check 08/03/12 5248 Los Angeles Superior Court Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 435.00 34,566.58
Check 08/06/12 5234 Clerk, US District Court Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 350.00 34,916.58
Check 08/09/12 5266 John Heida Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 35.00 39,501.58
Check 08/23/12 5249 District Court Administration Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 422.00 45,190.87
Check 10/10/12 5295 Clerk of Superior Court Lightspeed v Williams Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 257.00 48,947.87
Check 10/18/12 ELEC WD MN Court Online filing fee 53 OPERATING xx7365 5.00 48,952.87
Check 10/25/12 5278 Clerk of Court Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 3,150.00 52,524.87
Check 10/25/12 5289 Charter Communications Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 14.95 52,539.82
Check 11/01/12 1001 Aldenta Technologies Database Updates 53 OPERATING xx7365 5,750.00 58,394.82
Check 11/03/12 1075 Brett Gibbs 10/12 Pay 53 OPERATING xx7365 5,000.00 63,394.82
Check 11/03/12 1075 Brett Gibbs 10/12 Commission $53,200 @ 4% 53 OPERATING xx7365 2,128.00 65,522.82
Check 11/03/12 1075 Brett Gibbs Less check issed 11/7/12 53 OPERATING xx7365 -6,408.00 59,114.82
Check 11/07/12 1013 Brett Gibbs 53 OPERATING xx7365 6,408.00 65,527.82
Check 11/13/12 1081 MetroCast Guava 53 OPERATING xx7365 1,387.50 67,015.32
Check 11/13/12 1081 MetroCast FTV 53 OPERATING xx7365 75.00 67,090.32
Check 11/13/12 1081 MetroCast HDP 53 OPERATING xx7365 37.50 67,127.82
Check 11/13/12 1014 Cherokee County Sheriff's Office LS v Daniel Terry 12-cv-2526-EM GA Case 53 OPERATING xx7365 50.00 67,177.82
Check 11/16/12 1015 Colquitt County Sheriff''s Office Guava Filing 53 OPERATING xx7365 50.00 67,227.82
Check 12/04/12 1106 Brett Gibbs November, 2012 Comm. $30,400 @ 4% 53 OPERATING xx7365 1,216.00 68,551.82
Check 12/06/12 WIRE Kynes, Markman & Felman, PA 53 OPERATING xx7365 15,000.00 83,551.82
Check 12/07/12 1110 Benjamin C. Debney, LLC Delay, Brad case expenses 53 OPERATING xx7365 810.00 84,361.82
Check 12/13/12 1119 Brett Gibbs December, 2012 Payroll 53 OPERATING xx7365 7,000.00 91,469.82
Check 12/18/12 1127 Brett Gibbs Karl - December Payroll 53 OPERATING xx7365 4,000.00 95,580.82
Check 12/18/12 WIRE McCullough Sparks 53 OPERATING xx7365 5,000.00 100,580.82
Total Legal & Professional Fees 100,580.82 100,580.82
Rent Expense
Check 01/05/12 5094 South Florida Title Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 3,300.00 3,300.00
Check 01/24/12 5102 John Mahshie Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 6,600.00 9,900.00
Check 01/30/12 5106 Regus Management Group, LLC Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 600.86 10,500.86
Check 02/28/12 ELEC WD 3200 Network Place Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 2,125.00 12,625.86
Check 02/28/12 ELEC WD John Mahshie Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 3,300.00 15,925.86
Check 03/05/12 5134 3200 Network Place Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 275.00 16,200.86
Check 03/12/12 5156 BTN Properties Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,300.00 17,500.86
Check 04/02/12 WIRE Michael Fabion Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 3,300.00 20,800.86
Supp. E.R. 910
Page 7 of 7
Check 06/12/12 5218 John Mahshie Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 200.00 30,881.51
Check 08/01/12 WIRE 3200 Network Place Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 2,250.00 37,531.51
Check 08/07/12 5261 Brett Gibbs July rent Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 350.00 37,881.51
Check 08/13/12 5233 Interim Partners, LLC Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 2,100.00 43,481.51
Check 08/22/12 5286 Ricardo Pontillo Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 700.00 45,481.51
Check 09/06/12 5291 Camino Alto Properties Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,095.00 46,576.51
Check 12/03/12 1100 Intercen Partners, LLC Base rent 12/2012 53 OPERATING xx7365 1,007.25 47,583.76
Check 12/03/12 1100 Intercen Partners, LLC Operating Expense Reimbursement 53 OPERATING xx7365 1,075.51 48,659.27
Check 12/11/12 1116 Shelterpoint Equities, Ltd Security Deposit 53 OPERATING xx7365 2,638.60 51,297.87
Check 12/11/12 1114 Shelterpoint Equities, Ltd 1st Month Rent 53 OPERATING xx7365 1,753.00 53,050.87
Check 12/18/12 1126 Brett Gibbs Reimbursement for Jay Waleford Rent / Deposit 53 OPERATING xx7365 6,575.00 59,625.87
Total Rent Expense 59,625.87 59,625.87
Travel Expense
Check 01/03/12 5086 Chase Card Services Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 21,000.00 21,000.00
Check 01/26/12 ELEC WD Bank of America Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,000.00 22,000.00
Check 01/26/12 ELEC WD Bank of America Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 351.26 22,351.26
Check 02/01/12 ELEC WD Citibank Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 6,889.19 34,724.09
Check 02/06/12 5122 Chase Card Services Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 14,725.22 49,449.31
Check 11/13/12 ELEC WD Bank of America 53 OPERATING xx7365 1,563.73 83,153.28
Total Travel Expense 83,153.28 83,153.28
Utilities
Check 02/02/12 ELEC WD ADT / Defender Security Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 105.93 105.93
Check 02/15/12 ELEC WD FPL Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 522.00 864.38
Check 04/02/12 5170 FPL Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 84.20 948.58
Check 05/02/12 ELEC WD ADT / Defender Security Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 48.14 1,044.86
Check 05/11/12 ELEC WD Atlantic Broadband Cable Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 443.04 1,487.90
Check 05/25/12 5213 City of Miami Beach Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 85.74 1,573.64
Check 06/01/12 ELEC WD FPL Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 153.11 1,726.75
Check 06/08/12 5205 Atlantic Broadband Cable Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 213.74 2,159.57
Check 07/31/12 5259 FPL Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 119.19 2,540.64
Check 08/07/12 5261 Brett Gibbs Phone & Internet Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 87.97 2,994.77
Check 11/01/12 1002 Global Connect Contract # 79314 53 OPERATING xx7365 127.04 3,218.09
Check 11/01/12 1004 ConService LV # 2102 53 OPERATING xx7365 41.78 3,259.87
Check 11/01/12 1006 NV Energy LV # 2102 53 OPERATING xx7365 68.68 3,363.33
Check 11/07/12 1071 Cox Communications, Inc. (Utility) Account # 001-8610-102462521 53 OPERATING xx7365 171.53 3,534.86
Check 11/09/12 ELEC WD Vox Telesys, LLC 53 OPERATING xx7365 25.00 3,559.86
Check 11/25/12 ELEC WD Cox Communications, Inc. (Utility) Account # 001-8610-120593001 53 OPERATING xx7365 352.44 4,112.30
Check 12/03/12 1101 Verizon Wireless Account # 987358435-00001 53 OPERATING xx7365 144.33 4,256.63
Check 12/04/12 ELEC WD NV Energy LV # 2102 53 OPERATING xx7365 335.88 4,592.51
Check 12/11/12 1111 NV Energy LV 53 OPERATING xx7365 300.00 4,926.28
Check 12/17/12 1124 ConService Acct # 12839811 53 OPERATING xx7365 33.68 4,959.96
Check 12/17/12 1124 ConService Acct # 12830836 53 OPERATING xx7365 74.45 5,034.41
Check 12/18/12 1125 NV Energy LV 53 OPERATING xx7365 47.24 5,081.65
Check 12/21/12 1133 ConService 53 OPERATING xx7365 117.40 5,449.05
Check 12/21/12 1133 ConService 53 OPERATING xx7365 102.60 5,551.65
Check 12/26/12 ELEC WD Cox Communications, Inc. (Utility) Account # 001-8610-120593001 53 OPERATING xx7365 271.91 5,823.56
Deposit 12/28/12 Cox Communications, Inc. (Utility) Overpayment refund 53 OPERATING xx7365 -114.68 5,708.88
Total Utilities 5,708.88 5,708.88
Total Expense 2,382,698.73 2,382,698.73
Net Ordinary Income -450,721.64 -450,721.64
Net Income -450,721.64 -450,721.64
Supp. E.R. 911

"#$%&%' (
Supp. E.R. 912
Page 1 of 7
Prenda Law
Balance Sheet Detail 01/03/13
As of December 31, 2012
Type Date Num Name Memo Clr Split Amount Balance
ASSETS 0.00
Current Assets 0.00
Checking/Savings 0.00
Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 0.00
Deposit 01/01/12 Account Opening Balance ! Opening Balance Equity 16,218.43 16,218.43
Deposit 01/03/12 Pirates Chase ! -SPLIT- 248,332.16 264,550.59
Deposit 01/03/12 Pirates Chase ! Legal Fee Income 200.00 264,750.59
Check 01/03/12 WIRE Paul A. Duffy ! Payments to Old Owners -5,100.00 259,650.59
Check 01/03/12 WIRE Paul Hansmeier ! Payments to Old Owners -90,000.00 169,650.59
Check 01/03/12 ELEC WD Payroll Tax - MN ! Payroll Tax -1,628.17 168,022.42
Check 01/03/12 FEE Chase Bank ! Wire Transfer Fee -25.00 167,997.42
Check 01/03/12 FEE Chase Bank ! Wire Transfer Fee -25.00 167,972.42
Check 01/03/12 5062 Charles Piehl ! Payroll -2,603.83 165,368.59
Check 01/03/12 5063 Jay Kopita ! Advertising and Promotion -250.00 165,118.59
Check 01/03/12 5065 PPS Services ! Process Server Fees -190.00 164,928.59
Check 01/03/12 5077 Mark Lutz ! Mark Lutz -4,102.19 160,826.40
Check 01/03/12 5078 Joseph Perea ! Payroll -3,413.95 157,412.45
Check 01/03/12 5079 Douglas Wahlgren ! Payroll -729.07 156,683.38
Check 01/03/12 5080 Robert Balzebre ! XSC Digital Corp -3,000.00 153,683.38
Check 01/03/12 5082 Mark Lutz ! Reimbursement -682.37 153,001.01
Check 01/03/12 5083 Mark Lutz ! Payroll -1,000.00 152,001.01
Check 01/03/12 5084 Joseph Perea ! Payroll -681.82 151,319.19
Check 01/03/12 5086 Chase Card Services ! Travel Expense -21,000.00 130,319.19
Check 01/03/12 5093 John Steele ! Payments to Old Owners -100,000.00 30,319.19
Check 01/04/12 ELEC WD IRS - Payroll Tax ! Federal Payroll Tax -898.98 29,420.21
Check 01/04/12 ELEC WD ADP ! Payroll Service Fees -47.27 29,372.94
Check 01/04/12 5091 Neil Rubin ! Legal & Professional Fees -1,220.00 28,152.94
Check 01/04/12 5095 Juan Rodriguez ! Payroll -261.60 27,891.34
Check 01/05/12 ELEC WD Bluepay, Inc. ! Credit Card Processing Fees -3,281.17 24,610.17
Check 01/05/12 5081 Carey, Danis & Lowe, LLC ! Legal & Professional Fees -240.00 24,370.17
Check 01/05/12 5094 South Florida Title ! Rent Expense -3,300.00 21,070.17
Check 01/05/12 5096 Steele Hansmeier ! Legal Fee Income -2,000.00 19,070.17
Check 01/09/12 ELEC WD Payroll Tax - MN ! Unemployment Tax -3,721.00 15,349.17
Check 01/09/12 5087 Brett Gibbs ! Payroll -4,540.00 10,809.17
Check 01/09/12 5089 Tim Anderson ! Filing Fees & Legal Expenses -2,130.00 8,679.17
Check 01/09/12 5090 Doug McIntyre ! Local Counsel Payments -4,180.00 4,499.17
Check 01/11/12 5092 Raphael Whitford ! Filing Fees & Legal Expenses -510.00 3,572.51
Check 01/12/12 ELEC WD Bluepay, Inc. ! Credit Card Processing Fees -25.00 3,547.51
Deposit 01/13/12 Pirates Chase ! Legal Fee Income 38,490.00 41,737.51
Deposit 01/13/12 Pirates Chase ! Legal Fee Income 1,769.64 43,507.15
Check 01/18/12 ELEC WD IRS - Payroll Tax ! Federal Payroll Tax -419.20 43,087.95
Check 01/18/12 5051 Mediacom Communication Corp ! Legal & Professional Fees -20.20 42,792.52
Check 01/20/12 5104 LRI ! Process Server Fees -65.00 42,598.52
Check 01/23/12 5012 RCN Telecom Service of Ilinois, LLC ! Legal & Professional Fees -20.20 42,578.32
Check 01/24/12 5102 John Mahshie ! Rent Expense -6,600.00 35,978.32
Check 01/26/12 ELEC WD Bank of America ! Travel Expense -1,000.00 34,978.32
Check 01/26/12 ELEC WD Bank of America ! Travel Expense -351.26 34,627.06
Check 01/27/12 5058 RCN Telecom Service of Ilinois, LLC ! Legal & Professional Fees -20.20 34,606.86
Check 01/30/12 5038 Comcast Legal ! Legal & Professional Fees -3,750.00 30,856.86
Check 01/30/12 5039 Comcast Legal ! Legal & Professional Fees -360.00 30,496.86
Check 01/30/12 5099 Maria Pierantozzi ! Legal & Professional Fees -466.00 30,030.86
Check 01/30/12 5106 Regus Management Group, LLC ! Rent Expense -600.86 29,430.00
Check 01/31/12 ELEC WD American Express ! Travel Expense -5,483.64 23,946.36
Check 01/31/12 ELEC WD American Express ! Meals and Entertainment -798.64 23,147.72
Check 01/31/12 ELEC WD American Express ! Postage and Delivery -74.99 23,072.73
Check 01/31/12 5071 Cricket Communications ! Legal & Professional Fees -26.80 23,045.93
Deposit 02/01/12 Pirates From xx6943 ! Legal Fee Income 158,349.28 181,395.21
Check 02/01/12 ELEC WD Citibank ! Travel Expense -6,889.19 219,822.81
Check 02/01/12 5115 Mark Lutz ! Payroll -5,188.62 214,634.19
Check 02/01/12 5116 Joseph Perea ! Payroll -3,420.62 211,213.57
Check 02/02/12 ELEC WD ADT / Defender Security ! Utilities -105.93 211,107.64
Check 02/02/12 5117 Erica Tranese ! Payroll -2,292.74 208,767.63
Check 02/03/12 WIRE Lightspeed Media Corporation To xx6943 ! Lightspeed Media Corp -1,950.00 206,817.63
Check 02/03/12 ELEC WD Pirates From xx6943 ! Lightspeed Media Corp -2,200.00 204,617.63
Check 02/03/12 5041 AOL Legal Department ! Legal & Professional Fees -89.00 204,292.18
Deposit 02/06/12 Prenda Law Trust Account From xx6943 ! Reimbursement 7,184.80 211,476.98
Deposit 02/06/12 ADP From xx6943 ! Payroll Service Fees 3.13 211,480.11
Check 02/06/12 WIRE OpenMind Solutions ! OpenMind Solutions -7,184.80 204,295.31
Check 02/06/12 WIRE Lightspeed Media Corporation From xx6943 ! Lightspeed Media Corp -200.00 204,095.31
Check 02/06/12 5119 John Steele ! Reimbursement -10,300.00 193,379.31
Check 02/06/12 5121 Steele Law ! Payroll -3,268.12 115,111.19
Check 02/06/12 5122 Chase Card Services ! Travel Expense -14,725.22 100,385.97
Check 02/08/12 5110 ADP ! Payroll Service Fees -115.00 25,270.97
Supp. E.R. 913
Page 2 of 7
Check 02/09/12 5107 Clerk, Circuit & County Courts IL ! Parking Expenses -28.00 21,810.77
Check 02/15/12 ELEC WD American Express ! Credit Card Processing Fees -1,872.82 19,895.42
Check 02/15/12 ELEC WD FPL ! Utilities -522.00 19,373.42
Check 02/15/12 ELEC WD American Express ! Postage and Delivery -74.99 19,298.43
Check 02/17/12 ELEC WD ULC of Chicago ! Dues and Subscriptions -772.42 20,862.14
Check 02/17/12 5016 WideOpenWest Illinois, Inc. ! Legal & Professional Fees -60.40 20,762.74
Check 02/17/12 5123 Clerk of Courts Miami-Dade County ! Legal & Professional Fees -401.00 20,361.74
Check 02/21/12 5132 John Steele ! Reimbursement -5,448.46 14,848.28
Check 02/21/12 5135 Chase Card Services ! -SPLIT- -813.95 13,989.33
Check 02/21/12 5136 John Steele ! Reimbursement -601.46 13,387.87
Check 02/27/12 ELEC WD John Steele ! Reimbursement -300.00 13,087.87
Check 02/27/12 5057 Level 3 Communications, Inc. ! Legal & Professional Fees -26.80 13,061.07
Check 02/28/12 ELEC WD 3200 Network Place ! Rent Expense -2,125.00 10,936.07
Check 02/28/12 ELEC WD John Mahshie ! Rent Expense -3,300.00 7,636.07
Check 02/28/12 FEE Chase Bank 7 @ $25 each for Feb.2012 ! Wire Transfer Fee -175.00 7,461.07
Check 02/29/12 ELEC WD Pirates To xx6943 ! Legal Fee Income -3,357.59 233,865.08
Check 02/29/12 ELEC WD ADP ! Payroll Tax -10,559.71 223,305.37
Check 03/01/12 5159 Maria Campbell ! Office Expenses -145.00 223,160.37
Check 03/01/12 ELEC WD ADP Payroll -37,490.14 185,670.23
Check 03/01/12 ELEC WD John Steele ! Reimbursement -6,300.00 179,370.23
Check 03/01/12 FEE Chase Bank ! Bank Service Charges -50.00 179,320.23
Deposit 03/02/12 ADP ! Payroll Tax 6,653.56 185,973.79
Check 03/02/12 ELEC WD Under the Bridge Consulting ! Payments to Old Owners -100,000.00 85,973.79
Check 03/02/12 FEE Chase Bank 2 @ $25 each ! Wire Transfer Fee -50.00 79,190.23
Check 03/05/12 5134 3200 Network Place ! Rent Expense -275.00 78,915.23
Check 03/05/12 ELEC WD American Express ! Credit Card Processing Fees -338.88 66,176.62
Check 03/08/12 5158 David Kozubal ! Process Server Fees -136.28 64,849.80
Check 03/12/12 5124 Office of the Secretary of State ! Legal & Professional Fees -120.00 53,490.24
Check 03/12/12 5156 BTN Properties ! Rent Expense -1,300.00 52,190.24
Check 03/12/12 5160 Michael O'Malley ! Local Counsel Payments -2,920.00 49,270.24
Check 03/12/12 5162 Doug McIntyre ! Filing Fees & Legal Expenses -350.00 48,920.24
Deposit 03/13/12 ADP ! Payroll Tax 591.75 49,511.99
Check 03/19/12 5163 Infield Barr ! Legal & Professional Fees -750.00 44,725.64
Check 03/19/12 ELEC WD Steele Hansmeier ! Reimbursement -300.00 44,425.64
Check 04/02/12 5170 FPL ! Utilities -84.20 43,981.50
Check 04/02/12 WIRE Michael Fabion ! Rent Expense -3,300.00 40,681.50
Check 04/02/12 ELEC WD ADP ! Payroll -25,615.81 15,065.69
Check 04/02/12 FEE Chase Bank ! Stop payment fee -25.00 4,797.83
Check 04/02/12 FEE Chase Bank ! Quick Deposit Charge -50.00 4,747.83
Check 04/03/12 5173 Mark Lutz ! Office Expenses -44.93 180,246.64
Check 04/04/12 5172 Joseph Perea ! Reimbursement -300.00 171,443.83
Check 04/04/12 5176 Under the Bridge Consulting ! Payments to Old Owners -150,000.00 21,443.83
Check 04/04/12 ELEC WD ADP ! Payroll Tax -110.92 10,083.53
Check 04/05/12 WIRE Lightspeed Media Corporation From xx6943 ! Lightspeed Media Corp -3,000.00 7,083.53
Check 04/10/12 5103 Century Link ! Legal & Professional Fees -60.00 6,755.30
Check 04/10/12 5174 Werner Printing Company, Inc. ! Office Expenses -1,392.45 5,362.85
Check 04/12/12 5175 Paul Hansmeier ! Reimbursable Expenses -2,006.78 81.76
Check 04/13/12 5171 Brett Gibbs ! Legal & Professional Fees -217.80 10,163.96
Check 04/24/12 5183 Infield Barr ! Legal & Professional Fees -450.00 18,122.18
Check 04/24/12 WIRE John Steele ! Payments to Old Owners -400.00 17,722.18
Check 04/27/12 5179 Level 3 Communications, Inc. ! Legal & Professional Fees -120.00 12,477.18
Check 04/30/12 5178 EComp Consultants ! Legal & Professional Fees -5,000.00 7,477.18
Supp. E.R. 914
Page 3 of 7
Check 04/30/12 5187 PayPal ! Office Expenses -35.86 7,211.32
Deposit 05/01/12 Pirates From xx6943 ! -SPLIT- 133,573.14 140,784.46
Check 05/01/12 ELEC WD American Express ! Advertising and Promotion -10,047.18 105,131.42
Check 05/03/12 WIRE Paul A. Duffy ! Reimbursable Expenses -4,000.00 86,734.99
Check 05/04/12 WIRE Under the Bridge Consulting ! Payments to Old Owners -40,000.00 34,389.99
Check 05/07/12 5188 Brett Gibbs ! Office Expenses -2,721.67 31,668.32
Check 05/08/12 5193 Becker, Paulson, Hoemer & Thompson, PC ! Legal & Professional Fees -4,109.17 27,559.15
Check 05/08/12 5194 Paul A. Duffy ! Reimbursable Expenses -1,005.00 26,554.15
Check 05/09/12 ELEC WD Pay Simple ! Credit Card Processing Fees -27.06 26,082.55
Check 05/11/12 ELEC WD Atlantic Broadband Cable ! Utilities -443.04 22,238.16
Check 05/21/12 5201 Ingenuity13 ! Settlements -5,000.00 11,533.78
Check 05/21/12 5212 John Steele ! -SPLIT- -4,700.00 6,833.78
Check 05/21/12 ELEC WD ULC of Chicago ! Dues and Subscriptions -1,208.67 5,625.11
Check 05/25/12 5213 City of Miami Beach ! Utilities -85.74 5,539.37
Check 05/29/12 5200 Hester Services, Inc. ! Process Server Fees -35.00 105,498.37
Check 05/30/12 5195 Patricia A. Kaneshiro-Miller, RMR-C ! Reimbursable Expenses -144.00 5,354.37
Check 05/31/12 5204 Erica Tranese ! Office Expenses -70.70 105,283.67
Check 05/31/12 WIRE Capital One ! Meals and Entertainment -6,000.00 99,283.67
Check 06/01/12 ELEC WD FPL ! Utilities -153.11 177,330.48
Check 06/04/12 5181 John Steele ! Reimbursable Expenses -964.85 181,960.66
Check 06/05/12 WIRE Paul A. Duffy ! Sunlust Pictures -4,400.00 77,389.72
Check 06/06/12 WIRE Steve Yuen ! Reimbursable Expenses -3,400.00 73,606.46
Check 06/07/12 5206 Brett Gibbs ! Filing Fees & Legal Expenses -954.72 53,035.42
Check 06/08/12 5205 Atlantic Broadband Cable ! Utilities -213.74 58,152.79
Check 06/08/12 5217 Kerry Steele ! -SPLIT- -2,500.00 55,652.79
Check 06/08/12 WIRE Kevin Hoerner ! Local Counsel Payments -8,431.11 47,221.68
Check 06/11/12 5210 Paul Hansmeier ! Millennium TGA -5,000.00 40,881.34
Check 06/11/12 5215 Tim Anderson ! Filing Fees & Legal Expenses -350.00 40,531.34
Check 06/12/12 5218 John Mahshie ! Rent Expense -200.00 40,331.34
Check 06/14/12 5211 Steven Goodhue ! Filing Fees & Legal Expenses -602.00 39,729.34
Check 06/20/12 5182 Michael Dugas ! Office Expenses -28.16 14,358.23
Check 06/20/12 5219 ! Reimbursable Expenses -1,000.00 13,358.23
Check 06/22/12 5150 US Treasury ! Legal & Professional Fees -1,750.00 11,608.23
Check 06/26/12 WIRE James Waleford ! Relocation Expenses -1,600.00 10,002.23
Check 06/26/12 ELEC WD ADP ! Payroll Tax -11,051.58 -1,049.35
Check 06/28/12 5222 Aaron Notary Services ! Legal & Professional Fees -75.00 -1,124.35
Check 06/29/12 ELEC WD ADP ! Payroll -27,685.26 -28,809.61
Check 07/02/12 5137 Seth Abrahams ! Reimbursable Expenses -82.67 21,107.72
Check 07/02/12 5138 Seth Abrahams ! Reimbursable Expenses -82.67 21,025.05
Check 07/02/12 5149 Nathan Wersel ! Legal & Professional Fees -1,561.34 19,463.71
Supp. E.R. 915
Page 4 of 7
Check 07/03/12 5228 Paul A. Duffy ! Payments to Old Owners -4,080.00 13,967.57
Check 07/05/12 5147 Madison County Circuit Clerk ! Legal & Professional Fees -431.50 181,565.41
Check 07/05/12 5225 Brett Gibbs ! Reimbursable Expenses -952.99 180,612.42
Check 07/09/12 5141 Doug McIntyre ! Local Counsel Payments -1,831.00 175,269.67
Check 07/09/12 5142 Tim Anderson ! Filing Fees & Legal Expenses -6,325.00 168,944.67
Check 07/09/12 5145 Clerk of Superior Court ! Legal & Professional Fees -259.50 168,685.17
Check 07/09/12 5226 John Steele ! Reimbursable Expenses -210.19 165,161.24
Check 07/09/12 5227 Michael Dugas ! Reimbursable Expenses -37.01 165,124.23
Check 07/10/12 5146 Clerk of Superior Court ! Legal & Professional Fees -257.50 36,254.38
Check 07/10/12 ELEC WD Transfirst ! Credit Card Processing Fees -80.30 36,174.08
Check 07/11/12 5140 Becker, Paulson, Hoemer & Thompson, PC ! Legal & Professional Fees -4,766.67 31,407.41
Check 07/12/12 5143 Joseph Perea ! Legal & Professional Fees -5,000.00 26,407.41
Deposit 07/16/12 ADP Refund ! Payroll Service Fees 2.72 26,333.13
Check 07/16/12 FEE Chase Bank Account Settlement Fee ! Bank Service Charges -66.91 24,966.22
Check 07/19/12 5232 Hennepin County Government Center ! Parking Expenses -42.00 24,916.27
Check 07/26/12 FEE Chase Bank Transfer to xx6240 ! Bank Service Charges -50.00 24,466.27
Check 07/27/12 5253 Paul A. Duffy ! Reimbursable Expenses -270.00 24,196.27
Check 07/27/12 WIRE George Banas ! Local Counsel Payments -3,150.00 21,046.27
Deposit 07/30/12 Pirates ! Lockbox receipt 3,400.00 24,440.27
Check 07/30/12 5231 Paul A. Duffy ! Reimbursable Expenses -567.00 23,873.27
Check 07/30/12 5254 Matt Jenkins ! Reimbursable Expenses -107.00 23,766.27
Check 07/30/12 5255 Matt Jenkins ! Reimbursable Expenses -107.00 23,659.27
Check 07/31/12 5259 FPL ! Utilities -119.19 141,152.40
Check 08/01/12 5256 Clerk of Courts Miami-Dade County ! Legal & Professional Fees -2.50 141,149.90
Check 08/01/12 WIRE 3200 Network Place ! Rent Expense -2,250.00 57,899.90
Deposit 08/02/12 Pirates ! From Account xx6240 2,500.00 18,439.32
Check 08/02/12 5264 Joseph Perea ! Legal & Professional Fees -2,500.00 15,939.32
Check 08/02/12 10000 James Waleford ! James Waleford -2,215.83 13,723.49
Deposit 08/03/12 Pirates ! From Account xx6240 50.00 13,773.49
Check 08/03/12 5248 Los Angeles Superior Court ! Legal & Professional Fees -435.00 13,338.49
Check 08/03/12 5260 PACER Service Center ! Dues and Subscriptions -519.40 12,819.09
Check 08/06/12 5234 Clerk, US District Court ! Legal & Professional Fees -350.00 14,469.09
Check 08/07/12 5261 Brett Gibbs ! -SPLIT- -658.47 8,537.55
Check 08/07/12 5265 Curtis Hussey ! Filing Fees & Legal Expenses -1,830.59 6,706.96
Check 08/09/12 5263 John Steele ! Meals and Entertainment -900.00 2,292.70
Check 08/09/12 5266 John Heida ! Legal & Professional Fees -35.00 2,257.70
Check 08/10/12 5268 Kevin Hoerner ! Local Counsel Payments -916.65 23,873.76
Check 08/10/12 ELEC WD Chase Bank ! Transfer to xx6240 -8,800.00 15,073.76
Check 08/10/12 ELEC WD Transfirst ! Credit Card Processing Fees -1,069.51 14,004.25
Check 08/13/12 5233 Interim Partners, LLC ! Rent Expense -2,100.00 17,561.50
Check 08/13/12 ELEC WD Pirates ! NSF check returned -3,400.00 11,658.80
Check 08/15/12 ELEC WD American Express ! Credit Card Processing Fees -11,416.15 242.65
Check 08/15/12 FEE Chase Bank Account analysis fee ! Bank Service Charges -255.42 -12.77
Supp. E.R. 916
Page 5 of 7
Check 08/20/12 5282 Jacques Nazaire ! Filing Fees & Legal Expenses -1,125.00 11,914.78
Check 08/20/12 5283 Curtis Hussey ! Filing Fees & Legal Expenses -435.00 11,479.78
Check 08/20/12 5284 Sacramento Bee ! Dues and Subscriptions -7.25 11,472.53
Deposit 08/21/12 Pirates ! Lockbox receipt 500.00 11,827.53
Check 08/22/12 5280 Brett Gibbs ! Legal & Professional Fees -1,000.00 10,827.53
Check 08/22/12 5286 Ricardo Pontillo ! Rent Expense -700.00 10,127.53
Check 08/23/12 5249 District Court Administration ! Legal & Professional Fees -422.00 9,705.53
Check 08/30/12 WIRE John Steele ! Payments to Old Owners -13,779.33 67,138.85
Check 09/04/12 5251 Northshore Process Servers Lightspeed v. Tom Berry ! Process Server Fees -85.00 137,157.28
Check 09/04/12 5287 Brett Gibbs ! Reimbursable Expenses -14,685.42 122,471.86
Check 09/04/12 5292 Brett Gibbs Karl reimbursement ! Reimbursable Expenses -1,633.33 120,838.53
Check 09/06/12 5291 Camino Alto Properties ! Rent Expense -1,095.00 640.99
Check 09/07/12 WIRE John Steele ! Payments to Old Owners -4,800.00 13,182.99
Check 09/07/12 WIRE Amata ! Ask My Accountant -3,900.00 9,282.99
Check 09/12/12 WIRE John Steele ! Reimbursable Expenses -747.00 941.42
Check 09/13/12 ELEC WD American Express ! Credit Card Processing Fees -44.94 896.48
Deposit 09/14/12 Pirates ! Legal Fee Income 3,947.00 4,843.48
Check 09/14/12 ELEC WD Pirates ! Deposit research -3,400.00 1,443.48
Check 09/17/12 FEE Chase Bank Account settlement charge ! Bank Service Charges -288.19 30,001.99
Check 09/26/12 5290 Hester Services, Inc. ! Process Server Fees -5.00 29,996.99
Check 09/27/12 WIRE Pirates ! To FifthThird Operating -4,000.00 25,996.99
Check 09/28/12 ELEC WD CNA Insurance ! Insurance Expense -498.21 19,021.81
Check 10/01/12 ELEC WD Pirates Deposit proc 2x on 8/10/12 ! Legal Fee Income -2,000.00 502.22
Check 10/02/12 ELEC WD ADT / Defender Security ! Utilities -48.14 454.08
Check 10/02/12 ELEC WD ADP ! Payroll Service Fees -41.00 413.08
Check 10/03/12 5275 Michael Dugas Filing fees ! Reimbursable Expenses -210.00 203.08
Check 10/03/12 5296 Michael Dugas Filing fees ! Reimbursable Expenses -104.40 98.68
Check 10/05/12 ELEC WD ULC of Chicago ! Dues and Subscriptions -1,133.22 16,054.45
Check 10/10/12 5295 Clerk of Superior Court Lightspeed v Williams ! Legal & Professional Fees -257.00 3,840.22
Check 10/15/12 FEE Chase Bank Account settlement charge ! Bank Service Charges -276.37 996.07
Supp. E.R. 917
Page 6 of 7
Check 10/16/12 5169 Samuel Teitelbaum ! Reimbursable Expenses -55.00 941.07
Check 10/16/12 ELEC WD American Express ! Credit Card Processing Fees -7.95 933.12
Check 10/17/12 WIRE John Steele ! Payments to Old Owners -300.00 633.12
Check 10/17/12 ELEC WD American Express ! Credit Card Processing Fees -5,581.17 -4,948.05
Check 10/19/12 5277 Peter Hansmeier Arte / Mullen case ! Reimbursable Expenses -292.00 4,759.95
Check 10/25/12 5278 Clerk of Court ! Legal & Professional Fees -3,150.00 1,596.95
Check 10/25/12 5289 Charter Communications ! Legal & Professional Fees -14.95 1,582.00
Check 10/26/12 5276 Federal Process Servers AF Holdings v Drew ! Process Server Fees -50.00 1,532.00
Total Chase Bank OPERATING xx6927 1,426.00 1,426.00
53 OPERATING xx7365 0.00
Deposit 09/28/12 Account Opening Balance ! Opening Balance Equity 4,000.00 4,000.00
Check 09/28/12 5 Kathleen Momot ! Kathleen Momot -1,813.73 -147.06
Deposit 09/28/12 Deposit ! Transfer from JLS 1,000.00 852.94
Check 10/11/12 FEE Fifth Third Bank ! Bank Service Charges -183.68 669.26
Check 10/18/12 ELEC WD MN Court Online filing fee ! Legal & Professional Fees -5.00 664.26
Deposit 10/18/12 ! From Account xx7293 15,000.00 15,242.26
Check 10/23/12 ELEC WD Gateway Services ! Credit Card Processing Fees -109.60 15,132.66
Check 10/26/12 ELEC WD Deluxe Business Products Check Printing ! Office Expenses -379.48 14,753.18
Check 10/29/12 ELEC WD MN Court Online filing fee ! Legal & Professional Fees -5.00 14,748.18
Check 11/01/12 1001 Aldenta Technologies Invoice # 080482 ! Legal & Professional Fees -5,750.00 8,898.18
Check 11/01/12 1002 Global Connect Contract # 79314 ! Utilities -127.04 8,771.14
Check 11/01/12 1003 PACER Service Center Account SH6174 - Quarterly Dues ! Dues and Subscriptions -213.50 8,557.64
Check 11/01/12 1004 ConService Account # 12830836 ! Utilities -41.78 8,515.86
Check 11/01/12 1006 NV Energy Acct # 3000296378714022233 ! Utilities -68.68 8,412.40
Check 11/02/12 1007 Delaware Attorney Services Process Server Fees -117.80 8,294.60
Check 11/02/12 1009 James Waleford October, 2012 Payroll ! James Waleford -2,333.33 5,961.27
Check 11/02/12 1010 Alison Perelman October, 2012 Payroll ! Alison Perelman -1,848.00 4,113.27
Check 11/02/12 1011 Kathleen Momot October, 2012 Payroll ! Kathleen Momot -2,916.67 1,196.60
Check 11/03/12 1075 Brett Gibbs Correction to 10/2012 ! -SPLIT- -720.00 476.60
Check 11/06/12 ELEC WD Gateway Services ! Credit Card Processing Fees -20.00 456.60
Check 11/07/12 1012 Tim Anderson 10/12 Cases ! Commission -4,425.00 -3,973.40
Check 11/07/12 1013 Brett Gibbs ! Legal & Professional Fees -6,408.00 -10,381.40
Check 11/07/12 1071 Cox Communications, Inc. (Utility) Account # 001-8610-102462521 ! Utilities -171.53 -10,552.93
Check 11/07/12 1072 Steven Goodhue Reimbursement ! Filing Fees & Legal Expenses -6,000.00 -16,552.93
Check 11/07/12 1073 Steven Goodhue Reimbursement ! Filing Fees & Legal Expenses -6,000.00 -22,552.93
Check 11/07/12 1074 Postmaster - Las Vegas, NV ! -SPLIT- -22.44 -22,575.37
Check 11/07/12 ELEC WD MN Court Online filing fee ! Legal & Professional Fees -100.00 -22,675.37
Deposit 11/07/12 Pirates From Old Operating account ! From Account xx6927 78,752.66 56,077.29
Check 11/09/12 1076 Pearl Insurance ID # 1-16KNKV ! Insurance Expense -3,467.43 52,609.86
Check 11/09/12 ELEC WD Vox Telesys, LLC ! Utilities -25.00 52,584.86
Check 11/13/12 1078 ADP ! Payroll Service Fees -68.30 52,516.56
Check 11/13/12 1079 Jonathan Wells Tappan Reimb. AF Holdings v Burnell - 1:12-cv-01256 ! Filing Fees & Legal Expenses -350.00 52,166.56
Check 11/13/12 1080 Curtis Hussey October, 2012 Cases ! -SPLIT- -4,634.00 47,532.56
Check 11/13/12 1081 MetroCast Matter Nos. 0009, 0010 & 0011 ! -SPLIT- -1,500.00 46,032.56
Check 11/13/12 1070 Special Delivery Process Servers AF Holdings v Roeum Hean 12-cv-1449 MN ! Process Server Fees -65.00 45,967.56
Check 11/13/12 1014 Cherokee County Sheriff's Office LS v Daniel Terry 12-cv-2526-EM GA Case ! Legal & Professional Fees -50.00 45,917.56
Check 11/13/12 ELEC WD Amazon.Com ! Office Expenses -176.98 45,740.58
Check 11/13/12 FEE Fifth Third Bank ! Bank Service Charges -504.00 43,672.85
Check 11/14/12 1082 Paul A. Duffy Reimbursement for filing fee ! Reimbursable Expenses -350.00 43,322.85
Check 11/14/12 ELEC WD American Express ! Meals and Entertainment -18,291.37 25,031.48
Check 11/16/12 1015 Colquitt County Sheriff''s Office 12-cv-0952 ! Legal & Professional Fees -50.00 24,981.48
Check 11/19/12 1016 Terry Botts Process Service AF Holdings v Stein Hals (12-1189) TN Case ! Process Server Fees -80.00 24,901.48
Check 11/19/12 1083 Cox Communications, Inc. (Utility) Account # 001-8610-102462521 ! Utilities -200.00 24,701.48
Check 11/25/12 ELEC WD Cox Communications, Inc. (Utility) Account # 001-8610-120593001 ! Utilities -352.44 24,173.04
Check 11/28/12 1084 Daniel Ruggiero Postage & Supplies Reimbursement ! Filing Fees & Legal Expenses -400.00 23,773.04
Check 11/28/12 1085 Sam Trenchi 2 Tennessee Cases / Filing Fees ! -SPLIT- -700.00 23,073.04
Check 11/28/12 1086 Steven Goodhue 11/2012 Expenses ! -SPLIT- -1,112.00 21,961.04
Check 11/29/12 1087 Michael Dugas 11/2012 Expense Reimbursement ! Parking Expenses -8.00 21,953.04
Check 11/30/12 1091 Alison Perelman November, 2012 Payroll ! Alison Perelman -1,752.00 20,201.04
Check 11/30/12 1088 James Waleford November, 2012 payroll (partial) ! -SPLIT- -2,000.00 18,201.04
Check 11/30/12 1090 James Waleford November, 2012 payroll (partial) ! -SPLIT- -690.33 17,510.71
Check 11/30/12 1092 Kathleen Momot November, 2012 payroll (partial) ! -SPLIT- -2,100.00 15,410.71
Check 11/30/12 1093 Kathleen Momot November, 2012 payroll (partial) ! -SPLIT- -816.67 14,594.04
Check 11/30/12 1095 James Waleford November, 2012 payroll (partial) ! -SPLIT- -643.00 13,951.04
Check 11/30/12 1018 Rush Process Service AF Holdings v Brad Delay ! AF Holdings -56.00 13,895.04
Check 11/30/12 1017 Clerk, US District Court Guava LLC v Tony Ly ! Guava, LLC -350.00 13,545.04
Check 12/03/12 1096 Elite Process Serving, Inc. ! -SPLIT- -130.00 13,409.04
Check 12/03/12 1097 Elite Process Serving, Inc. ! -SPLIT- -350.00 13,059.04
Check 12/03/12 1098 Alan Greenstein ! Filing Fees & Legal Expenses -200.00 12,859.04
Check 12/03/12 1099 Tim Anderson 11/12 Cases & Expenses ! -SPLIT- -1,920.00 10,939.04
Check 12/03/12 1100 Intercen Partners, LLC Oracle Center Suite 0560 - 12/2012 Rent ! -SPLIT- -2,082.76 8,856.28
Check 12/03/12 1101 Verizon Wireless Account # 987358435-00001 ! Utilities -144.33 8,711.95
Check 12/04/12 1102 Jonathan Wells Tappan Nov. 2012 Commission ! Commission -375.00 8,336.95
Check 12/04/12 ELEC WD NV Energy # 1109 Electricity ! Utilities -335.88 8,001.07
Check 12/04/12 1104 Brett Gibbs November, 2012 Admin Expenses ! Reimbursable Expenses -5,250.48 2,716.82
Check 12/04/12 1106 Brett Gibbs November, 2012 Comm. $30,400 @ 4% ! Legal & Professional Fees -1,216.00 1,500.82
Supp. E.R. 918
Page 7 of 7
Check 12/04/12 WIRE Duffy Law Group November, 2012 ! Payments to Old Owners -10,000.00 -8,499.18
Deposit 12/04/12 Pirates ! Legal Fee Income 49,628.42 41,129.24
Check 12/05/12 1107 Jonathan Wells Tappan Nov. 2012 Commission (Corrected) ! Filing Fees & Legal Expenses -375.00 40,754.24
Check 12/05/12 ELEC WD Allen-Hope & Associates ! Process Server Fees -116.81 40,637.43
Check 12/05/12 1019 Sirh-Ryun Wi Dugas ! Sirh-Ryun Wi Dugas -3,300.00 37,337.43
Check 12/06/12 1108 Legal Process of Minnesota, LLC Acct. # Mooney - 10/10/12 Invoice ! Process Server Fees -95.00 23,247.93
Check 12/06/12 1109 Sam Trenchi 2 Tennessee Cases / Process Server Fees ! -SPLIT- -100.00 23,147.93
Check 12/06/12 ELEC WD Gateway Services ! Credit Card Processing Fees -20.00 23,127.93
Check 12/06/12 ELEC WD Bill Matrix ! Credit Card Processing Fees -3.50 23,108.83
Check 12/06/12 WIRE Kynes, Markman & Felman, PA ! Legal & Professional Fees -15,000.00 8,108.83
Check 12/07/12 1110 Benjamin C. Debney, LLC 12/7/12 Invoice ! Legal & Professional Fees -810.00 7,298.83
Check 12/07/12 1112 Kathleen Momot Reimb Office Expenses Paid ! -SPLIT- -65.26 7,233.57
General Journal 12/07/12 Pirates Transfer from IOLTA ! Legal Fee Income 14,118.34 19,811.98
Check 12/11/12 1116 Shelterpoint Equities, Ltd Security Deposit Rent Expense -2,638.60 17,173.38
Check 12/11/12 1114 Shelterpoint Equities, Ltd 1st Month Rent Rent Expense -1,753.00 15,420.38
Check 12/11/12 1115 Postmaster - Las Vegas, NV Overnite envelope to Brett Gibbs ! Postage and Delivery -18.95 15,401.43
Check 12/11/12 1111 NV Energy ! Utilities -300.00 14,993.43
Check 12/12/12 ELEC WD Fifth Third Bank ! Bank Service Charges -415.63 4,448.80
Check 12/12/12 ELEC WD American Express ! Meals and Entertainment -751.48 3,697.32
Check 12/13/12 1119 Brett Gibbs December, 2012 Payroll ! Legal & Professional Fees -7,000.00 -3,302.68
Check 12/13/12 1120 Postmaster - Las Vegas, NV Overnite envelope to Brett Gibbs ! Postage and Delivery -18.95 -3,321.63
Deposit 12/13/12 TRANS Merkel Pirates Deposit ! -SPLIT- 4,800.00 1,478.37
Check 12/14/12 1121 ALCAN Printer Supplies & Repair HP P1102w cartridges ! Office Expenses -162.15 1,316.22
Check 12/14/12 1122 Steven Goodhue 12/2012 Legal Services Commission -1,500.00 -183.78
Check 12/14/12 ELEC WD ADP ! Payroll Service Fees -81.00 -264.78
Check 12/14/12 ELEC WD MN Court Online filing fee ! Legal & Professional Fees -3.00 -267.78
General Journal 12/17/12 TRANS Merkel Pirates 173.30.103.97 ! Merkel-Guava Case 1,900.00 1,632.22
Check 12/17/12 1124 ConService Water, etc. LV ! -SPLIT- -108.13 1,524.09
Check 12/18/12 1125 NV Energy Acct. # 3000296378714022233 ! Utilities -47.24 1,368.85
General Journal 12/18/12 TRANS Pirates Transfer from IOLTA ! Legal Fee Income 8,766.74 10,135.59
Check 12/18/12 1126 Brett Gibbs Reimbursement for Jay Waleford Rent / Deposit ! Rent Expense -6,575.00 3,560.59
Check 12/18/12 1127 Brett Gibbs Karl - December Payroll ! Legal & Professional Fees -4,000.00 -439.41
Check 12/18/12 WIRE McCullough Sparks ! Legal & Professional Fees -5,000.00 -5,439.41
Check 12/19/12 1123 Cox Communications, Inc. (Utility) Account # 001-8610-120593001 ! Utilities -250.00 -5,689.41
Deposit 12/19/12 Old check from Law Office of Linardakis ! Legal Fee Income 2,000.00 -3,689.41
Check 12/20/12 WIRE Isaac F. Slepner ! -SPLIT- -1,581.73 -5,271.14
Check 12/20/12 1128 Kathleen Momot January, 2013 advance ! Kathleen Momot -300.00 -5,571.14
Check 12/21/12 1131 James Waleford Relocation Expense Reimbursement ! -SPLIT- -125.05 -5,696.19
Check 12/21/12 WIRE Jacques Nazaire Balance of 10/2012 Filing Fees ! Filing Fees & Legal Expenses -2,800.00 -8,496.19
Check 12/21/12 1132 Alison Perelman Reimbursement for overnight mailing to JW ! Postage and Delivery -18.95 -8,515.14
Deposit 12/21/12 Pirates Transfer from IOLTA ! Legal Fee Income 11,585.00 3,069.86
Check 12/21/12 1133 ConService ! -SPLIT- -220.00 2,849.86
Check 12/21/12 ELEC WD Library of Congress ! Office Expenses -35.00 2,814.86
Check 12/21/12 ELEC WD Library of Congress ! Office Expenses -35.00 2,779.86
Check 12/26/12 ELEC WD Cox Communications, Inc. (Utility) Account # 001-8610-120593001 ! Utilities -271.91 2,507.95
Check 12/26/12 1134 Sam Trenchi Commission 12/2012 ! -SPLIT- -530.00 1,977.95
Check 12/27/12 WIRE Law Office of Linardakis Return for Check inadvertantly deposited on 12/19/12 ! Legal Fee Income -2,000.00 -22.05
Deposit 12/28/12 Cox Communications, Inc. (Utility) Deposit ! Utilities 114.68 92.63
Deposit 12/28/12 TRANS Merkel Pirates ! Merkel-Guava Case 3,000.00 3,092.63
Check 12/31/12 WIRE Daniel Ruggiero 12/2012 Settlement Commission ! Commission -2,235.00 851.63
Check 12/31/12 1136 Jacques Nazaire December 2012 Commission Commission -1,725.00 -873.37
Check 12/31/12 1137 Jonathan Wells Tappan December 2012 Commission Commission -750.00 -1,623.37
Check 12/31/12 1138 Steven Goodhue 1/2013 Legal Services Commission -1,500.00 -3,123.37
Check 12/31/12 1139 Curtis Hussey January, 2013 Legal Services Commission -500.00 -3,623.37
General Journal 12/31/12 TRANS Transfer from IOLTA Legal Fee Income 30,000.00 26,376.63
Check 12/31/12 1144 Postmaster - Las Vegas, NV Overnite envelope to Brett Gibbs Postage and Delivery -18.95 26,357.68
Total 53 OPERATING xx7365 21,160.76 21,160.76
Total Checking/Savings 22,586.76 22,586.76
Accounts Receivable 0.00
Accounts Receivable 0.00
Total Accounts Receivable 0.00
Total Accounts Receivable 0.00
Other Current Assets 0.00
Undeposited Funds 0.00
Total Undeposited Funds 0.00
Total Other Current Assets 0.00
Total Current Assets 22,586.76 22,586.76
Fixed Assets 0.00
Furniture and Equipment 0.00
Total Furniture and Equipment 0.00
Total Fixed Assets 0.00
Other Assets 0.00
Total Other Assets 0.00
TOTAL ASSETS 22,586.76 22,586.76
Supp. E.R. 919
G-65 (03/07) LIST OF EXHIBITS AND WITNESSES Page of
LIST OF EXHIBITS AND WITNESSES
Case Number Title
Judge
Dates of Trial
or Hearing
Court Reporters
or Tape No.
Deputy Clerks
Attorney(s) for Plaintiff(s) / Petitioner(s) Attorney(s) for Defendant(s) / Respondent(s)
Plaintiff(s) or Petitioner(s) Defendant(s) or
Respondent(s)
EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION / WITNESS Called By
Ex. No. Id. Ev. Ex. No. Id. Ev
District of FloridaTampaDivison- U.S. District Court
FILED
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
BY: ___________________ DEPUTY
CV 12-8333 ODW(J Cx) Ingenuity13 LLC v. J ohn Doe
Otis D. Wright, II
March 11, 2013, April 2, 2013
Katie Thibodeaux
Christine Chung CC
Brett Langdon Gibbs Morgan Pietz
Andrew J . Waxler Nicholas Ranallo
Barry Z. Brodsky
Alan Cooper - 3/11/13 Defendant
Bart Huffman - 3/11/13 Defendant
Benjamin Fox - 3/11/13 Defendant
J esse Nason - 3/11/13 Defendant
Brett Gibbs - 3/11/13 Plaintiff
1 3/11/13 3/11/13 Complaint CV 12-6636-ODW-(J Cx) filed August 1, 2012
2 3/11/13 3/11/13 "Sexual Obsession " Copyright Assignment Agreement
3 3/11/13 NOT Ingenuity 13 Petition
4 3/11/13 NOT Declaration of Ranallo
5 3/11/13 NOT No Tissues can Registration
6 3/11/13
3/11/13 Declaration of Huffman
7 3/11/13 3/11/13 Declaration of Camille Kerr
8 3/11/13 3/11/13 Declaration of Sean Moriarty
9 3/11/13 3/11/13 Transcript of J esse Nason
10 3/11/13 3/11/13 Declaration of Stone
11 3/11/13 3/11/13 Complaint CV 12-5628 filed in Northern District of CA
12 3/11/13 3/11/13 Affidavit of J ohn Steele
13 3/11/13 3/11/13 Declaration of Matt Catlett
14 3/11/13 Complaint 8:12-CV-01685-MSS-MAP filed in Middle
District of Florida Tampa Divison - U.S. District Court
15 3/11/13 Complaint 8:12-CV-01686-MSS-AEP filed in Middle
1 2
Supp. E.R. 920
APR 2 2013
LIST OF EXHIBITS AND WITNESS - CONTINUED
Case No. Title:
Plaintiff(s) Defendant(s)
Exhibit Description / Witness Called By
Ex. # Id. Ev. Ex. # Id. Ev.
16 3/11/13 Complaint 8:12-CV-01685-MSS-MAP filed in U.S.
District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division
17 3/11/13 Guava Complaint
G-65A (03/07) LIST OF EXHIBITS AND WITNESSES - CONTINUED Page 2 of 2
Supp. E.R. 921
Supp. E.R. 922
Supp. E.R. 923
Supp. E.R. 924
Supp. E.R. 925
Supp. E.R. 926
Supp. E.R. 927
Supp. E.R. 928
Supp. E.R. 929
Supp. E.R. 930
Supp. E.R. 931
Supp. E.R. 932
Supp. E.R. 933
Supp. E.R. 934
Supp. E.R. 935
Supp. E.R. 936
Supp. E.R. 937
Supp. E.R. 938
Supp. E.R. 939
Supp. E.R. 940
Supp. E.R. 941
Supp. E.R. 942

!"#$%$& %
Case5:12-cv-02048-EJD Document15-2 Filed06/14/12 Page1 of 4
Supp. E.R. 943
1
Generated by CamScanner from intsig.com
Supp. E.R. 944
2
Supp. E.R. 945
3
Supp. E.R. 946
Supp. E.R. 947
Supp. E.R. 948
Supp. E.R. 949
Supp. E.R. 950
Exhibit 1
Page 1
Supp. E.R. 951
Exhibit 1
Page 2
Supp. E.R. 952
Exhibit 1
Page 3
Supp. E.R. 953
Exhibit 1
Page 4
Supp. E.R. 954

Exhibit 1
Page 5
Supp. E.R. 955
Exhibit 1
Page 6
Supp. E.R. 956
Exhibit 1
Page 7
Supp. E.R. 957

Exhibit 1
Page 8
Supp. E.R. 958
Exhibit 1
Page 9
Supp. E.R. 959

Exhibit 2
Page 10

Supp. E.R. 960

Exhibit 2
Page 11
Supp. E.R. 961

Exhibit 2
Page 12
Supp. E.R. 962

Exhibit 2
Page 13
Supp. E.R. 963

Exhibit 2
Page 14

Supp. E.R. 964

Exhibit 2
Page 15

Supp. E.R. 965

Exhibit 2
Page 16
Supp. E.R. 966

Exhibit 2
Page 17
Supp. E.R. 967

Exhibit 2
Page 18
Supp. E.R. 968

Exhibit 2
Page 19
Supp. E.R. 969

Exhibit 2
Page 20

Supp. E.R. 970

Exhibit 2
Page 21

Supp. E.R. 971

Exhibit 2
Page 22

Supp. E.R. 972

Exhibit 2
Page 23

Supp. E.R. 973

Exhibit 3
Page 24

Supp. E.R. 974

Exhibit 3
Page 25
Supp. E.R. 975

Exhibit 3
Page 26
Supp. E.R. 976

Exhibit 3
Page 27

Supp. E.R. 977

Exhibit 3
Page 28

Supp. E.R. 978

Exhibit 3
Page 29
Supp. E.R. 979

Exhibit 3
Page 30

Supp. E.R. 980

Exhibit 3
Page 31
Supp. E.R. 981

Exhibit 3
Page 32

Supp. E.R. 982

Exhibit 3
Page 33
#:1002
Supp. E.R. 983

Exhibit 3
Page 34

#:1003
Supp. E.R. 984

Exhibit 3
Page 35
#:1004
Supp. E.R. 985

Exhibit 3
Page 36

#:1005
Supp. E.R. 986

Exhibit 3
Page 37
#:1006
Supp. E.R. 987

Exhibit 3
Page 38
#:1007
Supp. E.R. 988

Exhibit 3
Page 39

#:1008
Supp. E.R. 989

Exhibit 3
Page 40

#:1009
Supp. E.R. 990

Exhibit 3
Page 41

#:1010
Supp. E.R. 991

Exhibit 3
Page 42
#:1011
Supp. E.R. 992

Exhibit 3
Page 43
#:1012
Supp. E.R. 993

Exhibit 3
Page 44
#:1013
Supp. E.R. 994

Exhibit 3
Page 45
#:1014
Supp. E.R. 995

Exhibit 3
Page 46

#:1015
Supp. E.R. 996
Exhibit 4
Page 47

Supp. E.R. 997

Exhibit 4
Page 48

Supp. E.R. 998
Supp. E.R. 999
Supp. E.R. 1000
Exhibit 1
Page 1

Supp. E.R. 1001

Exhibit 1
Page 2
Supp. E.R. 1002

Exhibit 1
Page 3
Supp. E.R. 1003

Exhibit 1
Page 4

Supp. E.R. 1004

Exhibit 1
Page 5
Supp. E.R. 1005

Exhibit 1
Page 6
Supp. E.R. 1006

Exhibit 1
Page 7
Supp. E.R. 1007

Exhibit 1
Page 8
Supp. E.R. 1008

Exhibit 1
Page 9

Supp. E.R. 1009

Exhibit 1
Page 10

#:1029
Supp. E.R. 1010

Exhibit 1
Page 11
#:1030
Supp. E.R. 1011
Exhibit 2
Page 12

Supp. E.R. 1012

Exhibit 2
Page 13
Supp. E.R. 1013
Exhibit 2
Page 14

Supp. E.R. 1014
Supp. E.R. 1015
Supp. E.R. 1016
Supp. E.R. 1017
EXHIBIT A
Supp. E.R. 1018
Supp. E.R. 1019
Supp. E.R. 1020
Supp. E.R. 1021
Supp. E.R. 1022
Supp. E.R. 1023
Supp. E.R. 1024
Supp. E.R. 1025
Supp. E.R. 1026
Supp. E.R. 1027
Supp. E.R. 1028
Supp. E.R. 1029
Supp. E.R. 1030
Supp. E.R. 1031
Supp. E.R. 1032
EXHIBIT B
Supp. E.R. 1033
Supp. E.R. 1034
Supp. E.R. 1035
Supp. E.R. 1036
Supp. E.R. 1037
Supp. E.R. 1038
Supp. E.R. 1039
Supp. E.R. 1040
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
mpietz@pietzlawrm.com
Telephone: (310)424-5557
Facsimile: (310)546-5301
Kitts and Nevis,
Plaintiff,
JOHN DOE,
Defendant.
Case Assigned to:
2:12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669; 2:12-cv-
6662;2:12-cv-6668
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL B.
STONE
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL B. STONE
Supp. E.R. 1041
Supp. E.R. 1042
Supp. E.R. 1043
Supp. E.R. 1044
Supp. E.R. 1045
Supp. E.R. 1046
Supp. E.R. 1047
Supp. E.R. 1048
Supp. E.R. 1049
Supp. E.R. 1050
Supp. E.R. 1051
Supp. E.R. 1052
Supp. E.R. 1053
Supp. E.R. 1054
Supp. E.R. 1055
Supp. E.R. 1056
Supp. E.R. 1057
Supp. E.R. 1058
Supp. E.R. 1059
Supp. E.R. 1060
Supp. E.R. 1061
Supp. E.R. 1062
Supp. E.R. 1063
Supp. E.R. 1064
Case3:11-cv-05628-MMC Document22 Filed04/11/12 Page1 of 4
Supp. E.R. 1065
Supp. E.R. 1066
Supp. E.R. 1067
Supp. E.R. 1068
Case3:11-cv-05628-MMC Document22-1 Filed04/11/12 Page1 of 8
Supp. E.R. 1069
Supp. E.R. 1070
Supp. E.R. 1071
Supp. E.R. 1072
Supp. E.R. 1073
Supp. E.R. 1074
Supp. E.R. 1075
Supp. E.R. 1076
Case 8:12-cv-01685-MSS-MAP Document 40-5 Filed 12/20/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID 286
Supp. E.R. 1077
Case 8:12-cv-01685-MSS-MAP Document 40-5 Filed 12/20/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID 287
Supp. E.R. 1078
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

415-325-5900

Withdrawing Attorney for Plaintiff

Paul Duffy (Bar No. 224159)
Anti-Piracy Law Group
161 N. Clark St., Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (800) 380-0840
E-mail: paduffy@antipiracylawgroup.com

Incoming Attorney for Pl aintiff


AF HOLDINGS LLC, ) No. 3:12-cv-04221-SC
)
Plaintiff, ) MOTI ON FOR WI THDRAWAL AND
v. ) SUBSTI TUTI ON OF COUNSEL
)
ANDREW MAGSUMBOL, )
)
Defendant. )
)
___________________________________ )

MOTI ON FOR WI THDRAWAL AND SUBSTI TUTI ON OF COUNSEL
Brett L. Gibbs, counsel for Plaintiff AF Holdings LLC ('PlaintiII), hereby moves the Court
pursuant to Eastern District oI CaliIornia Local Rule ('L.R.) 182(g), for an order permitting him to
withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff in this action. Concurrently, attorney Paul Duffy hereby
moves the Court for permission to be substituted in place of Brett L. Gibbs as attorney for Plaintiff.
As grounds for this Motion:
1. Brett L. Gibbs has been counsel for Plaintiff since the commencement of the action.
2. Brett L. Gibbs wishes to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff.
Case3:l2-cv-0422l-SC Document22 Filed0l/30/l3 Pagel of 4
Supp. E.R. 1079
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL

3. Brett L. Gibbs has provided written notice of his withdrawal to Plaintiff. The client
understands and accepts the withdrawal of Brett L. Gibbs.
4. Brett L. Gibbs has provided written notice of his withdrawal to all other parties who
have appeared in this case, and there were no objections.
5. Paul Duffy is licensed to practice in the Eastern District of California, and requests
that he be designated Counsel of Record on behalf of Plaintiff.
6. Brett L. Gibbs, Paul Duffy, and Plaintiff are all in agreement that this withdrawal and
substitution are necessary to allow this case to proceed.
WHEREFORE, the Court should grant Brett L. Gibbs` and Paul Duffy`s Motion Ior
Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel.
DATED: January 30, 2013.

Respectfully Submitted, Respectfully Submitted,

By: ____/s/ Brett L. Gibbs, Esq.____ By: /s/ Paul Duffy
Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) Paul Duffy (Bar No. 224159)
38 Miller Avenue, #263 Anti-Piracy Law Group
Mill Valley, CA 94941 161 N. Clark St., Suite 3200
blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com Chicago, IL 60601
415-325-5900 Phone: (800) 380-0840
E-mail: paduffy@antipiracylawgroup.com

Withdrawing Attorney for Plaintiff Incoming Attorney for Plaintiff


Brett L. Gibbs, Esq.
In-House Counsel, AF Holdings LLC

Case3:l2-cv-0422l-SC Document22 Filed0l/30/l3 Page2 of 4
Supp. E.R. 1080
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _________________________ ________________________________
United States District Judge
Supp. E.R. 1081
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

CERTI FI CATE OF SERVI CE

The undersigned hereby certify that on January 30, 2013, all individuals of record who are deemed
to have consented to electronic service are being served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document, and all attachments and related documents, using the Court`s ECF system.

/s/_Brett L. Gibbs_____ /s/ Paul Duffy
Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. Paul Duffy

Supp. E.R. 1082
Supp. E.R. 1083
Supp. E.R. 1084

EXHIBIT 1
Supp. E.R. 1085
Supp. E.R. 1086
Supp. E.R. 1087
Supp. E.R. 1088
Supp. E.R. 1089
Supp. E.R. 1090
Supp. E.R. 1091
Supp. E.R. 1092
Supp. E.R. 1093
Supp. E.R. 1094
Supp. E.R. 1095
Supp. E.R. 1096
Supp. E.R. 1097
Supp. E.R. 1098

EXHIBIT 2
Supp. E.R. 1099
Supp. E.R. 1100
1

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

SUNLUST PICTURES LLC,
Plaintiff, Case No.
v.
TUAN NGUYEN,
Defendant,
____________________________________/

COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff Sunlust Pictures LLC (Plaintiff), through its undersigned counsel, hereby files
this Complaint requesting damages and injunctive relief, and alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
Defendant Tuan Nguyen (Defendant) knowingly and illegally reproduced and distributed
///
Supp. E.R. 1101
14

of this action; and
circumstances.

Sunlust Pictures LLC,
DATED: July 26, 2012
By: /s/ George A. Banas
George A. Banas (Bar No. 27467)
BANAS LAW FIRM
8270 Woodland Center Blvd.
Tampa, Florida 33614
Phone: 415-325-5900
E-mail: blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com
Supp. E.R. 1102
1

TAMPA DIVISION

FIRST TIME VIDEOS LLC,
Plaintiff, Case No.
v.
PAUL OPPOLD,
Defendant,
____________________________________/

Plaintiff First Time Videos LLC (Plaintiff), through its undersigned counsel, hereby
files this Complaint requesting damages and injunctive relief, and alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
Defendant Paul Oppold (Defendant) knowingly and illegally reproduced and distributed
///
Case 8:12-cv-01686-MSS-AEP Document 1 Filed 07/30/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID 1
Supp. E.R. 1103
14

of this action; and
circumstances.

First Time Videos LLC,
BANAS LAW FIRM
Phone: 415-325-5900
Case 8:12-cv-01686-MSS-AEP Document 1 Filed 07/30/12 Page 14 of 14 PageID 14
Supp. E.R. 1104
1

TAMPA DIVISION

OPENMIND SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff, Case No.
v.
BARRY WOLFSON,
Defendant,
____________________________________/

Plaintiff Openmind Solutions, Inc. (Plaintiff), through its undersigned counsel, hereby
files this Complaint requesting damages and injunctive relief, and alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
Defendant Barry Wolfson (Defendant) knowingly and illegally reproduced and distributed
///
Case 8:12-cv-01687-EAK-AEP Document 1 Filed 07/30/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID 1
Supp. E.R. 1105
14

of this action; and
circumstances.

Openmind Solutions, Inc. ,
BANAS LAW FIRM
Phone: 415-325-5900
Case 8:12-cv-01687-EAK-AEP Document 1 Filed 07/30/12 Page 14 of 14 PageID 14
Supp. E.R. 1106
2100 M STREET NORTHWEST | SUITE 170-417 | WASHINGTON DC | 20037
P 868-56d-V/lRE (9/173) | F 685-964 V/iRE (9473)
01/30/2013
SENT VTA U.S. MAIL
Re: Guava LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC
12-MR-417 Ref #
This letter is to provide you legal notice that a lawsuit involving you has been led in
St. Clair County, Illinois. The case, Guava LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications,
LLC, was led on November 20, 2012 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois Law Division. The purpose of this letter is to put
you on notice of impending litigation and allow you the opportunity to seek legal
counsel or speak with someone from our ofce regarding this matter.
Our company, Guava LLC, operates computer systems on behalf of our clients, who
are adult content producers. Our computers were breached and our les were stolen.
Our engineers observed your Internet account distributing these les via BitTorrent.
BitTorrent is associated with sucli websites and software as the Pirate Bay and Trans
mission. For more information regarding BitTorrent you may reference online sources.
In the course of discovery, we issued subpoenas to various Internet Service Providers
;o obtain the identifying information of the wrongdoer^OnNovember B
UTC, our engineers observed your IP address,H^^H. trading in
,1;,,P tfere taken from our company's computers. Your ISP^jomcast, turned
over records conrming that you were the account holder of IP^^^^Hon the
date in question. Based on this information, we will seek to hold you (or the person
who used your Internet account) liable for this conduct. For your reference, we have
enclosed a copy of the petition that was led in this lawsuit. Please understand
that if we are forced to proceed against you individually for the acts we observed
your subscriber account committing, the actual complaint naming you as a defendant
could possibly include additional counts, depending on what violations were observed.
Supp. E.R. 1107
Supp. E.R. 1108
Supp. E.R. 1109
Supp. E.R. 1110
Supp. E.R. 1111
Supp. E.R. 1112
Supp. E.R. 1113

TECH | 10/15/2012 @ 2:09PM | 27,559 views
How Porn Copyright Lawyer
John Steele Has Made A 'Few
Million Dollars' Pursuing
(Sometimes Innocent) 'Porn
Pirates'
Attorney John Steele is currently
suing approximately 20,000
Internet users.
The rather long list of People Most Hated By
The Internet that guy who sued the Oatmeal,
RIAA, Hunter Moore, Julia Allison,
Violentacrez would be incomplete were it
not to include John Steele. Steele is a lawyer who
has partnered with the pornography industry to
go after pirates who download their XXX films
without paying for them. He has filed over 350 of
these suits, and says he is currently suing
approximately 20,000 people.
The tactic is similar to the one employed by the
recording industry years ago to sue people who
were amassing huge music libraries through
peer-to-peer sharing rather than buying CDs.
But where RIAA wanted to scare people out of illegal downloads by getting
massive, scary judgments in highly publicized cases against individual
Napster users, Steele and the lawyers like him are content to get relatively
small settlements from individuals who pay up quietly to avoid being linked
by name in public court filings for allegedly watching a film such as Illegal
Ass 2.
Im considered the original copyright troll, says John Steele, almost proudly.
At least my wife loves me. When I read about myself on the Internet, I think,
Who is this jerk?
Attorneys like Steele identify allegedly guilty parties by monitoring
file-sharing on BitTorrent (an increasingly surveilled place) and capturing the
IP addresses of people sharing movies made by their porn producing clients.
They then name the IP addresses as John Does in a copyright infringement
lawsuit, and get a judge to force an ISP to reveal the paying customers behind
the IP addresses. They sometimes sue hundreds of people at a time this way.
Those people then get a letter from the lawyer informing them that theyre
Kashmir Hill, Forbes Staff
Welcome to The Not-So Private Parts where technology & privacy collide
How Porn Copyright Lawyer John Steele Has Made A 'Few Million Dollars' Pursuing ... http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/10/15/how-porn-copyright-lawyer-john-s...
1 of 5 12/12/13 12:56 AM
Supp. E.R. 1114
Unless you're Sasha
Grey, you probably
don't want your name
publicly linked with
this movie.
accused of downloading a particular movie and that they
have the opportunity to pay a settlement (usually around
$3,000) to make the legal matter go away, or risk being
taken to court. Steeles tactics are controversial, and have
inspired a huge online backlash with critical stories from
Ars Technica, TechDirt, and specialized sites such as
DieTrollDie. Those who believe that everything should be
free online are especially vocal.
Buzzfeed did a rather long piece laying out why Steeles
suits inspire such criticism. To boil it down to two
reasons:
ONE: The paying customer behind the IP address may
not be the person who downloaded Tranny Donkey Porn From Mars. A judge
overseeing a lawsuit in New York against 176 John Does accused of downloading
My Little Panties 2 expressed concerns after the lawyer representing Digital Sin
in the suit estimated that 30% of the names turned over by ISPs are not those of
individuals who actually downloaded or shared copyrighted material. Counsel
stated that the true offender is often the teenaged son or the boyfriend if its a
lady. Alternatively, the perpetrator might turn out to be a neighbor in an
apartment building that uses shared IP addresses or a dormitory that uses shared
wireless networks, wrote Judge Alison Nathan, in an order giving the John Does
and the ISPs 60 days to try to quash the subpoena.
Just because wrong person arrested for murder doesnt mean murder
shouldnt be a crime, quips Steele. We assess the situation and try to get the
facts. Theres certain fact patterns that suggest its not the right person.
He doesnt elaborate on what fact patterns suggest the person theyre suing
isnt a porn lover but says most of their targets tend to be 20 to
40-something males.
Still Steele says even if the person isnt the porn perp, he thinks the person
still plays a role in the crime. Dont let people commit criminal acts on your
network, he says. If you lend your gun to someone who commits a crime,
youre responsible. (Ed. Note: Probably not in a court of law though.)
TWO: Some criticize the suits as a perversion of the justice system, and some of
the judges asked to force ISPs to turn over the information are expressing
discomfort about being asked to do so. [T]he potential for abuse is very high. The
infringed work is a pornographic film. To save himself from embarrassment, even
if he is not the infringer, the subscriber will very likely pay the settlement price,
wrote Judge Otis Wright in a California case against 10 John Does accused of
illegally downloading Blonde Ambition. Critics say that the lawyers bringing
these suits have no plan to take them to trial, but simply want to get identifying
information for alleged copyright infringers and then shame them into paying a
few thousand dollars to make the problem go away whether they did the
downloading or not. The Court will not idly watch what is essentially an extortion
scheme, for a case that plaintiff has no intention of bringing to trial, wrote
Wright in a June order that asked Cox Communications to out John Doe 1 to porn
company Malibu Media, but said that Malibu needed to sue the rest of its John
Does individually (making the mass outing and settlement request process much
harder and more expensive, as they cant sue hundreds of people at one time).
Steele, who was previously a family law attorney handling divorce cases
before discovering the exciting world of porn copyright law, says his firm,
Steele Hansmeier, was one of the first to partner with the porn industry and
start filing these suits; he filed his first porn case in 2010. He claims to have
come up with the idea of pursuing people for illegal downloads while in law
school at the University of Minnesota (from which he graduated in 2006).
2 of 5 12/12/13 12:56 AM
Supp. E.R. 1115
When we were in law school, we could look at the router and see people
ripping movies and songs. We thought, Wouldnt it be amazing if we could
find a way to identify these people and go after them? he says. Adult
entertainment companies were only ones that would work with us.
Now there are many lawyers and porn companies who have been struggling
in the age of free salacious Internet content seeking to make profits this
way. Hundreds of these cases have made or are making their way through
court systems around the country, and tens of thousands John Does have
been sued. (Surprise! Lots of people watch porn on the Internet.) Steele says
he files 20 lawsuits a month, and would like to increase this to 300.
[Copyrighted porn being downloaded for free] is a huge problem, says
Steele. I think weve made a difference. Otherwise, we wouldnt have made so
many people so mad.
Critics say we never actually file suit against people, just get their
information, then pressure them to settle. But were prepared to fight if you
dont want to settle, says Steele. In the early stages, they didnt do this, but
Steele says they are now willing to name names and take these cases to trial,
bringing to bear other evidence, gathered from inspecting the accuseds
computer and hard drive and interviewing friends and family about their porn
habits. We collect quite a bit of info about the Does.
He points the finger at other attorneys who are abusing the process to get
John Does to pay up without due process, whether theyre guilty of illegal
porn consumption or not.
Almost everyone who has not settled, we have sued, says Steele. Theres a
backlog right now.
Steele has never taken one of his John Does to court though he says he
relishes the opportunity for a trial. If I have judgments in my hands,
wouldnt that be a wonderful thing to show everyone to make other people
settle? he says.
I asked Steele, who works with approximately two dozen adult entertainment
clients how many of these cases he has settled. He says a fair number
would be 5,000.
These firms generally ask people to settle by paying them $3,000. Doing the
math, I suggest Steele has made $15 million settling these suits.
Maybe a little less. We dont track the amount weve recovered. More than a
few million, he says, declining to offer exact numbers. Weve done
reductions based on peoples situations. We decided were not going after
people in the military or active service.
There is trouble on the horizon, though. As mentioned before, some judges
have expressed skepticism about these suits and are trying to make it harder
for lawyers to file them en masse against hundreds of John Does.
Steele expresses annoyance at this: When we sue 100 Does, we dont always
get 100 names. Sometimes, it just ends up being 40 people, he says. In one
case, 27 Doe IP addresses all belonged to one person.
When one side trying to find procedural loopholes, it speaks to the strength
of their case, he continues.
3 of 5 12/12/13 12:56 AM
Supp. E.R. 1116
Steeles other problem is that ISPs are starting to push back against
complying with these subpoenas. In Chicago, Comcast intervened in a case
that involved some of its subscribers saying that porn company AF Holdings
was abusing the legal system to shake down the Doe defendants, getting
their identifying information in order to embarrass and harass them into
paying a settlement. In that case, the judge quashed the subpoenas.
Comcast has objected to 30 or 40 of our subpoenas. Couple theyve won and
couple where theyve lost. We have great relationships with many ISPS, but
not with Comcast, says Steele. Its a business decision for them. They dont
want to lose their clients. But if you step into shoes of your subscribers, you
become responsible. Comcast is sheltering people so they can make money.
In August, Prenda Law, another firm that pursues these types of case, filed a
lawsuit in Illinois against AT&T, Comcast Cable Communications and their
corporate executives for aiding hackers targeting adult content by refusing
to turn over identifying information in these suits.
Its really simple, says Steele. We caught someone stealing.
Some of those accused of stealing porn movies are starting to fight back. In
addition to creating online forums with instructions as to how to fight these
suits, some innocent parties have sued porn companies and their lawyers in
return. Earlier this year, California woman Liuxia Wong sued Hard Drive
Productions (represented by John Steele) for trying to extort her, accusing her
of illegally downloading Amateur Allure Jen and requesting $3,4000 from
her to settle the suit. She and her husband had an open Wi-Fi network and
said they had no idea who might have downloaded the movie. Steele settled
the suit for an undisclosed amount.
Were very comfortable with who came out ahead in the case, he says. The
way it ended caused us no pain.
Other possible roadblocks: This summer, a class action lawsuit popped up in
Kentucky accusing a bunch of porn companies of racketeering, fraud and
defamation for their attempts to get people to pay for illegal downloads.
Steele says hes unconcerned. Eight state attorney generals have called him
about extortion claims. Once I explain, theyre reassured, he says.
This fall, various ISPS announced plans to collaborate in a deal negotiated by
copyright holders and the Obama administration: a six strikes program in
which ISPs will issue warnings to their customers when they see them
infringing on copyrights. I ask Steele if hes worried that will effectively stop
illegal downloads (and thus negate the need for porn companies to go after
downloaders in court, making him unnecessary).
I doubt the effectiveness of this, he says. Little pop-up windows? I dont see
the downside of getting caught. If consumer groups agree with it, cant be that
bad.
Steele says part of the problem is the culture of the Internet: people thinking
content is and should be free there. Eighteen-year-olds call us [after
receiving settlement letters], confused, he says. They dont know theyre
doing anything wrong.
Asked about the criticism inherent in shaming people into paying settlements
by threatening to associate them with dirty movies theyve watched, Steele is
unapologetic.
4 of 5 12/12/13 12:56 AM
Supp. E.R. 1117

This article is available online at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/10/15/how-porn-copyright-lawyer-
john-steele-justies-his-pursuit-of-sometimes-innocent-porn-pirates/
People dont like to get caught doing anything wrong, he says. They should
be embarrassed about the stealing.
5 of 5 12/12/13 12:56 AM
Supp. E.R. 1118

i

________________________________________________________________________

JOHN DOES SUPPLEMENTAL EXCERPTS OF RECORD VOLUME V
________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

INGENUITY 13 LLC

Plaintiff-Appellant
and


Movants-Appellants,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant-Appellee,

13-55880; 13-55881; 13-55882;
13-55883; 13-55884; 13-56028

Related Appeal No.:
13-80114


ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I


















iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME II
















/ /


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME III


59-1 - Pietz Reply Decl..........584


61 - Gibbs Reply Decl............632




76-1 - Ex. 1 StarTribune......646







117-1 Pietz Decl..........715




v
TABLE OF CONTENTS








175-3 - Proposed Order........847







/ /


vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME IV


















vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS


Visits Florid.........................1077


and Email) .......1083





Forbes..1114

/ /

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME V




/ /

-1-
AMENDED (REDACTED) DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT FROM 30(b)(6)
DEPOSITION OF AF HOLDINGS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
Telephone: (310) 424-5557
Facsimile : (310) 546-5301


Kitts and Nevis,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE,

Defendant.


Case Assigned to:


2:12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669; 2:12-cv-
6662; 2:12-cv-6668

AMENDED (REDACTED)
DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT FROM
30(b)(6) DEPOSITION OF AF
HOLDINGS

[Amending Docket Item No. 69-1]

Supp. E.R. 1119

EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
Supp. E.R. 1120
California Deposition Reporters Page: 1
1
2
3
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
--oOo--
6
AF HOLDINGS, LLC, )
)
7
Plaintiff, )
)CASE NO
8
vs. )3:12-CV-02396-EMC
)
9
JOE NAVASCA, )
)
10
Defendant. )
___________________________________)
11
12
13
14
DEPOSITION OF: PAUL HANSMEIER
TAKEN BY : NICHOLAS RANALLO, ESQ.
15
MORGAN PIETZ, ESQ.
COMMENCING : 10:00 - 6:15 P.M.
16
LOCATION : PREMIER BUSINESS CENTER
225 BUSH STREET, 16TH FLOOR
17
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
DAY, DATE : TUESDAY, FEBRUARY, 19TH, 2013
18
REPORTED BY : ANGIE M. MATERAZZI, CSR NO. 13116
PURSUANT TO : NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
19
ORIGINAL TO : BRETT L. GIBBS, ESQ.
20
21
PAGES 1 - 290
22
JOB NO. 131194
23
24
25
Supp. E.R. 1121
1
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
2
3
4
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
5
BRETT L. GIBBS, ESQ.
6
PRENDA LAW, INC.
38 MILLER AVENUE, #263
7
MILL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 94941
415-325-5990
8
BLGIBBS@WEFIGHTPIRACY.COM
9
10
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
11
NICHOLAS RANALLO, ESQ.
LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS RANALLO
12
371 DOGWOOD WAY
BOULDER CREEK, CALIFORNIA 95006
13
831-703-4011
NICK@RANALLOLAWOFFICE.COM
14
15
16
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
17
MORGAN E. PIETZ, ESQ., CO-COUNSEL
18
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
3779 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SUITE 206
19
MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90266
310-424-5557
20
MPIETZ@PIETZLAWFIRM.COM
21
22
23
---O0O---
24
25
Supp. E.R. 1122
1
2
I N D E X
3
INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS
4
5
Examination by Mr. Ranallo ........................6
6
Examination by Mr. Pietz .........................25
7
Further Examination by Mr. Ranallo ...............36
8
Examination by Mr. Pietz .........................37
9
10
Further Examination by Mr. Pietz .................41
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Further Examination by Mr. Ranallo ..............104
21
Further Examination by Mr. Pietz ................106
22
23
24
25
Supp. E.R. 1123
1
2
3
Futher Examination by Mr. Ranallo ...............156
4
Futher Examination by Mr. Pietz .................161
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
---o0o---
24
25
Supp. E.R. 1124
1
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION
2
No. Description Page
3
4
101 ADR Certification by Parties and ...........52
Counsel
5
102 ADR Certification by Paries and Counsel ...78
6
103 Notice for Withdrawal and Substitution ....132
7
of Counsel
8
104 Plaintiff's Notice of Dismissal Without ...150
Prejudice of Remaining Doe Defendants
9
105 1 page AVN - Exile Distribution Adds ......156
10
Heartbreaker Films to Roster
11
106 Nina Mercedez: Popular Demand, Coming .....157
From Exile - XBIZ.com
12
107 Plaintiff AF Holdings LLC's Response to ...235
13
Defendant Joe Navasca's Motion to Post
Undertaking
14
108 Paul Hansmeier's signature on a blank .....235
15
piece of paper
16
109 1-page of signature exemplars for Paul ....236
& Peter Hansmeier
17
110 Petition for Discovery Before Suit to .....238
18
Identify Responsible Persons and
Entities
19
111 Business Record Detail, MCGIP, LLC .......249
20
21
22
** DELINEATES MARKED TESTIMONY.
23
24
25
Supp. E.R. 1125
1
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2013
2
10:00 A.M.
3
---O0O---
4
5
PAUL HANSMEIER
6
the deponent herein, after having been first duly sworn,
7
was deposed and testified as follows:
8
9
EXAMINATION BY MR. RANALLO
10
Q. Good morning. Could you state your name for
11
the record, please.
12
A. Paul Hansmeier.
13
Q. And Mr. Hansmeier what is your address?
14
A. 80 South 8th Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota
15
55402.
16
Q. Is that your home address?
17
A. That's my business address.
18
Q. What's your home address?
19
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Privacy.
20
THE WITNESS: ,
21
Minneapolis, Minnesota .
22
BY MR. RANALLO:
23
Q. Mr. Hansmeier have you ever been deposed
24
before?
25
A. I have not.
Supp. E.R. 1126
1
Q. Do you know how depositions work? You're an
2
attorney, are you not?
3
MR. GIBBS: Compound. Objection.
4
THE WITNESS: I'm an attorney.
5
BY MR. RANALLO:
6
Q. And are you familiar with the procedures for
7
depositions?
8
A. I know what a deposition is.
9
Q. Have you ever conducted one?
10
A. I have not.
11
Q. Basically, what's going to happen is I'm going
12
to ask you a bunch of questions on the subjects that you
13
were previously noticed on. If for any reason you don't
14
understand a question, please let me know and I will
15
rephrase it for you. If you do answer a question, I'm
16
going to assume that you understood it. In addition, if
17
you can try to refrain from nodding, pointing,
18
gesturing, anything that the court reporter can't easily
19
pick up and sort of the same thing with uh-huh, huh-uh,
20
those kind of answers.
21
MR. GIBBS: Is that a question?
22
MR. PIETZ: It's an admonition.
23
MR. RANALLO: Let's go ahead and get started
24
here.
25
MR. PIETZ: I'd like to add an admonition.
Supp. E.R. 1127
1
Just to be clear, you'll be given the opportunity to go
2
over the transcript before we finish today. You should
3
understand that your responses in this deposition are
4
under penalty of perjury as if you were being sworn on
5
the stand in a court of law. You'll have an opportunity
6
to correct things that you say here today. However, you
7
should understand that if you subsequently try and
8
correct your testimony, that an inference can be drawn
9
about your credibility and the corrections can be used
10
against you. Do you understand?
11
THE WITNESS: Yes.
12
MR. GIBBS: And as to that, I would like to
13
the reserve the right to do that.
14
MR. PIETZ: We'll put a standard stipulation
15
on the record.
16
MR. GIBBS: Just reserving the right.
17
BY MR. RANALLO:
18
Q. Mr. Hansmeier what is your position with AF
19
Holdings?
20
A. I do not have a position with AF Holdings.
21
Q. Are you a member of AF Holdings?
22
A. I am not.
23
Q. You have no ownership interest in the entity
24
whatsoever?
25
A. That's correct.
Supp. E.R. 1128
1
Q. And who does have an ownership interest in the
2
entity?
3
A. The ownership of AF Holdings -- can you please
4
clarify your question?
5
Q. Who are the members of the AF Holdings?
6
A. The membership interests of AF Holdings are
7
held in a trust.
8
Q. And who are the beneficial owners of AF
9
Holdings?
10
A. Well, the beneficial owner of AF Holdings is a
11
trust.
12
Q. Who does that trust disburse income to?
13
A. Well, I don't believe there is any noticed
14
topic regarding a trust and the terms of the trust.
15
That being said, I'm not aware that there are any named
16
beneficiaries of the trust.
17
Q. So when AF Holdings get a settlement, where
18
does that money go?
19
MR. GIBBS: Objection. I believe this is
20
outside of the scope of the numbered --
21
MR. RANALLO: How about AF Holdings revenues
22
derived from the authorized licensing and distribution
23
of the work, including distribution of such revenues by
24
AF Holdings and the identities of the recipients.
25
MR. GIBBS: But it doesn't ask for who.
Supp. E.R. 1129
1
MR. PIETZ: Okay. Objection duly noted. Are
2
you instructing him not to answer?
3
MR. GIBBS: No. I'm just pointing that out
4
for the record.
5
MR. PIETZ: You can answer.
6
THE WITNESS: Could you please restate the
7
question?
8
BY MR. RANALLO:
9
Q. When AF Holdings receive a settlement, who
10
gets that money and how is it distributed?
11
A. Well --
12
MR. GIBBS: Objection. You're assuming
13
something that hasn't been stated yet.
14
BY MR. RANALLO:
15
Q. Has AF Holdings ever accepted a settlement in
16
its copyright actions?
17
A. Yes.
18
Q. When it receives such settlements, where do
19
they go and who are they distributed to?
20
A. I guess that depends on the case.
21
Q. Could you explain that, what sort of
22
circumstances could determine that?
23
A. For example, if AF Holdings represented by,
24
say, an attorney in Maine, for example, and if AF
25
Holdings enters into a settlement agreement with a
Supp. E.R. 1130
1
defendant in one of those cases, then the revenues from
2
that settlement would go into the trust account for the
3
attorney representing AF Holdings.
4
Q. And from there where do they go?
5
A. Well, generally speaking the revenues that AF
6
Holdings has received from settlements, AF Holdings does
7
not receive a distribution from the trust accounts of
8
the law firms. The reason being that AF Holdings is --
9
uses the money that remains in trust to pay for the
10
expenses of the litigation.
11
Q. So AF Holdings has not distributed any
12
settlement proceeds to any individuals in any cases?
13
MR. GIBBS: Objection. That's misstating the
14
record.
15
MR. RANALLO: That's a question.
16
MR. GIBBS: You just --
17
BY MR. RANALLO:
18
Q. Has AF Holdings distributed any income to any
19
individuals from its settlement proceeds?
20
A. I guess I'll give you the same answer and the
21
answer is that when AF Holdings receives a settlement,
22
the money that it receives from the settlement generally
23
goes back to pay for the expenses of litigation.
24
Q. You say generally. When it doesn't go there,
25
where does it go?
Supp. E.R. 1131
1
A. Well, in that case it can remain in the trust
2
account to pay for expenses of future litigation.
3
Q. So it remains in the lawyer's trust account
4
indefinitely?
5
A. I don't think that's what I said.
6
Q. Does AF Holdings settlement proceeds stay in
7
the attorney's trust account indefinitely?
8
A. No.
9
Q. When they are released from that account,
10
where do they go?
11
A. To pay for the expenses of litigation.
12
Q. And what kind of expenses are those that
13
they're used to pay for?
14
A. What kind of expenses are involved in
15
litigation?
16
Q. Yeah, that AF Holdings pays for.
17
A. Well, I could give you a few examples of
18
expenses, for example, a filing fee.
19
Q. Okay.
20
A. Cost of taking a deposition of Mr. Navasca,
21
for example. The cost of producing documents, the cost
22
of discovery.
23
Q. Let me ask you this. In how many cases has AF
24
Holdings participated in discovery as far as producing
25
documents?
Supp. E.R. 1132
1
MR. GIBBS: Objection. I believe that's not a
2
noticed topic.
3
THE WITNESS: That question is well outside
4
the noticed topics, so I couldn't -- I would be only
5
speculating.
6
BY MR. RANALLO:
7
Q. To your knowledge has AF Holdings ever
8
produced documents in response to a discovery request?
9
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Let's be clear. So
10
you're asking his personal knowledge?
11
MR. RANALLO: I'm asking the corporation's
12
knowledge if they have ever conducted discovery. You're
13
saying the corporation has no knowledge that they have
14
ever --
15
THE WITNESS: Mr. Ranallo, perhaps you could
16
help me out. Which topic does this relate to that you
17
noticed?
18
MR. PIETZ: Well, look, I'm just going to jump
19
in here. Are you instructing him not to answer the
20
question?
21
MR. GIBBS: No, I'm not. I'm just pointing
22
out that it's not a noticed topic, so therefore it's
23
going to be on personal knowledge and personal
24
knowledge --
25
MR. RANALLO: No, it's not --
Supp. E.R. 1133
1
MR. GIBBS: He's not speaking for the
2
corporation at this point.
3
BY MR. RANALLO:
4
Q. Okay. Speak for yourself, Mr. Hansmeier --
5
A. Mr. Ranallo, I'll repeat my question to you,
6
as a courtesy, please let me know which noticed topic
7
you're referring to?
8
Q. You have the noticed topics in front of you.
9
I'm asking questions. Could you please tell me if AF
10
Holdings has ever responded to a discovery request in
11
any of its cases?
12
A. Mr. Ranallo, this is not a topic I prepared
13
for. It would be complete conjecture on my part.
14
Q. So you have no knowledge that they have ever
15
participated in discovery at any time?
16
MR. GIBBS: That misstates the testimony.
17
Objection.
18
BY MR. RANALLO:
19
Q. Let me ask you this. You previously said that
20
AF Holdings' settlement proceeds are used, for example,
21
to respond to discovery; is that correct?
22
A. I was giving an example of a cost that could
23
come up in the context of litigation.
24
Q. So to your knowledge it never has. Has AF
25
Holdings' settlement income ever been used to conduct
Supp. E.R. 1134
1
discovery, to pay for discovery expenses?
2
A. You can continue asking the same questions.
3
I'll continue giving the same answer. The answer is it
4
would be pure speculation and conjecture on my part to
5
know what AF Holdings has and has not done.
6
I'm here to today -- and I prepared today --
7
to discuss the matters that you noticed up on behalf
8
of --
9
Q. And those include -- tell me if I'm wrong --
10
but do those include AF Holdings' revenues from
11
copyright litigation and how they are distributed.
12
A. I think that's a pretty tangential
13
relationship.
14
Q. We'll let somebody else decide -- we'll let a
15
judge decide if AF Holdings will be bound by that. Is
16
it your position that you have no knowledge whether AF
17
Holdings has ever participated in discovery in any of
18
its BitTorrent cases?
19
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Compound. Also, are
20
we talking about his knowledge personally or his
21
knowledge as the PMK for the company?
22
MR. RANALLO: It's the same. He has
23
knowledge. It either binds the company or it does not
24
bind the company.
25
MR. GIBBS: Okay. But I'm saying, you're
Supp. E.R. 1135
1
not -- you said it's tangential. It really doesn't
2
refer to any of the topics that you noticed, so were you
3
asking him personally?
4
MR. RANALLO: You can't refuse to answer on
5
that grounds.
6
MR. GIBBS: I'm not refusing to answer --
7
MR. RANALLO: So what will happen later is a
8
judge will decide if it's not properly cognizable under
9
these topics, AF Holdings won't be bound by it. For now
10
I'm going to go ahead and ask the question, okay?
11
MR. GIBBS: I'm just asking --
12
BY MR. RANALLO:
13
Q. Mr. Hansmeier, to your knowledge, has AF
14
Holdings' revenues from BitTorrent litigation ever been
15
used to respond to discovery in any of its cases?
16
A. I have no personal knowledge one way or
17
another, of course this case, but beyond that I couldn't
18
speak authoritatively.
19
Q. Okay.
20
MR. PIETZ: So just to clarify. When you said
21
earlier that AF Holdings' settlement proceeds could be
22
use to respond to discovery, you have no personal
23
knowledge or corporate knowledge, that indeed, that has
24
ever occurred?
25
THE WITNESS: When I gave the example of a
Supp. E.R. 1136
1
possible cost that could come up in the course of
2
litigation, I was simply providing a list of possible
3
costs that could come up in the course of litigation.
4
BY MR. RANALLO:
5
Q. Let's go to actual costs that have come up in
6
litigation then instead of just examples. What, to your
7
knowledge -- AF Holdings' knowledge, what specific
8
expenses have been paid by AF Holdings' settlement -- or
9
with the funds received from AF Holdings' settlement
10
proceeds?
11
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Compound question.
12
You can answer if you can understand what he
13
means.
14
THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the question,
15
please?
16
BY MR. RANALLO:
17
Q. What specific expenses have been paid out of
18
AF Holdings' attorney -- AF Holdings' settlement
19
proceeds?
20
A. I can say --
21
MR. GIBBS: Objection. This is -- like you
22
mentioned before, this is tangential to the questions.
23
MR. RANALLO: That doesn't mean you don't get
24
to answer, so object and then answer.
25
MR. GIBBS: I'm just objecting. Will you stop
Supp. E.R. 1137
1
yelling. Please stop yelling.
2
THE WITNESS: Mr. Ranallo, I'm beginning to
3
feel a little bit uncomfortable with your level of
4
aggressiveness in this deposition. For the record I
5
would hope that we can keep this professional and
6
cordial.
7
Specific expenses, I can speak to this case
8
specifically, certainly the filing fee involving the
9
case would have been paid for by AF Holdings. I can't
10
recall -- to the extent we had discovery to find out the
11
identity of Mr. Navasca, there would have been a fee
12
paid to the internet service provider to pay for their
13
cost of complying with the subpoena. And the cost of
14
taking Mr. Navasca's deposition would have been an
15
expense paid by AF Holdings and --
16
BY MR. RANALLO:
17
Q. What about 6881 Forensics, do they receive
18
money from AF Holdings' settlement proceeds?
19
A. If your question is are they paid based on the
20
amount of settlements received, the answer is no.
21
Q. My question is, do they -- does AF Holdings'
22
settlement proceeds, are they used to pay 6881
23
Forensics?
24
A. I would answer the question by saying that AF
25
Holdings pay 6681 Forensics and whether that money is
Supp. E.R. 1138
1
sourced from settlement proceeds or otherwise, I mean,
2
directly or indirectly, yes.
3
Q. Does AF Holdings receive any income outside of
4
settlement proceeds?
5
A. That goes back to AF Holdings' business model.
6
And the answer to question is AF Holdings' business
7
model is to purchase the intellectual property rights to
8
various copyrights that, four or five years ago, would
9
have been extremely valuable copyrights. Copyrights
10
have generated hundreds of thousands, if not millions of
11
dollars of revenue per year and because of the heavy
12
epidemic of digital piracy, these copyrights that were
13
once worth considerable amounts of money are now worth
14
next to nothing.
15
Q. I'm going stop your for a second. My question
16
here was, does AF Holdings --
17
A. Mr. Ranallo, I'm answering your question --
18
THE REPORTER: I can only take one person at a
19
time, just to let you know.
20
BY MR. RANALLO:
21
Q. Does AF Holdings receive any revenue aside
22
from settlement proceeds?
23
MR. GIBBS: Objection. You're not letting him
24
answer the question.
25
///
Supp. E.R. 1139
1
BY MR. RANALLO:
2
Q. Yes or no, sir, does AF Holdings receive --
3
A. I will restart my answer because I know it's
4
important to establish a full and accurate record and I
5
know it's important for attorneys to let witnesses
6
answer the question.
7
So starting over, AF Holdings' business model
8
is to secure the intellectual property rights to
9
copyrights that, four or five years ago, would have been
10
extremely valuable. The reason why the intellectual
11
property rights have lost so much value is due to the
12
epidemic of digital piracy.
13
Now, AF Holdings' businesses model is to take
14
these copyrights or its strategy for -- let me back up
15
for one second. So AF Holdings is creating a portfolio
16
of copyrights that basically have little to no value
17
right now, because instead of purchasing the copyrighted
18
works, people just simply like to steal them online.
19
And the only way to turn a copyright from very limited
20
value to having a much greater level of value, you know,
21
Circa 2003, 2004 is to stop people from stealing it.
22
Now, this is why I had to give you the
23
background to answer your question. AF Holdings
24
recognizes revenue when it believes that the value of
25
the copyright has increased, just like an investment
Supp. E.R. 1140
1
bank holding assets, mortgage-back securities, just like
2
a -- I guess any investment fund, holding any form of
3
asset.
4
The -- you know, the convention of
5
mark-to-market accounting says that you recognize
6
revenue when the value of the asset has increased. As
7
of right now, it's far too speculative for AF Holdings
8
to say that its campaign to stop people from stealing it
9
works, succeeded or not succeeded. So as of the now
10
the -- it's been far too speculative for AF Holdings to
11
recognize revenue based of its copyrighted works.
12
Q. Have they recognized any revenue through any
13
sources other than litigation, for example, through
14
legitimate licensing of it?
15
A. No. The only source of revenue that AF
16
Holdings will have with respect to its copyrights are if
17
it increases in value.
18
Q. Okay. When was AF Holdings created?
19
A. AF Holdings was created, I believe, in
20
May 2011.
21
Q. And who is the initial incorporator?
22
A. The initial incorporator was Aisha Sargeant,
23
A-I-S-H-A, S-A-R-G-E-A-N-T.
24
Q. And where does she live?
25
A. She lives in Nevis -- or the Federation of
Supp. E.R. 1141
1
St. Kitts & Nevis.
2
Q. And why was AF Holdings incorporated in Nevis?
3
MR. GIBBS: Objection. I don't believe that's
4
part of the listed topics. It's outside of the scope.
5
6
THE WITNESS: I guess because it's outside the
7
scope, I didn't ask anyone that specific question. I
8
would say, though, that it's a popular forum for
9
incorporating entities.
10
BY MR. RANALLO:
11
Q. And do you know any specific benefits that
12
are, you know, that come with incorporating in Nevis
13
versus, for example, the United States, Nevada,
14
California?
15
MR. GIBBS: Compound. Objection. Also
16
outside the scope --
17
THE WITNESS: I guess I could comment on the
18
benefits and trade offs between Nevis and California or
19
Nevada.
20
BY MR. RANALLO:
21
Q. Does AF Holdings have any employees?
22
A. Yes.
23
Q. And who is AF Holdings -- who are AF Holdings'
24
employees?
25
A. AF Holdings' sole employee is Mark Lutz.
Supp. E.R. 1142
1
Q. When was Mark Lutz hired?
2
A. He was hired very shortly after the
3
incorporation, within a day or two, so May 2011.
4
Q. And does AF Holdings maintain employment
5
records that would reflect Mr. Lutz' employment?
6
A. Could you specifically describe some of these
7
employment records.
8
Q. A W2 for example.
9
A. It does not maintain a W2 for Mr. Lutz.
10
MR. PIETZ: How about a 1099?
11
THE WITNESS: It does not maintain a 1099 for
12
Mr. Lutz.
13
MR. PIETZ: What can kind of records does it
14
maintain for Mr. Lutz?
15
THE WITNESS: I guess -- which topic is this
16
again so I can refresh my recollection?
17
MR. PIETZ: I'm not going to answer that, but
18
it's on the list.
19
MR. GIBBS: Objection. It's not on the list.
20
MR. PIETZ: I disagree. You can go ahead and
21
answer.
22
MR. GIBBS: Which one is it? I disagree.
23
MR. PIETZ: It's not our job to tell you.
24
BY MR. RANALLO:
25
Q. How about AF Holdings' corporate policies
Supp. E.R. 1143
1
regarding business records?
2
A. Well --
3
Q. Would you consider an employment record to be
4
a business record?
5
A. I wouldn't consider an employment record to be
6
a corporate policy.
7
MR. PIETZ: I'd also note for the record that
8
the relevant topic -- one of them is No. 7, which
9
relates to employees of AF Holdings. However, as a
10
practice, I'm not going to get engaged in having to tell
11
you which topic it relates to every single time. We can
12
work on it after. If you have objections, you can note
13
them.
14
MR. GIBBS: I think, for instance, 7 is a
15
debatable topic, in terms of the record.
16
THE WITNESS: I guess I just don't know
17
employment record -- the identity in terms of employment
18
doesn't really cover employment records arguably. But
19
that being said, I guess I'm just not aware of what
20
employment records are required to be kept under the
21
laws of the Federation of St. Kitts & Nevis.
22
BY MR. RANALLO:
23
Q. You understand that you're testifying as --
24
your testimony is binding on AF Holdings, you understand
25
that as a 30(b)(6) deponent?
Supp. E.R. 1144
1
MR. GIBBS: Asked and answered.
2
THE WITNESS: Yes, I understand that. And to
3
finish my answer, I don't think you should interrupt the
4
witness. I guess I should say back to my answers about
5
W2 and 1099, when I was answering that question, I was
6
answering that as I have not personally seen a W2 for
7
Mr. Lutz and I have not personally seen a 1099 form for
8
Mr. Lutz. Do they have those records, that's not one of
9
the topics that I was noticed to prepare on. I'm sure
10
we could get that to you in some form of document
11
request following this deposition.
12
EXAMINATION BY MR. PIETZ
13
Q. So you stated earlier that Mr. Lutz is an
14
employee of AF Holdings. In fact, I think you said he's
15
the sole the employee of AF Holdings.
16
A. That's correct.
17
Q. Do you have any documentary support for that
18
whatsoever?
19
MR. GIBBS: Objection. This is not --
20
BY MR. PIETZ:
21
Q. Let me rephrase. Does AF Holdings have any
22
documentary support whatsoever for the idea that Mark
23
Lutz is its sole employee?
24
MR. GIBBS: Again, objection. It's not one of
25
the noticed topics.
Supp. E.R. 1145
1
BY MR. PIETZ:
2
Q. You can answer.
3
A. I guess what I can say on behalf of AF
4
Holdings is that I do not review any documents that
5
would fall within the category of documentary support.
6
Does that mean they have them, perhaps. Perhaps they
7
don't have them. It wasn't one of the noticed topics.
8
I inquired of Mr. Lutz as to who the employees of AF
9
Holdings were and Mr. Lutz said that he was the sole
10
employee.
11
Q. Just to be clear, I disagree that No. 7 is not
12
a noticed topic. I'm asking for the testimony of the
13
corporation, whether the corporation -- pardon me. It's
14
not a corporation. It's a limited liability company.
15
I'm asking whether the entity, not you personally,
16
whether the entity has any documentary evidence that
17
Mark Lutz is its employee.
18
MR. GIBBS: Objection. That is not what No. 7
19
says.
20
THE WITNESS: Well, I will read No. 7. It
21
says identity and terms of employment for any and all AF
22
Holdings' employees and independent contractors utilized
23
by AF Holdings. I have identified AF Holdings' employee
24
as Mark Lutz. I told you his term of employment is May
25
2011 through the present and as to whether or not there
Supp. E.R. 1146
1
are documents that further support my testimony, I can
2
only say that I did not review any documents. I was not
3
given any indication by this notice that I was required
4
to provide a recitation of the various employment
5
records of AF Holdings, so that's outside the scope of
6
my knowledge.
7
BY MR. PIETZ:
8
Q. Does Mr. Lutz have an employment agreement
9
with Mr. AF Holdings?
10
A. If Mr. Lutz has an employment agreement with
11
AF Holdings, I did not review it.
12
Q. Did you investigate whether such an agreement
13
exists?
14
A. I investigated the identity in terms of
15
employment for any and all AF Holdings' employees by
16
speaking with Mr. Lutz.
17
MR. PIETZ: I'm going to move to strike that
18
as nonresponsive.
19
BY MR. PIETZ:
20
Q. With respect to the terms of Mr. Lutz's
21
employment, did you make any kind of investigation, ask
22
anyone, whether Mr. Lutz had a written employment
23
agreement with AF Holdings?
24
A. I did not ask Mr. Lutz whether he had a
25
written employment agreement with AF Holdings.
Supp. E.R. 1147
1
Q. Did you ask anyone else whether there was a
2
written employment agreement with Mr. Lutz?
3
A. I asked Mr. Lutz -- I didn't ask Mr. Lutz
4
whether he had an employment agreement. I asked
5
Mr. Lutz who the -- who was employed by AF Holdings and
6
what were the terms of the employment.
7
Q. To be more specific. Could you elaborate on
8
the terms of Mr. Lutz's employment with AF Holdings?
9
A. He is the -- well, he's essentially the CEO of
10
AF Holdings.
11
Q. How much is he paid?
12
A. He does not receive a salary for duties as
13
CEO.
14
Q. Does he receive a salary for any other role
15
that he fills at AF Holdings?
16
A. He does not receive a salary from AF Holdings.
17
Q. Does he receive any other kind of compensation
18
other than salary from AF Holdings?
19
MR. GIBBS: Again, this is not a noticed
20
topic.
21
MR. RANALLO: It is his terms of employment.
22
MR. GIBBS: No, but he's talking about outside
23
of AF Holdings, which is not -- nothing to do with AF
24
Holdings.
25
MR. PIETZ: I'm asking whether AF Holdings
Supp. E.R. 1148
1
pays Mr. Lutz any money of any kind.
2
MR. GIBBS: Same objection.
3
BY MR. PIETZ:
4
Q. You can answer.
5
A. I guess my answer to that question is that AF
6
Holdings does not pay Mr. Lutz money.
7
Q. What does it pay Mr. Lutz then?
8
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Assume facts not in
9
evidence.
10
THE WITNESS: It has not paid Mr. Lutz
11
anything to date.
12
BY MR. PIETZ:
13
Q. Is there any form of nonmonetary compensation
14
that AF Holdings pays -- extends to Mr. Lutz in exchange
15
for his services as an employee of AF Holdings?
16
A. There's nothing that I'm aware of.
17
Q. So it's your testimony here today that
18
Mr. Lutz receives no compensation whatsoever for his
19
role as the sole employee of AF Holdings?
20
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Mischaracterization of
21
earlier testimony.
22
BY MR. PIETZ:
23
Q. It's a question. You can go ahead and answer.
24
A. My testimony is that AF Holdings has not paid
25
Mr. Lutz anything during the term of his employment.
Supp. E.R. 1149
1
MR. PIETZ: Move to strike that as
2
nonresponsive. That wasn't the question I asked.
3
BY MR. PIETZ:
4
Q. Is your testimony here today that AF Holdings
5
has never paid Mr. Lutz any compensation of any kind for
6
his services as the sole employee of AF Holdings?
7
A. Could you repeat that?
8
(Record read as requested.)
9
THE WITNESS: Yes. My testimony is that year
10
to date -- during the term of his employment he has not
11
been paid anything for his services as an employee.
12
MR. PIETZ: Move to strike as nonresponsive.
13
BY MR. PIETZ:
14
Q. I'm not interested during the term of his
15
employment. I'm interested in at any time in the past
16
has Mr. Lutz received any kind of compensation
17
whatsoever in connection with his services to AF
18
Holdings?
19
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Outside the scope of
20
the questions.
21
THE WITNESS: Just so I'm clear, are you
22
saying before AF Holdings was formed?
23
BY MR. PIETZ:
24
Q. Well, to clarify, your last question contained
25
a hedge, which was that AF Holdings hasn't paid him
Supp. E.R. 1150
1
anything during the term of his employment. What I'm
2
asking is did it pay him any money at any time, not just
3
during the scope of his employment -- during the term of
4
his employment.
5
A. He has not been paid -- he was not paid prior
6
to the term of his employment either.
7
Q. How about subsequent to the term of his
8
employment?
9
A. Well, he's currently employed, so I think that
10
covers all time in history.
11
Q. So to be clear then. Mr. Lutz has never
12
received any compensation of any kind in connection with
13
his services provided to AF Holdings?
14
A. Mr. Lutz has not been compensated by AF
15
Holdings during the term of his employment and he has
16
not been compensated by AF Holdings prior to the term of
17
his employment.
18
Q. Has Mr. Lutz been compensated by any person or
19
entity other than AF Holdings in connection with his
20
services AF Holdings?
21
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Outside the scope.
22
THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge who else has
23
compensated Mr. Lutz for what.
24
BY MR. PIETZ:
25
Q. So is Mr. Lutz paid minimum wage by AF
Supp. E.R. 1151
1
Holdings?
2
A. Again, Mr. Lutz has not been compensated by AF
3
Holdings during the term of his employment or prior to
4
the term of his employment for his services as the sole
5
employee of AF Holdings.
6
Q. So your testimony is that Mr. Lutz works for
7
AF Holdings completely for free with no compensation of
8
any kind coming from any source?
9
A. My testimony is he has not been compensated by
10
AF Holdings during the term of his employment or prior
11
to the term of his employment.
12
Q. Has he been compensated by anyone else for his
13
services provided to AF Holdings?
14
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Calls for speculation.
15
THE WITNESS: You'll have to ask Mr. Lutz who
16
else is compensating him.
17
BY MR. PIETZ:
18
Q. So I would like to ask you -- and we'll step
19
out of the 30(b)(6) role. I'd like to ask you whether
20
you have any personal knowledge whether anyone has ever
21
paid Mr. Lutz money or any other kind of compensation in
22
exchange for or as a quid pro quo for his services
23
provided to AF Holdings?
24
A. I have no recollection of any such
25
arrangement.
Supp. E.R. 1152
1
Q. How about the company. Is the company, AF
2
Holdings, aware of any other person or entity who
3
compensates Mr. Lutz in exchange for his services
4
provided to AF Holdings?
5
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Vague. You're talking
6
about the company. What are you talking about?
7
MR. PIETZ: I'm talking about AF Holdings.
8
THE WITNESS: Could you repeat that, please?
9
BY MR. PIETZ:
10
Q. Testifying now on behalf of AF Holdings. Does
11
AF Holdings have any knowledge of any payments made to
12
Mr. Lutz by parties other than AF Holdings in connection
13
with his employment at AF Holdings?
14
A. I guess as the corporate representative for AF
15
Holdings appearing here today to testify as to the
16
topics listed in this notice of deposition, I have -- in
17
my preparation for the various topics listed in this
18
notice of deposition, I did not come across any
19
information along those lines.
20
Q. Did you investigate whether Mr. Lutz is paid
21
by any person or entity other than AF Holdings in
22
connection with his services to AF Holdings?
23
MR. GIBBS: Objection. That's was not
24
required --
25
THE WITNESS: I investigated the noticed
Supp. E.R. 1153
1
topics, but I can't see a notice of -- or a noticed
2
topic that contains anything along those lines. I
3
investigated the identify and terms for Mr. Lutz's
4
employment and I've already testified that Mr. Lutz was
5
not compensated by AF Holdings during the term of his
6
employment or preceding the terms of his employment.
7
BY MR. PIETZ:
8
Q. Listening to your answer very carefully, I'm
9
just going to tell you what it sounds like to me. It
10
sounds like you're leaving open an exception, if you
11
will, that perhaps there could be some other person or
12
entity that compensates Mr. Lutz in connection with his
13
services to AF Holdings.
14
I just want to be very clear that you're
15
saying that Mr. Lutz is not compensated by anybody
16
within the knowledge of AF Holdings and you personally,
17
both, in connection with his services to AF Holdings?
18
A. Is that a question?
19
MR. GIBBS: It's compound.
20
THE WITNESS: What's the question? You
21
started your question with I want to be very clear.
22
BY MR. PIETZ:
23
Q. Fair enough. I could be more clear. Let me
24
try asking it a different way. Is it the testimony of
25
AF Holdings that as far as AF Holdings is aware, after a
Supp. E.R. 1154
1
reasonable investigation, Mr. Lutz has never received
2
any compensation from any source in connection with his
3
services to AF Holdings?
4
A. It is the testimony of AF Holdings that during
5
the course of my investigation so I could come here
6
today and be prepared to discuss the topics that were
7
noticed up in this notice of deposition, that the
8
identity and terms of employment with -- the terms of
9
employment with respect to Mr. Lutz by AF Holdings, that
10
I conducted my due diligence and investigation so that I
11
could come here and testify on the topic, that I could
12
not find any documents that would suggest that Mr. Lutz
13
was -- or in fact, Mr. Lutz -- in my discussion with Mr.
14
Lutz -- that he is not compensated by AF Holdings in
15
connection -- or he has not been compensated by AF
16
Holdings in connection with his employment with AF
17
Holdings.
18
Q. I'll note for the record the deponent appears
19
to be reading from a document, which I believe is the
20
deposition notice, but it contains some handwritten
21
notes on there; is that correct?
22
A. You're welcome to have it.
23
Q. Could you clarify what page it is that you
24
were just referring to in answering that last question?
25
A. Page 3.
Supp. E.R. 1155
1
Q. We'll take copies of that afterwards.
2
MR. PIETZ: Might I suggest we take a
3
five-minute break. Is anybody else amenable to that?
4
MR. GIBBS: That's fine by me. Is that all
5
right with you?
6
THE WITNESS: I prefer to keep going, but if
7
you guys want to take a break.
8
MR. PIETZ: We'll take five. I think it will
9
help streamline the proceedings. We can go off the
10
record.
11
(Off the record at 10:38 a.m. and back
12
on the record at 10:44 p.m.)
13
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. RANALLO
14
Q. You previously testified -- correct me if I'm
15
wrong -- that AF Holdings is owned wholly by a trust; is
16
that correct?
17
A. That's correct.
18
Q. Has that always been the case?
19
MR. GIBBS: Objection. It's not one of the
20
noticed topics.
21
THE WITNESS: I'm just trying to recall. Yes,
22
I believe so.
23
BY MR. RANALLO:
24
Q. It's always been owned by a trust?
25
A. Yes.
Supp. E.R. 1156
1
Q. And that trust, where is that organized?
2
A. I do not know where the trust is organized.
3
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. PIETZ
4
MR. PIETZ: Sorry. Let's stick on that for a
5
moment. You're telling me that AF Holdings, the
6
company, doesn't know where the trust that it owns is
7
organized?
8
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Misstates testimony.
9
THE WITNESS: I would just refer back to the
10
noticed topics and note that the fact that the noticed
11
topics do not include the --
12
MR. PIETZ: I'll stop you right there.
13
THE WITNESS: -- the organizations of -- I'm
14
in the middle of answering the question that you asked
15
me. If I'm going to be here today and give testimony,
16
you have to listen to my questions -- or if you ask a
17
question, you have to listen my answers and you have to
18
let me answer fully, otherwise you wouldn't want to have
19
an inaccurate record or have it not reflect the truth
20
and the facts.
21
BY MR. PIETZ:
22
Q. In any event, the reason I was stopping you is
23
that it sounded to me like you were off on a
24
nonresponsive topic and I'll ask the question for a you
25
a different way.
Supp. E.R. 1157
1
A. Well, first I'd like to answer the question
2
that you asked, but if you'd like to withdraw the
3
question and ask me a different question, that's --
4
MR. PIETZ: Okay. I'll tell you what. I'm
5
going to ask the reporter to please read back the last
6
question.
7
8
THE WITNESS: And my answer to that question
9
is in reviewing the list of noticed topics, I do not see
10
a topic that relates to the organization or the domicile
11
or anything along those lines of the -- I guess domicile
12
organization of any parent company.
13
Further -- and I'm not speaking on behalf of
14
AF Holdings here. I'm speaking personally. I'm not a
15
trust lawyer, but I wasn't aware the trusts were
16
formally organized.
17
MR. PIETZ: I'm going to move to strike that
18
entire answer as nonresponsive and refer the deponent to
19
subject matter 6, which includes as a topic, AF Holdings
20
corporate structure.
21
BY MR. PIETZ:
22
Q. You testified here earlier today that AF
23
Holdings is owned by a trust. What I'm asking you is
24
what trust? Where is it located?
25
A. I will refer you to topic of No. 6 and note
Supp. E.R. 1158
1
the fact, for the record, that AF Holdings corporate
2
structure is a limited liability company organized under
3
the laws of the Federation of St. Kitts & Nevis.
4
The corporate structure of AF Holdings owner,
5
I do not see on Topic 6. Further, I would, again, note
6
that I'm not even aware if trusts are organized in the
7
sense that a limited liability company is organized or a
8
corporation is organized, so there may not even be an
9
answer to your question.
10
Q. So in my experience most trusts name at least
11
one beneficial owner, but I believe you testified
12
earlier today that the trust that owns AF Holdings has
13
no beneficial owners; is that correct?
14
A. The trust that owns AF Holdings is an
15
undefined beneficiary trust. I would suggest that your
16
experience is not complete when it comes to trusts.
17
Q. Perhaps you can enlighten me. What is a
18
undefined beneficiary trust? Allow me to be more
19
specific. Can you explain to me what is the undefined
20
beneficiary trust that owns AF Holdings?
21
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Outside the topics.
22
THE WITNESS: I don't understand your
23
question.
24
BY MR. PIETZ:
25
Q. If there are no defined beneficiaries to the
Supp. E.R. 1159
1
trust that owns AF Holdings who are true beneficial
2
owners of that trust?
3
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Confusing question.
4
Go ahead and answer if you can.
5
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Can you please
6
repeat the question?
7
BY MR. PIETZ:
8
Q. Who are the beneficial owners of the trust who
9
owns AF Holdings?
10
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Asked and answered.
11
THE WITNESS: There are no defined
12
beneficiaries to my knowledge.
13
BY MR. PIETZ:
14
Q. How about undefined beneficiaries?
15
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Can you clarify what
16
an undefined beneficiary is?
17
BY MR. PIETZ:
18
Q. Go ahead and answer.
19
A. I guess I don't understand the question.
20
Q. Suppose AF Holdings recognized a million
21
dollars in tax revenue, who would have a right to claim
22
a piece of that revenue in connection with the trust
23
that owns AF Holdings?
24
MR. GIBBS: Objection. It's speculatory.
25
MR. PIETZ: It's a hypothetical.
Supp. E.R. 1160
1
You can answer.
2
THE WITNESS: At this point we're getting well
3
beyond these noticed topics and you're asking me to
4
speculate as to the innerworkings of a trust that has --
5
that has not nothing to do with AF Holdings other than
6
being its owner.
7
8
Q. In this case did you have to file any
9
statement identifying whether AF Holdings had any
10
apparent corporations or owners that owned more than
11
10 percent of its stock?
12
A. I don't know.
13
Q. Is it your testimony that this trust owns more
14
than 10 percent of AF Holdings' stock?
15
A. AF Holdings is owned in whole by the trust.
16
17
Q. Who organized the trust? Who created the
18
trust?
19
A. The trust was created by the -- organized by
20
the same individual who incorporated AF Holdings.
21
Q. Is that Aisha --
22
A. Sargeant.
23
Q. Who asked Ms. Sargeant to organize the trust
24
25
MR. GIBBS: This is outside of the noticed
Supp. E.R. 1161
1
topics. Objection.
2
BY MR. PIETZ:
3
Q. You can answer.
4
A. I couldn't tell you. It's outside the scope
5
of the noticed topics.
6
Q. Is there a document pursuant to which the
7
trust was organized?
8
A. Once, again, this is outside the scope of the
9
noticed topics. This isn't something I prepared to
10
answer.
11
MR. PIETZ: Move to strike the last answer as
12
nonresponsive.
13
BY MR. PIETZ:
14
Q. Trust are generally created through some kind
15
of a document establishing that a trust is there by
16
being created. Is there a trust document for the trust
17
18
A. Is that a statement or a question?
19
Q. It's a question.
20
A. So what is the question?
21
MR. PIETZ: Madam reporter, could you read the
22
last question back?
23
24
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Assume facts and also
25
a compound question.
Supp. E.R. 1162
1
THE WITNESS: Once, again, this is outside the
2
scope of the noticed topics. I have not personally
3
reviewed a trust document.
4
MR. PIETZ: Move to strike the answer as
5
nonresponsive. I'm going to also note for the record
6
that you're here today, sir, as the deponent. It's your
7
attorney's job representing you to note whether or not
8
there is an objection about whether my questions are
9
outside the scope of the deposition. Do us a favor and
10
cut that out of your answer and then just either answer
11
it or you can -- or your attorney can instruct you not
12
to answer.
13
MR. GIBBS: Mr. Pietz, he doesn't have to
14
listen to that instruction.
15
MR. PIETZ: Well, in any event, all I'm saying
16
is that whether or not there's a legal objection
17
typically is an issue for the attorney. You're here
18
today as a 30(b)(6) fact witness for AF Holdings, not as
19
the attorney for the matter so I just wanted to remind
20
you of that.
21
MR. GIBBS: Mr. Pietz, I believe what he's
22
saying to you is that he's prepped on these specific
23
topics and so if they're outside of his scope in
24
prepping that they might affect his ability in answering
25
the question that you're asking.
Supp. E.R. 1163
1
MR. PIETZ: Fair enough. Let's come back to
2
this question though. We're not done with it and it
3
seems pretty important to me.
4
BY MR. PIETZ:
5
Q. When Aisha Sargeant organized the trust that
6
owns AF Holdings, did she reduce anything to paper in
7
connection with forming that trust?
8
A. You would have to ask her.
9
Q. I'm asking AF Holdings, the corporation,
10
whether there are any documents whatsoever that relate
11
or memorialize the formation of the trust that owns AF
12
Holdings?
13
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Outside the noticed
14
topics.
15
BY MR. PIETZ:
16
Q. You can answer.
17
A. Again, I did not come here prepared today to
18
talk about issues outside the noticed topics and so I
19
have personal knowledge or did not prepare to answer
20
questions about trusts.
21
Q. So you said that you have no personal
22
knowledge. What I'm asking is on behalf AF Holdings
23
testifying about its corporate structure which you
24
testified here today that the corporate structure is --
25
that AF Holdings, LLC is wholly owned by a trust. I'm
Supp. E.R. 1164
1
asking you as the corporate representative for AF
2
Holdings is there a document memorializing that trust?
3
4
THE WITNESS: As the corporate representative
5
with respect to these noticed topics, AF Holdings has no
6
testimony regarding that issue.
7
BY MR. PIETZ:
8
Q. So is your testimony here that AF Holdings
9
does not know whether there is a document memorializing
10
the trust that owns AF Holdings?
11
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Misstates the
12
testimony.
13
BY MR. PIETZ:
14
Q. It was a question. You can answer.
15
A. My testimony is that as the corporate
16
representative for AF Holdings I cannot offer any
17
testimony that's just that far outside of the scope of
18
the topics that are noticed. I can't speak for AF
19
Holdings, whether it has this knowledge because I was
20
not noticed that I would have to give testimony in that
21
regard.
22
MR. PIETZ: ** I just ask the court reporter
23
to note the previous exchange so that we can potentially
24
get some court intervention to compel a 30(b)(6)
25
corporate answer on the question of whether or not trust
Supp. E.R. 1165
1
documents exit for the AF Holdings deposition.
2
I'm going to turn it to over to Mr. Ranallo.
3
4
Q. You previously testified this trust is the
5
sole owner of AF Holdings; is that correct?
6
A. That's correct.
7
Q. And has been since the beginning of AF
8
Holdings; is that correct?
9
A. Yes, that's correct.
10
Q. Does this trust have a name?
11
A. If it does have a name, I don't know what it
12
is.
13
Q. This trust is not named Salt Marsh; is that
14
true?
15
MR. GIBBS: Objection. It's assuming facts
16
not in testimony.
17
MR. RANALLO: He just actually said that he
18
doesn't --
19
MR. GIBBS: But you're talking specifically
20
about Salt Marsh.
21
BY MR. RANALLO:
22
Q. In this case on July 20th, 2012, AF Holdings
23
through their counsel filed an EER certification
24
identifying Salt Marsh as its owner. That seems to
25
contradict your testimony today, does it not?
Supp. E.R. 1166
1
A. No.
2
Q. So Salt Marsh is an owner of AF Holdings?
3
A. My testimony was that I don't know what the
4
exact name of the trust is. If the name of the trust is
5
Salt Marsh, then Salt Marsh is the owner. If the name
6
of the trust is not Salt Marsh, then --
7
Q. Let me ask you this then. Because this ADR
8
certification requires a human being to read something.
9
A trust can't read something; is that true?
10
A. I'm not --
11
MR. GIBBS: I'm not an expert on --
12
THE WITNESS: I'll take your word for it.
13
BY MR. RANALLO:
14
Q. So on July 20th you filed something indicating
15
that Salt Marsh had read the handbook. Salt Marsh as AF
16
Holdings owner had read the handbook entitled, Dispute
17
Resolution Procedures in the Northern District of
18
California. You just testified that the sole owner is a
19
trust; is that correct?
20
21
THE WITNESS: To the extent your question is
22
whether the owner of AF Holdings is a trust, then yes,
23
the owner of AF Holdings is a trust.
24
BY MR. RANALLO:
25
Q. If -- AF Holdings previously identified Salt
Supp. E.R. 1167
1
Marsh as its owner; is that correct?
2
MR. GIBBS: What are you referring to? This
3
is outside -- also outside of the noticed topics.
4
BY MR. RANALLO:
5
Q. AF Holdings corporate structure -- No. 6 --
6
including past and present officers, director, members,
7
managers and all other beneficial owners or individuals
8
with a pecuniary interest. An owner, right, Salt Marsh
9
was identified on July 20 by AF Holdings as an owner; is
10
that correct?
11
A. You're asking me if Salt Marsh was identified
12
by AF Holdings as an owner on July 20th, 2012. If
13
you're telling me that's in a document filed with the
14
court, I'll take your word for it.
15
Q. Would you agree that that contradicts your
16
statement that the sole owner of AF Holdings is, in
17
fact, a trust?
18
A. No.
19
Q. So is it your testimony that the sole owner of
20
AF Holdings is a trust and AF Holdings is owned by Salt
21
Marsh?
22
23
testimony. Objection. Compound.
24
BY MR. RANALLO:
25
Q. I'm asking if he is saying both of these
Supp. E.R. 1168
1
things are true.
2
A. Once, again, my testimony is that AF Holdings
3
is owned by a trust and whether the name of the trust on
4
the date in question was Salt Marsh or not, I'm saying I
5
just don't know what the name of the trust was on that
6
date.
7
Q. I'm asking a slightly different question,
8
because this identifies an individual person Salt Marsh
9
as an AF Holdings owner, okay?
10
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Assuming facts not on
11
the record.
12
MR. RANALLO: Let's take a quick break and I'm
13
going to print --
14
MR. PIETZ: I'm going to represent that the
15
documents are on the way. Let's go ahead and continue.
16
BY MR. RANALLO:
17
Q. So to your knowledge, as AF Holdings'
18
corporate representative -- was Salt Marsh an individual
19
human being named Salt Marsh, ever an owner of AF
20
Holdings?
21
A. Again, my testimony is that AF Holdings for
22
its existence has been owned by a trust. I just don't
23
happen to know what the name of the trust is.
24
Q. Assuming Salt Marsh is a human being, what
25
we'll go ahead and do here, since you testified that
Supp. E.R. 1169
1
Salt Marsh read the handbook entitled, Dispute
2
Resolutions -- or previously filed a document stating
3
that. Assuming Salt Marsh is a human being, is it your
4
testimony that he is an owner of AF Holdings?
5
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Assumes facts.
6
THE WITNESS: The question is a little bit
7
convoluted, can you please --
8
BY MR. RANALLO:
9
Q. Is a human being at any point in AF Holdings'
10
history -- let me start that over. At any time was AF
11
Holdings owned by a human being named Salt Marsh?
12
A. No.
13
Q. And so if AF Holdings had previously filed
14
something in this case indicating that it was owned by
15
an individual named Salt Marsh, that would be false; is
16
that correct?
17
A. I guess I'm not sure what the legal analysis
18
on that would be. To the extent a trust is considered
19
an individual for the purposes of filing, then I don't
20
know.
21
Q. I don't think that answered the question at
22
all.
23
MR. GIBBS: There's a situation where a trust
24
can be part of the lawsuit. It can be an entity.
25
MR. RANALLO: That's a speaking objection.
Supp. E.R. 1170
1
I'm going to ask this again.
2
BY MR. RANALLO:
3
Q. On July 20th, AF Holdings filed a document in
4
this case noting that someone named Salt Marsh had read
5
the handbook entitled Dispute Resolution Procedures.
6
They identified this person as an owner.
7
A. Is it your position that a human being named
8
Salt Marsh was AF Holdings owner on July 20th?
9
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Outside the scope.
10
MR. RANALLO: It absolutely is not. No. 6,
11
Mr. Gibbs.
12
Go ahead and answer.
13
THE WITNESS: My position is that -- or my
14
testimony on behalf AF Holdings is that on the date in
15
question -- I believe you said it was July 20th, 2012?
16
Q. That is correct.
17
A. AF Holdings was owned by a trust. Whether the
18
trust was named Salt Marsh at that time or not is
19
outside the scope of my knowledge and whether or not the
20
particular document you're referring to requires a
21
person, an individual, a trust, someone acting on behalf
22
of those entities or what have you, I don't know.
23
MR. PIETZ: I'm going to mark this for the
24
record. I think were on 101; is that correct, madam
25
court reporter? Here is a copy for the court reporter
Supp. E.R. 1171
1
and I have copy for you guys as well.
2
(Whereupon Defendants' Exhibit No. 101
3
was marked for identification.)
4
MR. PIETZ: I would like to note for the
5
record -- and I'm giving the witness a copy of the ADR
6
Certification by Parties and Counsel filed in civil
7
action 12-cv-2396 in the Northern District of California
8
ECF No. 8. I think we marked this as Exhibit 101.
9
10
Q. Will you please refer to the second to last
11
signature -- the second signature up from the bottom and
12
read what it says there on the slash S line.
13
A. Salt Marsh, AF Holdings owner.
14
Q. So your testimony is that a person named Salt
15
Marsh signed this document on behalf the AF Holdings?
16
17
testimony. Can you restate the question, please.
18
BY MR. PIETZ:
19
Q. Is it your testimony that a person named Salt
20
Marsh signed this document on behalf of AF Holdings as
21
its owner?
22
23
THE WITNESS: I guess I can't offer any
24
testimony with respect to this document because this
25
document was not one of the noticed topics of the
Supp. E.R. 1172
1
30(b)(6) notice and had you noticed it, I would have
2
been glad to inquire with the company as to
3
circumstances of the signature here and what the
4
thinking was when it was signed and whatnot.
5
I can speculate as to the circumstances of the
6
signature now. Again, this is just speculation --
7
Q. Then let's go ahead and stop you. No need for
8
speculation. It's not worth a darn here in a
9
deposition. Let me ask you a very simple question and
10
I'm hoping for a simple answer. Is Salt Marsh the owner
11
of AF Holdings?
12
A. The owner of AF Holdings is a trust. The name
13
of the -- the specific name of the trust, if it's Salt
14
Marsh, then yes, Salt Marsh is the owner of AF Holdings.
15
If it's something else -- let me finish -- if the name
16
of the trust is something else, then no, Salt Marsh
17
would not be the owner of AF Holdings, but if Salt Marsh
18
is the name of the trust on July 20, 2012, then, yes,
19
Salt Marsh is the owner of AF Holdings.
20
Q. So your testimony then on behalf of AF
21
Holdings is that you are not sure if the name of the
22
trust that owns AF Holdings is Salt Marsh or not?
23
MR. GIBBS: Objection. That's not what he
24
said. He's not testifying for AF Holdings.
25
THE WITNESS: Because we're so far outside the
Supp. E.R. 1173
1
scope of the noticed topics, it is --
2
MR. RANALLO: Mr. Hansmeier, could you read
3
notice Topic 6 for us?
4
MR. GIBBS: Mr. Ranallo, could you please stop
5
interrupting people.
6
THE WITNESS: I was in the middle of my
7
answer.
8
MR. RANALLO: Go ahead and finish then.
9
THE WITNESS: Could you please repeat the
10
question.
11
12
MR. GIBBS: Again, my same objection from
13
before.
14
THE WITNESS: This is pretty simple. I'm not
15
trying to be difficult. All I'm saying is that I just
16
don't happen to know what the name of the trust was on
17
the particular date in question.
18
19
Q. Has the name of the trust changed over time?
20
A. I couldn't tell you what the name of the trust
21
was when it was formed. I couldn't tell you if the name
22
of the trust has changed over time. What I do know is
23
AF Holdings' corporate structure, it's a limited
24
liability company organized under the laws of
25
Federation -- laws of the Federation of St. Kitts &
Supp. E.R. 1174
1
Nevis and the ownership interests are held in trust.
2
Q. But your testimony as AF Holdings corporate
3
representative who has been subpoenaed to appear and
4
testify on the noticed topics, which include as No. 6,
5
AF Holdings' corporate structure, your testimony is that
6
as the corporate representative for AF Holdings, you do
7
not know the name of the trust that owns AF Holdings?
8
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Same objection. It
9
falls outside of the noticed topic.
10
MR. PIETZ: Duly noted.
11
You can answer.
12
THE WITNESS: Yes. My testimony is that in
13
preparing for this deposition, I did not expect the name
14
of the trust to fall within the scope of this. I did
15
not review the history of the name of the trust.
16
BY MR. PIETZ:
17
Q. So did you make any inquiry whatever about the
18
trust that owns AF Holdings?
19
A. Yes, I did make inquiries about the trust that
20
owns AF Holdings.
21
Q. What were these inquiries?
22
A. Well, my first inquire was what the corporate
23
structure is of AF Holdings. I was then informed
24
that --
25
Q. Pardon. Can I stop you and I don't mean to
Supp. E.R. 1175
1
interrupt. Who informed you?
2
A. Mr. Lutz.
3
Q. Continue.
4
A. And he informed me that the membership
5
interest of AF Holdings are held in trust and then I
6
asked -- following down to No. 6 -- who are the
7
beneficial owners of the trust and Mr. Lutz informed me
8
that the trust did not have defined beneficiaries.
9
Q. Was that the extent of your inquiry about the
10
AF Holdings?
11
A. With respect to the trust, yes.
12
Q. What other inquiry did you make about the
13
ownership of AF Holdings? Pardon me. Strike that.
14
Before we go to that question.
15
When did you have this conversation with
16
Mr. Lutz about the ownership structure of AF Holdings?
17
A. I can't recall the specific date in which I
18
discussed this matter with Mr. Lutz. It was in
19
preparation for this deposition, so it would have been
20
sometime between the date of the notice and today.
21
Q. Was it a telephone conversation? Did you
22
speak with Mr. Lutz in person?
23
A. Again, I can't recall whether this particular
24
conversation took place in person or via the telephone.
25
Q. If it was a conversation that took place in
Supp. E.R. 1176
1
person, where did it occur?
2
A. If it was a conversation that took place in
3
person, it would have occurred in Las Vegas, Nevada.
4
Q. If it was a conversation that occurred in
5
person in Las Vegas, Nevada, when was that?
6
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Assuming facts.
7
THE WITNESS: It would have been, I would say
8
mid January.
9
BY MR. PIETZ:
10
Q. Mid January. So there was a face-to-face
11
meeting between you and Mr. Lutz in Las Vegas, Nevada in
12
mid January at which you discussed preparing for this
13
deposition; is that correct?
14
A. Well, I guess the purpose of the meeting was
15
not exclusively to prepare for the deposition. The
16
purpose of the meeting was simple -- we would have
17
discussed items that are included on this list.
18
Q. What other items did you discuss?
19
A. I can't recall the specific contents of a
20
given conversation in mid January with Mr. Lutz.
21
Q. Was anybody else in attendance in that meeting
22
other than you and Mr. Lutz?
23
A. For this -- if we're talking about these
24
items, it would have been me and Mr. Lutz.
25
Q. Was anybody else in that meeting in connection
Supp. E.R. 1177
1
with talking about other topics?
2
A. Not that I recall.
3
Q. So returning to my question that I struck a
4
moment ago. Was that one conversation with Mr. Lutz,
5
whether it occurred in person or over the phone, the
6
extent of your inquiry about the ownership of AF
7
Holdings?
8
A. No. I would not say so. I talked with
9
Mr. Lutz on several occasions, whether it's in person or
10
over the telephone, regarding these items generally. I
11
can't say that my conversation with Mr. Lutz regarding
12
the corporate structure was confined to a single
13
conversation or whether it was over the course of
14
several conversations.
15
Q. Was Mr. Lutz the only source for your
16
knowledge about the corporate ownership of AF Holdings?
17
A. I guess I can't recall specifically whether he
18
would have been the only source of my knowledge
19
regarding corporate structure or not.
20
Q. So your answer is you don't know?
21
A. No, my answer is I don't recall specifically
22
whether Mr. Lutz was a sole source of my information
23
regarding AF Holdings corporate structure or whether
24
anyone else may have also contributed to my knowledge.
25
I would say that Mr. Lutz was my primary source of
Supp. E.R. 1178
1
information regarding AF Holdings' corporate structure.
2
Q. If we assume for a moment that you did have
3
other sources than Mr. Lutz, what were those sources?
4
5
THE WITNESS: Well, for example, as I refresh
6
my recollection, I would say that documents, for
7
example, would be another source.
8
Q. What documents?
9
A. I could provide a few examples of documents.
10
For example the articles of organization of AF Holdings.
11
Q. Any other documents?
12
A. And the other various documents related to
13
corporate formation.
14
Q. What are those various documents?
15
A. Well, I couldn't give you an exhaustive list
16
sitting here right now, but I could give as an example,
17
the certificate of formation.
18
Q. So there is an articles of incorporation and a
19
certificate of formation for AF Holdings; is that
20
correct?
21
A. That's my recollection, yes.
22
Q. Who currently has custody of those documents?
23
A. I could not tell you who currently has custody
24
of those document.
25
Q. But you have reviewed them, correct?
Supp. E.R. 1179
1
A. I have reviewed them.
2
Q. Are there any other documents you reviewed
3
that relate to the corporate structure of AF Holdings?
4
A. These are the two that come most predominately
5
to mind. There may have been other documents that I
6
can't recall as I'm sitting here right now.
7
Q. And the two documents that we just discussed,
8
were those filed with any kind of governmental agency
9
such as Nevis?
10
A. Well, the documents in question -- my
11
recollection of the documents is that one of the
12
documents was -- had a seal that was issued by Nevis, so
13
it's not filed with the -- they provide it to you. The
14
articles of organization -- I know that traditionally
15
articles of organization are filed with governmental
16
authorities and I have no reason to believe that these
17
weren't also filed. Although the exact copies, of
18
course, weren't filed, they were filed -- they may have
19
been signed by the relevant authorities.
20
Q. Do you still have copies of the specific
21
documents that you reviewed?
22
A. Personally?
23
Q. Yes.
24
A. I don't believe I personally have the copies
25
anymore.
Supp. E.R. 1180
1
Q. Do you have them in your e-mail?
2
A. I do not.
3
Q. So you had paper copies?
4
A. Yeah, I reviewed them in paper.
5
Q. Who gave them to you?
6
A. They were mailed by Mr. Lutz.
7
Q. So aside from conversations with Mr. Lutz and
8
reviewing two documents, have you done anything else to
9
investigate the corporate formation of AF Holdings?
10
A. Well, again, I did not testify that I reviewed
11
only two documents. I gave examples of two documents
12
that I did review.
13
Q. Hold on a second. Are you saying now that
14
you're sure you did review both of these documents in
15
preparation for this deposition, because I thought
16
before you'd said you weren't sure whether you reviewed
17
anything, but that if you had, it might be these two
18
documents. I just want to make sure we're clear. Can
19
you clarify for me, please?
20
A. To be clear I think my testimony was that as
21
we were going through this and I was recalling my
22
preparation that I recalled additional documents that I
23
had reviewed and I gave examples of two of those
24
documents and I stated there were other document, I
25
wouldn't know what to call them and I was not trying to
Supp. E.R. 1181
1
insinuate that the two documents that I reviewed was the
2
exhaustive list that I reviewed.
3
Q. Let's get to the exhaustive list. What are
4
the other documents you reviewed with respect to the
5
ownership of AF Holdings?
6
A. Well, just to restate what I just said. I
7
can't recall exhaustively every single document that I
8
reviewed. I remember specifically those two documents,
9
the certificate of formation and the articles of
10
organization. Obviously, when you create a company
11
there are a variety of documents that are generated.
12
I'm not a corporate lawyer. I don't know the names of
13
each of those documents.
14
Q. So when Mr. Lutz mailed those documents to
15
you, were they accompanied by other documents?
16
17
topics.
18
BY MR. PIETZ:
19
Q. Let me rephrase. When Mr. Lutz mailed you the
20
two documents that you testified here today that you
21
reviewed, were these two documents accompanied by other
22
documents?
23
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Outside of the noticed
24
topics.
25
THE WITNESS: I think the assumption here is
Supp. E.R. 1182
1
that he just mailed me one package of documents and that
2
was it. I received -- you know, I received a mailing of
3
some documents. Were those the only two documents in
4
there, I don't recall what was in the specific mailing.
5
I reviewed documents when I saw him in Las Vegas. And
6
so, you know, the exact timing and which documents were
7
in which package and which documents were referred to at
8
what time, that's a pretty complex timeline that I
9
couldn't restate.
10
Q. How many packages were there?
11
A. My recollection is that there was -- there
12
were one or two packages.
13
Q. Can you recall any of the other documents that
14
you reviewed other than the two we have already
15
discussed today? Can you describe and identify those
16
for me right now, please?
17
18
the notice of deposition topics.
19
THE WITNESS: I can provide an example of one
20
more. It was a document that listed Aisha Sargeant as
21
the organizer.
22
BY MR. PIETZ:
23
Q. And what was that document?
24
A. It was a document. I don't know what the name
25
or the title of the document would have been.
Supp. E.R. 1183
1
Q. Approximately how long was it, how many pages?
2
A. I believe it was one or two pages.
3
Q. Fair enough. Are there any other documents
4
that you reviewed or was it just those three?
5
A. I'm certain I reviewed other documents. I
6
could not recall the nature and the text and the length
7
and the time I reviewed them, for the many documents.
8
If any of those occur to me during the course of the
9
deposition here today, I'll be glad to supplement my
10
testimony.
11
Q. Fair enough. All of the documents that you
12
reviewed, did those come from Mr. Lutz?
13
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Outside the notice.
14
THE WITNESS: Yes. To best of my
15
recollection.
16
BY MR. PIETZ:
17
Q. So in your conversations with Mr. Lutz and in
18
your review of documents, was there any information
19
about the trust that owns AF Holdings at all?
20
21
topics.
22
THE WITNESS: Well, yes. The information
23
about the trust was that it owned AF Holdings and there
24
were not defined beneficiaries.
25
///
Supp. E.R. 1184
1
BY MR. PIETZ:
2
Q. That was information from your conversation
3
with Mr. Lutz, correct?
4
A. That's my recollection.
5
Q. And in your conversation neither -- strike
6
that.
7
Neither in your conversation with Mr. Lutz nor
8
in any of the documents that you reviewed was there
9
anything on the topic of who owns the trust that owns AF
10
Holdings?
11
A. Once again --
12
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Not in the noticed
13
topics.
14
THE WITNESS: Trust -- well, once again,
15
Mr. Lutz -- my preparation for the deposition revealed
16
that the trust does not have -- or it's an undefined
17
beneficiary trust. I'm not sure what you mean by owner
18
of a trust.
19
BY MR. PIETZ:
20
Q. Other than the fact that there is a trust, the
21
name of which you do not know, and that the trust is an
22
undefined beneficiary trust, did your investigation of
23
the corporate structure of AF Holdings yield any other
24
details at all about the trust that owns AF Holdings?
25
Supp. E.R. 1185
1
Objection. Outside the notice of the deposition topics.
2
THE WITNESS: Those are the two main points
3
that I learned during my investigation of the trust.
4
BY MR. PIETZ:
5
Q. Other than main points is there any other
6
information at all, any other detail or anything at all
7
that you learned about the trust that owns AF Holdings
8
other those two pieces of information?
9
MR. GIBBS: Same objection. Notice -- not in
10
11
THE WITNESS: I guess nothing that I can
12
recall as I sit here right now. Although, perhaps a
13
question on the specific topic might jog my memory.
14
MR. PIETZ: Fair enough. We'll move on. I'd
15
like to mark --
16
17
Q. Let me quickly ask you about the beneficiaries
18
of this trust. You said there's undefined
19
beneficiaries; is that true?
20
A. Yes.
21
Q. So who controls the trust?
22
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Not in the notice of
23
topics for this deposition.
24
THE WITNESS: I guess during my investigation
25
of AF Holdings corporate structure, I did not inquire
Supp. E.R. 1186
1
into who controls -- whatever that means -- the trust.
2
BY MR. RANALLO:
3
Q. What do you understand a beneficial owner to
4
mean?
5
MR. GIBBS: Objection. It calls for a legal
6
conclusion.
7
MR. RANALLO: I'm asking for his
8
understanding.
9
THE WITNESS: I don't have an understanding of
10
what a beneficial owner means.
11
BY MR. RANALLO:
12
Q. You don't know what the words beneficial
13
owners mean?
14
15
BY MR. RANALLO:
16
Q. During your preparation for this deposition
17
you saw the words beneficial owners on the notice of
18
deposition; is that true?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. And what did you take them to mean?
21
A. I take the phrase beneficial owner as used in
22
this notice of deposition as someone who directly or
23
indirectly has some sort of interest in the company.
24
Q. So the individuals who control the trust,
25
would you consider them beneficial owners of AF
Supp. E.R. 1187
1
Holdings?
2
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Misstates prior
3
testimony.
4
THE WITNESS: I would not say they are
5
beneficial owners of AF Holdings.
6
7
BY MR. PIETZ:
8
Q. Who is the trustee of the trust that owns AF
9
Holdings?
10
11
Q. You can answer it. It's a different question.
12
Now I want to know not about the beneficial owners but
13
about the trustee.
14
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Not in the scope of
15
the questions -- not in the scope of the noticed topics
16
for the deposition.
17
BY MR. PIETZ:
18
Q. You can answer.
19
A. I do not know the identity of the trustee of
20
the trust that owns AF Holdings.
21
Q. Who is settler of the trust that owns AF
22
Holdings?
23
24
the deposition topics.
25
THE WITNESS: What is a settler?
Supp. E.R. 1188
1
BY MR. PIETZ:
2
Q. It's, I believe, somebody who helps form a
3
trust and may be responsible -- I'm not entirely sure.
4
However, I'm looking at information on the Internet that
5
trusts in Nevis have a settler, a beneficiary and
6
trustee, so I'm asking you as the corporate
7
representative of AF Holdings, whether the trust that
8
owns AF Holdings has a settler -- for the court reporter
9
that's S-E-T-T-L-E-R.
10
11
deposition topics. You're asking for a legal definition
12
of something.
13
THE WITNESS: I guess I still don't understand
14
what the settler is. Does it have any information about
15
what functions they would perform?
16
BY MR. PIETZ:
17
Q. Frankly, I'm going to be perfectly honest.
18
I'm not sure what a settler is with respect to a trust
19
either, so maybe it's not an appropriate question
20
because neither of us are sure what we're talking about.
21
Let me ask it a different way. If somebody
22
wanted to terminate the trust that owns AF Holdings, who
23
would have the authority to do so?
24
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Outside of the scope
25
of noticed deposition topics.
Supp. E.R. 1189
1
THE WITNESS: I would assume that you would
2
have to look at the terms of the trust. I don't know
3
what the terms of the trust or who is empowered to do
4
that.
5
BY MR. PIETZ:
6
Q. How would one look at the terms of the trust?
7
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Outside the notice of
8
topics for the deposition.
9
THE WITNESS: I don't know how someone would
10
look at the trust.
11
BY MR. PIETZ:
12
Q. But there are terms of the trust, correct?
13
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Outside the notice and
14
also assumes facts.
15
THE WITNESS: I can only speculate. As you
16
stated earlier trusts are generally reduced to a written
17
document. Was that done in this case? I did not review
18
the trust documents, so I don't know how you would
19
determine who has the authority to do anything with the
20
trust. I assume it would be based on the terms.
21
BY MR. PIETZ:
22
Q. So I think you're saying that there are trust
23
documents out there, but that you haven't reviewed them;
24
is that correct?
25
Supp. E.R. 1190
1
Objection. Not in the notice of topics for the
2
deposition.
3
THE WITNESS: I can only speculate whether or
4
not there are trust documents.
5
BY MR. PIETZ:
6
Q. Returning to the question. Who caused the
7
trust that owns AF Holdings to be formed other than
8
Aisha Sargeant?
9
MR. GIBBS: Objection --
10
BY MR. PIETZ:
11
Q. Strike that. Let me ask it a different way.
12
Who asked Ms. Sargeant or paid Ms. Sargeant to form the
13
trust that owns AF Holdings?
14
15
16
THE WITNESS: I do not know who paid
17
Ms. Sargeant to form the trust.
18
BY MR. PIETZ:
19
Q. Just to clarify. I'm asking not for your
20
personal knowledge, but for the knowledge of AF
21
Holdings.
22
23
24
MR. PIETZ: Duly noted. You can answer.
25
THE WITNESS: In the course of preparing for
Supp. E.R. 1191
1
this deposition I did not see any questions regarding
2
payment to the person who formed the trust that owns AF
3
Holdings and so I -- on behalf of -- AF Holdings has
4
no -- could only speculate in relation to these noticed
5
topics.
6
MR. GIBBS: Let's stop for one second because
7
these questions are all outside the noticed topics. If
8
you can point to a place where they are, then maybe we
9
can be better informed in terms of what you guys are
10
asking, but if they're outside the noticed topics, he
11
can't speak about that. He can only speculate.
12
MR. PIETZ: I respectfully disagree, but in
13
any event that's not something that we need to get into
14
on the record right now. We can worry about that
15
afterwards. This is discovery. If you want to move to
16
exclude stuff later, you're welcome to do so.
17
MR. GIBBS: Understood. I'm just saying that
18
if there is some sort of topic that you can refer us
19
to --
20
MR. PIETZ: There's several, including No. 6
21
and there's another one, but I'll have to get that to
22
you later.
23
MR. GIBBS: For the record we don't believe
24
No. 6 covers that.
25
MR. PIETZ: Fair enough. Duly noted. Let's
Supp. E.R. 1192
1
move on to AF Holdings.
2
BY MR. PIETZ:
3
Q. Who caused AF Holdings to be formed?
4
A. Ms. Sargeant.
5
Q. And who paid or asked Ms. Sargeant to form AF
6
Holdings? In other words, who is the organizer or
7
incorporator of AF Holdings other than Ms. Sargeant?
8
A. Well, Ms. Sargeant I believe was the organizer
9
and incorporator of AF Holdings.
10
Q. Who asked her to do that?
11
12
13
THE WITNESS: Can you ask the question again
14
just to make sure I answer it precisely.
15
16
BY MR. PIETZ:
17
Q. Let me rephrase. I'm assuming -- and I'll ask
18
you to follow along with me on this assumption -- that
19
somebody paid Ms. Sargeant some kind of money to form AF
20
Holdings on the island of Nevis. Who did that? Who
21
paid her the money to form AF Holdings?
22
23
Objection. Outside the notice of deposition topics.
24
THE WITNESS: The reason I'm hesitating is
25
because I don't know the exact, you know, trail of
Supp. E.R. 1193
1
individuals that ultimately resulted in Ms. Sargeant
2
forming AF Holdings, but she would have done so
3
ultimately through the direction of Mr. Lutz.
4
BY MR. PIETZ:
5
Q. So Mr. Lutz was responsible for asking
6
Ms. Sargeant to form AF Holdings; is that correct?
7
A. Yes.
8
Q. Now, you mentioned a trail of other
9
individuals who may have been involved. Who was on that
10
trail of individuals who were also involved?
11
12
He said he didn't know.
13
THE WITNESS: The so-called trail of
14
individuals, I probably couldn't identify every single
15
person on that trail, but Mr. Lutz would have delegated
16
this matter to a company that Ms. Sargeant works for,
17
which I believe the name is Trust Services Limited.
18
BY MR. PIETZ:
19
Q. And is that based on the island of Nevis?
20
A. I don't know where they're based out of, Trust
21
Services Limited.
22
Q. Did anybody instruct Mr. Lutz to form AF
23
Holdings?
24
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Calls for speculation
25
and objection outside of notice of topics of the
Supp. E.R. 1194
1
deposition.
2
BY MR. PIETZ:
3
Q. You can answer.
4
A. Not that I'm aware of. And it's also AF
5
Holdings' position that Mr. Lutz was not instructed by a
6
third party to form AF Holdings.
7
Q. If someone wanted to terminate the existence
8
of AF Holdings, who would have the authority to do so?
9
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Again, not in the
10
notice of topics. Objection. Calls for speculation.
11
THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not an expert in the
12
corporate law of the Federation of St. Kitts & Nevis.
13
That being said I would speculate that --
14
Q. Hold on a second.
15
A. I'm not done answering my question. Either
16
the owner or -- I guess I would have to review the
17
articles of organization to determine whether Mr. Lutz
18
possess the authority to cause a termination.
19
Q. Who is the -- I believe it's a trust; is that
20
correct?
21
A. Yes.
22
Q. We have been through that. Are there any
23
members of AF Holdings other than the trust?
24
A. No.
25
Q. Is there a manager of AF Holdings?
Supp. E.R. 1195
1
A. No. That is the formal title that Mr. Lutz
2
holds.
3
Q. So he's both the sole employee and the manager
4
of AF Holdings; is that correct?
5
A. That's correct. I should clarify my earlier
6
testimony regarding employee status. He's the manager.
7
Q. So he's not an employee. He's the manager of
8
the AF Holdings, is what we're saying now?
9
A. Again, it's -- I don't know what the precise
10
legal distinctions are, but for all practical purposes
11
he's the manager.
12
Q. Fair enough. Are there any other officers of
13
AF Holdings that hold titles like CEO, president,
14
treasurer, secretary other than Mr. Lutz?
15
A. No.
16
Q. So is it your testimony that Mr. Lutz would be
17
the only person who had authority to terminate the
18
existence of AF Holdings, LLC?
19
20
Objection. Not in the noticed topics for the
21
deposition.
22
THE WITNESS: Again, my testimony regarding
23
the individuals with the authority to terminate AF
24
Holdings is that I would have to review very carefully
25
AF Holdings articles of organization to determine who
Supp. E.R. 1196
1
does possess the authority. Ostensibly the owners have
2
the authority to terminate AF Holdings and whether or
3
not the articles also provide Mr. Lutz with the
4
authority to terminate AF Holdings is something that can
5
only be determined by careful reference to the articles
6
of organization.
7
BY MR. PIETZ:
8
Q. So a moment ago you said the owners have the
9
authority to terminate the trust. Don't you mean owner,
10
which is the trust? Sorry. Let me rephrase.
11
A moment ago you said that the owners have
12
authority to terminate AF Holdings. Did you mean owner
13
because the owner is the trust, right?
14
A. The owner of AF Holdings is a trust.
15
Q. Okay. And are there owners of the trust?
16
A. When I used owners before I was referring more
17
generally to the principle that owners have the
18
authority to terminate the company, not to indicate that
19
AF Holdings had more than one owner.
20
THE REPORTER: Can we take a break? I need to
21
use the restroom.
22
MR. PIETZ: Sure.
23
(Off the record at 11:41 a.m. and back
24
on the record at 11:48 a.m.)
25
MR. PIETZ: Back on the record of the 30(b)(6)
Supp. E.R. 1197
1
deposition of AF Holdings. I'd like to mark this as
2
Exhibit 102.
3
4
5
BY MR. PIETZ:
6
Q. Mr. Hansmeier, this is similar to another
7
document that we discussed today. It is an ADR
8
Certification by Parties and Counsel. This one filed in
9
the Northern District of California No 11-C-3335.
10
Mr. Hansmeier, could you read me what it says
11
on line 19 and we'll finish through to where it ends on
12
line 20, please
13
MR. GIBBS: Objection. This is not part of
14
the notice of deposition topics. Objection. Not even
15
part of this case.
16
THE WITNESS: Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8(b)
17
and ADR L.R. 3-5(b), each of the undersigned certifies
18
that he or she has.
19
Q. And then in Paragraph 1 it says read the
20
handbook entitled, Dispute Resolution Procedures. And
21
then there are two signature lines, including one that
22
says slash s Salt Marsh, AF Holdings owner.
23
I would like to ask you, again, is Salt Marsh
24
a he or a she. Meaning, is Salt Marsh a natural person?
25
Supp. E.R. 1198
1
Objection. Outside of notice of deposition topics.
2
THE WITNESS: The only information I can glean
3
about Salt Marsh from this document is that Salt Marsh
4
has been identified as AF Holdings owner.
5
BY MR. PIETZ:
6
Q. Does AF Holdings know who signed this on
7
behalf of Salt Marsh or who gave the filer permission to
8
use the name Salt Marsh?
9
10
deposition topics.
11
THE WITNESS: I didn't speak to anyone
12
regarding this filing.
13
14
Q. When you spoke with Mr. Lutz about the
15
ownership of AF Holdings, did he ever indicate that a
16
human being named Salt Marsh has any ownership interest
17
in AF Holdings?
18
A. He indicated that a trust owns AF Holdings.
19
Q. So no human beings own AF Holdings; is that
20
true?
21
A. Again, a trust owns AF Holdings.
22
Q. And a trust is not an actual person; is that
23
correct?
24
25
THE WITNESS: I don't know what the definition
Supp. E.R. 1199
1
of a natural person is under the law.
2
BY MR. RANALLO:
3
Q. A natural person is a human being, okay, a
4
living, breathing human being. Does AF Holdings have
5
any owners that are living and breathing human beings?
6
A. No. AF Holdings has an owner that's a trust.
7
MR. RANALLO: Okay.
8
MR. PIETZ: Fair enough.
9
10
Q. Moving on. We've heard a lot today that your
11
knowledge about the ownership of AF Holdings is based on
12
conversations with Mr. Lutz. Is it your view that
13
Mr. Lutz is more knowledgeable about AF Holdings than
14
you are?
15
16
BY MR. PIETZ:
17
Q. Strike that. Let me ask it a different way.
18
How come we're not hearing from Mr. Lutz today?
19
MR. GIBBS: Objection. You know the rules of
20
a PMK?
21
BY MR. PIETZ:
22
Q. You can answer.
23
A. I guess you'd have to ask Mr. Lutz.
24
Q. Fair enough. I would like to return to
25
something we talked about earlier this morning. I
Supp. E.R. 1200
1
believe you said -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that
2
AF Holdings has never recognized any revenue, that
3
instead AF Holdings' settlement proceeds are paid into
4
attorney trust accounts and that that money is then used
5
on litigation expenses in other litigation; is that
6
correct?
7
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Misstates testimony --
8
prior testimony.
9
THE WITNESS: Yeah, well I mean, I guess I'll
10
restate my answer from before. My answer from before
11
was that any proceeds of settlements generated aren't
12
distributed to AF Holdings, but are instead used to
13
either pay for previously incurred expenses or held by
14
the attorneys to pay for future litigation expenses.
15
BY MR. PIETZ:
16
Q. So if a John Doe defendant mails in a check or
17
makes a credit card payment to settle a lawsuit with AF
18
Holdings, where is that money initially deposited?
19
20
THE WITNESS: Are you asking for a specific
21
bank or are you asking for --
22
BY MR. PIETZ:
23
Q. Sure. Let's start with a bank.
24
A. I don't know what bank it gets deposited in.
25
I suppose it would depend on the attorney associated
Supp. E.R. 1201
1
with the case.
2
Q. So is it your testimony then that if the check
3
comes, it would be deposited in the trust account for
4
the attorney who is counsel of record in that case for
5
the plaintiff, AF Holdings; is that correct?
6
7
THE WITNESS: As a general principle, yes.
8
BY MR. PIETZ:
9
Q. What are the accounts where AF Holdings' money
10
is maintained, each of them?
11
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Not in the noticed
12
topics for the deposition. Objection. Calls for
13
speculation. Asked and answered.
14
MR. PIETZ: The objection is duly noted. I
15
would refer the deponent to Topics No. 10, 11 and --
16
MR. RANALLO: 11, 12.
17
MR. PIETZ: And ask that the deponent answer.
18
MR. GIBBS: Same objection in terms of the
19
actual banks. You're asking him about the banks.
20
THE WITNESS: Are you asking for account
21
numbers?
22
BY MR. PIETZ:
23
Q. No, I'm not asking for account numbers.
24
Although, we'll get to that. What I would like to know
25
is a list of each account where AF Holdings' settlement
Supp. E.R. 1202
1
proceeds are deposited. And why don't we start with the
2
name of the attorney who owns that account, so a list of
3
names of attorneys who deposit AF Holdings' proceeds
4
into their attorney-client trust accounts.
5
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Not on the notice of
6
deposition topics. 10, 11 are not covering those.
7
MR. PIETZ: I disagree. The deponent can
8
answer.
9
THE WITNESS: I don't think it's humanly
10
possible for anyone to commit to memory a list of -- I
11
can't even speculate how many attorneys have worked on
12
AF Holdings cases over the course of its existence and
13
then also to commit to memory the account names
14
associated with those attorneys and then as you alluded
15
to the account numbers associated with those bank
16
accounts. I don't know if that's humanly possible.
17
I can give you the general principles and the
18
general guidelines that state that if a settlement comes
19
in for, you know, let's say a John Doe lawsuit, having
20
settled with Mr. Navasca, for example, then the money
21
would go to the attorney, their trust account, and then
22
would be -- would stay there, because frankly the scope
23
of the infringement is so significant that there's still
24
a lot of fight left to stop people from pirating the
25
works subject to AF Holdings' copyrights.
Supp. E.R. 1203
1
Q. Mr. Hansmeier, I appreciate the general gist
2
of what it is that you told me. I'm asking for
3
specifics. I would like the list of each attorney that
4
has a client trust account where AF Holdings' settlement
5
proceeds have been deposited. I'm not asking for the
6
account number and I'm not asking for you to speculate.
7
What I'm asking is, as a 30(b)(6) witness for the AF
8
Holdings entity, name me the accounts where AF Holdings'
9
proceeds have been deposited.
10
MR. GIBBS: Objection. This is not one of the
11
noticed topics, period.
12
MR. PIETZ: Are you instructing him not to
13
answer?
14
MR. GIBBS: No, I'm just telling you.
15
MR. RANALLO: AF Holdings revenues derived
16
from BitTorrent copyright --
17
MR. GIBBS: Since when does that point out --
18
MR. RANALLO: -- including the distribution of
19
said revenues by AF Holdings and the identity of the
20
recipient.
21
MR. PIETZ: Guys, we've got to make a record
22
here. We don't need to get into all of this. If you're
23
not instructing him not to answer, then answer the
24
question.
25
THE WITNESS: Well, in response to your
Supp. E.R. 1204
1
question, I would say that if you wanted a list of bank
2
accounts, such as a specific and almost encyclopedic
3
list of information, I would have put that topic very
4
specifically on your notice of deposition topics, so I
5
could have spent the day or two days or three days
6
required to memorize a list of bank accounts and
7
attorney names and so forth and so on.
8
I would note that the attorneys that represent
9
AF Holdings are all listed on the public record. It's
10
very easy to find out and secondly, each of those
11
attorneys can be presumed to have trust accounts, as
12
attorneys do, associated with their practices and so the
13
list of the attorneys, although I can't recite each one
14
from memory, from top to bottom, is very easily
15
determined and you can then go from the attorney to
16
their trust account.
17
18
Q. Let me ask you this. When AF Holdings sends
19
out their initial settlement letter with the payment
20
authorization form, that payment authorization form has
21
a Chicago, Illinois address; is that correct, regardless
22
of whether the case itself is?
23
24
THE WITNESS: Can you restate the question,
25
please?
Supp. E.R. 1205
1
BY MR. RANALLO:
2
Q. When AF Holdings sends out settlement letters
3
with the request for payment authorization, the person
4
returns it with payment, all of those payments
5
regardless of the case go to one place in Illinois; is
6
that correct?
7
A. No.
8
Q. And so if Mr. Navasca in this case received a
9
settlement letter from AF Holdings, would it have
10
directed him to make a payment to Mr. Gibbs?
11
A. Well, if you have a copy of the letter that he
12
received, I would just reference the letter.
13
Q. I'm asking you. You just described how this
14
process works and I want -- now in this specific case to
15
see if it would be like that in this case.
16
A. I can only speculate and say that if --
17
MR. PIETZ: Can I interrupt for a second? You
18
said speculate a number of times today. I just want to
19
make sure that we're clear -- because we didn't cover
20
this in the admonitions -- that we're not asking you to
21
speculate today. Do you understand the difference
22
between speculation and an estimate? We are interested
23
in your best estimate. Do you understand the difference
24
between speculating and estimates?
25
Let me give you an example, because I think
Supp. E.R. 1206
1
it's fairly instructive. If I was to ask you to tell
2
me, based on memory, how much money you have in your
3
wallet, you might be able to make an estimate to the
4
amount of money that you have in your wallet. If I was
5
to ask you to tell me how much money I have in my
6
wallet, that would be speculation. Just to make sure we
7
are clear. We're not asking you to speculate here
8
today. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I felt that we
9
should cover that. In any event, let's return to the
10
questions.
11
THE WITNESS: Sure. Could you repeat the
12
question, please?
13
BY MR. RANALLO:
14
Q. Yes. You previously said that each attorney
15
that has appeared on behalf of AF Holdings maintains a
16
trust account; is that true?
17
A. In my best estimate attorneys who practice
18
law, who collect revenues on behalf of clients maintain
19
trust accounts, yes.
20
Q. I'm asking for attorneys that collect revenues
21
on behalf of AF Holdings, your company?
22
23
BY MR. RANALLO:
24
Q. Do they maintain individual trust accounts?
25
Supp. E.R. 1207
1
THE WITNESS: I have not reviewed the specific
2
bank structures of the attorneys who represent AF
3
Holdings.
4
5
Q. Let me ask the question a different way. When
6
proceeds from AF Holdings' settlements come in, are they
7
initially deposited in accounts associated with Prenda
8
Law and then distributed to the attorneys or are the
9
proceeds deposited directly into the trust accounts for
10
the local counsel?
11
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Not within the notice
12
of the deposition topics.
13
14
THE WITNESS: I believe there's -- that's
15
handled on a case-by-case basis. For some attorneys it
16
goes directly into their trust accounts and for other
17
attorneys it goes into accounts associated with Prenda
18
Law.
19
BY MR. PIETZ:
20
Q. What attorneys does it go directly into their
21
trust accounts?
22
MR. GIBBS: Not one of the noticed topics of
23
the deposition. Objection. Calls for speculation.
24
THE WITNESS: Again, this is, you know, on a
25
case-by-case basis that I'm trying to recall. One easy
Supp. E.R. 1208
1
example would be the Anti-Piracy Law Group maintains
2
their own trust accounts separate and independent from
3
the Prenda Law.
4
BY MR. PIETZ:
5
Q. Let me be clear. What I'm interested in are
6
names of the attorneys here in response to this next
7
question. Names of the attorneys, not account numbers.
8
What attorneys receive AF Holdings' settlement proceeds
9
directly into their trust accounts?
10
A. Again --
11
12
the deposition notice. Also, we're kind of into the air
13
of privilege possibly.
14
MR. PIETZ: I disagree. Are you instructing
15
him not to answer?
16
MR. GIBBS: No. Just a warning.
17
MR. PIETZ: Continue.
18
THE WITNESS: I don't believe that we have
19
attorneys who represent us who maintain trusts accounts
20
in their own name versus in the name of a law firm. I
21
could be wrong. It comes down to the mechanics, so
22
whether individual attorneys within a firm maintain
23
trust accounts in their own name -- if I understand your
24
question correctly -- because you're looking for
25
attorneys and not law firms; is that correct?
Supp. E.R. 1209
1
BY MR. PIETZ:
2
Q. I'm looking for names of attorneys, so whether
3
the trust account is in the attorney's name or in the
4
name of that attorney's firm. What I'm interested in is
5
a list of names of attorneys who are recipients,
6
directly, meaning the money is paid into their trust
7
accounts of AF Holdings' settlement proceeds.
8
9
Also, what are you talking about? Where is this money
10
coming from?
11
MR. PIETZ: AF Holdings' settlement proceeds.
12
Go ahead and answer the question
13
THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of any attorney
14
who directly receives, in a trust account held by that
15
attorney, settlement proceeds of AF Holdings.
16
BY MR. PIETZ:
17
Q. How do they indirectly receive the money then?
18
A. Well, a given attorney doesn't indirectly or
19
directly receive settlement proceeds. The firm's trust
20
account gives the settlement proceeds.
21
Q. Let's ask for names of the firms then, if
22
that's the way you would like to do this. Please state
23
the name of each firm that directly receives settlement
24
proceeds into its trust account, or if the firm is a
25
solo practitioner, just state the person's name?
Supp. E.R. 1210
1
MR. GIBBS: Objection. What scope are we
2
talking about? Are we talking about just over 2012 or
3
since the formation? What are we talking about here in
4
terms of the scope in time?
5
MR. PIETZ: Since the formation of AF
6
Holdings.
7
THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not certain that I'll
8
be able to provide a comprehensive list of every
9
attorney or every law firm or bank account that any
10
single dollar and any single settlement proceeds in an
11
AF Holdings case has been put into, but I can provide,
12
you know, some names. For example, Prenda Law, would be
13
one firm that AF Holdings' settlement proceeds have been
14
put into. Anti-Piracy Law Group would be a second one.
15
I believe that AF Holdings' settlement proceeds have
16
been put into accounts held by a firm called Anderson &
17
Associates.
18
BY MR. PIETZ:
19
Q. Any others?
20
A. Beyond that that I would be speculating as to
21
whether the money is directly forwarded to Prenda Law or
22
if it's first passed through the trust accounts of the
23
counsel in any given jurisdiction.
24
Q. How about the law firm of Steele Hansmeier.
25
Were AF Holdings' litigation proceeds ever paid directly
Supp. E.R. 1211
1
into the trust account of the law firm of Steele
2
Hansmeier?
3
4
the noticed topics.
5
THE WITNESS: If -- I can't recall the exact
6
timing of AF Holdings or the sale of Steele Hansmeier,
7
Steele Hansmeier to Prenda Law, but if we were
8
representing AF Holdings during that time, then it would
9
have gone into the trust account for Steele Hansmeier.
10
BY MR. PIETZ:
11
Q. Who are the attorneys associated with or the
12
partners in the Anti-Piracy Law Group?
13
A. You'd have to ask them.
14
Q. I'm asking AF Holdings, which has just
15
testified that its settlement proceeds are paid directly
16
into the trust account of Anti-Piracy Law Group. Is it
17
the corporate response then that it's not sure who is in
18
charge of those funds?
19
20
Objection. Not in the notice of deposition topics.
21
THE WITNESS: The attorney who represents AF
22
Holdings through the Anti-Piracy Law Group is Paul
23
Duffy.
24
BY MR. PIETZ:
25
Q. Are there any other attorneys connected to the
Supp. E.R. 1212
1
Anti-Piracy Law Group?
2
A. Paul Duffy is the attorney who represents AF
3
Holdings and if there are other attorneys at the
4
Anti-Piracy Law Group or other counsel, we're only aware
5
of Mr. Duffy.
6
Q. What about John L. Steele, your former law
7
partner. Are AF Holdings' settlement proceeds paid into
8
any trust account in which he has an interest?
9
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Not one of the noticed
10
topics. Objection. Calls for speculation.
11
THE WITNESS: Well, you made the point before
12
about Steele Hansmeier. So to the extent that he had an
13
interest in that trust account, then yes. Beyond the
14
scope of Steele Hansmeier, no.
15
BY MR. PIETZ:
16
Q. So Mr. Steele does not have any right or
17
interest in the trust accounts for Prenda Law, for the
18
Anti-Piracy Law Group or for Anderson & Associates; is
19
that correct?
20
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Way outside the notice
21
of deposition topics.
22
BY MR. PIETZ:
23
Q. Please answer.
24
A. From AF Holdings' knowledge, no.
25
Q. How about yourself personally, Mr. Hansmeier.
Supp. E.R. 1213
1
Do you have authority or an interest in the Prenda trust
2
account?
3
A. No.
4
Q. How about the Anti-Piracy Law Group, do you
5
personally have authority or an interest in that trust
6
account?
7
A. No.
8
Q. How about Anderson & Associates?
9
A. No.
10
Q. How about the Alpha Law Firm, LLC?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. Does Alpha Law Firm, LLC, represent AF
13
Holdings?
14
A. It represents AF Holdings in, I would say four
15
or five cases, currently pending in the District of
16
Minnesota.
17
Q. Does the Alpha Law Firm represent Guava, LLC?
18
MR. GIBBS: Objection. That's outside the
19
deposition noticed topics.
20
BY MR. PIETZ:
21
Q. Are there any other law firms that have trust
22
accounts where AF Holdings' settlement proceeds are paid
23
directly into the trust account for that law firm or
24
sole practitioners or is it just those three, Prenda,
25
Anti-Piracy Law Group and Anderson & Associates?
Supp. E.R. 1214
1
2
THE WITNESS: As I testified before, I'm not
3
familiar with the exact mechanisms by which the money
4
goes from one account to another. Those -- to best of
5
my knowledge those are the ones.
6
BY MR. PIETZ:
7
Q. You just testified that Alpha Law Firm
8
represents AF Holdings. Has AF Holdings collected any
9
settlement proceeds in the cases where Alpha Law Firm is
10
counsel of record?
11
12
the topics in the notice of deposition.
13
THE WITNESS: Yes.
14
BY MR. PIETZ:
15
Q. And when AF Holdings collected those
16
settlement proceeds, were they paid directly into the
17
Alpha Law Firm?
18
A. No.
19
Q. How did Alpha Law Firm receive the money?
20
A. The Alpha Law Firm did not receive the money.
21
Q. Who received the money?
22
A. The proceeds were directed to the Prenda Law
23
trust account.
24
Q. So to be clear. When Alpha Law Firm settles
25
AF Holdings cases, the proceeds are paid to the Prenda
Supp. E.R. 1215
1
Law Firm, not to the Alpha Law Firm; is that correct?
2
A. They are deposited into the Prenda Law trust
3
account, yeah.
4
Q. So what if Alpha Law Firm or yourself needs
5
those proceeds to file further litigation, how do you
6
access the funds?
7
8
9
THE WITNESS: I don't understand the question.
10
BY MR. PIETZ:
11
Q. I believe you testified earlier that
12
settlements of AF Holdings' proceeds are paid into a
13
trust account, so that the money can be used by
14
attorneys in conducting litigation, whether it's paying
15
past expenses or paying ISPs to turn over the names.
16
You just testified that you've settled AF Holdings'
17
cases on behalf of Alpha Law Firm and that the
18
settlement proceeds in those cases were deposited into
19
Prenda Law's trust account. So if Alpha Law Firm needs
20
to access those funds to file new lawsuits on behalf of
21
AF Holdings or pay litigation expenses for AF Holdings,
22
how does Alpha Law Firm access the funds?
23
24
deposition topics.
25
THE WITNESS: So you're saying in the future
Supp. E.R. 1216
1
if Alpha Law Firm filed cases on behalf of AF Holdings,
2
how would we get the money?
3
Q. No. Let's try it again. I believe you
4
testified earlier that AF Holdings' settlement proceeds
5
are paid into law firm trust accounts, so that the
6
lawyers litigating AF Holdings cases can use the
7
proceeds to spend on expenses incurred in connection
8
with the litigation, like paying ISPs for their time in
9
responding to subpoenas. Now, you just testified a
10
moment ago that AF Holdings has indeed settled cases
11
where counsel of record is the Alpha Law Firm and that
12
those settlement proceeds were paid into the trust
13
account of Prenda, not Alpha Law Firm.
14
So my question for you is if Alpha Law Firm
15
was going to use the settlement proceeds to further
16
litigation on behalf of AF Holdings, how would it access
17
the settlement proceeds that have been deposited into
18
the Prenda trust account?
19
20
THE WITNESS: Just so I understand the
21
question. You're asking if we were to file cases going
22
forward for AF Holdings, how would we get access to the
23
funds to pay for those expenses?
24
BY MR. PIETZ:
25
Q. That's not the question I asked. I'm sorry if
Supp. E.R. 1217
1
it's confusing.
2
A. I understand the lead up to the question.
3
It's just the last part of it that I'm having trouble
4
getting my head around.
5
Q. Fair enough. Let me ask it a different way.
6
In the cases that Alpha Law Firm have settled for AF
7
Holdings, where the proceeds were deposited into the
8
Prenda trust account, has Alpha Law Firm ever withdrawn
9
those proceeds to use in connection with other AF
10
Holdings' litigation?
11
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Compound. Objection.
12
Not in the notice of deposition topics.
13
THE WITNESS: Alpha Law Firm has not withdrawn
14
money from a trust account owned and operated by Prenda.
15
BY MR. PIETZ:
16
Q. Has Prenda sent Alpha Law Firm a check?
17
A. I think the point you're trying to get is how
18
do we cover litigation expenses on behalf of AF Holdings
19
if the money isn't going to into Alpha Law Firm, but is
20
instead going into Prenda. So the answer to your
21
question, if that's your question, is that would we ask
22
for reimbursement from Prenda for a certain -- for the
23
litigation expenses, for example, filing fees, or if
24
there's ISPs bills or whatever else.
25
Q. How would that reimbursement come? Do you
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 71 Filed 03/07/13 Page 100 of 292 Page ID
#:1800
Supp. E.R. 1218
1
invoice Prenda Law? And when I say you, I'm asking
2
about Alpha Law Firm.
3
4
the noticed topics.
5
THE WITNESS: I should clarify. I'm not
6
speaking on behalf of AF Holdings right now. I'm just
7
speaking on behalf of myself. Typically, it would be --
8
we would ask Prenda for reimbursement and they would
9
provide the reimbursement.
10
BY MR. PIETZ:
11
Q. How would you ask for reimbursements is my
12
more specific question?
13
A. Generally would we ask the bookkeeper.
14
Q. Who is the bookkeeper?
15
A. Someone by the first name of Cathy.
16
Q. Do you know Cathy's last name?
17
A. I don't.
18
Q. Where is she located?
19
A. She's located in Las Vegas, Nevada.
20
Q. When you would ask her, how would you ask her?
21
Is it an e-mail? Is it an invoice?
22
23
deposition topics.
24
THE WITNESS: You're asking me to recall basic
25
bookkeeping transactions that happened a year ago. I
#:1801
Supp. E.R. 1219
1
would have to review my records to figure out the exact
2
method of reimbursement requests.
3
BY MR. PIETZ:
4
Q. In any event, let me ask a slightly different
5
question because my interest is not so much in how Alpha
6
Law Firm is reimbursed for litigation expenses. Rather
7
my interest is what happens to AF Holdings' settlement
8
proceeds after they're paid by John Doe defendant. So
9
for the cases that Alpha Law Firm has settled for AF
10
Holdings, where the money was paid to Prenda Law, not
11
Alpha Law, what happened to that money? Is it still
12
sitting in Prenda Law's trust account?
13
14
Outside the notice of deposition topics.
15
THE WITNESS: Well, the money that was
16
deposited into Prenda's trust account would either be
17
used to pay for litigation expenses or still be there.
18
BY MR. PIETZ:
19
Q. Are you not sure where your client's
20
settlement proceeds are or what's happened to it?
21
A. Are you asking me as AF Holdings corporate
22
representative or me personally?
23
Q. I'm asking you personally and on behalf of the
24
Alpha Law Firm.
25
MR. GIBBS: So this is something -- objection.
#:1802
Supp. E.R. 1220
1
Outside the notice of deposition.
2
MR. PIETZ: I'm going to ask it the other way
3
next, but you can go ahead and answer.
4
THE WITNESS: I'm aware that the proceeds are
5
deposited into the Prenda Law trust account.
6
BY MR. PIETZ:
7
Q. And where do the proceeds go from there, what
8
happens to them?
9
A. I would give the same answer again, which is
10
they are either used to -- now, speaking from AF
11
Holdings' prospective, they would be used to either pay
12
for litigation expenses or they would be used or the
13
proceeds would remain in trust.
14
Q. Do you have an obligation to make sure that
15
your client, AF Holdings, receives settlement proceeds,
16
don't you have an ethical obligation to do that as an
17
attorney?
18
A. Are you asking me as an attorney?
19
Q. I'm asking you as attorney for Alpha Law Firm.
20
21
deposition. Also assuming facts not in evidence.
22
THE WITNESS: Well, I can say as an attorney I
23
have no concern over how the proceeds are handled.
24
BY MR. PIETZ:
25
Q. So how does AF Holdings get the money from the
#:1803
Supp. E.R. 1221
1
Alpha Law Firm, AF Holdings cases?
2
3
4
THE WITNESS: Once again, when there's a
5
settlement in an AF Holdings case, where Alpha Law Firm
6
is the law firm of record, the settlement proceeds are
7
deposited into the trust account at Prenda Law.
8
BY MR. PIETZ:
9
Q. Do you have written consent from anyone at AF
10
Holdings agreeing to this procedure?
11
12
deposition topics.
13
MR. PIETZ: Go ahead and answer.
14
THE WITNESS: I guess I would have to review
15
my records of correspondence with AF Holdings.
16
BY MR. PIETZ:
17
Q. Did you ever discuss this arrangement with
18
Mr. Lutz?
19
A. I would have to review my records.
20
21
deposition topics.
22
BY MR. PIETZ:
23
Q. Well, let me ask this now in your capacity,
24
not as the attorney for Alpha Law Firm, but in your
25
capacity as the corporate representative for AF
#:1804
Supp. E.R. 1222
1
Holdings. Has AF Holdings ever agreed to allow
2
settlement proceeds collected by one law firm to be
3
deposited into a trust account for an entirely different
4
law firm?
5
6
deposition. Objection. You're basically stating
7
something as if it is a fact.
8
MR. PIETZ: Go ahead and answer, please.
9
10
question?
11
MR. PIETZ: Madam court reporter, could you
12
read that one back?
13
14
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.
15
Outside the notice of deposition topics.
16
THE WITNESS: Yes.
17
BY MR. PIETZ:
18
Q. Please elaborate.
19
A. Is that a question?
20
Q. Can you elaborate?
21
A. Would you please ask me a specific question.
22
Q. How has AF Holdings provided consent to the
23
procedure that we just described?
24
A. I would have to review documents and records
25
of AF Holdings regarding consent.
#:1805
Supp. E.R. 1223
1
Q. But you haven't done that in preparation for
2
this lawsuit today?
3
4
deposition topics.
5
THE WITNESS: My review of documents in
6
preparation for the noticed topics did not include a
7
review of consent or whatever you referred to in terms
8
of different lines of authority.
9
BY MR. PIETZ:
10
Q. So as the corporate representative for AF
11
Holdings, the corporation -- I should say limited
12
liability company -- has no concern whatsoever with the
13
fact that settlement proceeds payable on an Alpha Law
14
case are paid into the Prenda Law Firm's trust account?
15
As far as AF Holdings is concerned, one is just as good
16
as the other?
17
18
19
THE WITNESS: I can't speak to AF Holdings'
20
arbitrary concerns.
21
22
Q. Let me ask you this. You said AF Holdings.
23
BitTorrent settlement proceeds are 100 percent directed
24
towards cost or future litigation; is that true?
25
A. No. I think what I said was that the proceeds
#:1806
Supp. E.R. 1224
1
of AF Holding/BitTorrent settlements are to cover --
2
well, to cover litigation expenses or to cover future
3
litigation expenses.
4
Q. Okay. So does AF Holdings anticipate filing
5
lawsuits forever?
6
7
BY MR. RANALLO:
8
Q. Does AF Holdings anticipate filing further
9
lawsuits past today?
10
A. Yes.
11
Q. Does AF Holdings plan on spending 100 percent
12
of the money in trust on future lawsuits or past costs?
13
A. Well, AF Holdings plans on spending money on
14
lawsuits to the extent that this epidemic scale of
15
piracy continues.
16
Q. So let's say that, you know, for whatever
17
reason the piracy problems go away and this money is
18
left in attorney/client trust accounts, how does AF
19
Holdings get that money?
20
21
Based on an assumption. I mean, come on.
22
BY MR. RANALLO:
23
Q. Does AF Holdings have any authority to force
24
these attorneys to give them money, the money that
25
belongs to them from their settlement proceeds?
#:1807
Supp. E.R. 1225
1
2
Objection. Outside the noticed topics for the
3
deposition.
4
THE WITNESS: Yes.
5
BY MR. RANALLO:
6
Q. And where would those proceeds go?
7
8
Objection. Outside the deposition topics noticed for
9
this deposition.
10
THE WITNESS: I can say that it hasn't yet, so
11
I would not be prepared to speculate where the money
12
would go in that event.
13
14
Q. Mr. Hansmeier, just to clarify. When you say
15
it hasn't happened yet, does that mean there has never
16
been a distribution out of money held in trust for AF
17
Holdings by its various attorneys, that has gone to
18
anything other than the litigation expense; is that
19
correct?
20
THE WITNESS: Yes, that's correct. The
21
purpose of the litigation isn't to generate money for AF
22
Holdings. The purpose of the litigation is to generate
23
a deterrent effect in stealing its copyrighted works.
24
BY MR. PIETZ:
25
Q. So not a single penny of settlement proceeds
#:1808
Supp. E.R. 1226
1
paid into a trust account for AF Holdings various
2
attorneys has ever been transferred to the attorneys who
3
are working on those case?
4
5
Objection. Calls for speculation. Objection. Outside
6
7
THE WITNESS: Can you say the question again.
8
BY MR. PIETZ:
9
Q. I think you said that the purpose of the
10
litigation is not to make money. It's just to increase
11
the value of AF Holdings' copyrights.
12
A. Correct.
13
Q. I believe you testified that the money is
14
simply deposited into trusts for the attorneys who
15
represent AF Holdings where it remains until it is
16
expended on litigation-related expenses; is that
17
correct?
18
19
THE WITNESS: I didn't follow everything you
20
said, but the general point that the money has not been
21
distributed to AF Holdings is correct.
22
BY MR. PIETZ:
23
Q. So what about distributions to AF Holdings'
24
attorneys. When we were talking about
25
litigation-related expense, in your view, does that
#:1809
Supp. E.R. 1227
1
include expenses paid to AF Holdings' attorneys for the
2
work that they have done on AF Holdings cases?
3
A. Yes.
4
Q. So how much money has AF Holdings paid to its
5
attorneys in connection with the copyrighted work that's
6
at issue in this lawsuit?
7
8
deposition topics.
9
MR. PIETZ: I disagree.
10
11
You're asking for a specific amount of money, you know,
12
down to the cent, so you're asking him to guess?
13
MR. PIETZ: No.
14
MR. RANALLO: We're ask him to testify about
15
No. 10, pretty much exactly what it says.
16
THE WITNESS: Well, as I'm sure you can
17
appreciate, the attorneys don't track this information
18
with respect to a particular work. They do it with
19
respect to litigation, because -- and so No. 10 asks for
20
copyright litigation related to the work, which I trust
21
refers back to the work "Popular Demand" and that number
22
is not determinable.
23
BY MR. PIETZ:
24
Q. Let me move on to a slightly different topic.
25
The money that AF Holdings pays to its attorneys for
#:1810
Supp. E.R. 1228
1
work they've done on AF Holdings' litigation, how is
2
that accounted for? Is there an invoice? Is it billed
3
hourly? Is it a contingent fee? Is it a flat fee?
4
Please explain how that works.
5
A. The compensation arrangements with respect to
6
attorneys --
7
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Is this one of the
8
noticed topics?
9
MR. PIETZ: It is.
10
MR. GIBBS: Which number.
11
MR. PIETZ: Ten among other. Go ahead and
12
answer.
13
MR. GIBBS: I disagree. Objection. Outside
14
the noticed deposition topics.
15
16
THE WITNESS: So with respect to the
17
distributions to various attorneys with respect to the
18
work "Popular Demand". Again, it's just now how the,
19
you know, the accounting is done or how bookkeeping is
20
done.
21
BY MR. PIETZ:
22
Q. I believe you're answering my second to last
23
question. What I asked you more recently was, how are
24
the payments from AF Holdings' trust accounts to AF
25
Holdings' various attorneys accounted for? Is it
#:1811
Supp. E.R. 1229
1
through invoices? Is it a contingent fee arrangements?
2
Is it a flat fee? I'm asking how the payments that are
3
transferred made from AF Holdings' trust accounts to the
4
attorneys who run that trust account, how is that
5
accounted for?
6
7
THE WITNESS: Are you asking for a bookkeeping
8
answer or are you asking for --
9
BY MR. PIETZ:
10
Q. Let's take it one step at a time. The
11
attorneys who do work for AF Holdings, do they charge AF
12
Holdings on an hourly basis? And let me clarify when I
13
say do work. I mean, with respect to AF Holdings'
14
copyright litigation.
15
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Not part of the
16
noticed deposition topics.
17
THE WITNESS: I'm trying to refresh my
18
recollection as much as possible. I do think that this
19
is outside the scope of the noticed topics, but I'll do
20
my best to give some information in this area.
21
My understanding is that on behalf of the
22
company, to the extent that I was able to tangentially
23
review these topics, is that most attorneys are paid or
24
compensated on a contingency fee basis.
25
BY MR. PIETZ:
#:1812
Supp. E.R. 1230
1
Q. And what is the contingency fee basis?
2
A. Well, a contingency fee basis is where they
3
receive a percentage of a settlement.
4
Q. What's the percentage?
5
6
deposition topics.
7
THE WITNESS: I couldn't tell you the precise
8
percentages.
9
BY MR. PIETZ:
10
Q. Can you give me a range?
11
12
13
You don't want him to speculate, correct?
14
MR. PIETZ: I would like to him to answer the
15
question.
16
THE WITNESS: I'm trying to refresh my
17
recollection.
18
BY MR. PIETZ:
19
Q. Mr. Hansmeier, you are both the corporate
20
representative for AF Holdings and an attorney who
21
represents AF Holdings in copyright litigations matters
22
with respect to your Alpha Law Firm; isn't that correct?
23
A. I'm the corporate representative for AF
24
Holdings with respect to the topics that were noticed up
25
for today's deposition and I'm also an attorney for who
#:1813
Supp. E.R. 1231
1
AF Holdings on the cases pending in Minnesota, yes.
2
Q. And you're telling me that you're having
3
difficulty recollecting how it is that you were paid for
4
this work.
5
A. No. What I'm telling you is that I'm having
6
difficulty recollecting the range of contingency fee
7
arrangements nationwide among the dozens, if not several
8
dozen, of attorneys who have worked on AF Holdings'
9
matters in the past, in light of the fact that the topic
10
of -- the range of contingency fee payments for AF
11
Holdings' attorneys was not a notice topic, not even
12
very tangentially related to a noticed topic listed for
13
the -- how do you say it -- today's deposition.
14
I can tell you in the matters for Alpha Law
15
Firm, I can testify as to that issue. The fee
16
arrangement was that Alpha Law Firm did not receive
17
compensation or did not receive a contingency fee for
18
those cases.
19
Q. But other attorneys who work for AF Holdings
20
do receive contingent fees; is that correct?
21
A. Yes, that is correct.
22
Q. So is Alpha Law Firm paid on an hourly basis?
23
A. Alpha Law Firm did not receive compensation
24
for its efforts in connection with the Minnesota AF
25
Holdings' cases.
#:1814
Supp. E.R. 1232
1
Q. Did Alpha Law Firm take these cases pro bono?
2
A. Alpha Law Firm did not receive compensation
3
for the cases filed on behalf of AF Holdings in
4
Minnesota.
5
Q. No compensation of any kind?
6
A. That's correct.
7
8
BY MR. PIETZ:
9
Q. Okay. Now, how about speaking in your
10
capacity as the corporate representative for AF Holdings
11
and recognizing that perhaps the relationship between
12
Alpha Law Firm and AF Holdings is different from most of
13
the other relationships between AF Holdings and its
14
attorneys, please explain how the payments from AF
15
Holdings' trust accounts are paid to the attorneys who
16
handle AF Holdings' copyright infringement matters?
17
18
THE WITNESS: Well, if -- your question
19
includes a premise, which I don't think is correct.
20
BY MR. PIETZ:
21
Q. Let me strike it then. What is the -- what is
22
the range of contingent fee agreements that AF Holdings
23
uses with respect to its attorneys who prosecute
24
copyright infringement matters --
25
A. So using Alpha Law Firm as a low end, it would
#:1815
Supp. E.R. 1233
1
be zero.
2
Q. Okay. I'm not asking about Alpha Law Firm,
3
because you said it's different and it hasn't received
4
any money.
5
A. I didn't say it's different. I said Alpha Law
6
Firm is not compensated for its work with AF Holdings.
7
Q. Is that true of the other law firms that
8
represent AF Holdings, none of them receive any money?
9
10
THE WITNESS: Again, you're asking me to
11
estimate or speculate with respect to matters that
12
weren't noticed up for the deposition. That being said,
13
I would say that the range -- based on my best
14
recollection of this matter, I would say the range is
15
generally -- or the amount of compensation for attorneys
16
on an a contingency fee basis is generally in the range
17
of 33 -- or in the ballpark of 33 percent.
18
BY MR. PIETZ:
19
Q. If Paul Duffy settles a case on behalf of AF
20
Holdings through the Anti-Piracy Law Group, what
21
percentage of the proceeds is Paul Duffy entitled to?
22
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Out the notice of
23
deposition topics. Objection. Speculation.
24
THE WITNESS: I can't -- I don't know what
25
precise percentage Paul Duffy is paid.
#:1816
Supp. E.R. 1234
1
BY MR. PIETZ:
2
Q. Can you give me a ballpark?
3
4
BY MR. PIETZ:
5
Q. Can you give me an estimate?
6
A. I can speculate that's it's in the ballpark of
7
a third.
8
Q. It's not higher than a third?
9
MR. GIBBS: Objection. He just said it was
10
within the ballpark, which means higher or lower.
11
BY MR. PIETZ:
12
Q. Let me clarify. Is it possible that Mr. Duffy
13
is paid a contingent fee higher than 33 1/3 percent?
14
A. Again, you're asking me to speculate.
15
Anything is possible.
16
Q. I'm asking you to answer on behalf of AF
17
Holdings.
18
A. I'm answering on behalf of AF Holdings that
19
you asked is it possible, of course, AF Holdings -- when
20
you ask about -- when you couch questions in terms of
21
possibilities, yes, it's possible.
22
Q. Does AF Holdings have a written fee agreement
23
with Paul Duffy of the Alpha Law Firm?
24
25
the noticed deposition topics.
#:1817
Supp. E.R. 1235
1
THE WITNESS: Again, that's outside the scope
2
of the notice of deposition topics, so I did not review
3
the various fee agreements.
4
BY MR. PIETZ:
5
Q. Is it your testimony that AF Holdings is not
6
sure if it has a fee agreement with its attorney, Paul
7
Duffy?
8
9
THE WITNESS: It's my testimony that the fee
10
agreements with respect to the various attorneys
11
representing AF Holdings was not incorporated directly
12
or tangentially to the noticed topics.
13
Q. I disagree with that assertion, but I'll ask
14
you one final time. I don't mean to belabor the point.
15
I'm asking AF Holdings now. Is there a written fee
16
agreement between AF Holdings and Paul Duffy?
17
MR. GIBBS: Objection.
18
THE WITNESS: I guess I would incorporate the
19
answer I previously gave to the exact question.
20
MR. PIETZ: Move to strike the deponent's last
21
two answers as nonresponsive.
22
Let me read one more thing. One of the notice
23
topics today was -- we were -- we put you on notice that
24
we wanted to inquire into the, quote, the identities of
25
the recipients, unquote, of AF Holdings' revenues from
#:1818
Supp. E.R. 1236
1
BitTorrent copyright litigation.
2
A. Related to the work.
3
Q. -- related to the work in question. Wouldn't
4
you agree that Mr. Duffy, with a contingent fee interest
5
in the outcome of the litigation would qualify as a
6
recipient of the proceeds from BitTorrent copyright
7
litigation?
8
A. Sure and we have identified him.
9
Q. But what you can't do is clarify the exact
10
basis upon which the revenue is paid. So it may be
11
something in the ballpark of a third, but you aren't
12
certain --
13
14
testimony and objection. Outside the notice of the
15
deposition topics --
16
THE REPORTER: Please hold on.
17
18
question?
19
BY MR. PIETZ:
20
Q. Let me start over. How about this case. Does
21
AF Holdings have a written contingent fee agreement?
22
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Outside of the notice
23
deposition topics.
24
BY MR. PIETZ:
25
#:1819
Supp. E.R. 1237
1
THE WITNESS: Well, this case hasn't generated
2
any revenues yet so it didn't specifically occur to me
3
to review arrangements with the attorneys in cases that
4
haven't generated any revenue.
5
Q. So in other AF Holdings' copyright litigations
6
cases where Mr. Gibbs has obtained settlements for AF
7
Holdings, wouldn't you agree that Mr. Gibbs is an
8
ultimate recipient of AF Holdings' settlement proceeds
9
by virtue of a contingent fee arrangement?
10
11
deposition topics. This is a constant theme here.
12
A. Wouldn't I agree to what?
13
14
MR. GIBBS: Objection. To the extent that
15
we're not even talking about the same case here, right?
16
Do you have any cases in mind we're talking about here
17
or just generally?
18
MR. PIETZ: I'm sure I can come up with some.
19
I would like the deponent to answer the question.
20
A. So the question is if Mr. Gibbs received
21
proceeds from a settlement, would he be -- would he be
22
an ultimate recipient of the proceeds?
23
Q. My question more simply states, wouldn't you
24
agree that Mr. Gibbs is a recipient of AF Holdings'
25
settlement proceeds?
#:1820
Supp. E.R. 1238
1
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Out the notice of
2
deposition topics and you're also asking him for a
3
definition here that he doesn't necessarily have.
4
BY MR. PIETZ:
5
6
A. I guess I'm pretty confused by the question.
7
It would depend on how Mr. Gibbs is compensated.
8
Q. How is Mr. Gibbs compensated?
9
10
deposition topics.
11
BY MR. PIETZ:
12
Q. In this case if Mr. Gibbs were to obtain a
13
settlement from the defendant, what contingent fee
14
percentage would he be given?
15
16
deposition topics. Again we're going over the themes
17
that aren't in the topics here.
18
MR. RANALLO: Mr. Gibbs, we're aware that's
19
your position. Our position is that --
20
MR. GIBBS: We're belaboring something here
21
that is really just becoming an annoyance and we're
22
asking the same sorts of questions. This structure is
23
what he studied, you understand that, to come to this
24
deposition that's a requirement of the 30(b)(6)6.
25
MR. PIETZ: Mr. Gibbs, we don't have to get
#:1821
Supp. E.R. 1239
1
into a bunch of a colloquy on the record. We can talk
2
about it afterwards. What I'd like right now is for the
3
deponent to simply answer the question.
4
THE WITNESS: Well, to the noticed topic of
5
would Mr. Gibbs be someone who would receive
6
revenue if a settlement was reached in this case, I
7
believe the answer is yes.
8
BY MR. PIETZ:
9
Q. And what percentage of the revenue would
10
Mr. Gibbs keep?
11
A. I can't answer that question specifically.
12
Q. I am going to note -- I'm going to object to
13
the last answer as nonresponsive. ** Madam court
14
reporter, would you also be so kind to note this part of
15
the transcript so that we can refer to it later
16
MR. GIBBS: What do we have in terms of what's
17
left.
18
MR. PIETZ: It's going to be a full-day
19
deposition. It's 12:45 now. I say we break for lunch.
20
Should we come back at 1:45 o'clock?
21
(Off the record at 12:48 p.m. and back
22
on the record at 1:52 p.m.)
23
BY MR. PIETZ:
24
Q. Back on the record in the 30(b)(6) deposition
25
of AF Holdings. Mr. Hansmeier, I will refer you to the
#:1822
Supp. E.R. 1240
1
deposition notice that accompanied the subpoena bringing
2
you here today. I believe it's marked as Exhibit 100.
3
Attached thereto as Exhibit A is a copyright assignment
4
agreement. Could you turn to the second page of the
5
copyright assignment agreement. There on the bottom
6
right, can you read me what it says there on the
7
signature line, please?
8
A. It says Alan Cooper on behalf of assignee, AF
9
Holdings, LLC.
10
Q. Who is Alan Cooper?
11
A. Alan Cooper is an individual who was
12
designated as a corporate representative of AF Holdings,
13
LLC. The circumstances that led to Mr. Cooper's
14
designation as a corporate representative to acknowledge
15
the copyright assignment agreement on behalf of AF
16
Holdings, LLC, is that Mark Lutz -- we're backing up a
17
little bit. AF Holdings makes use of corporate
18
representatives, the reason for that is that obviously
19
you guys know that there's a lot of people out there who
20
don't like what we're doing, specifically to people who
21
have infringed on works and want to retaliate against
22
people who are enforcing copyrights.
23
Now, some people who infringe on works aren't
24
of a very serious, morally corrupt manner, but some of
25
them are people who are, you know, quite nefarious and
#:1823
Supp. E.R. 1241
1
who are quite capable of committing quite a bit of harm.
2
AF Holdings makes use of corporate
3
representatives to help prevent the -- I guess the
4
officer, Mark Lutz, himself, from being targeted by
5
these individuals. The manner in which Mr. Cooper was
6
designated as a corporate representative was Marks Lutz
7
asked attorney John Steele to arrange for a corporate
8
representative to acknowledge the assignment agreement
9
on behalf of AF Holdings. Mr. Steele did so and
10
returned the assignment agreement to AF Holdings bearing
11
the signature of Mr. Alan Cooper.
12
When this whole -- I guess the first time we
13
heard about any form of controversy with respect to --
14
the first time AF Holdings heard about any form
15
controversy with respect to the assignment agreement was
16
when an attorney named Paul Godfread, G-O-D-F-R-E-A-D,
17
contacted AF Holdings and said that -- I can't remember
18
the exact text of the e-mail, but something to the
19
effect of he's representing someone named Alan Cooper
20
and they're concerned that Alan Cooper is being held out
21
as AF Holdings CEO.
22
And so when that occurred, we -- or AF
23
Holdings and Mark Lutz specifically, he asked, you know,
24
what is the exposure of AF Holdings here and there were
25
two specific concerns. One specific concern was the
#:1824
Supp. E.R. 1242
1
issue of fraud. Namely, that if AF Holdings is
2
distributing agreements that have someone's signature on
3
it, but he didn't sign it or somehow his identity was
4
coopted, then obviously that's something that AF
5
Holdings would have to -- once it became aware of that
6
issue -- stop doing -- shut it down and make sure it
7
didn't happen anymore, because obviously there's no
8
reason to distribute an assignment or any agreement
9
bearing someone's signature if there was a forgery or
10
some sort of fraudulent action involved in that sense.
11
And so to address that issue AF Holdings --
12
well, spoke to Mr. Steele -- Mark Lutz spoke to
13
Mr. Steele and said, Well, I understand that there's an
14
issue with this Alan Cooper and asked Mr. Steele
15
point-blank, Is the signature a forgery. Mr. Steele
16
said the signature is not forgery. And he asked him, Is
17
the -- is this signature authentic. Mr. Steele says,
18
yes, the signature is authentic. Based on Mr. Steele's
19
representation, we have no reason to believe from what
20
Mr. Steele said, at least, that the signature is a
21
forgery or there's some sort fraud going on with respect
22
to the signature.
23
Then AF Holdings reached out to Paul Godfread
24
and said what, you know, evidence do you have of some
25
form of fraud or forgery or anything else. Paul
#:1825
Supp. E.R. 1243
1
Godfread did not -- was not responsive. We further --
2
Mr. Steele further reached out to Paul Godfread and said
3
what can AF Holdings do to give your client the
4
assurances that we're not holding him out as somehow
5
being the CEO of AF Holdings. And again Paul Godfread
6
was nonresponsive. And so based on Mr. Steele's
7
representations that everything is authentic and Paul
8
Godfread's -- well, I guess, failure to give any
9
information regarding his client, plus this letter that
10
he filed that simply says that his client is being held
11
out as the CEO of AF Holdings, we concluded that at
12
least at this time there's not any evidence to support
13
some sort of concern of fraud or some sort of concern of
14
a forged or inauthentic signature. And, of course, we
15
can't speak to Mr. Cooper directly because he's, of
16
course, represented by attorney Paul Godfread.
17
You know the second concern that was raised by
18
Mr. Godfread's inquiry was the issue of standing.
19
Namely, that if the worst case scenario played out and
20
the signature was inauthentic, would that somehow affect
21
our standing to proceed forward with cases. When I say
22
our, I mean AF Holdings. We looked at two different
23
things. The first thing we looked at was the copyright
24
act itself, which says, of course, that the formal
25
requirements for a valid standing -- or a valid
#:1826
Supp. E.R. 1244
1
assignment agreement are a written document, one, and
2
then that it's signed by the assignor. So to give
3
ourselves close comfort with respect to the issue of
4
standing, we contacted the assignor, because obviously
5
the assignor -- Alan Cooper would be signing on behalf
6
of the assignee, of course. And so we contacted the
7
assignor Raymond Rogers and asked him, you know, there's
8
this concern about Alan Cooper and who is Alan Cooper
9
and is his signature authentic or is his signature not
10
authentic, but can you confirm for us that you, in fact,
11
did sign this and you believe that the assignment is
12
effective and as far as you're concerned AF Holdings is
13
the owner of the copyright in question, in both this
14
case and of course the other copyright that Raymond
15
Rogers was involved in assigning to AF Holdings. And he
16
did confirm that. He said, yes, I do believe that this
17
agreement is authentic. I entered into it voluntarily.
18
My signature is not forged. Everything is fine from our
19
end.
20
And so that gave us comfort. We also reviewed
21
Ninth Circuit case law, specifically the case of --
22
Cohen is in the title where the Ninth Circuit reviewing,
23
you know, section 204 of the Copyright Act concluded
24
that, Well, as long as you have a writing and it's
25
signed by the assignor, you have standing.
#:1827
Supp. E.R. 1245
1
And then I guess the next action AF Holdings
2
is planning on taking to remove any doubt that the
3
assignment was and continues to be effective as between
4
AF Holdings and Heartbreaker, I guess, vice versa, is
5
they're preparing a ratification of the agreement, so
6
that without any Alan Cooper whatsoever that both the
7
Heartbreaker entities and then AF Holdings will confirm
8
that the assignment is intended to be effective through
9
the ratification.
10
Q. Thank you for that very thorough answer.
11
Although you're jumping ahead a little bit to some
12
issues that I'm sure will come up eventually. I would
13
like to come back to the more simple issue though of
14
just identifying who is this Alan Cooper that signed on
15
here. Is the Alan Cooper whose signature on here the
16
same Alan Cooper who's represented by attorney Paul
17
Godfread?
18
A. Well, first of all, I don't know who attorney
19
Godfread represents and who he doesn't represent. If
20
you're talking about the guy who's in Minnesota and was
21
John Steele's former caretaker, all I can say is that AF
22
Holdings -- the only person who knows who this Alan
23
Cooper is is John Steele and we asked Mr. Steele, is
24
this the same guy, is this not the same guy, is there
25
another Alan Cooper and Mr. Steele declined to respond
#:1828
Supp. E.R. 1246
1
on the basis that Mr. Cooper has sued Mr. Steele and
2
they're actively involved in litigation.
3
Q. I believe you testified today throughout the
4
entire duration of AF Holdings duration -- AF Holdings
5
existence the only employee member, officer manager, the
6
person wearing all the hats and the only person who has
7
ever had any official capacity with AF Holdings is Mark
8
Lutz; isn't that correct?
9
A. I testified that Mr. Lutz is the sole
10
manager/employee of AF holdings, correct.
11
Q. And there's no other manager or employees
12
right through to this present day; is that correct?
13
A. That's correct.
14
Q. Mr. Lutz has been the only one. So this begs
15
the question was John Steele ever an owner, manager or
16
employee of AF Holdings?
17
A. No.
18
Q. So why then did AF Holdings rely upon John
19
Steele to sign documents on AF Holdings' behalf?
20
A. What document are you referring to that he
21
signed on AF Holdings' behalf?
22
Q. Let me rephrase. Why is AF Holdings relying
23
on John Steele to arrange for signatures on documents
24
that are being signed on AF Holdings' behalf?
25
#:1829
Supp. E.R. 1247
1
THE WITNESS: Well, it would be speculation as
2
to why AF Holdings took one action or another. I would
3
say that, for example, you know, Mr. Lutz is an
4
individual. There are a certain number hours in a day
5
and for him to accomplish everything he's going to
6
accomplish in any given day, or for anyone in any
7
capacity in any business, you rely on third parties to
8
aid you to accomplish various tasks.
9
For example, the -- Mr. Lutz relied on me
10
personally to arrange for the signature of Raymond
11
Rogers. And the reason he did that was because he
12
needed me to help him out in that task.
13
Q. So am I to understand correctly then that with
14
respect that AF Holdings litigation, you and Mr. Steele
15
are both taking orders from Mr. Lutz; is that correct?
16
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Misstates the prior
17
testimony.
18
BY MR. PIETZ:
19
Q. He's your client, so on the issues --
20
A. Mr. Lutz or AF Holdings?
21
Q. Mr. Lutz is the client representative of AF
22
Holdings, so you, in your capacity as an attorney, and
23
Mr. Steele in his capacity as an attorney, are doing
24
what Mr. Lutz tells you to do; is that correct?
25
#:1830
Supp. E.R. 1248
1
I just don't like the characterization. Do whatever you
2
want to do.
3
BY MR. PIETZ:
4
Q. Go ahead.
5
A. I am not sure what you mean by we do what he
6
tells me to do.
7
Q. If Mr. Lutz says settle a case, you as counsel
8
for the Alpha Law Firm, settle the case.
9
A. Yes.
10
Q. If Mr. Lutz says arrange to have this document
11
signed, you arrange to have the document signed; is that
12
correct?
13
A. It depends on what document.
14
Q. Well, for example, this copyright assignment
15
agreement that we're looking at as Exhibit A. Mr. Lutz
16
told you to arrange to have it signed by Raymond Rogers
17
and you did that because Mr. Lutz is essentially the
18
client and your boss and you do what he tells you to do,
19
correct?
20
21
BY MR. PIETZ:
22
Q. Can you explain why that is not correct?
23
A. Well, Mr. Lutz is not my client. AF Holdings
24
is the client of Alpha Law Firm in certain matters.
25
When Mr. Lutz asked me to help facilitate that signature
#:1831
Supp. E.R. 1249
1
as a logistical matter, I don't recall having -- you
2
know, acting in the capacity of an attorney. I was just
3
assisting him facilitate it.
4
Q. Did you ever work for Prenda Law, Inc.?
5
A. No.
6
Q. You were never attorney of record with Prenda
7
Law, Inc.? You were never of counsel there?
8
A. I guess I'd have to go back over the various
9
appearances that I filed. I don't recall anything
10
specifically. Does that mean that there's not one on
11
record somewhere, I can't say with exact certainty.
12
Q. Was Mr. Lutz employed as a paralegal at Steele
13
Hansmeier?
14
MR. GIBBS: Objection. It's outside the scope
15
of the deposition noticed topics.
16
THE WITNESS: Mr. Lutz was for a time employed
17
with Steele Hansmeier, yes. What his exact title was, I
18
don't recall.
19
BY MR. PIETZ:
20
Q. While he was employed at Steele Hansmeier you
21
were his boss, correct?
22
A. I would not agree with that characterization.
23
The reason I wouldn't agree with that characterization
24
is because he worked directly under Mr. Steele.
25
Q. So Mr. Steele was Mr. Lutz's boss at Steele
#:1832
Supp. E.R. 1250
1
Hansmeier; is that correct?
2
A. Yes. Mr. Lutz reported to Mr. Steele in his
3
capacity of working for Steele Hansmeier.
4
Q. And what did Mr. Lutz do for Mr. Steele at
5
Steele Hansmeier?
6
7
THE WITNESS: I would -- you'd have to ask
8
Mr. Steele what specific duties Mr. Lutz performed.
9
BY MR. PIETZ:
10
Q. Let me ask this question. I'm asking for your
11
personal knowledge, not the knowledge of AF Holdings.
12
You were the other named partner on the masthead. What
13
kind of tasks did Mr. Lutz perform at your law firm?
14
A. Mr. Lutz did not perform any tasks directly
15
for me. He performed tasks for Mr. Steele.
16
Q. What kind of tasks did he perform?
17
A. Again, you'd have to ask what kind of tasks
18
Mr. Lutz performed for Mr. Steele.
19
Q. Would it be fair to characterize them as
20
paralegal-level tasks?
21
A. I don't know if you could characterize them or
22
not because first you'd have to identify what they are.
23
Q. And you have absolutely no idea what Mr. Lutz
24
did for Mr. Steele while working at your law firm; is
25
that correct?
#:1833
Supp. E.R. 1251
1
A. Yes. Mr. Lutz did not perform any tasks for
2
me. He performed tasks for Mr. Steele.
3
Q. And you're not sure if it was paralegal work
4
or secretarial work or you have no idea what kind of
5
work it was Mr. Lutz did for Mr. Steele; is that
6
correct?
7
8
Calls for speculation.
9
THE WITNESS: It would be correct to say that
10
Mr. Lutz worked for Mr. Steele. He worked performing
11
tasks for Mr. Steele and reported to Mr. Steele. I did
12
not delegate any work to Mr. Lutz, so I could not tell
13
you what he was doing on a day-to-day basis.
14
BY MR. PIETZ:
15
Q. Did you ever sign Mr. Lutzs' paychecks?
16
A. No.
17
MR. PIETZ: I would like to mark into the
18
record Exhibit 103.
19
20
21
BY MR. PIETZ:
22
Q. So having now marked 103, which is a Motion
23
for Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel filed in the
24
Northern District, California case 4221, ECF No. 22.
25
Mr. Hansmeier, I'll ask you to turn to the
#:1834
Supp. E.R. 1252
1
second page of this document. Can you read me what it
2
says on the bottom signature line there, who signed and
3
in what capacity.
4
A. There's three signature on the bottom.
5
Q. The very bottom one on the left?
6
A. Brent Gibbs, in-house counsel, AF Holdings,
7
LLC.
8
Q. I believe you testified a moment ago that
9
throughout the entire duration of AF Holdings, the only
10
employee or officer -- the person wearing all of the
11
hats was Mark Lutz.
12
A. Uh-huh.
13
Q. Based on this document that appears to be
14
incorrect because isn't Mr. Gibbs now in-house counsel
15
for AF Holdings?
16
A. No. I think it's -- I don't know why it's
17
here. I don't think it's --
18
Q. So Mr. Gibbs is not in-house counsel for AF
19
Holdings?
20
A. That's correct.
21
MR. PIETZ: Well, shoot. I'm just going to
22
ask you, Mr. Gibbs. Did you prepare and sign this
23
document?
24
MR. GIBBS: It's not my deposition. I'm not
25
quite sure why I would be answering questions.
#:1835
Supp. E.R. 1253
1
MR. PIETZ: Well, there's an E-file document
2
here with your signature on it that says you're in-house
3
for AF Holdings. I thought I'd give you the opportunity
4
as a courtesy to clarify for the record.
5
MR. GIBBS: Okay.
6
MR. PIETZ: You're not going to address it?
7
MR. GIBBS: I don't think I need to address
8
it.
9
BY MR. PIETZ:
10
Q. Is there anybody else who currently has the
11
position of in-house counsel for AF Holdings?
12
A. No.
13
Q. Who are the current employees of the Alpha Law
14
Firm?
15
A. Current employees of the Alpha Law Firm --
16
17
deposition.
18
BY MR. PIETZ:
19
Q. Speaking from your personal knowledge, not on
20
behalf of AF Holdings.
21
A. Alpha Law Firm doesn't have any employees.
22
I'm the manager.
23
Q. What licensed attorneys do work for Alpha Law
24
Firm?
25
A. I do work for Alpha Law Firm.
#:1836
Supp. E.R. 1254
1
Q. What other attorneys?
2
A. If you want me to give you a list of any
3
attorney in history who have done work at Alpha Law
4
Firm, I'd have to go back and review my records.
5
Q. How about Michael Dugas, does he do work for
6
Alpha Law Firm?
7
A. I believe he has performed work for Alpha Law
8
Firm, but again I'd had to check my records.
9
Q. How about his wife, has she also performed
10
work for the Alpha Law Firm?
11
A. I do not believe so, but again I'd have to go
12
back and check my records.
13
Q. Did Michael Dugas previously work at the
14
Prenda Law Firm?
15
A. I would have to go review the employment
16
records of the Prenda Law Firm.
17
Q. Didn't you hire Mr. Dugas?
18
A. For who?
19
Q. For Alpha Law Firm.
20
A. He's performed work on behalf of Alpha Law
21
Firm, but he's not a paid employee of Alpha Law Firm.
22
Q. So when you engaged him to perform work for
23
Alpha Law Firm, did you review a resume and note that he
24
previously worked for Prenda Law Firm?
25
A. I can't recall reviewing his resume.
#:1837
Supp. E.R. 1255
1
Q. Were you aware when you hired him, that he had
2
worked previously at the Prenda Law Firm?
3
A. I don't recall hiring him and I don't recall
4
reviewing his resume.
5
6
deposition topics.
7
BY MR. PIETZ:
8
Q. So returning now to your capacity as corporate
9
representative for AF Holdings. To clarify, AF Holdings
10
position is that John Steele was responsible for
11
obtaining Alan Cooper's signature and whether or not the
12
signature is authentic is a question that only
13
Mr. Steele and presumably Mr. Cooper can answer and that
14
AF Holdings --
15
A. That is not our position. The position is
16
that whether or not -- the position is that
17
Mr. Steele's -- the position of AF Holdings, I guess, is
18
not so far off of what you're saying. It's that
19
Mr. Steele arranged for the signature and that it's a
20
matter of open debate between Mr. Cooper and Mr. Steele
21
and any other third party regarding the signature and I
22
trust that the matter will be addressed in due course
23
with the litigation between Mr. Cooper and Mr. Steele.
24
Q. Other than the gentleman in Minnesota who is
25
represented by Attorney Godfread has AF Holdings ever
#:1838
Supp. E.R. 1256
1
engaged or has employed any other Alan Cooper?
2
A. AF Holdings has had one employee/manager since
3
its formation and that's Mark Lutz.
4
5
Q. You mentioned that AF Holdings oftentimes gets
6
corporate representatives, you called them, to do
7
various things on behalf of the company; is that true?
8
A. I don't know if I used the word oftentimes but
9
from time to time AF Holdings has done so, yes.
10
Q. Are those people paid?
11
A. No.
12
Q. And why would somebody be a corporate
13
representative totally gratuitously for no compensation
14
and do something like this?
15
16
BY MR. RANALLO:
17
Q. Let me ask you this. You said you have been
18
corporate representative for them, why did you do it for
19
free?
20
A. When did I say I was a corporate
21
representative for them?
22
Q. I believe you said that you were engaged to
23
acquire the signature on this document; is that correct?
24
A. No, I didn't say I was engaged to -- in a
25
legal capacity to acquire the signature for them.
#:1839
Supp. E.R. 1257
1
Q. So he just asked you as a friend?
2
A. I would characterize it in that circumstance
3
as asking for a favor, which I was happy to help him out
4
with.
5
Q. And do you generally do these kind of favors
6
for companies that you're not associated with in any
7
capacity?
8
A. I guess I don't know what you mean by these
9
kind of favors.
10
Q. Have you ever acquired any other signatures
11
for any other company?
12
A. In my entire time in being a lawyer?
13
Q. Yes.
14
A. I suspect I have. Could I identify any
15
specific instances as I sit here right now, I'm trying
16
to refresh my recollection. Not as I sit here right
17
now. If you ask as a general principal, do I perform
18
favors for other people, do I assist them without
19
demanding compensation for every last task or whatever
20
else I might aid them in as a courtesy, sure I
21
perform -- I help people out.
22
Q. In this case what did acquiring the signature
23
entail?
24
A. I contacted Mr. Rogers and --
25
Q. Let me stop you for a minute. How did you
#:1840
Supp. E.R. 1258
1
contact him?
2
A. This is quite a while ago. To the best of my
3
recollection I would have contacted him by phone.
4
MR. RANALLO: Okay.
5
6
Q. How many copyright infringement lawsuits has
7
AF Holdings filed since it's been established?
8
A. I could not give you an exact number sitting
9
here right now, but certainly that's a matter of public
10
record that could be easily ascertained by reference to
11
the public record.
12
Q. Would you say it's over 50 lawsuits?
13
A. I would guess so, yes.
14
Q. How many attorneys has AF Holdings engaged as
15
counsel in these various cases?
16
A. Again, that's something outside the scope of
17
the noticed topics, but it is a matter of public record
18
of how many attorneys we have retained over the course
19
of our corporate existence, but I couldn't give you a
20
precise number.
21
Q. Would you say it's approximately 20 attorneys,
22
maybe more?
23
A. I'm just trying to think through all the
24
various attorneys that --
25
Q. My intent here isn't to pin you down to a
#:1841
Supp. E.R. 1259
1
specific number. Your best estimate as to range.
2
A. Sure. But I want to be able to give you an
3
accurate estimate so I have to think through all of the
4
different attorneys at AF Holdings.
5
Q. Could you think out loud for me?
6
A. No.
7
Q. You can or you won't?
8
MR. GIBBS: He doesn't need to.
9
THE WITNESS: I guess your ballpark estimate
10
of 20 doesn't seem too far off the mark based on my gut
11
reaction.
12
BY MR. PIETZ:
13
Q. At least 50 cases, at least 20 attorneys and
14
presumably every single one of these attorneys is taking
15
instruction from Mark Lutz; is that correct?
16
A. I don't know.
17
Q. I'm asking now as the corporate representative
18
for AF Holdings. There are decisions in a lawsuit,
19
which you very well know, that need to be made by a
20
client. With respect to this fairly sizeable volume of
21
litigation, is it your testimony that perhaps 20
22
lawyers, in perhaps 50 different civil litigations, are
23
all taking their marching orders from Mark Lutz; is that
24
correct?
25
#:1842
Supp. E.R. 1260
1
Objection. It's not in the deposition noticed topics.
2
THE WITNESS: Well, I guess I can say that
3
what I learned during the process of investigating the
4
topics that were noticed for today and that is Mark Lutz
5
is the sole -- the manager, the person with the decision
6
for litigation decisions at AF Holdings and whether he
7
speaks directly or indirectly with the attorneys around
8
the nation who have filed lawsuits against the
9
infringers of AF Holdings' copyrighted works, it would
10
naturally fall that, yes, directly or indirectly that
11
the marching orders come from Mark Lutz.
12
Q. Is Mark Lutz an attorney?
13
A. He's not an attorney.
14
Q. Has ever been an attorney?
15
A. Not that I'm aware of.
16
Q. How did Mark Lutz come to be the sole manager,
17
officer, what have you of AF Holdings?
18
19
deposition topics. I think this has already been
20
covered possibly. Objection. Asked and answered.
21
THE WITNESS: He became the sole manager of AF
22
Holdings when AF Holdings was formed and he was
23
appointed to that role.
24
MR. RANALLO: Who was he given that role by?
25
THE WITNESS: It would have been the person I
#:1843
Supp. E.R. 1261
1
referenced, Aisha Sargeant.
2
BY MR. PIETZ:
3
Q. So Ms. Sergeant was the one who designated
4
Mr. Lutz as the manager of AF Holdings; is that correct.
5
A. I believe so, yes.
6
Q. Was Ms. Sergeant following anyone's
7
instructions when she did that?
8
A. I can only speculate at this point, but I
9
believe she would have been following Mr. Lutz's
10
instructions.
11
Q. So let me get this straight. Mr. Lutz worked
12
at your law firm performing paralegal level tasks for
13
John Steele and now when AF Holdings was formed, all of
14
a sudden, he's the sole manager of an enterprise
15
overseeing dozen of cases and at least 20 lawyers in
16
various jurisdictions around the country. Does that
17
seem a little bit odd to you?
18
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Argumentative.
19
THE WITNESS: I don't think there's an
20
accurate factual statement in what you said.
21
BY MR. PIETZ:
22
Q. So returning to these corporate
23
representatives. Have there been any other corporate
24
representatives other than Alan Cooper, Mark Lutz for AF
25
Holdings?
#:1844
Supp. E.R. 1262
1
A. I can think one of other corporate
2
representative.
3
Q. And who is that?
4
A. And that would Anthony Saltmarsh.
5
Q. Where does Mr. Saltmarsh reside?
6
A. I don't know where Mr. Saltmarsh resides.
7
Q. Was Mr. Saltmarsh ever compensated for acting
8
as a corporate representative for AF Holdings?
9
10
Q. Exhibit 101 and 102. Those are both the ADRs
11
that are signed by Salt Marsh. I believe you testified
12
you thought that that might be of the name the trust
13
that owns AF Holdings. Could that be a misspelling of
14
Anthony Saltmarsh?
15
A. The only thing I can say about these documents
16
is that if you wanted me to come prepared to testify
17
about them, you may have included them as exhibits to
18
the notice or supplement the notice with the documents.
19
You're asking me is it possible that Salt Marsh as
20
spelled on here is a misspelling of the name Anthony
21
Saltmarsh?
22
Q. Perhaps an alias would be a better word for
23
it.
24
A. Or an alias for Salt Marsh. I'm a bit
25
skeptical of that theory because it says AF Holdings
#:1845
Supp. E.R. 1263
1
owner and Anthony Saltmarsh is not an owner of AF
2
Holdings.
3
Q. Is there a corporate representative who has
4
worked for AF Holdings before by the name of Anthony
5
Saltmarsh?
6
A. No.
7
Q. Where did I go wrong?
8
A. Working for AF Holdings. To the extent that
9
implies employment or a managerial capacity.
10
Q. When did you first meet John Steele?
11
A. I personally first meet John Steele in law
12
school.
13
Q. Approximately what year?
14
A. 2005.
15
Q. Were you in the same class?
16
A. Are you referring to the graduating year?
17
Q. Yes.
18
A. Yes.
19
Q. 2005 when you both started law school?
20
A. I believe so, yes.
21
Q. Have you ever met John Steele's sister Jamie?
22
A. He has two sisters. I've met one of them. I
23
don't remember if her name is Jamie.
24
Q. Are you aware that John Steele's sister Jamie
25
Steele lives -- has shared residence with Anthony
#:1846
Supp. E.R. 1264
1
Saltmarsh?
2
A. I do not know not who she's lived with in the
3
past.
4
Q. Was Mr. Steele responsible for procuring the
5
signature on Exhibits 101 and 102?
6
A. I did not have occasion to ask Mr. Steele
7
about these exhibits. They weren't noticed up for me to
8
be prepared to be discussed.
9
Q. Do you have any idea who did procure that
10
signature that says Salt Marsh?
11
A. No.
12
Q. But to be very clear Anthony Saltmarsh is not
13
the owner of AF Holdings, correct?
14
A. That's correct.
15
Q. And he's never, in fact, been compensated by
16
AF Holdings, has never been an employee, member or a
17
manager. His only connection is that apparently his
18
name has been signed as corporate representative of AF
19
Holdings; is that correct?
20
A. No. It's not correct.
21
22
A. Could you repeat the question?
23
Q. Strike that. We'll do it one at a time.
24
Anthony Saltmarsh has never been a member of AF
25
Holdings?
#:1847
Supp. E.R. 1265
1
A. He is -- that's correct.
2
Q. Never been a manager?
3
A. That's correct.
4
Q. Never been a shareholder or a person with a
5
pecuniary interest in AF Holdings?
6
A. That's correct.
7
Q. And never been an employee or an agent of AF
8
Holdings?
9
A. Well, to the extent of how you define agent, I
10
believe he's served in a corporate representative
11
capacity for AF Holdings in the past.
12
Q. And in so doing who was it that deputized him
13
as an agent of AF Holdings?
14
A. Are you referring to a corporate
15
representative?
16
Q. Right. In other words, who is it that decided
17
that Anthony Saltmarsh would be a corporate
18
representative of AF Holdings?
19
A. I am not familiar with who deputized him to be
20
a corporate representative.
21
Q. I'm asking you now as the corporate
22
representative AF Holdings yourself. Is it the
23
testimony of AF Holdings that it doesn't know how it is
24
that Anthony Saltmarsh was designated as a corporate
25
representative?
#:1848
Supp. E.R. 1266
1
A. I believe the circumstances were in the -- in
2
connection with the formation of AF Holdings there are
3
various tasks that had to be performed and he acted as a
4
corporate representative in that connection. My
5
estimate is that Aisha Sargeant would have deputized him
6
in -- as a corporate representative around that time.
7
Q. How about Alan Cooper, who decided that Alan
8
Cooper was authorized as a corporate representative of
9
AF Holdings?
10
A. Mark Lutz asked John Steele to find someone
11
who would be willing to serve in the capacity as a
12
corporate representative and so Mark Lutz made the
13
decision.
14
15
Q. Let's go ahead and take a look at paragraph
16
two of the assignment agreement that's attached as
17
Exhibit A. I'm specifically looking at 2C and 2D. So C
18
says under representations and warranties. One of them
19
is, The work in the intellectual property rights
20
protecting them are free and clear of all encumbrances,
21
including without limitation, security interests,
22
licenses, liens, charges or other restrictions. Is that
23
a true statement?
24
A. So are you asking me in the capacity of AF
25
Holdings' corporate representative?
#:1849
Supp. E.R. 1267
1
Q. Yes.
2
A. The company certainly hopes it's true. That's
3
a representation that was made by the assignor to the
4
copyright assignment agreement and we have no reason to
5
believe it's not true.
6
Q. Are you -- is AF Holdings aware of any
7
preexisting grants of rights from Heartbreaker
8
Productions to any company whatsoever?
9
A. No. Again, Heartbreaker made a representation
10
warranty that the -- it's free and clear of all
11
encumbrances and we've never had any reason to doubt
12
that statement.
13
Q. Do you know who represented Heartbreaker
14
Productions in negotiating this agreement?
15
A. No.
16
Q. Do you know who represented AF Holdings in
17
negotiating this agreement?
18
A. No.
19
20
Q. Didn't you say that you obtained the signature
21
for the assignor on this agreement, though?
22
A. Yes.
23
Q. So you were involved in the negotiations of
24
this agreement yourself, correct?
25
A. Well, you're aware that obtaining a signature
#:1850
Supp. E.R. 1268
1
is not the same of negotiating a document?
2
Q. Well, you just testified that you don't know
3
who negotiated the agreement, so what was your role in
4
all of this? Why were you tasked with finding the
5
signature?
6
A. Are you asking me to speculate why Mr. Lutz
7
asked me to procure the signature for him?
8
Q. I'm asking based on your personal knowledge
9
how did you become involved in the negotiation of this
10
assignment agreement?
11
12
THE WITNESS: I guess I'm not sure why you
13
continue using the verb negotiation. You're the one
14
using the verb negotiation. I said I did Mark Lutz the
15
favor of arranging for Mr. Rogers signature.
16
BY MR. PIETZ:
17
Q. When you arranged for his signature that was
18
it, I just I need your signature on this, pointed to the
19
dotted line and he gave it to you and that was that?
20
A. Yes.
21
Q. You had no substantive discussions whatsoever
22
with the representative of Heartbreaker Productions who
23
signed this agreement?
24
A. That's correct. I didn't negotiate terms or
25
do anything along those lines.
#:1851
Supp. E.R. 1269
1
Q. And corporate 30(b)(6) testimony of AF
2
Holdings is that it's not sure who negotiated this
3
agreement?
4
A. Well, I think before you asked me and maybe if
5
I misheard you, I misunderstood and I would correct my
6
testimony, that this would have been discussed between
7
Mr. Lutz and Mr. Rogers.
8
Q. Did Steele Hansmeier ever represent
9
Heartbreaker Productions?
10
A. I believe we may have represented them in a
11
case -- I guess I'd have to check my records. I don't
12
recall if we represented them or not.
13
Q. But you think Steele Hansmeier may have
14
represented Heartbreaker Productions?
15
16
THE WITNESS: I'd have to refresh my records
17
about --
18
MR. PIETZ: I'll mark for the record
19
Exhibit 104. I've only got this one copy, but I'll ask
20
to you refer to it. I have here Plaintiff's Notice of
21
Dismissal Without Prejudice of Remaining Doe Defendants
22
in Illinois, Northern District, No. 11-cv-2860-ECF23.
23
I'm going to turn to page two, hand this to the deponent
24
and ask him whether this refreshes his recollection.
25
#:1852
Supp. E.R. 1270
1
2
THE WITNESS: So this is Heartbreaker
3
Productions, Inc. So it appears that Steele Hansmeier
4
did represent Heartbreaker Productions, Inc.
5
BY MR. PIETZ:
6
Q. So if I understand correctly, the important
7
agreement that would become the foundation for numerous
8
lawsuits when it was being negotiated was tasked to Mark
9
Lutz, John Steele's former paralegal at your old law
10
firm and Mr. Lutz negotiated the whole thing and you had
11
nothing do with it; is that correct?
12
13
THE WITNESS: There's substantial shortcomings
14
in here.
15
MR. GIBBS: Also it's a compound question.
16
Assumes facts not in the record.
17
THE WITNESS: I would say no that's not
18
correct. Several of the facts you stated in the course
19
of your question were incorrect.
20
21
Q. So Mark Lutz negotiated this agreement on
22
behalf of AF Holdings; is that correct?
23
24
THE WITNESS: Mark Lutz would have been --
25
yeah, I believe that's correct. Mark Lutz was the lead
#:1853
Supp. E.R. 1271
1
on securing the agreement from Heartbreaker Digital,
2
LLC.
3
BY MR. RANALLO:
4
Q. Is that also true of the assignment for Sexual
5
Obsessions, another AF Holdings film?
6
A. You would have to ask Mr. Lutz.
7
Q. Okay. Let me ask you this. Who did Mark Lutz
8
negotiate with?
9
A. I would -- well, Heartbreaker Digital, LLC.
10
Q. And who on behalf of Heartbreaker?
11
A. I would suspect it was Raymond Rogers.
12
Q. Personally and not an attorney?
13
A. I do not believe Heartbreaker Digital, LLC had
14
an attorney in its negotiations.
15
Q. And is that also true for the Sexual
16
Obsessions agreement, did -- let me rephrase. Did
17
Steele Hansmeier represent Heartbreaker Productions in
18
the negotiation for that assignment?
19
A. I don't have the assignment agreement in front
20
of me. I don't even know if Heartbreaker Productions is
21
the assignor in that agreement.
22
Q. We'll get that one for you shortly. To the
23
extent that Steele Hansmeier represented Heartbreaker
24
Productions and you're a former partner at Steele
25
Hansmeier, do you have any personal knowledge of Steele
#:1854
Supp. E.R. 1272
1
Hansmeier representing Heartbreaker Productions on that
2
side of this negotiation against Mark Lutz, the
3
paralegal, at Steele Hansmeier on the other side.
4
A. You continually call Mark Lutz a paralegal. I
5
don't think I've testify that Mark Lutz is a paralegal.
6
You continually use Heartbreaker Productions, but the
7
assignor here is Heartbreaker Digital, LLC versus
8
Heartbreaker Productions, Inc. And I think it's very
9
important to be precise when we're speaking about legal
10
entities and roles and so forth and so on to get these
11
right. So if you want to restate the question with more
12
accurate and more precise identities of parties, because
13
right now I'd have to say no that's not correct to
14
everything you say because everything you're premising
15
your question on is incorrect.
16
Q. Let's get back to this assignment agreement.
17
It's your understanding that there are no third parties
18
with any right to distribute this work; is that true?
19
A. Which assignment agreement are we talking
20
about? Are we talking about Sexual Obsession or --
21
Q. We're talking about the one in this case that
22
you have in front of you.
23
MR. PIETZ: Referring now to Exhibit A to the
24
deposition notice.
25
THE WITNESS: So this is with respect to
#:1855
Supp. E.R. 1273
1
Popular Demand. The work title Popular Demand. Yes.
2
AF Holdings is the sole copyright owner of Popular
3
Demand.
4
BY MR. RANALLO:
5
Q. And no other entities have the right to
6
distribute this movie; is that correct?
7
A. Right. AF Holdings is the sole owner of all
8
of the rights associated with it, including rights of
9
reproduction and distribution and everything else
10
associated with it.
11
Q. And is this film distributed in any way?
12
A. Well, certainly by the infringers. It was
13
distributed I believe before we received the assignment
14
to it. I don't think it's distributed now currently.
15
Q. It's not distributed in any manner currently.
16
Is that your testimony?
17
A. Well, I can give you -- the testimony is that
18
we're not aware of any form of distribution that has
19
taken place with respect to the work, except, of course,
20
with respect to BitTorrent-based infringement, which is
21
occurring across the world and --
22
Q. Is it AF Holdings' position that if I wanted
23
to purchase this film legitimately would there be any
24
method for doing so?
25
A. I suspect that before we received the
#:1856
Supp. E.R. 1274
1
assignment to it that it was being distributed, so there
2
may be sites out there where you could buy it now. You
3
certainly could buy it on the secondary market, because
4
I think there's a principle under copyrights where if
5
you buy it once then you can -- the first-sale doctrine.
6
And but frankly from AF Holdings' perspective the cost
7
of doing a proper marketing campaign and doing a proper
8
distribution campaign and the time and the effort and
9
the capital investment required and everything along
10
those lines, simply isn't worth it because virtually no
11
one buys these DVDs, everyone just steals them.
12
13
Q. I would like to clarify one thing about the
14
assignment that we're referring to right now, Exhibit A,
15
on the deposition notice. The corporate testimony of AF
16
Holdings is that John Steele played absolutely no role
17
whatsoever in this agreement as an attorney and that the
18
only role that Mr. Steele played in the execution of
19
this agreement was in obtaining a signature from Alan
20
Cooper; is that correct?
21
A. Yes.
22
Q. So Mr. Steele was not representing
23
Heartbreaker Digital, LLC or AF Holdings when this deal
24
was negotiated; is that correct?
25
A. Yes, that's correct. Mr. Steele was not an
#:1857
Supp. E.R. 1275
1
attorney representing either party in the negotiation of
2
this agreement.
3
4
Q. Is AF Holdings aware whether this film is
5
available through gamelink.com?
6
A. We are not aware of whether it's available
7
through gamelink.com. What is GameLink first of all, I
8
guess?
9
Q. It's a video distribution service.
10
A. I'm not familiar with gamelink.com.
11
Q. But it is your testimony that AF Holdings has
12
not licensed anyone to distribute this work
13
legitimately?
14
A. There's no license agreement beyond this
15
agreement right here (indicating).
16
Q. Those two pages are 100 percent of the
17
agreement between Heartbreaker Productions and AF
18
Holdings regarding this work?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. Is it AF Holdings' position that this film is
21
not available for commercial purchase; is that true?
22
MR. PIETZ: Before we get too far afield,
23
let's go ahead and mark this as the next exhibit.
24
25
#:1858
Supp. E.R. 1276
1
MR. RANALLO: Let's go ahead and mark this one
2
as 106.
3
4
5
BY MR. RANALLO:
6
Q. This is an article from -- let's see, AVN
7
discussing the distribution of the Popular Demand.
8
Could you read the highlighted section for me?
9
A. Nina Mercedez performs the first double
10
penetration scene of her career in the new Heartbreaker
11
films movie, Nina Mercedez Popular Demand, that will be
12
available July 27th from Exile Distribution.
13
Q. So after reading that, do you believe that
14
Heartbreaker Productions has licensed other people to
15
distribute this work?
16
A. I can't speak on behalf of Heartbreaker
17
Productions.
18
Q. After reading that, and as a corporate
19
representative of AF Holdings that told me that AF
20
Holdings has all the rights to distribute this work and
21
no one else has any rights to distribute this work.
22
Would you agree that the exhibit I just showed you tends
23
to contradict that?
24
A. Well, I know from reading the blog sites that
25
you two participate in that I shouldn't believe
#:1859
Supp. E.R. 1277
1
everything I read on the Internet.
2
MR. PIETZ: That's nonresponsive.
3
BY MR. RANALLO:
4
Q. Do you have any reason to believe that Exile
5
Distribution has a right to distribute this work, the
6
work that forms the basis of this suit?
7
A. I'll keep on referring back to this assignment
8
agreement. This is the only agreement with respect to
9
this copyrighted work.
10
Q. That exists in the world? You're saying that
11
Heartbreaker Productions does not have an assignment
12
agreement with Exile Distribution?
13
A. I don't know the agreements that Heartbreaker
14
Productions has with Exile.
15
Q. As far as AF Holdings knows, no one has the
16
right to distribute this legally; is that correct?
17
A. No, that's not correct. I already told you
18
before that under the first-sale doctrine, for example,
19
someone could distribute their copy of it.
20
Q. Discounting the first-sale doctrine,
21
discounting secondary market.
22
A. That would be it. This is the only agreement
23
with respect to reproducing and distributing copyrighted
24
work at the heart of the agreement (indicating).
25
Q. In preparing for this deposition did you
#:1860
Supp. E.R. 1278
1
investigate whether Heartbreaker Productions had
2
licensed this work to any third parties?
3
A. Well, in preparing for this deposition I think
4
one of the noticed topics was -- I'll read it
5
specifically. All licenses and assignment agreements
6
from AF Holdings to any nonparties. And there aren't
7
any. This is the only agreement that AF Holdings is
8
aware of with respect to the reproduction and
9
distribution of copyrighted work.
10
Q. So even after you read that article that I
11
just handed you that's Exhibit 105, is it still AF
12
Holdings' position that those are the only agreements
13
that they are aware of?
14
A. That article doesn't mean anything to me.
15
There's been nothing registered with the copyright
16
office. There's no -- how do you say it -- no
17
challenges to the assignment agreement and the
18
assignment agreement contains a representation of
19
warranty that this is the only -- that is being conveyed
20
full right, title and interest and we've had nothing
21
to -- nothing formal. I mean, we've got some blog sites
22
there or news articles saying one thing. We'd have to
23
investigate the facts and circumstances of that further.
24
Q. Do you intend to examine those facts and
25
circumstances, investigate those facts and circumstances
#:1861
Supp. E.R. 1279
1
now that they have been brought to your attention?
2
A. Do I personally intend to do that or does AF
3
Holdings?
4
Q. AF Holdings?
5
A. I assume AF Holdings will examine the facts
6
and circumstances in those articles and see if they have
7
any factual basis.
8
Q. In preparation for this deposition did you
9
ever look online or anywhere else to see if a copy of
10
this movie could be obtained legitimately?
11
A. No, because that wasn't one of the noticed
12
topics. What I did do was inquire of Mr. Lutz to
13
determine whether or not there were any other -- whether
14
he had somehow I guess -- I don't know what the phrase
15
would be -- sublicensed or granted a nonexclusive
16
license or conveyed any sort of rights to any other
17
third party that was in the description of topics that
18
was noticed and I looked at the copyright office and
19
this is the only agreement that's on record with respect
20
to this copyrighted work.
21
No one else as far as I could find had done
22
any form of filings or whatever else, so it's AF
23
Holdings' position that this is the only agreement that
24
exists.
25
Q. Let me refer to you No. 4 on the subject of
#:1862
Supp. E.R. 1280
1
examination, which asks about all license and assignment
2
agreements, and any other grants of rights, however
3
titled, from Heartbreaker Productions to any third
4
parties relating to the work. Did you investigate that
5
topic in preparation for this?
6
A. Yeah. AF Holdings has no records of any form
7
of license or assignment agreements or any other grants
8
of rights from Heartbreaker to any third parties. And
9
further there's nothing in the copyright office when I
10
examined the record, which I'm sure you guys have,
11
regarding anyone else who is claiming a right or
12
interest in this copyrighted work.
13
Q. AF Holdings isn't listed with the copyright
14
office, are they, in relation to this work?
15
A. I'd have to go back and check the office
16
specifically. I believe they are, though.
17
Q. And in what capacity?
18
A. If they were listed with the copyright office,
19
they would be listed as the assignee of the copyright.
20
21
Q. So it's your testimony that the assignment
22
agreement that is attached as Exhibit A to the
23
deposition notice was filed with the copyright office?
24
A. I guess I have no -- I can speak generally
25
about the process of recording the assignment and then
#:1863
Supp. E.R. 1281
1
answer your question more specifically from there. It's
2
my understanding that if you want to record an
3
assignment with the copyright office, there's one of two
4
ways to do it. One way is to submit the original to the
5
copyright office, the original assignment agreement.
6
The other way is to have -- there's a form you fill out
7
reflecting the assignment. I don't know which one was
8
done in this circumstance.
9
Q. Are you a shareholder in 6681 Forensics?
10
A. No.
11
Q. Are you familiar with the company?
12
A. Yes.
13
Q. Are you an officer in 6681 Forensics?
14
A. No.
15
Q. Are you an employee of 6681 Forensics?
16
A. No.
17
Q. Have you ever received any kind of
18
compensation of any sort from 6681 Forensics?
19
A. No.
20
Q. Do you maintain an e-mail at 6681 Forensics?
21
A. I do have an e-mail address that has a 6681
22
Forensics domain.
23
Q. And why is that?
24
A. Why do I have an e-mail address with the 6681
25
Forensics domain?
#:1864
Supp. E.R. 1282
1
Q. Right.
2
A. The reason I have an e-mail with 6681
3
Forensics domain is that they gave me one when Alpha Law
4
Firm was filing cases in Minnesota and they will
5
transmit certain technical data to my address there.
6
Q. Who is they?
7
A. 6681 Forensics.
8
Q. Who are the shareholders in 6681 Forensics?
9
A. I don't know who the shareholders are in 6681
10
Forensics.
11
Q. AF Holdings is using 6681 Forensics services,
12
correct?
13
A. Sure.
14
Q. Is John Steele a shareholder of 6681
15
Forensics?
16
17
THE WITNESS: I don't know who the
18
shareholders are in 6681 Forensic.
19
BY MR. PIETZ:
20
Q. How about the officers? Is John Steele an
21
officer of 6681 Forensics?
22
A. I guess AF Holdings does not know who the
23
officers are in 6681 Forensics.
24
Q. Do you personally know?
25
A. I do not know either, personally.
#:1865
Supp. E.R. 1283
1
Q. When AF Holdings corresponds with 6681
2
Forensics, who corresponds from the 6681 Forensics site?
3
A. I don't believe that 6681 Forensics
4
corresponds directly with AF Holdings.
5
Q. I'm just going to note that that pretty much
6
contradicts what you told me about two minutes ago when
7
you were explaining your AF Holdings -- your 6681
8
Forensics e-mail address. Are you sure you don't want
9
to clarify your answer here?
10
MR. GIBBS: I don't believe it does
11
contradict.
12
THE WITNESS: Maybe we should have the
13
reporter read the information back. I don't think it
14
does at all.
15
BY MR. PIETZ:
16
Q. Have you ever -- maybe I'm misunderstanding
17
here. Are you saying that Alpha Law Firm corresponds
18
with 6681 Forensics, but AF Holdings doesn't?
19
A. Well, I think what you're not
20
understanding is -- the source of the confusion is the
21
idea that -- if we're receiving technical reports in the
22
capacity of filing a lawsuit on behalf of AF Holdings,
23
those technical reports aren't necessarily being
24
directed back to AF Holdings, they're being directed
25
straight to counsel of record for use in the litigation.
#:1866
Supp. E.R. 1284
1
2
Q. So the e-mails that you received at 6681
3
Forensics, are those solely -- were those solely in
4
regards to the Minnesota Alpha Law AF Holdings cases?
5
A. I believe I received other e-mails at that
6
address.
7
Q. Is that an address that you regularly use?
8
A. I guess I don't understand what you mean by
9
regularly.
10
Q. Did you receive e-mails at that e-mail address
11
about any litigation matters that AF Holdings is not
12
involved in?
13
14
deposition topics.
15
THE WITNESS: I'd have to go review what
16
e-mails I do and do not receive there. I know I get a
17
lot of spam at that e-mail address.
18
19
Q. Have you ever received an e-mail from John
20
Steele using the 6681 Forensics domain name?
21
A. It's entirely possible, but I would have to go
22
review what exact e-mail addresses I've received at that
23
account versus another account and frankly whether
24
there's some forwarding situations set up where it's --
25
where we're trying to consolidate e-mails in a single
#:1867
Supp. E.R. 1285
1
account.
2
Q. How about your brother Peter Hansmeier, is he
3
involved in 6681 Forensics?
4
A. Yes.
5
Q. What's his capacity?
6
A. He's a technician for 6681 Forensics.
7
Q. Is he an owner of the company?
8
A. I don't know who the owners of 6681 Forensics
9
are.
10
Q. Personally speaking now, do you know whether
11
your brother has an ownership interest in 6681
12
Forensics?
13
A. I do not.
14
Q. Is your brother Peter Hansmeier -- speaking
15
now on behalf of AF Holdings -- is your brother Peter
16
Hansmeier an officer of 6681 Forensics?
17
A. AF Holdings does not know who the officers in
18
6681 Forensics are.
19
Q. So you're not sure whether your brother is an
20
owner or an officer of 6681 Forensics; is that correct?
21
A. That's correct.
22
Q. You know he works there, but you're not
23
completely sure in what capacity; is that correct?
24
A. No. That's not right.
25
#:1868
Supp. E.R. 1286
1
A. I stated before that he's a technician at 6681
2
Forensics. It's where you said, you know, he works
3
there but you don't know in what capacity. I do know in
4
what capacity. I know he's a technician.
5
Q. How many other technicians are employed at
6
6681 Forensics?
7
A. I don't know.
8
Q. Have you ever received correspondence from any
9
other technicians other than your brother?
10
A. From 6681 Forensics?
11
Q. Correct.
12
A. No.
13
Q. So as far as AF Holdings is concerned the only
14
technicians at 6681 Forensics who have communicated with
15
AF Holdings are -- is your brother Peter Hansmeier?
16
A. Right. But he doesn't communicated with AF
17
Holdings as far as AF Holdings knows. He's communicated
18
directly with the attorneys in the various matters.
19
Q. Which would include yourself in the Alpha Law
20
cases where Alpha Law is representing AF Holdings; is
21
that correct?
22
A. That's correct.
23
Q. Was your brother -- does your brother do work
24
for Steele Hansmeier?
25
A. How do you mean?
#:1869
Supp. E.R. 1287
1
Q. Did he perform a similar task at Steele
2
Hansmeier as a technician?
3
A. I don't believe he was ever a technician at
4
Steele Hansmeier.
5
Q. He certainly signed many declarations of cases
6
filed by Steele Hansmeier; is that correct?
7
A. Well, you'd have to show me the declaration
8
that you're speaking of.
9
Q. Well, I'm talking generally speaking now about
10
declarations which were submitted by Steele Hansmeier
11
attorneys in connection, generally, with a request for
12
early discovery wherein Peter Hansmeier, under penalty
13
of perjury, that he had logged various ISP addresses
14
that are supposedly responsible for copyright
15
infringement activities.
16
MR. GIBBS: The issue you're saying is that --
17
whether he worked for Steele Hansmeier, not that he
18
didn't file these documents.
19
MR. PIETZ: Well, the last question was one
20
and this question is another.
21
MR. GIBBS: Objection. It's compound.
22
BY MR. PIETZ:
23
Q. So in any event. Steele Hansmeier utilized
24
the services of your brother Peter Hansmeier in some
25
capacity, correct?
#:1870
Supp. E.R. 1288
1
A. He did -- he was a technician that performed
2
similar services -- 6681 Forensics, I believe he's a
3
technician for 6681 Forensics.
4
Q. But when you were a partner at Steele
5
Hansmeier, was your brother a technician at 6681
6
Forensics or was he with a different company at that
7
time?
8
A. I believe he was with 6681 Forensics.
9
Q. Not the Minnesota Copyright Group?
10
A. That's correct.
11
Q. Has your brother ever worked for or been
12
associated with the Minnesota Copyright Group -- pardon
13
me. Let me rephrase. I meant Media Copyright Group.
14
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Outside of the notice
15
of deposition topics.
16
THE WITNESS: I'd have to go back and review
17
my records for declarations and employment history of my
18
brother from almost two years ago now.
19
BY MR. PIETZ:
20
Q. So Steele Hansmeier filed AF Holdings cases
21
including some where your brother signed declarations.
22
I'm asking AF Holdings, who was your brother working for
23
at the time?
24
A. I believe it was 6681 Forensics.
25
Q. How about MCGIP Inc. Has your brother ever
#:1871
Supp. E.R. 1289
1
worked for them?
2
3
the deposition notice.
4
THE WITNESS: I don't know if my brother has
5
ever worked for MCGIP Inc.
6
BY MR. PIETZ:
7
Q. Are you familiar with that company?
8
A. No.
9
10
Q. Are you aware of the existence of a
11
corporation or an LLC -- pardon me -- named Media
12
Copyright Group that was organized in Minnesota?
13
14
deposition topics.
15
BY MR. RANALLO:
16
Q. Are you aware of the existence of a company
17
called Media Copyright Group, LLC, which was organized
18
in Minnesota?
19
THE WITNESS: Yes.
20
21
BY MR. RANALLO:
22
Q. And did you have any role in that company?
23
24
THE WITNESS: Yes.
25
///
#:1872
Supp. E.R. 1290
1
BY MR. RANALLO:
2
Q. And what was your role?
3
A. I believe I was the organizer of the company.
4
And then in its very earliest inception I was a
5
technician there myself.
6
Q. Were you a member of Media Copyright Group?
7
MR. GIBBS: Again, outside the notice of
8
deposition topics.
9
THE WITNESS: I'm trying to think back to what
10
my formal capacity was with it and I'd have to go review
11
the corporate records and determine whether I was ever
12
formally recognized as a member or manager or whatever
13
the legal capacity. It's almost two years ago now.
14
15
Q. Is Media Copyright Group the same thing as
16
MCGIP, LLC?
17
A. No.
18
Q. Are you familiar with MCGIP, LLC?
19
A. I believe I was the organizer of MCGIP, but
20
I'd have to check my records.
21
Q. And what's the difference between the two
22
companies? What do they do?
23
A. Media Copyright Group performed technical
24
services. MCGIP I don't believe ever performed
25
technical services.
#:1873
Supp. E.R. 1291
1
Q. Media Copyright Group performed technical
2
services that were utilized by the Steele Hansmeier law
3
firm; is that right?
4
A. I don't believe so, no.
5
Q. So your employment or involvement --
6
A. I should clarify that. I do believe that in
7
cases filed by Steele Hansmeier, Media Copyright Group
8
did perform services. Again, this almost two years ago.
9
I'd have to go back and refresh my recollection as to
10
who -- one company performed services for almost two
11
years ago.
12
Q. What are your brother's qualifications as a
13
technical advisor or technical technician?
14
A. You would have to ask my brother what his
15
qualifications are as a technician.
16
Q. Did your brother attend high school?
17
A. He attended high school.
18
Q. Did he graduate?
19
A. Yes.
20
Q. Did he attend college?
21
A. Yes, he attended college.
22
Q. Did he graduate?
23
A. Yes.
24
Q. What kind of degree does your brother have?
25
A. I don't know the specific degree that my
#:1874
Supp. E.R. 1292
1
brother got.
2
Q. Was it a Bachelor of Arts or a Bachelor of
3
Science?
4
MR. GIBBS: Objection. This is all outside
5
6
THE WITNESS: If you want the education
7
history of my brother, you're going to have either
8
notice the topic up before the deposition or ask him
9
yourself directly.
10
BY MR. PIETZ:
11
Q. Was it related to computers?
12
A. There's only so many ways that I can say that
13
I don't know what exact degree my brother has.
14
Q. It's the word exact that troubles me.
15
A. I don't know what degree my brother has.
16
Q. Was it Liberal Arts?
17
A. I don't know what degree my brother has.
18
19
Q. Let me ask you this. You said that you were
20
previously a technician at Media Copyright Group?
21
A. Yes.
22
Q. What are your technical qualifications?
23
A. My education is I have a high school degree.
24
I have a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and I attended
25
law school.
#:1875
Supp. E.R. 1293
1
Q. So you don't have any computer training?
2
A. No. I don't agree with that statement.
3
4
Q. What was your computer training?
5
A. I was trained to use the software that was
6
developed for the purpose of catching infringers.
7
Q. Who trained you?
8
A. The software company that produced the
9
software.
10
Q. What were they called?
11
A. I can't recall their exact corporate name. It
12
was something along of the lines of Alena (phonetic) or
13
something like that.
14
Q. Where were they -- where was their place of
15
business?
16
A. Their place of business is in Minnesota.
17
Q. Was your brother trained to use the same
18
software while at Media Copyright Group?
19
A. I would be speculating, but I suspect he
20
received very similar training to what I received.
21
Q. Did your brother obtain any post graduate
22
college degrees in computers?
23
A. I don't believe so.
24
Q. Has your brother had any kind of formal
25
computer training other than the training that you
#:1876
Supp. E.R. 1294
1
received?
2
A. Again, I don't know what classes he took or
3
didn't take in college and I can't speak to his, outside
4
of college, computer training.
5
Q. Did Steele Hansmeier ever get your brother
6
qualified as an computer expert in any litigation?
7
A. I'd have to go back and check the relevant
8
records. I can't think of anything off the top of my
9
head. We've had many cases.
10
Q. So the software that was developed by the
11
company -- I think you said was Alena or something
12
similar -- is that the software that Steele Hansmeier
13
used at the beginning when it started filing copyright
14
infringement lawsuits?
15
A. Steele Hansmeier has never used software.
16
Q. How does to Steele Hansmeier record IP
17
addresses that are involved in copyright infringement
18
cases?
19
A. Steele Hansmeier is a law firm. It doesn't do
20
the recording activities.
21
Q. What entity provided the recording activities
22
for Steele Hansmeier in the early cases?
23
A. Well, what do you mean by the early cases?
24
Q. I believe Steele Hansmeier started filing
25
copyright infringement cases on or around the second
#:1877
Supp. E.R. 1295
1
half of 2011. So at the beginning what was the way that
2
Steele Hansmeier obtained IP address information?
3
A. So for cases filed after 2011 -- I mean, the
4
general point is that a third-party company provided the
5
IP address to Steele Hansmeier.
6
Q. What was the company?
7
A. It would have been either Media Copyright
8
Group or 6681 Forensics.
9
Q. Did Media Copyright Group use the software
10
that you were trained on?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. Does 6681 Forensics use that same software?
13
A. I do not know.
14
Q. I'm asking now on behalf of AF Holdings, which
15
files lawsuits based on the information gathered by 6681
16
Forensics. Is the testimony of AF Holdings that it
17
doesn't know what software 6681 Forensics uses?
18
A. You're asking me if we know what the precise
19
software they're using is?
20
21
deposition topics.
22
THE WITNESS: Yeah, I think -- I think it's
23
very possible that they're doing it. I can't
24
specifically testify definitively to that.
25
///
#:1878
Supp. E.R. 1296
1
BY MR. PIETZ:
2
Q. Why don't you tell me as much as you can.
3
MR. GIBBS: Calls for speculation. Objection.
4
THE WITNESS: I would just say that the data
5
reports and -- this is me speaking personally through
6
the capacity of Alpha Law Firm -- but the data reports
7
and whatever else we receive are similar to the data
8
reports that were generated by the other software, which
9
leads me to believe that it's likely the same software.
10
BY MR. PIETZ:
11
Q. I'm asking in your corporate capacity, if you
12
would. Is the testimony of AF Holdings that it's not
13
quite sure exactly what the software is that's used?
14
A. Well, it would be the testimony of AF Holdings
15
that it's never been sure about any of the software
16
that's been used. It's not -- for example, it's not
17
something that Mark Lutz would be qualified to analyze
18
or assess or anything else.
19
Q. Has there ever been a change in the software,
20
such that you noticed the reports started looking
21
different at one point?
22
A. Personally or on behalf of AF Holdings?
23
Q. Let me rephrase and strike that entirely.
24
Has AF Holdings consistently used the same
25
software from 6681 Forensics?
#:1879
Supp. E.R. 1297
1
A. You have to be really precise. AF Holdings is
2
not using the software. It's the technical service
3
companies that are using the software.
4
Q. During the time that AF Holdings has engaged
5
6681 Forensics to provide technical services has it
6
always been the same software?
7
A. I guess the only thing I can say is that AF
8
Holdings is not aware of any changes in the software
9
used by 6681 Forensics.
10
Q. What was the software used to record the IP
11
address at issue in the case that brings us here at
12
issue today?
13
14
deposition topics.
15
THE WITNESS: Well, it was the software
16
deployed by 6681 Forensics. I'm not sure if it has a
17
formal name.
18
BY MR. PIETZ:
19
Q. So here at the 30(b)(6) deposition of AF
20
Holdings, AF Holdings is still not sure and can't tell
21
Mr. Navasca the name of the software that was used to
22
allegedly record his IP address?
23
A. That's entirely incorrect. The testimony of
24
AF Holdings is that the software that was used to record
25
Mr. Navasca's infringing activities was the software
#:1880
Supp. E.R. 1298
1
used by 6681 Forensics.
2
Q. But other than the fact that the whole process
3
is outsourced to 6681 Forensics, AF Holdings essentially
4
has no idea how the IP address was recorded; is that
5
correct?
6
7
THE WITNESS: AF Holdings' knowledge regarding
8
the technical process by which Mr. Navasca infringing
9
activities were recorded, is that 6681 Forensics
10
utilized software identifying Mr. Navasca and then
11
records his IP address as being involved in infringing
12
activities.
13
BY MR. PIETZ:
14
Q. Did you make any inquiries of 6681 Forensics
15
about how the process works in preparation for this
16
deposition here today?
17
A. Well, I can speak on a general level about how
18
the process works.
19
Q. That's not the question.
20
A. Which topic are we talking about?
21
Q. Topic 14. Which I'll read for the record.
22
It's actually Topics 13 through 15, but I'll read 14 for
23
the record. Process by which AF Holdings determined
24
which IP addresses and subsequently individuals to sue,
25
including how Joe Navasca was chosen as the defendant in
#:1881
Supp. E.R. 1299
1
the instant action.
2
What I'm asking you for, sir, is some detail
3
about that process. So far all I've heard is that 6681
4
Forensics uses some kind of software, but you're not
5
sure what it is. Can you provide any detail beyond
6
that?
7
A. Could you give me a better idea of what you're
8
talking about detail beyond that. What is it in
9
reference to that you're looking for more detail?
10
Q. The name of the software would be a terrific
11
start.
12
A. I'm not even sure if the software is even
13
named. It's not commercial software that's -- or how do
14
I put it?
15
Q. Off the shelf. Is that the term you're
16
looking for?
17
A. It's not off the shelf. It's not like
18
Microsoft Windows. I don't know if there's a specific
19
name for it.
20
Q. Who developed the software?
21
A. For one that's being used by 6681 Forensics or
22
the one that's used by Media Copyright Group?
23
Q. The one that was used to identify Mr. Navasca
24
as the defendant in this action.
25
A. I guess you'd have to ask 6681 Forensics who
#:1882
Supp. E.R. 1300
1
specifically developed the software, based on what I
2
discussed with you before. The most logical guess would
3
be the same company that did the original software for
4
Media Copyright Group.
5
Q. So which is it, is it custom software designed
6
by 6681 Forensics is it the off-the-shelf software that
7
was designed by the company that provided the software
8
you used?
9
A. Well, I think you're making the incorrect
10
assumption that the original software from Media
11
Copyright Group was off-the-shelf software. I'm not
12
sure that's been established.
13
Q. So the software that 6681 Forensics uses, is
14
it based on the Alena software?
15
A. Yes. My testimony before was that the data
16
reports and other information are very similar between
17
the two. My best guess would be the 6681 Forensics
18
software would be the same software that was utilized by
19
Media Copyright Group.
20
Q. But AF Holdings isn't actually sure today and
21
can't provide a definitive answer to that question; is
22
that correct?
23
A. If it's the same software previously used by
24
another company?
25
Q. If the software that was used to identify
#:1883
Supp. E.R. 1301
1
Mr. Navasca as a defendant is based on the software
2
produced by Alena, whether it's customized, off the
3
shelf or what have you?
4
MR. GIBBS: Are you asking for his best
5
estimate at this point?
6
BY MR. PIETZ:
7
Q. No. I'm asking for AF Holdings' testimony
8
about what software was used to identify Mr. Navasca as
9
the defendant.
10
A. The difficulty with your question is there's
11
no specific way to identify software. Well, you say
12
it's these -- how do you -- so if you're asking if it's
13
the same one as the one that was involved by this third
14
party company, I'm saying that AF Holdings' position
15
would be that it is very likely the same software. Can
16
we definitively determine the software or the version
17
or, you know, any of the other variety of technical
18
differences that would makes some software different in
19
even a slight manner then another piece of software, I
20
can't say I know specifically what version, whatever
21
else. That information would certainly be -- the 6681
22
Forensics, I would trust would be in -- how do you say
23
it -- possession of that information, but I think that
24
goes a little bit beyond the scope of what we reasonably
25
could have expected to know. If you wanted me to tell
#:1884
Supp. E.R. 1302
1
you what version of the software that was used, it would
2
have been simple to notice that up.
3
I can tell you what the process is by which we
4
would determine what IP address we chose and we have
5
asked 6681 Forensics to really target -- specifically in
6
these 101 case -- some of the more serial infringers,
7
people who are really doing quite a bit of infringement.
8
9
Q. Let me ask you this. You said that you target
10
people who -- IP addresses that are doing quite a lot of
11
infringement. Does AF Holdings have any records of the
12
IP address at issue in this case downloading other
13
films?
14
A. 6681 Forensics may have those records. If --
15
Q. If AF Holdings --
16
A. I'm in the middle of my answer. You need to
17
let me finish.
18
Q. Go ahead.
19
A. Well, I'd like to state for the record that
20
it's hard to get a full answer out when Attorney Ranallo
21
continues to interrupt me.
22
That's what 6681 Forensics was charged with.
23
I'm trying to refresh my recollection to determine
24
whether Mr. Navasca was seen infringing on other works
25
in this particular action.
#:1885
Supp. E.R. 1303
1
I can say this. Based on the instructions
2
that were provided to 6681 Forensics it would be AF
3
Holdings' position that 6681 Forensics did identify
4
Mr. Navasca as being associated -- or the IP associated
5
with Mr. Navasca being associated with other infringing
6
activities. Can I specifically identify which other
7
files he was infringing, as I sit here right now, no I
8
cannot. But I can say that was the -- that would be
9
the -- the first goal with getting infringers is to take
10
care of the people who are the worst infringers.
11
Q. So is it AF Holdings' position that
12
individuals who are chosen for individual suits are
13
likely associated with IP addresses that have downloaded
14
large numbers of works.
15
16
testimony. Objection. Compound question.
17
THE WITNESS: Can you restate the question?
18
BY MR. RANALLO:
19
Q. Is it AF Holdings' position that when they
20
choose a defendant for these individual suits, they
21
choose individuals who have infringed a large number of
22
works?
23
A. Well, I think that's -- that lacks a certain
24
nuance. There's two different ways to be a serial
25
infringer, so to speak. One is to infringe upon a large
#:1886
Supp. E.R. 1304
1
number of works and the other way is to maintain
2
infringing activities for an extended period of time
3
with respect to a given work. Just to use an example,
4
there are quite a few sites out there where the -- the
5
people who go on the sites, they're private sites,
6
private BitTorrent sites and they're dedicated to a
7
specific topic, such as -- obviously, there's a lot
8
dedicated specifically to adult content. And the people
9
who go on these sites, they have to maintain a certain
10
upload to download ratio. And in order to do that, that
11
means they have to continue making the work available
12
for an extended period of time after they've originally
13
taken it, because then they have to subsequently provide
14
bandwidth liquidity to subsequent people who join the
15
site.
16
Someone who could be classified as a serial
17
infringer or someone who has really done a lot of harm
18
to someone is not only someone who has taken down a lot
19
of different works or, you know, downloaded every single
20
file for a given client, for example, downloading a
21
siterip, which is a compilation of all the works
22
associated with a given website or what have you.
23
It could also be someone who is just a --
24
almost a constant source for access to the file over an
25
extended period of time.
#:1887
Supp. E.R. 1305
1
THE WITNESS: Before you ask me your next
2
question, I would like to take a bathroom break.
3
MR. PIETZ: Yeah, no problem.
4
(Off the record at 3:21 p.m. and back on
5
the record at 3:25 p.m.)
6
BY MR. RANALLO:
7
Q. Before the break we were discussing the
8
process by which AF Holdings identifies particular
9
infringers of its copyright. Let's take it a step
10
beyond where we just were. Once you get an IP address,
11
once AF Holdings gets an IP address, how does it
12
determine which particular person is the infringer
13
associated with that IP address?
14
A. I would make the general comment that it's
15
important to distinguish between AF Holdings and its --
16
shall we say its forensics experts and its attorneys.
17
To a significant degree, AF Holdings delegates these
18
matters to its attorney and to its, you know, technical
19
services company to make these determinations.
20
With respect to the specific question of how
21
it goes from -- shall we say the account holder -- so
22
you get the IP address and then you do the discovery.
23
You get the account holder's name back and then the
24
question is who at the household -- was it the account
25
holder someone else at the household who used the IP
#:1888
Supp. E.R. 1306
1
address, which I think is your question, if I understand
2
it correctly, how do you determine who at the household
3
used the IP address.
4
Q. Once 6681 gets an IP address, I want you to go
5
through the whole process and let's start with the
6
subpoena to the IP address.
7
A. So the first thing you do is you file the
8
lawsuit. You've got an IP address that 6681 Forensics
9
says this guy has been involved in infringing in
10
whatever work has been identified in the complaint. You
11
file the lawsuit. You seek early discovery from the
12
court, because you can't proceed forward with the case
13
until you figure out who the defendant is. The only way
14
to match an IP address and an identification is through
15
that process and then if the court grants leave to issue
16
the subpoena then you issue the subpoena to the ISP.
17
I think in this case it was -- I'm not sure
18
what ISP it was. So then you issue the subpoena to the
19
ISP and ship it off to the them and the ISP will then
20
perform a resolution of the IP address to a specific
21
individual and then you get the individual's name back.
22
Q. Do you get an individual's name back
23
100 percent of the time?
24
A. No.
25
Q. And what percentage would you estimate comes
#:1889
Supp. E.R. 1307
1
back not resolved to any name?
2
A. I couldn't possibly begin to estimate. It
3
really varies.
4
Q. Let's try to get a rough idea. Are we talking
5
1 in 10 or closer to 1 in 100 or closer to 1 in a 1,000.
6
A. I would say 1 in a 1,000 is not correct. It's
7
too extreme in the scarcity. I suspect it would be
8
between 1 and 10 and 1 and 100, that's kind of a
9
ballpark estimate.
10
Q. Some few percentage come back unresolved to
11
anybody, though?
12
A. Somewhere between 1 and 10 percent by that
13
ballpark estimate.
14
Q. What is the reason when they come back empty,
15
so to speak, what is the reason behind that?
16
A. The reason behind that is that -- they really
17
don't give a reason. They just say could not locate
18
subscriber information. We have asked them about that
19
in the past, because we still have to pay for it, AF
20
Holdings does. They say sometimes it's because the -- I
21
can't recall the reason that they give. They just say
22
that there's no information available.
23
Q. Is it fair to say that the ISPs' recordkeeping
24
is not, let's say, 100 percent accurate with regard to
25
each IP address?
#:1890
Supp. E.R. 1308
1
2
THE WITNESS: I would say they're world-class.
3
If it's not 100 percent, it's got to be right there.
4
BY MR. RANALLO:
5
Q. Let's say -- I mean, in the cases where it
6
resolves to no subscriber, is that because they attract
7
the wrong IP address or because Comcast, for example,
8
wasn't able to say who that IP address belonged to?
9
A. I will say that Comcast or Verizon or Time
10
Warner, whoever the ISP is, if they're not 100 percent
11
on when they give that information out, they'll just say
12
they can't do it. They are very careful. They're
13
world-class.
14
15
Q. So Mr. Hansmeier, you're an attorney. You've
16
been very involved in these cases. You're aware that
17
there's a certain amount of controversy that goes along
18
with these cases. Am I correct?
19
A. What do you mean?
20
Q. The issue I'm interested in -- which is an
21
issue I'm sure Mr. Gibbs is well versed on, because it's
22
a topic I know he's addressed several times. But the
23
particular issue that I'm concerned with -- that I'm
24
going to be asking AF Holdings to opine upon -- is the
25
process by which plaintiffs in cases like these, so the
#:1891
Supp. E.R. 1309
1
process by which AF Holdings alleges that an Internet
2
user, who has been identified as paying for an Internet
3
account by his ISP, is identified as a John Doe
4
defendant, who is guilty of alleged infringement. So I
5
recognize that was kind of a mouthful, but let me --
6
that was just to sort of explain to you the topic.
7
Paragraph 22 of the first amended complaint in
8
this action states that Defendant and that's Defendant
9
with a big D, which refers to Joe Navasca, using IP
10
address 69.109.216.238 without plaintiff's authorization
11
for license intentionally a downloaded a Torrent file,
12
in particular, plaintiff's video, purposefully loaded
13
that Torrent file into his BitTorrent file. In this
14
case uTorrent 2.2.1, entered a BitTorrent's forum,
15
particular to plaintiff's video and reproduced and
16
distributed the video to numerous third parties.
17
Here's my question. Beyond the fact that
18
Mr. Navasca was presumably identified by his ISP as
19
having paid for Internet service, what facts are there
20
to support that allegation in the complaint found on
21
paragraph 22?
22
A. I believe that facts that form the basis of
23
our investigation and the basis for naming Mr. Navasca
24
in this case are set forth in our response to the --
25
through his attorney Mr. Ranallo's for motion for
#:1892
Supp. E.R. 1310
1
undertaking. If I had that in front of me, it could
2
refresh my memory as to the exact facts that were used
3
to determine that Mr. Navasca was the infringer.
4
Q. Would AF Holdings agree that the mere fact
5
that somebody happens to pay the Internet bill is not
6
enough to justify naming and serving them with a
7
complaint?
8
A. I don't think AF Holdings has a particular
9
position on that issue. I can tell you that AF Holdings
10
generally does an investigation -- or the attorneys and
11
technical experts do an investigation beyond simply
12
naming the subscriber.
13
Q. You represent AF Holdings as counsel of
14
record. You're an attorney. What's your view on that
15
question?
16
17
THE WITNESS: What is the question?
18
BY MR. PIETZ:
19
Q. The question of whether the mere fact that
20
somebody pays the Internet bill is enough to justify
21
naming and serving them in a complaint for copyright
22
infringement?
23
MR. GIBBS: Asking for opinion. You can
24
answer as an opinion.
25
THE WITNESS: I guess my personal view on that
#:1893
Supp. E.R. 1311
1
issue is that -- I guess I don't have a personal view on
2
the issue of whether that is sufficient under Rule 11 or
3
any applicable legal standard. Having their name back
4
as the infringer is enough to justify or is enough to
5
satisfy whatever legal requirement exists before naming
6
and serving someone with a complaint. Certainly the
7
fact that they're an account holder that's associated
8
with infringing activity would suggest that they have
9
some connection whether it's -- how do you say it --
10
whether they're the direct infringer or whether they
11
have provided the means or whether they had knowledge of
12
some form of infringement activity occurring over their
13
IP address. So I don't know. I think that's an open
14
question that has yet to be definitively resolved at the
15
higher levels of the judicial system.
16
Q. So return to --
17
A. I'm not done. That being said, my personal
18
approach is I will generally look for information above
19
and beyond just being named as the -- shall we say
20
account holder by the IPS.
21
One factor that one might look at includes,
22
does the -- when you speak to the account holder, can
23
they identify someone else who did it. And if the
24
account holder says it wasn't me, it was my roommate and
25
I'm willing to sign an affidavit, then that would
#:1894
Supp. E.R. 1312
1
probably be a better course of action, you know, to
2
continue to proceed forward against the roommate.
3
Q. So I'd like to return then to how AF Holdings
4
came to allege that Mr. Navasca, the defendant in this
5
case -- what facts is the allegation in Paragraph 22
6
based on?
7
A. Again, if someone has a copy of the response
8
to the motion for undertaking, I can refresh my
9
recollection as to the facts that --
10
11
Q. Let me ask you do this. In preparation for
12
this, did you do any research into the facts upon which
13
AF Holdings has based its identification of Joe Navasca
14
as the infringer?
15
A. Again, I reviewed the response for the motion
16
of undertaking. I believe that's set forth by a few
17
facts. I just can't recall them out of recall after a
18
long day of deposition.
19
20
Q. So is it AF Holdings' testimony that the only
21
facts that are relied upon in naming Mr. Navasca are the
22
ones recited in the undertaking motion opposition?
23
A. I would have to review the undertaking motion
24
very carefully before saying that those are the only
25
facts.
#:1895
Supp. E.R. 1313
1
MR. PIETZ: Let's take a five-minute break and
2
I'll ask you to do that, sir.
3
THE WITNESS: Does someone have a copy of it?
4
5
6
7
Q. Let me go ahead and ask you this. Who at AF
8
Holdings knows the facts underlying the identification
9
of Joe Navasca as the infringer?
10
A. Well, again, as I said before you got to be
11
careful when you assume that, for example, Mark Lutz,
12
who is, you know, AF Holdings sole manager, member, what
13
have you, is intimately familiar with the facts, for
14
example this specific case. There are too many cases or
15
too many -- he delegates these matters to his counsel,
16
to his attorneys. Just like any CEO, the CEO of Ford or
17
CEO of Facebook. I don't think Mark Zuckerberg is
18
intimately familiar with the facts upon which every
19
lawsuit that Facebook files prior to the filing of a
20
lawsuit. It's not a very realistic way to run a
21
business. But I'm sure like just Mark Zuckerberg, Mark
22
Lutz delegates these matters to his attorneys and the
23
independent contractors such as 6681 Forensics.
24
In preparation for the deposition today, we
25
did review what factors were at play when Mr. Navasca
#:1896
Supp. E.R. 1314
1
was chosen as the defendant. And those are set forth in
2
the response for the motion for undertaking that we'll
3
be reviewing very shortly.
4
Q. Could you tell me the identity and location of
5
the individuals with knowledge about the facts
6
underlying AF Holdings' identification of Joe Navasca,
7
the infringer?
8
A. Sure. Counsel, Mr. Gibbs, he's right here.
9
Let's see. The ISP -- if you can remind me what the ISP
10
was in this case, Comcast maybe?
11
Q. This is a pretty clear statement in No. 15 of
12
what we're looking for. This is something you were to
13
be prepared for.
14
A. Well, Mr. Ranallo, this has been a long day of
15
deposition. And the idea that I'm going to remember
16
every single fact, every single person, every single
17
identity of every person who had any connection to this
18
suit in the history of mankind, is a bit unrealistic.
19
Now, I pointed to something that could help me
20
refresh my recollection so I could answer the question
21
and fully answer the question for you and instead of
22
just simply providing a copy of the complaint which
23
would identify the ISP, you decided instead to chastise
24
me for reasons that remain unclear and forever will be
25
unclear. If someone does have a copy of the complaint,
#:1897
Supp. E.R. 1315
1
I'd be happy to refresh my recollection so I could
2
identify the ISP and that will trigger my memory of who
3
at the ISP has the information regarding the subscriber
4
resolution for Mr. Navasca.
5
6
Q. Since we're going to return to this topic in a
7
moment after we get you the opposition that you want to
8
refresh your recollection, let me ask a couple of other
9
questions.
10
What business records does AF Holdings
11
routinely keep related to these cases?
12
A. This must be Item No. 5. So the business
13
records would be the ISP subscriber return,
14
correspondence from counsel and, of course, copies of
15
the agreements, the assignment agreements and those are
16
the primary records kept by AF Holdings. Of course,
17
when you've got a company that's -- one-person company
18
he's not going to generate a lot of e-mail or
19
correspondence between himself naturally, but certainly
20
the assignment agreements and those sorts of records
21
would be kept.
22
Q. How about tax records. Has AF Holdings ever
23
filed a tax return?
24
A. I don't not believe they have filed a tax
25
return in Nevis. I believe there's an exception that if
#:1898
Supp. E.R. 1316
1
you're not recognizing revenue, to filing a tax return,
2
so I don't not believe they have filed a tax return in
3
Nevis.
4
Q. Has AF Holdings ever filed a tax return in the
5
United States?
6
A. I'd have to think about that. I'm not aware
7
of any tax returns that AF Holdings has filed in the
8
United States.
9
Q. I'm asking now for the corporate testimony of
10
AF Holdings, not your personal recollection. Has AF
11
Holdings filed a tax return in the United States? Is
12
the answer yes, no or maybe?
13
A. I know I specifically asked about tax returns
14
in Nevis in preparation for this deposition. With
15
regard to a tax return in the United States, of course,
16
AF Holdings isn't formed in the United States --
17
MR. RANALLO: Excuse me. Could we put on the
18
record what that says (indicating).
19
THE WITNESS: Sure. It says ISP, AT&T.
20
MR. GIBBS: I didn't want to interrupt.
21
THE WITNESS: I believe I asked about the US
22
tax returns and they did not have any tax returns for my
23
review.
24
BY MR. PIETZ:
25
Q. And that's a conversation you had with
#:1899
Supp. E.R. 1317
1
Mr. Lutz; is that correct?
2
A. Yes.
3
Q. Does AF Holdings have an accountant?
4
A. AF Holdings does not have an outside
5
accountant.
6
Q. Does it utilize accountant services of any
7
person?
8
A. No, there are no outside accountants.
9
Q. Any accountants ever of any kind?
10
A. There are no accountants of any kind.
11
Q. How about bookkeeper. Does AF Holdings have a
12
bookkeeper?
13
A. I would say Mr. Lutz generally performs the
14
services of a bookkeeper. It's not a very complicated
15
set of books.
16
Q. How about the -- so Mr. Lutz has a set of
17
books for AF Holdings in his possession?
18
A. Let me think about that question.
19
Q. You just said it's not a very complicated set
20
of books. I'm implying from your answer that a set of
21
books does exist. Is that a correct implication?
22
A. No. My answer was meant to convey the idea
23
that the financial records of AF Holdings and the
24
financial transactions of AF Holdings are not complex
25
and that's what I meant by it wouldn't be -- to be
#:1900
Supp. E.R. 1318
1
perfectly precise I would say it wouldn't be a very
2
complicated set of books.
3
Q. So are there books?
4
A. I'm trying to refresh my recollection.
5
Q. If so, who has them?
6
A. Well, in the financial records I reviewed
7
there were some Excel spreadsheets, I guess if you're
8
going to call them books, that had some sort of numbers
9
on them. They weren't very complete and they weren't
10
very well labeled, but they were in Mark Lutz's
11
possession.
12
Q. Are those the only financial records you've
13
ever seen for AF Holdings?
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. Are aware if any other financial records
16
exist?
17
A. I'm not aware of any other financial records.
18
Q. Is the company aware of any other financial
19
records?
20
A. No.
21
Q. Just the Excel spreadsheets that Mr. Lutz has
22
that you reviewed in preparation for this hearing?
23
A. Yes.
24
Q. What are AF Holdings assets?
25
A. The assets of AF Holdings are the intellectual
#:1901
Supp. E.R. 1319
1
property that it holds. I suppose its claim of right on
2
any proceeds of lawsuits currently in the trust accounts
3
of various attorneys.
4
Q. So how about -- that was my next question.
5
How about cash in trust accounts. What's the total of
6
AF Holdings' assets in various trust accounts across the
7
country?
8
A. Which item are we referring to so I can
9
refresh my recollection?
10
Q. Distribution and proceeds of AF Holdings'
11
settlement money.
12
MR. GIBBS: Objection. That not what you're
13
asking for, though. You're talking about something
14
that's outside the notice of deposition.
15
MR. RANALLO: AF Holdings' revenues.
16
17
MR. GIBBS: We're talking about bank accounts,
18
not revenue.
19
THE WITNESS: This is why I don't have a
20
recollection. This says revenues derived from
21
BitTorrent copyright infringement related to work.
22
There's no way for AF Holdings to determine that number.
23
BY MR. PIETZ:
24
Q. There's no way at all for AF Holdings to know
25
how much money is being held in trust for its benefit in
#:1902
Supp. E.R. 1320
1
various attorney trust accounts across the country? No
2
way at all?
3
A. I'll read back the noticed topic --
4
Q. Please don't. I've read it. Refer me to the
5
number, if you would.
6
A. I'm reading No. 10 now. AF Holdings' revenues
7
derived from BitTorrent copyright litigation related to
8
the work. The breakdowns that -- for example, you know,
9
I'm talking about Alpha Law Firm. If Mark Lutz called
10
me up and said, How much revenues have we derived from
11
this particular work, I couldn't break it down for him
12
like that. I cold break it down for him in terms of the
13
settlements that we have received on your behalf overall
14
is a different amount, or is X, Y and Z. I don't know
15
the number off the top my head. If he ever called me up
16
and said, How much have we gotten for this work? That's
17
not a way people do accounting.
18
Q. So the way that AF Holdings does its
19
accounting, how much cash does it have in
20
attorney-client trust accounts across the country?
21
A. I believe this was a noticed up topic that I
22
had to go ahead and collect the cash and determine the
23
amount of cash.
24
25
MR. RANALLO: Let me ask you this --
#:1903
Supp. E.R. 1321
1
MR. PIETZ: Hold on a second. Wait. Wait.
2
Are you refusing to answer the question or is your
3
answer you're refusing to answer or is your answer that
4
you don't know?
5
6
topics.
7
BY MR. PIETZ:
8
Q. Go ahead and answer, please.
9
A. I'm not refusing to answer the question.
10
The -- my answer to the question is that as a corporate
11
representative for AF Holdings sitting here right now
12
testifying on behalf of the company, I can't tell you
13
how much cash they have, as a snapshot in time as we sit
14
here right now. And, frankly, even if it had been
15
noticed up, it still would be a very difficult topic to
16
adequately prepare for, because there are claims on the
17
cash, for example, for incurred expenses and future
18
expenses and it's very complicated.
19
Q. I thought the books were simple. So who has
20
claims on the cash?
21
MR. GIBBS: Mr. Pietz, I would appreciate you
22
not to interject random comments.
23
MR. PIETZ: I'm just indicating an apparent
24
inconsistency and asking the deponent to explain.
25
MR. GIBBS: You're being snarky is what it is.
#:1904
Supp. E.R. 1322
1
THE WITNESS: That's true. Mr. Pietz, I will
2
ask you as a 30(b)(6) corporate representative to
3
maintain professionalism and politeness. I don't think
4
there's any need for you to try and intimidate and
5
influence my testimony or make me feel bad about the
6
testimony I previously gave just because you're trying
7
to be a bully.
8
MR. PIETZ: I apologize if my comments were
9
seen as bullying. That's not my intent.
10
BY MR. PIETZ:
11
Q. Return to the apparent inconsistency. On the
12
one hand a moment ago you said AF Holdings' books were
13
not very complicated and then just more recently, a few
14
seconds ago you stated that it would actually be pretty
15
complicated to determine the cash on hand that AF
16
Holdings has because of various claims on those funds.
17
What I'm asking you to do -- again, my apology
18
if you took this the wrong way -- is to reconcile that
19
apparent inconsistency. Can you explain to me the kinds
20
of claims that exist on the cash in attorney trust
21
accounts.
22
MR. GIBBS: Objection. This is something --
23
you're misstating his testimony.
24
BY MR. PIETZ:
25
Q. Go ahead and answer, please.
#:1905
Supp. E.R. 1323
1
A. Well, I think it's important to recognize it.
2
When you say books, you're not -- the assumption you're
3
making is that books equal balance sheet. If you're
4
asking me about balance sheets specifically, then the
5
balance sheet isn't simple for the reasons I just
6
described. Books means, generically speaking, financial
7
statements at least as I understood it. Maybe you have
8
a different understanding. So we're all on the same
9
page. When I heard you say books with respect to AF
10
Holdings, I understood you to mean inputs, outputs, the
11
corporate expenses, the -- how do you say it -- the
12
income and expenses and the -- that's pretty simple.
13
It's not -- AF Holdings has made the decision that to
14
sell and distribute and market and perform all of these
15
activities, would be very difficult in terms of making
16
any money from it because the piracy is so great.
17
That's what I meant when I said it's relatively simple.
18
But to determine an exact cash position on any given
19
point in time would be very complicated.
20
Q. So let's go to some specifics then. Let's
21
return to the topic we discussed earlier, which was
22
settlement proceeds that were paid in AF Holdings cases
23
where Alpha Law was counsel of record. What kinds of
24
claims on the cash in trust and apparently in trust with
25
Prenda Law would there be on that money?
#:1906
Supp. E.R. 1324
1
A. There would be no specific claims on -- can
2
you please restate the question. I want to make sure I
3
understand it fully.
4
Q. So Alpha Law obtains settlements, money was
5
paid into attorney trust accounts, which was the Prenda
6
trust account. You've stated that money -- AF Holdings'
7
funds in attorney trusts are subject various kinds of
8
claims. In the cases that you're personally familiar
9
with, what kinds of claims was the trust account money
10
subject to?
11
12
Objection. Misstates testimony.
13
THE WITNESS: I'm not really understanding
14
what you mean by claims, if it was money from -- that
15
goes into Prenda's trust account. I can't tell you what
16
kinds of claims it was subject to in Prenda's trust
17
account.
18
BY MR. PIETZ:
19
Q. Have you been reimbursed for expenses incurred
20
by the firm out of Prenda's trust account in connection
21
with the AF Holdings cases where Alpha Law Firm
22
represented AF Holdings?
23
A. Yes.
24
Q. What kind of expenses?
25
A. The expenses we previously outlined, which
#:1907
Supp. E.R. 1325
1
were filing fees and ISP fees.
2
Q. Any professional services fees?
3
A. No. As I previously stated, I was not paid by
4
Alpha Law Firm or -- Alpha Law Firm was not paid by AF
5
Holdings for --
6
Q. To clarify. I didn't mean professional
7
services earned by Alpha Law. I meant professional
8
service fees paid to some other third-party vendor?
9
A. I guess I'm not familiar. If you can give me
10
a specific example that you're talking about, I just
11
don't have a frame of reference.
12
Q. How about payments to 6681 Forensics?
13
A. No.
14
Q. How about payments due to any other computer
15
company?
16
A. Alpha Law Firm did not make any payments to
17
6681 Forensics.
18
Q. How was 6681 Forensics paid in AF Holdings'
19
litigation?
20
A. 6681 Forensics is paid a flat monthly fee to
21
do monitoring service.
22
Q. And what's the flat fee?
23
A. It's arranged over time between -- well, I
24
mean. It was lower before and now it's increased over
25
time. I believe the number is -- the current number is
#:1908
Supp. E.R. 1326
1
$6,000 per month.
2
Q. And that is payable by whom?
3
A. It is payable by -- are you asking for the
4
exact precise financial transaction? AF Holdings owes
5
that money to 6681 Forensics.
6
Q. And how is it paid?
7
A. The exact bookkeeping for the payment -- I'm
8
trying to refresh my recollection. I believe it's paid
9
from Prenda Law to 6681 Forensics from the proceeds of
10
settlements
11
Q. Has Alpha Law ever made any payments to 6681
12
Forensics?
13
A. No.
14
Q. How about the Anti-Piracy Law Group. Has that
15
ever made any payments to 6681 Forensics?
16
A. None that I'm aware of.
17
Q. The Anderson firm that we talked about
18
earlier. Has that made any payments to 6681 Forensics?
19
A. Well, are you talking about executing the
20
financial transaction purpose of it?
21
Q. I'm talking about any money at all flowing out
22
of the those firms' client trust accounts to 6681
23
Forensics?
24
A. I couldn't tell you with respect to Anderson &
25
Associates, but none that I'm aware of.
#:1909
Supp. E.R. 1327
1
Q. Would it be fair to say then that on a global
2
basis 6681 Forensics is paid when Prenda Law every month
3
pays them $6,000 on behalf AF Holdings?
4
A. I believe so. I believe that's accurate, yes.
5
Q. And would it also be fair to say that 6681
6
Forensics doesn't obtain any other compensation from AF
7
Holdings other than that $6,000 a month?
8
A. Yes, that would be fair to say.
9
Q. How about the employees and officers of 6681
10
Forensics. Are they paid by AF Holdings in some way
11
other than the $6,000 a month that's paid to the
12
company?
13
A. No.
14
Q. Returning to the question of -- let me ask now
15
about who -- and I think I can guess the answer to this
16
question, but I'll ask anyway. Who at AF Holdings has
17
authority to settle a lawsuit?
18
A. Mark Lutz.
19
Q. Is he the only person at AF Holdings with that
20
authority?
21
A. He's the only person at AF Holdings, yes.
22
Q. How about -- same question but with dismissing
23
a case. Is Mark Lutz the only person who has the
24
authority to dismiss an AF Holdings case?
25
A. Yes. Well, I should clarify my two prior
#:1910
Supp. E.R. 1328
1
answers. Are you talking about people specifically at
2
AF Holdings?
3
Q. My question was in litigation brought by AF
4
Holdings, who has the authority to settle and dismiss
5
those cases.
6
A. I need to clarify my answers to the two prior
7
questions. And my answers to the two prior questions --
8
I understood your two prior questions to say, who has
9
the authority to do it -- who at AF Holdings had the
10
authority to do it and I thought you were asking that
11
question because I think you said you already knew the
12
answer implying that it was -- since there's only one
13
person at AF Holdings you were implying it was Mark Lutz
14
and the question -- and the answer was self-evident.
15
But to the extent that you're asking who in
16
the world has authority to enter into settlement
17
agreements or make certain specific litigation decisions
18
on behalf of AF Holdings, I would say that -- like any
19
other company that exists that is involved in
20
litigation, the attorneys for the -- attorneys who
21
represent AF Holdings in districts across the country,
22
in a case-by-case basis -- not in any global whatever --
23
from time to time will have authority to enter into
24
settlements within ranges -- standard settlement ranges
25
and then make other decisions regarding the cases.
#:1911
Supp. E.R. 1329
1
Q. So sometimes AF Holdings' outside counsel will
2
be delegated settlement authority for AF Holdings cases;
3
is that correct?
4
A. On a case-by-case basis, yes.
5
Q. Did that occur in this case?
6
A. That came up in this case, because the --
7
well, I'd have to double check. I couldn't say
8
specifically whether in this particular instance the
9
authority was delegated.
10
Q. How about initiating litigation. Does AF
11
Holdings outside counsel have authority to initiate
12
litigation on AF Holdings' behalf?
13
A. How do you mean by initiate litigation?
14
Q. I mean, going down to the courthouse and
15
filing a compliant?
16
A. Well, certainly Mark Lutz is not going to go
17
down to the courthouse and file complaints in every
18
district that AF Holdings files a case. Of course, the
19
outside counsel has authority to file the complaint on
20
AF Holdings' behalf.
21
Q. Let me ask the question a different way. Is
22
it conceivable that Prenda's outside counsel has filed
23
complaints without specifically running that particular
24
complaint by Mr. Lutz?
25
A. No. But I would qualify that by saying
#:1912
Supp. E.R. 1330
1
that -- as you guys know -- Prenda's role with respect
2
to AF Holdings is more national counsel role. They you,
3
know -- they're not just on the ground fighting case by
4
case and so forth and so on. They have a more
5
significant role than that. So Mr. Lutz is not going to
6
go case by case and say, Oh, let's sue this guy. Let's
7
sue that guy, but this guy or not this guy or that guy.
8
He delegates some of that to Prenda Law to assist him in
9
not spending all of his day focusing on litigation, but
10
instead trying to focus on business opportunities.
11
Q. So if Prenda is overseeing AF Holdings'
12
litigation nationally, what does the Anti-Piracy Law
13
Group do?
14
A. They are outside counsel for AF Holdings.
15
Q. In only certain limited jurisdictions?
16
A. I couldn't recite the various jurisdictions in
17
which the Anti-Piracy Law Group operates. I believe
18
they're in California and I believe they're in Illinois.
19
Those are the only two jurisdictions that I'm aware of.
20
Q. And who are the principals of the Anti-Piracy
21
Law Group? Is that just Mr. Duffy?
22
A. Mr. Duffy is the principal of the Anti-Piracy
23
Law Group.
24
Q. Isn't he the principal of Prenda Law?
25
A. Yes, he is also the principal of Prenda Law.
#:1913
Supp. E.R. 1331
1
Q. So what's the difference between the two?
2
A. They're two separate entities, two separate
3
firms.
4
Q. And they both represent AF Holdings?
5
A. They both represent AF Holdings, yes.
6
Q. Could they have other clients in common?
7
A. You'd have to ask them. I'm sure it's all a
8
matter of public record.
9
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Outside of his
10
knowledge, outside the deposition topics.
11
MR. PIETZ: Let's take that five-minute break
12
we mentioned a while ago and allow the deponent to
13
review the opposition to the bond motion.
14
15
16
BY MR. PIETZ:
17
Q. Back on the record in the 30(b)(6) deposition
18
of AF Holdings. Mr. Hansmeier, while we were taking a
19
break, did you have an opportunity to review AF
20
Holdings, LLC's response to defendant, Joe Navasca's,
21
motion to post undertaking?
22
A. I did.
23
Q. And I'll note for the record that document --
24
in case -- Northern District of California
25
12cv2396-ECF34. Did reviewing this document refresh
#:1914
Supp. E.R. 1332
1
your recollection as to the facts supporting AF
2
Holdings' allegation that Mr. Navasca is the
3
defendant -- is the actual defendant in this action?
4
A. Yes, I did. My recollection may still be
5
incomplete, but I will do my best to recall as much of
6
the information as I possibly can to describe the
7
process by which Joe Navasca was chosen as the defendant
8
in the instant action.
9
Q. I'll try and save us some time. Other than
10
rehash what's in this document, are there any other
11
facts other than the facts contained in this opposition
12
which support AF Holdings' position that Mr. Navasca is
13
the defendant in this case?
14
A. I believe so. Let me start -- I appreciate
15
the request for efficiency, but for the sake of my being
16
able to go through everything, it would be helpful for
17
me to just state the facts that I'm aware of because I'm
18
not sure which facts are in here and which facts aren't
19
in here.
20
So starting at the beginning, I guess we would
21
say that the first step that took place was -- maybe I
22
should ask a clarification question. Are you asking me
23
post getting the subscriber name back?
24
Q. I think that's a good idea. Let's skip to the
25
point of the subpoena return. So in other words, Prenda
#:1915
Supp. E.R. 1333
1
has obtained a subpoena return. What does it to do from
2
there?
3
A. So in this particular instance the subpoena
4
return as identified -- I believe it was identified by
5
AT&T an account holder to be Jovino Navasca, who is not
6
the same person as the defendant Joe Navasca.
7
The standard process when we get back the
8
subpoena return is to think, now does this person seem
9
like the infringer, does this person seem not like an
10
infringer. And I believe the first step that was taken
11
in this instance was to find out who all lives in the
12
household. There are variety of services online that
13
one can use to determine who lives in the household.
14
Q. Can I interrupt you. Can you tell us which
15
particular services were used in this case?
16
A. I believe the service that was used in this
17
particular case is a service called Accurint,
18
A-C-C-U-R-I-N-T.
19
Q. And were there any other database searches
20
conducted on the ISP subscriber?
21
A. To the extent you consider Google to be a
22
database. The most formal database search and
23
background search of the household was done through
24
Accurint.
25
Q. Who performed this search?
#:1916
Supp. E.R. 1334
1
A. I could not tell who exactly performed this
2
search.
3
Q. Was it Mark Lutz?
4
MR. GIBBS: Objection. He just answered that
5
question. Objection. Not one of the noticed deposition
6
topics.
7
BY MR. RANALLO:
8
Q. I was asking for a yes or no on Mr. Lutz.
9
A. The answer is I don't know. I don't recall at
10
this time.
11
Q. Well, leave a blank there for you to
12
supplement.
13
A. I'll be glad to do so.
14
Q. Okay. Great. Does AF Holdings ever use
15
licensed private investigators to conduct searches like
16
this?
17
A. I believe we have in the past, yes.
18
Q. And who are those investigators?
19
A. I don't have the names of the investigators we
20
have retained. We do those in circumstances where an
21
Accurint report, for example, is not yielding very much
22
useful information.
23
Q. Do you know if a investigator was used in this
24
case?
25
A. I don't believe an investigator was used in
#:1917
Supp. E.R. 1335
1
this case.
2
Q. So beyond the Accurint report what other facts
3
support naming Joe Navasca as the defendant?
4
A. So then you take the Accurint report and you
5
look at the various people listed on it. The Accurint
6
report provides quite a bit of information regarding,
7
you know, age, sometimes some other information,
8
criminal record. I'm sure other information that I'm
9
not recalling at this time. Then you go through and you
10
look at each person listed on the Accurint report. I
11
believe in this particular instance the Accurint report
12
listed four or five people who potentially lived in the
13
household and the next step is then to investigate each
14
of those individuals.
15
Q. How is that investigation performed?
16
A. The investigation take a lot of different
17
forms. An initial way to investigate someone is to talk
18
to the account holder.
19
Q. Mr. Hansmeier, just to be clear. I'm not
20
asking so much in terms of general practice here.
21
A. I was going to get more specific as to this
22
case.
23
Q. Right. So what was the investigation in this
24
case?
25
A. Sure. I believe the next step in this case
#:1918
Supp. E.R. 1336
1
was -- after running the Accurint report, we reached out
2
to Mr. Navasca. And by Mr. Navasca I'm referring to
3
Jovino Navasca.
4
Q. Can I stop you for some more clarification.
5
When you say we reached out, what do you mean? Who was
6
doing the reaching?
7
A. I might be --
8
9
THE WITNESS: I'm trying to be as accurate as
10
possible here. I believe that a letter was sent to
11
Mr. Navasca informing him of the litigation and asking
12
him if had any ideas about whether he did it or whether
13
someone else might have done it.
14
BY MR. PIETZ:
15
Q. Who would have signed that letter?
16
A. I would have to look at the specific letter in
17
question. I don't remember who signed the letter.
18
Q. Do you know what law firm letterhead it would
19
have been?
20
A. Again, I know what the investigative process
21
was. I don't know the particulars such as letterhead
22
and who signed what and those particulars.
23
Q. So after the Accurint report we've got a
24
letter. What else?
25
A. I believe he also would have called to reach
#:1919
Supp. E.R. 1337
1
out to him to see if he had any basis for knowing why
2
his IP address was used for infringing activity.
3
Q. And who called Mr. Navasca?
4
A. Again, I don't know who would have reached out
5
to him specifically.
6
Q. Well, there's only one employee at AF
7
Holdings. Was it Mr. Lutz?
8
A. The assumption behind that question is that
9
only an employee of AF Holdings could have reached out
10
to him. It could have been an attorney or it could have
11
been Mr. Lutz.
12
Q. Could it have been anyone other than that?
13
A. Theoretically possible. I would say the most
14
likely scenario would be Mr. Lutz or an attorney.
15
Q. Are there any other individuals who contact
16
plaintiffs -- strike that.
17
Are there any other individuals who contact
18
defendants in AF Holdings' cases other than Mr. Lutz and
19
attorneys of record?
20
A. I guess I would have to think through every
21
person that has been ever been associated. I don't
22
recall a comprehensive list of every individual who's
23
been associated with reaching out to punitive
24
defendants.
25
Would you like me to continue back to this --
#:1920
Supp. E.R. 1338
1
to the investigation?
2
Q. No. What I might ask instead. Have there
3
been individuals who are engaged specifically for the
4
purpose of making these kinds of phone calls?
5
A. Just to be clear. When you're referring to
6
these kinds of phone calls, you're referring to --
7
Q. To answer your question. Phone calls from AF
8
Holdings or its attorneys to John Doe defendants to
9
discuss the investigation that you're now describing.
10
A. Well, again, AF Holdings uses a variety of law
11
firms and I can't tell you who works for every law firm
12
out there in the country.
13
Q. Would it be primarily Mr. Lutz's
14
responsibility to perform the investigation or would it
15
be the attorney of record's responsibility to perform
16
the investigation?
17
A. It could be either. It's hard to make
18
generalizations about every single case that's out
19
there.
20
Q. So what about this case. Can you provide any
21
detail about who contacted the Navasca family?
22
A. Again, I've already testified that I don't
23
know who -- what letterhead was used or what the
24
signature block said. I am familiar with the -- I did
25
review information to allow me to be able testify as to
#:1921
Supp. E.R. 1339
1
how Joe Navasca was chosen as a defendant in the instant
2
action.
3
Q. I'm most interested in phone calls to
4
Mr. Navasca. Who on behalf of AF Holdings has placed a
5
phone call to the Navasca family?
6
MR. GIBBS: Asked and answered. Can we move
7
on from this?
8
THE WITNESS: I'm going to continue providing
9
you the same answer. I have no recollection of who the
10
specific individual was from AF Holdings who made the
11
call to the Navasca family.
12
BY MR. PIETZ:
13
Q. Well, in any event I guess that will be AF
14
Holdings' answer on that question.
15
Does Mr. Gibbs employ people who made phone
16
calls to the defendant in this case?
17
A. That's a question for Mr. Gibbs.
18
Q. I'm asking AF Holdings.
19
A. AF Holdings has no specific position on
20
whether Mr. Gibbs employs third-party individuals or has
21
no knowledge of him doing so.
22
Q. Here's what I'm trying to do, Mr. Hansmeier.
23
I'm trying to narrow down the universe of individuals
24
who might conceivably have placed the relevant telephone
25
calls in this case. So we have Mr. Lutz. You've also
#:1922
Supp. E.R. 1340
1
stated that sometimes lawyers will also make these phone
2
calls. What I'd like is the best possible list that you
3
can give me of the people who may have called
4
Mr. Navasca in relation to this case?
5
A. Well, I would suppose the best possible list
6
would be Mr. Lutz, Mr. Gibbs -- I'm try to think if
7
there's any other parties who may be plausible. I
8
suppose Mr. Duffy may have placed a call.
9
Q. Why would Mr. Duffy have been calling on this
10
case?
11
A. I should be careful here, because I was doing
12
that on the basis and assumption that I know Mr. Duffy
13
is filing a motion for substitution in some of these of
14
cases, maybe not this specific case.
15
Q. Is your testimony then that perhaps Mr. Duffy
16
would have called recently, but probably not preparing
17
the first amended complaint?
18
A. It would be unlikely that Mr. Duffy would have
19
been.
20
Q. So far we only have two possibilities, which
21
are Mr. Lutz and Mr. Gibbs.
22
A. Well, no --
23
24
THE WITNESS: It's important to be precise in
25
your questions because if I say one thing and you say
#:1923
Supp. E.R. 1341
1
something different back to me, then we spend a lot of
2
time just going back and forth having to correct what
3
you're saying.
4
You asked me to narrow down the field of
5
possibilities and I said well two obvious possibilities
6
would be Mr. Lutz, as the owner of -- forgive me -- the
7
manager of AF Holdings and Mr. Gibbs who is the attorney
8
of record in the underlying case. Does that eliminate
9
every possible third party, of course it doesn't.
10
I've tried to give you the best assistance I
11
could. If you would like to move beyond the question,
12
we can or we can stand on it if you'd like.
13
BY MR. PIETZ:
14
Q. Referring now to the deposition subpoena topic
15
No. 15. Who did you confer with regarding preparing
16
your testimony on topic 15?
17
A. I conferred with Mr. Lutz.
18
Q. Anyone else?
19
A. Then I reviewed the documents in the
20
underlying case, so the record.
21
Q. I'm just interested in people.
22
A. I'm trying to recall if I spoke to Mr. Gibbs
23
regarding what facts. I believe the topic would have
24
come up in conversations with Mr. Gibbs.
25
Q. So during the phone call to the Navasca
#:1924
Supp. E.R. 1342
1
family, what fact was revealed in your investigation
2
that led Prenda to serve Joe Navasca rather than Jovino?
3
A. Well, you have to understand that every time
4
you place a phone call to somebody doesn't necessarily
5
mean they pick up. I do not believe in this particular
6
instance, Jovino picked up the phone call. That's my
7
recollection.
8
Q. Was it just one call?
9
A. I'm only aware of one call that was placed to
10
the residence.
11
Q. How was it that you're sure of that?
12
A. I think I just said that was my best
13
recollection. I'm not entirely sure what the volume of
14
calls was. It's difficult to track how many calls are
15
made to a particular residence. It's not something
16
that's naturally recorded in any manner.
17
Q. Does Mr. Lutz keep records of his phone calls?
18
19
THE WITNESS: Are you asking me if he keeps a
20
notebook of every call he makes?
21
BY MR. PIETZ:
22
Q. I'm asking if there's any kind of records of
23
Mr. Lutz's phone calls.
24
MR. GIBBS: Objection. He'd have to speculate
25
on that. He's not Mr. Lutz.
#:1925
Supp. E.R. 1343
1
THE WITNESS: I don't know what phone system
2
Mr. Lutz uses and what records are associated with those
3
systems. I guess what is the ultimate goal here with
4
the phone calls? I can't tell you exactly how many
5
phone calls were placed to Mr. Navasca. I can tell you
6
that I do not -- I'm not aware of a phone call placed to
7
Mr. Jovino Navasca in the preceding investigation
8
process where Mr. Navasca answered the phone.
9
BY MR. PIETZ:
10
Q. So far I've heard a fair bit about process,
11
but I would like to return to the question of facts.
12
What are the facts that justify serving Joe Navasca in
13
this case?
14
A. All right --
15
Q. I don't mean to recap what we have already
16
gone over.
17
A. I understand, but I may need to restart my
18
discussion of this, just so I can go through point A to
19
Z and I'll try to be as efficient as possible. And, of
20
course, just noting for the record that I'm not
21
discussing the pre-subpoena return investigation, so
22
there's all of that. Post -- once we got Jovino's
23
subpoena return in our hands. The facts that supported
24
naming him -- so, of course, the first thing we did was
25
run the Accurint search, which revealed information
#:1926
Supp. E.R. 1344
1
about the people in the household and I believe that
2
certain people were eliminated from likely contention or
3
the likely infringer status right off the bat. For
4
example, any females living in the household in the
5
light of the nature of our client's work were removed
6
from likely candidacy for being the infringer of this
7
work.
8
Q. So it's essentially a demographic evaluation
9
of the Accurint report based upon age and sex; is that
10
correct?
11
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Misstates his
12
testimony.
13
THE WITNESS: As what point did I say age?
14
MR. PIETZ: You didn't. I was asking.
15
BY MR. PIETZ:
16
Q. I'm trying just to keep to the facts here, not
17
the process, right. So I'm not so concerned about what
18
AF Holdings did. What I'm more curious about is why it
19
named Mr. Navasca as the defendant?
20
A. I'm trying to get through that discussion with
21
you right now. So after we run the Accurint search, we
22
look at that and we can eliminate some people as likely
23
candidates. Although I'm speaking generally, I'm also
24
trying to be specific as to this case. The -- so the
25
Accurint report would have eliminated certain
#:1927
Supp. E.R. 1345
1
individuals, particularly females, in the light of the
2
nature of the work. Although -- please let me continue
3
if you want me to be able to get through this for you.
4
But that being said, we still do evaluate females,
5
because you can never definitively eliminate them at
6
that stage.
7
The next step would be to reach out to the
8
account holder and we did that in this case. We reached
9
out to the account holder by placing a telephone call to
10
him and by sending him letters.
11
Q. Was that more than one letter?
12
A. I've only reviewed one letter that was sent to
13
him, to Mr. Navasca. I believe it was not returned or
14
not responded to.
15
Q. So far we've got one or maybe two letters and
16
probably one phone call. And if I understand correctly,
17
nobody in the Navasca family responded to the letters or
18
the phone call; is that correct so far?
19
A. That's my recollection, yes.
20
Q. Moving beyond those. What other facts are
21
there that Prenda relied upon in -- that AF Holdings
22
relied upon in naming and serving Joe Navasca?
23
A. Again we ran the Accurint report, so beyond
24
the phone call and the letter, we ran the Accurint
25
report. And then there's a pretty intensive process of
#:1928
Supp. E.R. 1346
1
looking at everyone in the household who has technical
2
competency, because BitTorrent is not like playing
3
Freecell or Hearts on the computer. It's a much more
4
technically intensive process. By far and away the
5
experience of BitTorrent infringement suggests that
6
people who are associated with BitTorrent infringement
7
have some sort of technical competency.
8
Q. Are you basing that on some kind of published
9
study or something? Do you have a reference for that
10
process?
11
A. Can you please clarify what you mean by or
12
something?
13
Q. Well, in any event, can you please describe
14
for me this intensive process of evaluating the people
15
in the house?
16
A. So the next step in the process -- or the
17
intensive process is doing significant research on these
18
individuals through subsequent reports through finding
19
out what these people do, what their educational
20
background is, what their hobbies are, what evidence
21
there is of them being involved in computer communities,
22
checking out handles online and seeing if there's some
23
way to link someone on one of these piracy sites to one
24
of these individuals and build as complete a profile as
25
possible to determine whether someone is the likely
#:1929
Supp. E.R. 1347
1
infringer.
2
Q. So, again, I would like to ask what
3
specifically of those things was done in this case?
4
A. Well, the same thing. Every one -- we built a
5
profile on everyone in the house. And --
6
Q. Can I clarify one thing. Before you said
7
additional reports. Were you referring to something
8
other than the Accurint report?
9
A. I think in this case we ran Accurint reports
10
on the other individuals in the household to see what
11
their status was. So I think, you know, the end result
12
of that investigation was that there were -- I want to
13
say -- again, it's the end of the day and my memory is
14
fading a little bit. But there were -- I'll say three
15
males and I could be off by one or two -- because,
16
again, it's been a long day -- who were identified in
17
the household. It may have been four. We were able to
18
eliminate several of them by virtue of just everything
19
online -- every that we could find about them,
20
profile-wise suggested that they did not have a
21
technical background, they had no experience in this.
22
You made the mention of age before and
23
although that's not a dispositive factor. It's
24
certainly a factor you would bring into consideration to
25
say someone who is 80 years old. I'll use my grandma,
#:1930
Supp. E.R. 1348
1
for example. She can barely use the computer much less
2
use BitTorrent. That's not to say that no one that old
3
can't do it, but it's a factor you bring into
4
consideration.
5
And then, of course, you -- we were looking at
6
the various backgrounds of the people in the household.
7
One person just popped out to us, which was Mr. Navasca,
8
the defendant Navasca, who does have a technical
9
background, who does have technical job now, who meets
10
all the criteria that fits into a plastic case at least
11
in the experience of people who have been prosecuting
12
these actions before as being very, very likely to be an
13
infringer.
14
And then further we do -- there's always the
15
question of maybe a neighbor is doing it or maybe
16
someone who is parking outside in the street or maybe a
17
guest is doing it. Who knows.
18
In this case I believe that the data shows
19
that Mr. Navasca -- or the infringing activity that took
20
place over this IP address was not just on a single day
21
or a single two days, it was over an extended period of
22
time. I don't know -- I can't recall the exact period
23
of time, but it wasn't one kind of glimpse of him and
24
that was it.
25
And then -- I mean, the follow-up I make to
#:1931
Supp. E.R. 1349
1
that is that Mr. Navasca's deposition I think shows and
2
is a great illustration of the effectiveness of our
3
process. We had a guy there who uses technical -- or
4
who has a technical background, who does a lot of stuff
5
with computers. I think I remember reviewing the
6
transcript and seeing that he uses -- plays games two
7
hours a night. And further, frankly, the fact that he
8
had that program on his computer where he's destroying
9
the forensic evidence that we would need to prosecute
10
him.
11
And the fact that, Mr. Ranallo, with total
12
respect, but the fact that you misrepresented to the
13
court that he was actually maintaining the evidence.
14
It's shocking to me -- not shocking, but I think it's
15
quite illustrative that someone who needs to use a
16
forensic computer program to destroy evidence after he's
17
found out that he might be involved in one of these
18
lawsuits, who has the technical knowledge to do that and
19
who has testified that basically everyone else in his
20
household doesn't really use the computer very much. I
21
guess his dad used a little bit of Facebook, but that
22
was about it.
23
Q. Mr. Hansmeier, I would like to return to just
24
a couple of question and I'll thank you for that
25
detailed answer. Who performed this intensive analysis
#:1932
Supp. E.R. 1350
1
on the Navasca household in this case?
2
A. Well --
3
4
BY MR. PIETZ:
5
Q. Go ahead.
6
A. I got to be honest with you guys. When I saw
7
this notice of deposition, Item No. 14, I was really
8
focused on the facts and the steps that were taken, not
9
by the people who actually took the steps. I think we'd
10
be glad to supplement the testimony to give some more
11
color around those specific issues, but as I sit here
12
right now, I was not focused on acquiring as to who did
13
what. I was focused on what was done.
14
Q. I think at least right now you don't know who
15
performed this analysis; is that right?
16
A. Yeah. 14 is a process --
17
MR. GIBBS: Well, hold on a second.
18
Objection. This is something that wasn't noticed in the
19
deposition is what he's saying. He's not aware at this
20
point.
21
MR. PIETZ: Duly noted and I'll note for the
22
record that I disagree. This is very clearly within the
23
scope of 15.
24
BY MR. PIETZ:
25
Q. I'm not necessarily opposed to giving you the
#:1933
Supp. E.R. 1351
1
opportunity to fill that information in promptly
2
afterward. But is the answer at least right now that AF
3
Holdings doesn't know who performed this investigation?
4
MR. GIBBS: Objection. If you look at 15,
5
it's talking about the facts upon which AF Holdings
6
based its identification. It doesn't talk about the
7
persons that made the identification.
8
MR. PIETZ: Yes, it does. And the identify
9
and location of any individuals or documents supporting
10
such identification.
11
THE WITNESS: If you want to know the
12
identities of the individuals who have -- I can tell you
13
who the individuals are. It's Mr. Gibbs, it's Mr. Lutz,
14
and I would say that Mr. Duffy to the extent that any of
15
this work was outsourced to other individuals within
16
Prenda Law, so those are the three individuals who
17
have -- how is this phrased -- who -- those are the
18
identities of three individuals who would have -- who
19
could support the identification, the location of the
20
individuals. To go out straight off your noticed topic.
21
Mr. Duffy is located at 161 North Clark Street, Chicago,
22
Illinois. Mr. Gibbs is right here in the room and
23
Mr. Lutz is in Las Vegas.
24
BY MR. PIETZ:
25
Q. Fair enough. Were any records kept in
#:1934
Supp. E.R. 1352
1
connection with this so-called intensive analysis?
2
A. The Accurint records would be available, are
3
kept. The notes regarding the background profiles on
4
everyone that more of a contemporaneous sort of process,
5
I don't know if those records are retained. We do know
6
from my discussions with people that -- what the results
7
of those were. And certainly I suspect we could pull up
8
the letter that was sent to Mr. Navasca or letters, if
9
there was more than one, not Mr. Navasca the defendant,
10
but Mr. Navasca the dad. Those would be -- that's my
11
best recollection of what the documents would be.
12
Q. Fair enough. I'll note that the deposition of
13
Mr. Navasca took place after he was named as the
14
defendant in this case. What in the analysis or the
15
investigation revealed the fact that Mr. Navasca, the
16
defendant, supposedly has a technical background or
17
technical job? To put that simply, how did Prenda
18
uncover that fact, because that's the one specific fact
19
I heard that Prenda's hanging its investigation on. How
20
was that fact uncovered?
21
A. Well, first of all that's not the specific
22
fact which Prenda is hanging its investigation on.
23
Q. Sorry. Let me strike that part of that
24
comment. In any event how did Prenda's investigation
25
determine that Mr. Navasca has a quote, technical
#:1935
Supp. E.R. 1353
1
background or technical job?
2
A. Well, it would have come up either in the
3
context of the Accurint report, which may have listed
4
his employer and his education or it also may have come
5
up just through the process of finding out different
6
places where Mr. Navasca has listed his employment and
7
his education, such as Linkedin or whether it's a
8
Facebook page. Although I believe his Facebook page is
9
private. That's where the facts would have been derived
10
from.
11
Q. How do you know his Facebook page is private?
12
A. I believe that's one of the items that was
13
checked.
14
Q. So how do you know that was one of the items
15
that was checked?
16
A. I spoke to Mr. Gibbs or Mr. Lutz or some other
17
person at Prenda regarding Mr. Navasca. They noted the
18
fact that his Facebook page was private. It may have
19
been listed in the deposition.
20
Q. So you did speak to Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Lutz
21
regarding the investigation that was conducted, but
22
sitting here today you can't remember who it was that
23
conducted the investigation; is that correct?
24
A. Well, I think it's important to note that it's
25
not just -- we don't just have a single person who sits
#:1936
Supp. E.R. 1354
1
down and does an investigation. It's a multipronged
2
process where some people may run the report, other
3
people may send out the letter, other people may try and
4
place a call.
5
Q. Mr. Hansmeier, I ask you to please sign your
6
name on the piece of paper.
7
(Whereupon, the deponent signed his
8
signature on a blank piece of paper.)
9
MR. PIETZ: We'll mark that as the next
10
exhibit. Although, madam court reporter, don't we have
11
one that we still need to enter and mark?
12
THE REPORTER: Yes.
13
MR. RANALLO: I did mark the undertaking as
14
107.
15
16
17
MR. PIETZ: The undertaking is now marked 107
18
and we'll mark for the record the document that I'll
19
just note that Mr. Hansmeier just signed here on the
20
table as 108.
21
22
23
BY MR. PIETZ:
24
Q. Mr. Hansmeier, is this your usual signature?
25
MR. PIETZ: Mark now Exhibit 109. Nick,
#:1937
Supp. E.R. 1355
1
you're going to have to explain what this is. We've
2
only got that one copy. What is that exactly?
3
4
5
MR. RANALLO: Those are signatures exemplars
6
from a Mr. Peter Hansmeier's signature and a Paul
7
Hansmeier signature for comparison sake.
8
MR. PIETZ: What is that from, Nick?
9
MR. RANALLO: They are identified above them,
10
but they are from basically AF Holdings' file/Prenda
11
Law/Steele Hansmeier/Anti-Piracy Law filings.
12
MR. PIETZ: So I'll note for the record, the
13
top signature says executed on September 2nd -- it says
14
1010, but I suspect it probably means 2010. And it says
15
Paul Hansmeier and then the second signature says
16
executed on May 5th, 2011 and it says underneath the box
17
Peter Hansmeier.
18
BY MR. PIETZ:
19
Q. Mr. Hansmeier, does the signature on top
20
appear to be your signature?
21
A. It has less letters than I normally do, but
22
the first -- the first one looks like my signature,
23
yeah, the first name. But you sign your signature
24
different ways at different times. I'll agree that
25
that's my signature.
#:1938
Supp. E.R. 1356
1
Q. And the one below it, is that your brother's
2
signature?
3
A. You'd have to ask him.
4
Q. The fact that he's your brother and I'm
5
assuming you've seen him sign things before.
6
A. I don't recall having seen him sign anything
7
specifically before and I don't know where that
8
signature came from, so I'm not prepared to say that
9
that's -- and verify that that's my brother's signature.
10
Q. Does it look like you signing his name?
11
A. No.
12
Q. Now, just to be clear. You have had your
13
brother sign various declarations in cases that you've
14
been involved with before --
15
A. I will submit that I've not had a handwriting
16
expert review the signatures on the declarations that
17
he's submitted.
18
Q. I understand that. My question is, though,
19
you've seen your brother's signature before on
20
declarations in cases you've been involved with,
21
correct?
22
A. There's a big difference between filing a
23
declaration that you verify that it's signed and
24
carefully analyzing the signature.
25
Q. Sure. I understand that. Simple question,
#:1939
Supp. E.R. 1357
1
you know what your brother's signature looks like,
2
correct?
3
A. I believe I could not reproduce my brother's
4
signature from memory.
5
MR. PIETZ: We'll mark now for the record,
6
Exhibit 110, a verified petition filed by Quava, LLC, in
7
St. Clair County, Illinois.
8
9
10
BY MR. PIETZ:
11
Q. Mr. Hansmeier, have you ever seen this
12
petition before or maybe not this copy but the
13
underlying document?
14
A. I believe I've seen it, yes.
15
Q. When did you see it?
16
A. I believe I assisted -- oh, this isn't the one
17
that was filed in Minnesota?
18
Q. This is a St. Clair County, Illinois.
19
A. I worked with the one in Minnesota.
20
Q. So am I right that -- or maybe you were
21
mistaken when you said you'd seen this before and you
22
were thinking of Minnesota?
23
A. I was assuming this was the case that was
24
filed by Alpha Law Firm in Minnesota.
25
Q. So Alpha Law Firm represented Guava, LLC in a
#:1940
Supp. E.R. 1358
1
Minnesota case and you mistook this pleading for the one
2
that was in Minnesota; is that correct?
3
A. Yes.
4
Q. But on closer reflection, now having a chance
5
to look at it more carefully, I'll ask again, do you
6
recognize this pleading, which is from Illinois?
7
A. I believe I saw it one or two times in the
8
past. I can't --
9
(Whereupon, Mr. Gibbs left the room.)
10
BY MR. PIETZ:
11
Q. So you have seen this pleading from Illinois
12
on one or two times in the past?
13
A. I think my attorney should be present if
14
you're going to be questioning.
15
MR. PIETZ: Fair enough. We'll hold off. Let
16
the record reflect that Mr. Gibbs is back in the room.
17
BY MR. PIETZ:
18
Q. Let's go ahead and continue with the question.
19
Continuing now that everybody is settled. So you have
20
seen this St. Clair County petition before, correct,
21
Mr. Hansmeier?
22
A. I have seen it a couple of times in the past.
23
I'm familiar with it because I know that there was a
24
hearing on it recently.
25
Q. And can you recall who showed this petition to
#:1941
Supp. E.R. 1359
1
you?
2
A. I don't recall who showed the petition to me.
3
I remember discussing this petition with Mr. Steele
4
quickly with some relation to the case.
5
Q. I'll ask you to skip to the verification page,
6
which is like the seventh or eighth one in there.
7
A. I see it here.
8
Q. Can you read for me what it says there on the
9
signature line of the verification page?
10
A. No. I can read, but it's a little hard to
11
read.
12
Q. To best of your ability what does it say?
13
A. I don't want to speculate what it says.
14
Here's what it says. It's a pretty rough copy.
15
Q. I agree.
16
MR. GIBBS: I have no idea.
17
BY MR. PIETZ:
18
Q. I'm asking now for your best estimate. What's
19
the name on the signature line there?
20
A. You can ask as many times as you want. I'm
21
telling you I can't read it.
22
Q. Does it look like Alan Moay, A-L-A-N, M-O-A-Y?
23
A. It doesn't look like that to me.
24
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Calling for
25
speculation. He already told you he can't read it
#:1942
Supp. E.R. 1360
1
because it's a poor copy of the paper, so he'd be
2
speculating as to what it says.
3
BY MR. PIETZ:
4
Q. Go ahead and continue, please.
5
A. I don't think it looks like that. I don't
6
think it looks like anything. I think it's a poor copy
7
and it's illegible.
8
Q. It's so illegible that you can't read it at
9
all; is that correct?
10
A. Me personally?
11
Q. You personally.
12
A. I'll take a second look at for the sake of
13
completeness. So the first three letters of the first
14
name appear to be A-L -- I can't tell if it's N-A --
15
Q. I'll tell you what. Let's take it letter by
16
letter. The first letter what does that look like?
17
A. It looks like a capital A.
18
Q. The next letter?
19
A. Either an L or an I.
20
Q. And then after that, not sure. The fourth
21
letter?
22
A. It could be an A, it could be an N.
23
Q. Moving on to the next word. What's the next
24
letter?
25
A. That's pretty clearly an M.
#:1943
Supp. E.R. 1361
1
Q. And then the next letter?
2
A. It's an N or an A.
3
Q. And then the next letter?
4
A. That appears to be a Y.
5
Q. And then after that, can you make out the word
6
that it says after that?
7
A. D -- let's go letter by letter.
8
Q. Sure. Why don't you just do it for me.
9
A. So the first letter appears to be a D. The
10
second letter appears to be a C. The third letter
11
appears to be an E.
12
Q. Mr. Hansmeier, let me just stop. Do you think
13
that word says declarant perhaps?
14
A. It could say defendant, declarant. That would
15
conceivably fit within the letters. Although,
16
obviously, it's pretty illegible.
17
Q. Do you know anybody by the name of Alan Moay,
18
M-O-A-Y?
19
A. Do I personally know anybody by the name of
20
Alan Moay? I'd have to check my contact list and anyone
21
I've ever talked to in my entire life, but sitting here
22
right now, do I know anybody named Alan Moay, no, I do
23
not.
24
Q. Do you know anyone who is a principal or an
25
officer or a corporate representative of Guava, LLC,
#:1944
Supp. E.R. 1362
1
with a first name of Alan?
2
A. Do I know anyone, principal or an officer --
3
Q. Or a corporate representative.
4
A. I'd to have check my records as to who does
5
what at Guava, LLC. I couldn't tell you that answer for
6
most of my clients.
7
Q. Do you know anybody by the name of Alan Mony,
8
M-O-N-Y?
9
A. Again, I'd have to check my records to see who
10
I've corresponded with in the past.
11
Q. Do you know anybody by the name of Alan
12
Mooney, M-O-O-N-E-Y?
13
A. I have represented an Alan Mooney before, yes.
14
Q. Is that the extent of your relationship to
15
Mr. Mooney, having represented him?
16
MR. GIBBS: Vague and ambiguous. Speculation.
17
THE WITNESS: Can you ask me a more specific
18
question?
19
BY MR. PIETZ:
20
Q. Let's start with this. What case did you
21
represent him in?
22
A. I couldn't tell you the caption of the case
23
right now.
24
Q. Was it a single action?
25
A. Can you tell me what you mean by a single
#:1945
Supp. E.R. 1363
1
action?
2
Q. Was it one litigation, whether in state or
3
federal court?
4
A. I'm trying to think whether I represented him
5
in other capacities.
6
MR. GIBBS: I need to take a one-minute break.
7
MR. PIETZ: Let's finish this question. Go
8
ahead.
9
THE WITNESS: I can. I represented him at
10
least in one action. I've had -- I may have represented
11
him in more actions, but I'd have to check my records
12
very specifically to determine that.
13
(Off the record.)
14
BY MR. PIETZ:
15
Q. Back on the record. Mr. Hansmeier, was the
16
litigation you represented Alan Mooney in the Priceline
17
litigation?
18
A. That sounds familiar. I'd have to check my
19
records to be sure.
20
Q. I'll represent to you -- I'm not sure that I
21
have a copy, but I will represent that I've seen a
22
pleading filed in Hennepin County, Minnesota where you
23
were counsel of record for one Alan Mooney, A-L-A-N,
24
M-O-O-N-E-Y.
25
A. That sounds very inaccurate. I don't believe
#:1946
Supp. E.R. 1364
1
I filed a pleading in Hennepin County.
2
Q. And then it was removed to federal.
3
A. There was a federal court action that I
4
represented an Alan Mooney in. That might be what
5
you're referring to. I'm not going to accept your
6
representation as to what that case involved or didn't
7
involve.
8
Q. All I'm after in any event, is whether or not
9
there may be other cases in which you have represented
10
this Alan Mooney.
11
A. I believe I just testified and I'll testify in
12
this manner every time you ask me the question, that I
13
represented Mr. Mooney in the case that was -- in a case
14
that -- whether that's the one that you're referring to
15
or not -- it wasn't filed in Hennepin County, but was
16
removed to federal court and my other representations
17
statuses with respect to Mr. Mooney I would need to very
18
carefully check my past records and files to determine
19
whether or not I have represented him in the past.
20
Q. Have you ever introduced Mr. Mooney to John
21
Steele?
22
A. I don't recall if I have or not.
23
Q. To best of your knowledge have your client
24
Alan Mooney and John Steele ever met?
25
A. I do not believe so.
#:1947
Supp. E.R. 1365
1
Q. Have they ever corresponded?
2
A. I guess you would have to ask the two of them
3
that. I have not been party to correspondence between
4
the two of them, if that's what you're asking.
5
Q. Do you have any other business dealing with
6
Alan Mooney?
7
A. What do you mean by business dealings?
8
Q. I mean, is the extent of your relationship to
9
Alan Mooney the fact that you represented him in
10
litigation?
11
A. Well, again, you can continue asking the
12
question about my representation and I'll continue
13
giving you the same answer. I've had potential
14
representation situations with respect to Mr. Mooney for
15
the past couple of years. Some of them have -- I can't
16
think of any specifically that have turned into fruition
17
other than the case right there. My memory is a bit
18
vague and unclear on that topic so I'd have to go back
19
and check my records. It's in that capacity primarily
20
that I know Mr. Mooney.
21
Q. So in other words, if I understand correctly,
22
you represented him in one case, and were the other
23
potential representations that may or not may come to
24
fruition were those litigation matters as well?
25
A. It was primarily litigation matters. There
#:1948
Supp. E.R. 1366
1
may have been business dealings, but those were pretty
2
speculative. But to the exact nature of whether there
3
was litigation or business matters or a hyper between
4
the two, I'd have to check my records to determine what
5
exactly I had to -- my relationship to Mr. Mooney was or
6
the nature of -- or how best to classify the potential
7
representation opportunities.
8
Q. So what details can you give me about your
9
relationship with Alan Mooney without checking your
10
records? And I recognize it may not be complete, but
11
can you do the best you can, please?
12
A. Sure. I'd be glad to. The -- I first came
13
into contact with Mr. Mooney back -- I would say 2009
14
perhaps, give or take a year. And he was -- I don't
15
think I can go into too much detail about the specific
16
facts and situation, but he had a litigation matter that
17
was pressing and so I discussed within the litigation
18
matter kind of -- how best to describe it. The best way
19
to describe it. I was an associate at a firm and the
20
partner was handling the matter. So I met him and then
21
over the years we kept in contact and he has contacted
22
me regarding various matters. Like any prospective
23
client, I socialize with him from time to time. And
24
then in the one case that's a matter of public record I
25
represented him.
#:1949
Supp. E.R. 1367
1
Q. Has he ever hired you to do anything other
2
than the Priceline case or were they all prospective
3
representations that didn't pan out?
4
A. You can continue to ask me about my
5
representations of Alan Mooney and I'll continue to --
6
MR. GIBBS: Objection.
7
THE WITNESS: -- to give the very same answer
8
which is, I would have to check my records to find
9
out -- to determine whether or not I was formally
10
retained with respect to matters that have occurred,
11
potential matter that have occurred over the past three
12
or four years.
13
BY MR. PIETZ:
14
Q. Have you ever represented Mr. Mooney in a
15
nonlitigation matter?
16
A. You can continue asking me about my past
17
representations of Mr. Mooney and I'll continue to give
18
you the very same answer. I have to check my record to
19
see if I was formally retained or formally represented
20
Mr. Mooney in a matter.
21
Q. Fair enough. Seems like we're not getting
22
anywhere.
23
MR. PIETZ: I'll introduce as Exhibit 110 --
24
and note that I only have this one copy. This is
25
business records detail for the Minnesota business,
#:1950
Supp. E.R. 1368
1
MCGIP, LLC.
2
3
4
BY MR. PIETZ:
5
Q. Mr. Hansmeier, can you read me what it says
6
there where it identifies the manager?
7
A. Alan Mooney.
8
Q. And the rest of the information after where it
9
says Alan Mooney.
10
A. 80 South 8th Street, #900, Minneapolis,
11
Minnesota, 55402.
12
Q. Could you read me what says under principal
13
executive office if for MCGIP, LLC?
14
A. It identifies 80 South 8th Street, #900, care
15
of the Alpha Law Firm, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55402.
16
Q. Was this an additional representation of
17
Mr. Mooney?
18
A. Quite clearly not. It's a representation of
19
MCGIP.
20
Q. So what does Mr. Mooney have to do with MCGIP?
21
A. On this record he's listed as the manager.
22
Q. Isn't MCGIP an entity on whose behalf Steele
23
Hansmeier and Prenda Law filed copyright infringement
24
lawsuits?
25
A. Well, certainly not Prenda Law that I'm aware
#:1951
Supp. E.R. 1369
1
of.
2
Q. How about the Alpha Law Firm?
3
A. Alpha Law Firm, no.
4
Q. So Steele Hansmeier has never represented
5
MCGIP, LLC in litigation?
6
A. I believe you're making a statement.
7
Q. Maybe I'm misinformed. What was MCGIP then?
8
A. It's a limited liability company.
9
Q. And what was the business of MCGIP?
10
11
12
BY MR. PIETZ:
13
Q. I'm asking now for personal knowledge.
14
A. I guess I would have to review my records to
15
find out what the business of MCGIP was. If we
16
represented them in the past, I would assume that it
17
was -- well, in fact, I think they held copyrights and
18
produce content.
19
Q. Were you ever involved in a copyright
20
infringement lawsuit for MCGIP?
21
A. I would have to check my records. I don't
22
believe I was an attorney of record on a copyright
23
infringement lawsuit for MCGIP, but I believe Steele
24
Hansmeier did file cases on their behalf. I'd have to
25
check my records. It was quite a while ago. So to that
#:1952
Supp. E.R. 1370
1
extent then, yes.
2
Q. Is Alan Mooney the person who executed the
3
petition in St. Clair County, Illinois?
4
A. You'd have to ask Alan Mooney.
5
Q. Returning now to your capacity as a corporate
6
representative. Why did AF Holdings change from Media
7
Copyright Group to 6681 Forensic?
8
MR. GIBBS: Hold on. Objection. Assumes
9
facts not in evidence. Misstates prior testimony.
10
THE WITNESS: What item are you referring to
11
just so I can refresh my recollection?
12
MR. PIETZ: I think it's under a few
13
categories.
14
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Not in the deposition
15
notice.
16
BY MR. PIETZ:
17
Q. In any event we'll look for it. Without
18
resorting to the topics -- hold on. Strike that.
19
No. 11. So in any event please answer the
20
question. Why did AF Holdings change from Media
21
Copyright Group to 6681 Forensics?
22
MR. GIBBS: Objection. I don't believe that
23
11 covers that.
24
THE WITNESS: Sure. I'll answer the question.
25
I guess, you know, looking at No. 11, I don't think that
#:1953
Supp. E.R. 1371
1
really -- I would not look at that and say I have to
2
understand why it went from one to the other. I
3
can't -- I can't recall anything specifically in the
4
course of preparing for this 30(b)(6) deposition that
5
would have prepared me to answer a question of why they
6
would decide to go with Media Copyright Group versus
7
6681 Forensics.
8
MR. GIBBS: It almost seems like a state of
9
mind question.
10
BY MR. PIETZ:
11
Q. I'm asking if AF Holdings had a reason, why it
12
switched from one technical group to the other. It's a
13
very simple question. If the answer is that AF Holdings
14
doesn't know, that's fine.
15
A. Well, the answer is that none of the
16
preparation that I would have done to prepare for this
17
deposition would have -- on any of the noticed topics --
18
would have led me to investigate why AF Holdings
19
switched from Media Copyright Group, LLC, to 6681
20
Forensics, LLC.
21
Q. Is AF Holdings confident in the work that 6681
22
Forensics does logging IP address is accurate?
23
24
What do you mean by that?
25
///
#:1954
Supp. E.R. 1372
1
BY MR. PIETZ:
2
Q. Go ahead and answer it.
3
A. I'm a bit confused by the question. How do
4
you mean confident? Are you asking whether we believe
5
that they're doing a competent job of identifying
6
infringers?
7
Q. I mean, is the information accurate?
8
9
He only knows what he knows. He doesn't know what's
10
accurate. It's kind of a vague question also.
11
THE WITNESS: I can only say that in the
12
course of AF Holdings' existence that we're not aware of
13
any instance where there's been any question or doubt to
14
the validity of the link between the infringing activity
15
and then the IP address and that's primarily what 6681
16
Forensics focuses on.
17
BY MR. PIETZ:
18
Q. Mr. Hansmeier, in preparing for today's
19
deposition, did you speak with anyone other than
20
Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Lutz?
21
A. Yes, I spoke with Mr. Steele.
22
Q. And when was that?
23
A. Some time in the past two, three weeks.
24
Q. Where did that meeting occur?
25
A. Over the phone.
#:1955
Supp. E.R. 1373
1
Q. And were you in Minnesota when you placed that
2
phone call?
3
A. Yeah. I can't remember exactly, but I am
4
pretty sure I was in Minnesota.
5
Q. Where was Mr. Steele?
6
A. Mr. Steele, he's been traveling a lot, so he
7
could have been in a lot of different places, Illinois,
8
Las Vegas or South Beach or Chicago.
9
Q. I'm curious to hear you say South Beach. I
10
thought Mr. Steele practiced in Illinois. Does he
11
reside in Florida?
12
A. He currently resides in Florida, yes.
13
Q. What is Mr. Steele's affiliation with Prenda
14
Law?
15
16
17
THE WITNESS: I would say that Mr. Steele --
18
first of all, I can't possibly know every last aspect of
19
the connection between Mr. Steele and Prenda Law. I do
20
know that, for example, there's a case pending in the US
21
District Court in the District of Columbia, AF Holdings
22
names Does 1 through 1,058 where Mr. Steele entered an
23
appearance as of counsel to Prenda Law. I believe is
24
title. And I think there's another case pending in the
25
US District Court in the South District of Illinois
#:1956
Supp. E.R. 1374
1
where Mr. Steele has identified as of counsel to Prenda
2
Law, but I'd have to double check.
3
BY MR. PIETZ:
4
Q. Do you know if Mr. Steele is currently of
5
counsel to Prenda Law?
6
A. I believe Mr. Steele is labeled as of counsel
7
to Prenda Law in those cases currently.
8
Q. Is Mr. Steele affiliated at all with the Alpha
9
Law Firm?
10
MR. GIBBS: Vague and ambiguous. What do you
11
mean by affiliated.
12
BY MR. PIETZ:
13
Q. Go ahead.
14
A. He is not affiliated with the Alpha Law Group
15
{sic}.
16
Q. Has he ever been affiliated with the Alpha Law
17
Group?
18
A. He's never been affiliated with the Alpha Law
19
Group.
20
Q. Has the Alpha Law Group ever compensated John
21
Steele for anything?
22
A. The Alpha Law Firm has never compensated John
23
Steele for anything. Although, I should say that
24
there's no such entity as the Alpha Law Group.
25
Q. Is it Alpha Law Firm?
#:1957
Supp. E.R. 1375
1
A. Same answer to all the questions.
2
Q. How about same question for Mr. Duffy. Has
3
the Alpha Law Firm ever compensated Mr. Duffy for
4
anything at all?
5
A. No.
6
Q. Is your understanding -- well, strike that.
7
Can you explain to me how it is that Steele
8
Hansmeier became Prenda Law? Let me back up. Is that
9
accurate? Is Prenda the successor of Steele Hansmeier?
10
A. No.
11
Q. So can you explain to me how it was that
12
Steele Hansmeier was wound down and Prenda was formed?
13
A. Well, to answer your question specifically --
14
although, I don't know if this is the thrust of your
15
question. The process of Steele Hansmeier winding down
16
was accomplished through filing with the Secretary of
17
State of a notice of dissolution filed by, I believe,
18
articles of dissolution. I don't remember the second
19
part of your question.
20
Q. So Steele Hansmeier was formally dissolved and
21
then as soon as you dissolved Steele Hansmeier, did you
22
at that point work for Prenda Law at all?
23
A. Not as an employee, no.
24
Q. In what capacity?
25
A. Part of my role -- I guess I had no formal
#:1958
Supp. E.R. 1376
1
affiliation with Prenda Law. I don't believe I can
2
point to any specific affiliation. Part of it we wanted
3
to aid Prenda Law in transitioning from, you know,
4
Steele Hansmeier operating the cases and whatnot.
5
Prenda Law was appearing in a lot of the cases, so
6
there's a natural, you know, kind of aid them, help them
7
facilitate the transfer.
8
Q. So would it be a correct characterization that
9
Prenda Law took over Steele Hansmeier cases?
10
A. Well, the precise characterization, of course,
11
is that they filed substitutions of counsel in cases
12
that Steele Hansmeier was counsel, I believe, across the
13
board.
14
Q. And what happened to the money? Presumably
15
there was money in trust at Steele Hansmeier. Was that
16
money liquidated out of Steele Hansmeier accounts and
17
paid into new Prenda accounts?
18
A. I was not part of the handling of the
19
financial part of the --
20
Q. Transition, if you will; is that correct?
21
A. It's your word, but I understand what you're
22
getting at.
23
Q. So who was responsible for handling the
24
financial aspect of the transition?
25
A. I believe Mr. Steele would have been in charge
#:1959
Supp. E.R. 1377
1
of managing -- the handling of funds.
2
Q. And was Mr. Duffy also involved in the
3
transition of Steele Hansmeier cases to Prenda cases?
4
A. I believe he was the attorney who appeared as
5
counsel of record in those cases.
6
Q. What about Mr. Gibbs. I note that he appeared
7
on the various pleadings as of counsel to Steele
8
Hansmeier. Did you hire Mr. Gibbs to Steele Hansmeier?
9
10
the --
11
THE WITNESS: I would have to check the
12
records with respect to Mr. Gibbs' relationship with
13
Steele Hansmeier.
14
BY MR. PIETZ:
15
Q. Well, I'll represent to you that on various
16
pleadings he listed himself as of counsel to Steele
17
Hansmeier. Does that mesh with your relationship?
18
A. Again, I don't want to make any specific
19
statements regarding Mr. Gibbs' with Steele Hansmeier.
20
I assume that if he labeled something on a pleading,
21
that it was accurate.
22
Q. So while you were one of the two named
23
partners in Steele Hansmeier, do you personally recall
24
Mr. Gibbs doing work for the firm?
25
A. Again, you're asking me to characterize the
#:1960
Supp. E.R. 1378
1
nature of his relationship with Steele Hansmeier. For
2
every time you ask it -- like a few other topics
3
today -- I'm sure you're going to come back and ask the
4
same question many times. Once and again and again and
5
again.
6
I'm sorry, Mr. Pietz, is my deposition
7
testimony funny to you?
8
Q. No, I'll just note that it's not quite the
9
same question.
10
A. Mr. Pietz, this is a serious matter.
11
Q. I agree.
12
A. You and your client and you personally
13
Mr. Pietz nationwide, have accused AF Holdings of fraud
14
and of criminal activity. I believe you've used the
15
word criminal in a few of your pleadings. With all due
16
respect, I don't believe that an officer of the court
17
should take such humor and take such levity with respect
18
to matters that are of such gravity and importance. So
19
if this is a comedy show to you, we can go that route.
20
But if this is something you want to take seriously, we
21
can go that route too.
22
Q. I'll note that I don't want to get drawn into
23
a long back and forth on this. I'll just assure you
24
that I do indeed take the allegations of fraud in Prenda
25
cases very seriously. I anticipate and look forward to
#:1961
Supp. E.R. 1379
1
getting to the bottom of it.
2
MR. PIETZ: In any event here's what I might
3
propose. Unless Nick has anything else, maybe we'll
4
turn it over to Mr. Gibbs for redirect. I'm sorry,
5
Nick, do you have a few things? Let's go off the record
6
for a moment.
7
(Off the record.)
8
MR. PIETZ: Back on the record in the 30(b)(6)
9
of AF Holdings. I will mark as the Exhibit 112 and hand
10
the deponent a copy of the declaration prepared by
11
Mr. Ranallo. And refer the deponent to paragraph 5.
12
I'm going to ask Mr. Ranallo to play the recording.
13
It's an audio recording for the deponent. Mr. Ranallo
14
if you would, please.
15
(Whereupon, a recording was played in
16
reference to Exhibit 112, bullet point
17
5, of a February 8th voice mail
18
recording.)
19
BY MR. PIETZ:
20
Q. Is that Mark Lutz?
21
A. Well, if I don't recognize the voice that's on
22
the voice mail, I can't make an identification of who it
23
is.
24
Q. How many times would you say you have spoken
25
to Mr. Mark Lutz in the course of your life?
#:1962
Supp. E.R. 1380
1
A. Too many to count.
2
Q. How many times would you say you've had phone
3
calls with Mark Lutz?
4
A. I can't answer the question, but several
5
times.
6
Q. Several or lots?
7
A. I would say several to mean many times.
8
Q. And you're telling me that you can't
9
definitively say that the voice we just heard is Mark
10
Lutz?
11
A. That's correct.
12
Q. Who might it be if it's not Mr. Lutz?
13
A. I guess anyone in the world.
14
Q. Well, I would note for the record that it's
15
somebody calling the defendant in this case -- calling
16
the defendant's father in this case, citing the Prenda
17
Law reference number for this case and discussing this
18
case. So I would ask again. Who might that be if it's
19
not Mr. Lutz?
20
A. You're asking me to speculate as to the
21
identity of the person. I can't tell you who it is.
22
Q. Is it Mr. Gibbs?
23
A. I don't recognize the voice. I can't identify
24
the person on the call.
25
Q. How many times have you spoken with Mr. Gibbs
#:1963
Supp. E.R. 1381
1
in the course of your life?
2
A. Many times.
3
Q. Is the voice on the recording Paul Duffy?
4
A. I can't identify the individual who is on the
5
phone call.
6
Q. How many times have you spoken with Paul Duffy
7
in the course of your life?
8
A. Many times.
9
Q. Is it your brother, Peter Hansmeier?
10
A. I can't identify the individual on the phone
11
recording and I've spoken to my brother many times.
12
Q. You're telling me as you sit here in that
13
chair that you can't tell me whether the voice message
14
you just heard was your brother; is that correct?
15
A. That's correct. I can't identify the person
16
who's on the voice recording.
17
Q. Fair enough. Does the content of that message
18
sound like the kind of thing that Mr. Lutz says when he
19
calls people about AF Holdings' litigation?
20
21
Also calls for speculation.
22
THE WITNESS: I don't know what he does when
23
he calls people in AF Holdings' litigation.
24
25
#:1964
Supp. E.R. 1382
1
2
Q. Does have AF Holdings have any intention of
3
amending the complaint to add any other individuals?
4
A. I don't know what AF Holdings' intention is at
5
this time in this litigation.
6
Q. Whose decision is that then?
7
A. Well, it's Mr. Lutzs' decision.
8
Q. Would you say that your investigation
9
regarding the infringer in this case identified Jovino
10
Navasca?
11
A. Our investigation to date has made it pretty
12
clear that Joe Navasca is the infringer.
13
Q. So is it AF Holdings' position then that they
14
do not believe that Jovino Navasca is the infringer?
15
A. I believe AF Holdings' position is that Joe
16
Navasca is the infringer.
17
Q. Can you explain to me why someone would be
18
calling from Anti-Piracy Law Group in connection with
19
this case?
20
MR. GIBBS: Calls for speculation.
21
BY MR. RANALLO:
22
Q. Is Anti-Piracy Law Group affiliated with this
23
case in any way?
24
A. I guess I'd have to review the specific
25
documents. Obviously, there's some relationship if --
#:1965
Supp. E.R. 1383
1
let me refer to the declaration -- if Anti-Piracy Law
2
Group is calling Jovino.
3
Q. So this call is in relation to this
4
litigation?
5
A. All I know is that a person identified who
6
they called as Jovino. Now, obviously, there's a
7
Jovino, someone related to this case. But I assume
8
there's several Jovinos out there in the world. I don't
9
know what his reference number is, if that's the
10
reference number he was assigned. There's quite a bit
11
of a record here that's missing to make that
12
determination. If you're going to represent that this
13
is this guy's dad who was called and that's where you
14
got the file from, then I'll take your word as an
15
officer of the court that's the case. I'm sorry. What
16
was the question?
17
Q. Does AF Holdings intend to move forward and
18
modify the complaint to add Mr. Jovino Navasca's name?
19
A. Well, I think that depends on facts and
20
circumstances that could be revealed as the case
21
proceeds forward. I would say, though, that right now
22
it seems like there's an undertaking issue that may
23
prevent any case from going forward.
24
Q. Let's just go ahead and reask that question.
25
Does AF Holdings -- on February 8th, did AF Holdings
#:1966
Supp. E.R. 1384
1
have any intention of moving forward and modifying the
2
compliant to add Jovino Navasca?
3
MR. GIBBS: Asked and answered.
4
THE WITNESS: You know, I guess I just refer
5
back to my prior answers.
6
BY MR. RANALLO:
7
Q. Could you say yes or no please whether as of
8
February 8th, to your knowledge as an AF Holdings'
9
corporate representative here, on February 8th, did AF
10
Holdings intend to move forward and modify the complaint
11
to add Jovino Navasca's name as a defendant?
12
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Compound question and
13
also he's already talked about this. It's already been
14
stated on the record. Asked and answered.
15
MR. PIETZ: You can go ahead and answer it.
16
THE WITNESS: I would have to know what the
17
timeline was with respect to the undertaking issue. Was
18
the undertaking issue -- did Judge Chen enter his
19
undertaking order prior to February 8th in your
20
recollection?
21
BY MR. RANALLO:
22
Q. Yes.
23
A. At that point -- I guess, you know, the bottom
24
line is that, you know, AF Holdings' general approach is
25
to stay flexible with respect to, you know, who to name
#:1967
Supp. E.R. 1385
1
and what to do in a case depending on the facts and
2
circumstance as they occur. For example, in this case
3
there's the undertaking issue, which may make it
4
prohibitively difficult to proceed forward with the case
5
and then that would pretty much resolve the case right
6
there. However, I do believe Judge Chen indicated he
7
would entertain a motion for reconsideration, whether
8
that's something that happens or not, whether that's a
9
plausible result or not, is something that's a little
10
bit beyond my expertise.
11
At this point there's certainly some potential
12
liability for Jovino. If he's the account holder and he
13
was aiding or assisting someone else doing the
14
infringement, maybe there's a claim. I can't say
15
whether or not we were specifically planning to move
16
forward and name Jovino as a defendant in this case, but
17
I know there's certainly a lot of -- his relationship to
18
this case isn't resolved until the case is resolved. I
19
think that is pretty obvious.
20
Q. Is it AF Holdings' standard practice to call
21
individuals who they do not necessarily intend to name
22
in the complaint and attempt to get settlements from
23
them?
24
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Compound. Objection
25
speculation.
#:1968
Supp. E.R. 1386
1
THE WITNESS: I would say that AF Holdings
2
does not have a standard practice in its cases. I know
3
that the popular opinion among some members of the
4
Internet, that this is just a one-size fits all thing,
5
that there's not much nuance in the cases and that it's
6
not something where -- or that it's something that can
7
be reduced to a simple straightforward formula, but I
8
can tell you from the other side of the argument that
9
these cases are -- they're all individual, they're all
10
unique. This idea that it's a standard practice of AF
11
Holdings to do anything in any case is not a very --
12
it's a great oversimplification that loses a lot of the
13
truth.
14
So to answer your question, I would say, no
15
it's not a standard practice of AF Holdings to do the
16
conduct that you described in your question.
17
Q. Based on that answer would you say then, if AF
18
Holdings or its agents are calling and basically
19
saying -- strike that.
20
In light of your last answer, if AF Holdings
21
did indeed call Jovino Navasca on February 8 and say
22
that they intend to move forward and modify the
23
complaint to add his name, is it your position they
24
would have some factual basis for doing so?
25
#:1969
Supp. E.R. 1387
1
Objection. Compound question.
2
THE WITNESS: To clarify your question, would
3
they have the basis for calling him or would they have
4
the basis for moving forward and amending the complaint
5
to add his name.
6
BY MR. RANALLO:
7
Q. Moving forward to modify the complaint to add
8
his name.
9
A. Sure. We would have a factual basis prior to
10
amending some -- amending the complaint to add someone's
11
name to it.
12
Q. If you called him on February 8 and said that
13
you intended to move forward and modify the complaint,
14
is it your position that there is some factual
15
background to indicate that he might be liable for
16
something in this case?
17
A. See, now my concern is you had me answer the
18
question of whether -- if we actually went ahead and
19
amended the complaint would we have a factual basis for
20
doing so. Now, you're changing what you're asking me
21
about this notion of calling him. Which one? Do you
22
want me clarify my answer to your prior question to
23
actually fit the circumstances of what you're trying to
24
ask about now?
25
Q. You previously stated that it's not AF
#:1970
Supp. E.R. 1388
1
Holdings' policy to call individuals and threaten
2
settlement if they don't have a factual basis for
3
believing they're infringer; is that true?
4
MR. GIBBS: No. Objection. Misstates prior
5
testimony.
6
THE WITNESS: Why you don't make that
7
statement in the form of a question and I can answer the
8
question.
9
BY MR. RANALLO:
10
Q. Is it AF Holdings' policy before threatening
11
someone with a copyright lawsuit to have some factual
12
basis to support such a threat?
13
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Mischaracterizes prior
14
testimony.
15
THE WITNESS: It would be AF Holdings' policy
16
to -- it's not going to move forward and amend the
17
complaint and name someone without having a factual
18
basis for doing so. If you want to interpret this as a
19
threat -- I mean, I would have to read the exact text.
20
I mean, I guess you're reading this as a threat. I'm
21
reading him as making a factual statement as, Prior to
22
moving forward and modifying the complaint to add your
23
name, we would want to give you a quick call. So this
24
is -- to interpret this call, this could have been a
25
fact-finding call. You may have characterized it as a
#:1971
Supp. E.R. 1389
1
threat. I would characterize it as a fact-finding call.
2
I would say that we always like to do a fact-finding
3
call to get more facts to determine whether it would be
4
appropriate to name someone in a complaint.
5
6
Q. Did you do a fact-finding call in this case?
7
A. I believe we did do a fact-finding call. I
8
believe we talked about that extensively in terms of the
9
identity -- the people who could have done it. The
10
people in the world who could have done it. I think
11
that we covered that exhaustively today.
12
Q. Well, I know you testified earlier that
13
somebody had called and left the Navasca home a message.
14
My question is whether that constitutes a fact-finding
15
call, calling up and leaving a message without a
16
response. Is that a fact-finding --
17
A. First of all, you are very loose of the facts.
18
My testimony was not that they left a message. My
19
testimony was that they gave a call and I wasn't aware
20
if anyone picked up. Was there a message or not, I
21
don't know.
22
Q. I stand corrected. That's a good point.
23
A. Second, I think I explained pretty
24
exhaustively to you that there are multiple avenues of
25
inquiry. We can reopen this whole thing up if you want.
#:1972
Supp. E.R. 1390
1
There are multiple avenues of inquiry that can go into
2
an investigation. A call is one of the methods that we
3
attempt to use, not every method is going to be
4
successful in every instance. Certainly attempting to
5
reach out and talk to someone is a part of the process.
6
Is it always successful, do people always answer, of
7
course not.
8
Q. But in any event, a fact-finding call means a
9
phone call whether anybody picks up or not?
10
A. If you want to -- if that's what you're
11
personally defining as a fact-finding call, that's your
12
definition. I'm not going to define a fact-finding call
13
in one way or the other.
14
Q. I'm just trying to clarify what you meant when
15
you just said a moment ago that we always like to
16
attempt a fact-finding call. And what I'm trying to
17
clarify is whether that means that -- in your
18
fact-finding call -- you actually try to get a response
19
from somebody or if just calling constitutes as far as
20
AF Holdings is concerned a fact-finding call.
21
MR. GIBBS: Objection. First of all, this is
22
a compound question. But we're talking about -- he just
23
mentioned that he's trying to make a fact-finding call.
24
And then he's saying -- and then you go on to say --
25
MR. RANALLO: This is a speaking objection.
#:1973
Supp. E.R. 1391
1
State your grounds for the objection and we'll move on.
2
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Compound. Objection
3
not a clear-cut question. Objection. Vague and
4
ambiguous, however, you want to put it.
5
THE WITNESS: My answer to your question would
6
be that you're mischaracterizing what I was saying.
7
When I said we always like to attempt a fact-finding
8
call I was simply making the point that in that case to
9
do a fact-finding call is not uncommon and it's -- you
10
know, if it yielded information, then that would be, you
11
know, better grounds for litigation, a better basis,
12
just improving the whole picture.
13
BY MR. PIETZ:
14
Q. Is it AF Holdings' policy to only move forward
15
if the fact-finding call results in obtaining some kind
16
of information?
17
A. I can restate AF Holdings' corporate policy
18
for investigation again and again and again. We may
19
have to do it again and again and again. The corporate
20
policy is that we try many avenues of gaining as much
21
information as possible before moving forward. If we
22
are able to get enough information to move forward, then
23
we move forward. If we're aren't able to move
24
forward -- or if we don't gather enough information to
25
move forward, then we don't move forward.
#:1974
Supp. E.R. 1392
1
And the notion that someone has to always pick
2
up, would not be a very good corporate policy because,
3
frankly, no one would ever pick up and if every
4
infringer who would never pick up would just never be
5
sued because they just decided not to pick up the phone.
6
Q. Mr. Hansmeier, last serious of question from
7
our side as least at this time. Referring back to the
8
deposition notice and the copyright assignment agreement
9
attached thereto as Exhibit A. What compensation was
10
paid to Heartbreaker Digital, LLC in this copyright
11
assignment agreement?
12
A. What topic are you referring on the subjects
13
of examination?
14
Q. It's a number of topics which include
15
distributions of revenues, as well as -- there's
16
something about interests in the litigation, so --
17
A. Can you refer to one specifically so I can
18
refresh my recollection?
19
20
the deposition noticed topics.
21
BY MR. PIETZ:
22
Q. Well, I'll tell you what, let's do this based
23
on your personal knowledge now and then after we have a
24
topic for you, we'll come back to AF Holdings.
25
To the best of your personal knowledge has
#:1975
Supp. E.R. 1393
1
Heartbreaker Digital been paid any compensation in
2
connection with the copyright assignment agreement?
3
A. What I know about this particular assignment
4
it there was consideration and the precise nature of it
5
I'm not clear.
6
Q. When AF Holdings sells cases is any
7
compensation paid to Heartbreaker Digital?
8
A. No. The sole nature of the assignment between
9
Heartbreaker Digital and AF Holdings is set forth here.
10
Q. So AF Holdings has no interest whatsoever in
11
the BitTorrent litigation that AF Holdings brings on
12
copyrights -- strike that.
13
So to ask it again. Heartbreaker Digital, LLC
14
has no pecuniary interest or any other kind of interest
15
in the litigation that AF Holdings brings on the
16
copyrighted issue in this agreement?
17
A. Yes. This agreement and similar assignment
18
agreements are the only agreements between AF Holdings
19
and Heartbreaker Digital, so they don't have, for
20
example, equity in AF Holdings.
21
Q. Settlements are achieved -- there's no portion
22
of the settlement proceeds that would be paid to
23
Heartbreaker Digital?
24
A. That's correct.
25
Q. So why is it that Heartbreaker Digital entered
#:1976
Supp. E.R. 1394
1
into this agreement then? What's the consideration?
2
MR. GIBBS: Objection. This is same theme
3
we've been going over for the last --
4
THE WITNESS: You can ask this question.
5
MR. GIBBS: -- for the last seven hours.
6
THE WITNESS: You can ask this question a
7
dozen times. The precise nature of the consideration
8
that Heartbreaker Digital receives is not a noticed
9
topic. I do note that the -- there may have been a
10
document request. I don't know.
11
MR. GIBBS: That's not an issue.
12
13
Q. Let me ask you this. You previously stated
14
that AF Holdings' BitTorrent revenue was used for
15
lawsuits going forward or past, I guess, costs for past
16
lawsuits; is that correct?
17
MR. GIBBS: Objection. Mischaracterizes
18
former testimony.
19
THE WITNESS: Generally speaking, yes.
20
BY MR. RANALLO:
21
Q. Does any of AF Holdings' BitTorrent litigation
22
revenue go towards securing future assignments or
23
additional assignments?
24
25
THE WITNESS: I guess I can't speculate what
#:1977
Supp. E.R. 1395
1
will be done with the proceeds of the AF Holdings'
2
BitTorrent revenue.
3
BY MR. RANALLO:
4
Q. Were any of the AF Holdings' BitTorrent
5
revenues from the initial round of suits prior to the
6
assignment in this case, were any of those revenues used
7
to acquire the assignment in this case?
8
9
Q. Are you aware whether money was paid for the
10
assignment in this case?
11
A. You can ask me the --
12
13
14
Q. I'm going jump in here and note for the record
15
that Topic No. 1 on the deposition notice is,
16
Circumstances surrounding the execution of the
17
assignment attached hereto as Exhibit A and Topic No. 12
18
is, Financial, in all caps, and contractual
19
relationships between AF Holdings and Heartbreaker. So
20
my question to you is what was the consideration
21
underlying the copyright assignment agreement attached
22
to the Exhibit A to the complaint?
23
24
the noticed topics in the deposition subpoena.
25
THE WITNESS: I can tell you that the sole
#:1978
Supp. E.R. 1396
1
financial contractual relationship between AF Holdings
2
and Heartbreaker Productions -- which isn't even the --
3
I guess I should modify any answers regarding
4
Heartbreaker this whole time if it relates to -- because
5
that's not even the entity -- that's the assignor on
6
this thing.
7
BY MR. PIETZ:
8
Q. This agreement contains the sole -- if it's
9
not the sole agreement as to the financial arrangement
10
between AF Holdings and Heartbreaker, point me to the
11
part of the agreement that deals with the financial
12
relationship. Because I don't see a dollar figure or
13
any indication anywhere in this agreement that there's
14
any kind of consideration paid. And I think you
15
testified earlier that some kind of consideration was
16
indeed paid; is that correct?
17
18
THE WITNESS: What is your question?
19
BY MR. PIETZ:
20
Q. What money was Heartbreaker paid in connection
21
with the copyright assignment agreement?
22
MR. GIBBS: Asked and answered. Objection.
23
THE WITNESS: I think this is the sixth time
24
you've asked the exact same question and I will refer
25
you again -- and again I will note for the record that
#:1979
Supp. E.R. 1397
1
your noticed topic doesn't even have the correct entity
2
identified on the assignment agreement. The entity
3
identified in the noticed topics is Heartbreaker
4
Productions. The entity identified in the assignment
5
agreement is Heartbreaker Digital, LLC.
6
BY MR. PIETZ:
7
Q. Mr. Hansmeier, did that confuse such that you
8
spent time preparing to answer the question for
9
Heartbreaker Productions?
10
A. Yes, I find it very confusing that
11
Heartbreaker Productions is misidentified and it's
12
extremely frustrating to me that I would spend time
13
preparing on a variety Of Heartbreaker entities and then
14
find out that not even the correct one is identified in
15
the notice of deposition. It's very frustrating and
16
very confusing.
17
Q. Mr. Hansmeier, I can sympathize with your
18
frustration. But I'm going to keep asking the question
19
until I get what I deem is an appropriate answer from a
20
30(b)(6) --
21
MR. GIBBS: No. It doesn't work like that.
22
You don't keep asking a question until you get the
23
answer that you want.
24
MR. PIETZ: Well, I'm going to keep asking the
25
question different ways until --
#:1980
Supp. E.R. 1398
1
MR. GIBBS: You can do whatever you want.
2
MR. PIETZ: -- I get an appropriate answer.
3
BY MR. PIETZ:
4
Q. You said earlier that the sole financial and
5
other arrangement between Heartbreaker and AF Holdings
6
was memorialized in this agreement. There's nothing
7
financial about this agreement. What's the financial
8
relationship?
9
MR. GIBBS: Again. Objection. Asked and
10
answered about 20 times now.
11
THE WITNESS: I think --
12
MR. GIBBS: You're badgering him at this
13
point.
14
THE WITNESS: I will state for the record that
15
I'm beginning to feel badgered. I feel like I've
16
answered your question I want to say about seven or
17
eight times now. And you're really not asking it in a
18
different way. You're just asking the same question
19
over and over again, for the ninth time now, although
20
the record will reflect how many times I've actually
21
been asked this.
22
The agreement stands on its own. It says for
23
good and valuable consideration the receipts and
24
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged. The party
25
agrees as follows. And I'm also testifying that this is
#:1981
Supp. E.R. 1399
1
the sole -- this and the other assignment agreement
2
relating to another work -- is the sole -- and I'm
3
giving you the benefit of the doubt here that you
4
actually meant to put the correct entity here in the
5
30(b)(6) deposition notice -- is the sole financial and
6
contractual relationship between AF Holdings and
7
Heartbreaker Productions Inc.
8
MR. GIBBS: Hold on a second. I think also
9
we're approaching the seven-hour mark on this
10
deposition.
11
MR. PIETZ: Well, in any event we'll be done
12
shortly. However --
13
MR. GIBBS: I think that's what you said about
14
an hour ago.
15
MR. PIETZ: Well, in any event I was hoping to
16
get a straight answer on this question.
17
MR. GIBBS: He just gave you a bunch of
18
answers --
19
MR. PIETZ: Here's the bottom line --
20
MR. GIBBS: It's just not the answer you want
21
and therefore you're not accepting it.
22
MR. PIETZ: Here's the bottom line and I don't
23
want to get into a long colloquy on this. I view that
24
the money --
25
MR. GIBBS: We don't need to hear your views.
#:1982
Supp. E.R. 1400
1
MR. PIETZ: -- the money that AF Holdings paid
2
to Heartbreaker as a material issue and I'm not getting
3
a straight answer. And if your position is that you're
4
not answering the question about the financial
5
relationship between those two entities because it's not
6
properly noticed, then I want you to say that right now.
7
Alternatively, if your position is that there is no
8
relationship other than what's on this agreement and
9
what that means is that no money was paid because it's
10
not memorialized in this agreement, then AF Holdings
11
needs to stand on that answer.
12
MR. GIBBS: Mischaracterization of what's in
13
the assignment agreement, period. Objection.
14
MR. PIETZ: Here's the bottom line. You can
15
stand on your objection that it's not correctly noticed
16
and not answer is the question or you can say that this
17
is the whole agreement and that there's no financial
18
relationship other than what's in this agreement.
19
MR. GIBBS: You're forcing him into one or two
20
situations and he's not going to be forced into one or
21
two situations.
22
MR. PIETZ: This my last opportunity for a
23
straight answer on the question and this will be it and
24
if the answer not right, I'm going to suspend this
25
deposition and we're going to get the court involved.
#:1983
Supp. E.R. 1401
1
Last chance. All right. Last chance.
2
MR. GIBBS: You have about two minutes here
3
left in this deposition by the way, just FYI.
4
MR. PIETZ: In any event it's one of the more
5
important questions, so --
6
MR. GIBBS: You're badgering him at this
7
point.
8
BY MR. PIETZ:
9
Q. Last chance. What's the financial
10
relationship between AF Holdings and Heartbreaker?
11
A. For the last time and I will state for the
12
record that I have felt very badgered here and I feel
13
very flustered. I would respectively object to --
14
MR. GIBBS: Mr. Ranallo, smiling about this
15
whole thing --
16
THE WITNESS: And Mr. Ranallo -- I would note
17
for the record that Mr. Ranallo just sneered and grinned
18
and he's continuing to sneer and grin and I believe he's
19
behaved very inappropriately and I believe Mr. Pietz --
20
although in this particular area has been deeply
21
disconcerting and distressing for my testimony.
22
I will say again that this is -- this
23
agreement constitutes the financial and contractual
24
relationship between AF Holdings and Heartbreaker
25
Digital, LLC with respect to this assignment.
#:1984
Supp. E.R. 1402
1
BY MR. PIETZ:
2
Q. I'm going to note for the record one final
3
time that this agreement does not mention any money
4
being paid and ask this final question. Was there any.
5
MR. GIBBS: He already -- he's been asked this
6
question about 20 times. He answered it already.
7
BY MR. PIETZ:
8
Q. He hasn't answer the simple question. Money
9
paid, yes or no?
10
A. This --
11
MR. GIBBS: He answered the question.
12
THE WITNESS: To the extent --
13
MR. GIBBS: He doesn't have to be forced into
14
a yes or no question. He can explain his answer.
15
THE WITNESS: I'm really surprised that this
16
is so difficult of a answer for you to accept. This is
17
the deal right here. This the full deal, the whole
18
deal. This is the financial and contractual
19
relationship between AF Holdings and Heartbreaker, LLC
20
with respect to the assignment. That answer could not
21
be more clear and more straightforward. And the simple
22
fact that you don't like the answer, I don't know what
23
to do about it.
24
MR. GIBBS: We started this deposition at
25
10:00 o'clock in the morning. It is 6:00 p.m. We took
#:1985
Supp. E.R. 1403
1
less than an hour-long lunch. We've gone basically over
2
seven hours at this point. So how --
3
MR. PIETZ: Let's go off the record and
4
perhaps we can work out a resolution here.
5
6
7
8
Q. Back on the record. Does AF Holdings maintain
9
financial records of payments made for assignment
10
agreements?
11
A. It maintains financial records.
12
MR. GIBBS: Vague and ambiguous. Objection.
13
THE WITNESS: Sure. To the extent a payment
14
was made it would keep the record.
15
BY MR. RANALLO:
16
Q. So if any payment was made for the
17
assignment -- as the good and valuable consideration
18
recited in the assignment -- AF Holdings would have a
19
record of that?
20
A. Yes.
21
22
Q. Would those records be produced in a document
23
production three days from now?
24
MR. GIBBS: First of all, objection. Legal
25
conclusion. I think we can talk about that later. But
#:1986
Supp. E.R. 1404
1
there's an objection based on the fact that I was -- I
2
took the deposition. We've already been released from
3
that obligation under this deposition. That was not a
4
separate document request, just to let you know.
5
MR. PIETZ: I'm just going to note for the
6
record that if the problem here is that the deponent
7
doesn't know the financial relationship and the deponent
8
is willing to supplement that information with the
9
document disclosure that comes in three days, the
10
defendants are amenable to that.
11
MR. GIBBS: Hold on a second. He just said he
12
can do that with an interrogatory. What is wrong with
13
that?
14
MR. PIETZ: Thirty days is what's wrong with
15
it. We noticed a deposition on the topic today --
16
MR. GIBBS: No, you didn't. The document
17
request was not a proper document request in and of
18
itself. It was not a topic.
19
MR. PIETZ: I'm proposing one of two solutions
20
here. If the deponent -- rather if AF Holdings is
21
willing to explain the financial arrangement with the
22
document request three days from now, that's fine.
23
We'll agree to wind this deposition down today. If on
24
the other hand, AF Holdings is standing on its objection
25
that disclosing the financial arrangement is not a
#:1987
Supp. E.R. 1405
1
proper subject because it wasn't properly noticed today,
2
then I'm suspending the deposition and we're going to
3
get the court involved about whether AF Holdings should
4
be compelled to answer that question. It's one of the
5
two options and it's your choice.
6
MR. GIBBS: It's not one of the two options.
7
MR. PIETZ: So which is it? I'm asking
8
counsel, I'm asking AF Holdings and I'll ask my
9
co-counsel if he concurs --
10
MR. GIBBS: You have no more minutes left in
11
this deposition, so you're basically holding us captive
12
here until you get this answer from him. This is
13
ridiculous.
14
MR. PIETZ: That's not true.
15
THE WITNESS: Could we go off the record?
16
MR. PIETZ: Sure.
17
18
19
MR. PIETZ: We're back on the record. I think
20
we had a proposal on the issue that had held us up here
21
that's amenable to both sides.
22
Mr. Hansmeier, why don't you outline it as you
23
saw it?
24
THE WITNESS: I'll have my attorney outline
25
it.
#:1988
Supp. E.R. 1406
1
MR. GIBBS: When you get us an interrogatory
2
as to this issue of whether money was paid to
3
Heartbreaker, we'll have two weeks to answer that
4
interrogatory. That's the stipulation.
5
MR. PIETZ: And you're agreeing to doing some
6
kind of substantive response about the money, it's just
7
not going to be objections?
8
MR. GIBBS: What do you consider a substantive
9
response?
10
MR. PIETZ: X dollars were paid is a
11
substantive response to the question that we're going to
12
be asking.
13
MR. GIBBS: If we can give you a substantive
14
response, we will give you that substantive response.
15
MR. PIETZ: Fair enough. So stipulated. At
16
least as far as we're concerned.
17
Brett, I note that you were raising issues
18
about time. Would you like to do redirect? I'm
19
certainly amenable to powering through.
20
MR. GIBBS: Hold on a second. If I don't do
21
redirect, are you opening up the floor for me to do
22
redirect or not? If I do redirect, you can go back and
23
cross-examine him again, but if I don't do it, you're
24
shut down from that. Want do you want to do at this
25
point?
#:1989
Supp. E.R. 1407
1
MR. PIETZ: I'm fine ending the deposition
2
right now. It's really your choice in what you would
3
like to do.
4
MR. RANALLO: Good with me.
5
MR. GIBBS: I just want to make sure that I
6
have the right to review this within 30 days according
7
the rules.
8
MR. RANALLO: And if I could also go ahead on
9
the record and serve Mr. Hansmeier with a copy of the
10
complaint, again, summons and complaint against AF
11
Holdings by Alan Cooper.
12
THE WITNESS: On the record I would like to
13
note that I'm not authorized to accept service on behalf
14
of any of these entities and that Attorney Ranallo has
15
been notified of this fact and he should notify Attorney
16
Godfread on whose behalf he is serving this of this fact
17
and if he does not do so we will make a motion -- I
18
assume the plaintiffs in that case will make a motion
19
to -- make Mr. Ranallo's fraud {sic} if goes to that --
20
notice the court.
21
MR. PIETZ: Can we do a stipulation of
22
relieving the court reporter of her duties.
23
MR. GIBBS: That's fine.
24
THE REPORTER: Would you like to order?
25
MR. PIETZ: The defendant will take one
#:1990
Supp. E.R. 1408
1
electronic copy and paper.
2
MR. GIBBS: We will as well. Just electronic.
3
(Whereupon, the deposition was
4
adjourned at 6:15 p.m.)
5
6
I declare under penalty of perjury that the
7
foregoing is true and correct. Subscribed at
8
________________, California, this _______ day of
9
___________, 2013.
10
11
12
13
__________________________
14
PAUL HANSMEIER
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
#:1991
Supp. E.R. 1409
1
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2
3
I, ANGIE M. MATERAZZI, a Certified Shorthand
4
Reporter, hereby certify that the witness in the
5
foregoing deposition was by me duly sworn to tell the
6
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the
7
within-entitled cause;
8
That said deposition was taken down in
9
shorthand by me, a disinterested person, at the time and
10
place therein stated, and that the testimony of the said
11
witness was thereafter reduced to typewriting, by
12
computer, under my direction and supervision;
13
I further certify that I am not of counsel or
14
attorney for either or any of the parties to the said
15
deposition, nor in any way interested in the events of
16
this cause, and that I am not related to any of the
17
parties hereto.
18
19
20
DATED: _______________________
21
22
_______________________
23
ANGIE M. MATERAZZI
CSR 13116
24
25
#:1992
Supp. E.R. 1410

EXHIBIT B
B
EXHIBIT B
#:1593
Supp. E.R. 1411
#:1594
Supp. E.R. 1412
#:1595
Supp. E.R. 1413
#:1596
Supp. E.R. 1414
#:1597
Supp. E.R. 1415
#:1598
Supp. E.R. 1416
#:1599
Supp. E.R. 1417
#:1600
Supp. E.R. 1418
#:1601
Supp. E.R. 1419
#:1602
Supp. E.R. 1420
#:1603
Supp. E.R. 1421
#:1604
Supp. E.R. 1422
#:1605
Supp. E.R. 1423
#:1606
Supp. E.R. 1424
#:1607
Supp. E.R. 1425
#:1608
Supp. E.R. 1426
#:1609
Supp. E.R. 1427
#:1610
Supp. E.R. 1428
#:1611
Supp. E.R. 1429
#:1612
Supp. E.R. 1430
#:1613
Supp. E.R. 1431
#:1614
Supp. E.R. 1432
#:1615
Supp. E.R. 1433
#:1616
Supp. E.R. 1434
#:1617
Supp. E.R. 1435
#:1618
Supp. E.R. 1436
#:1619
Supp. E.R. 1437
#:1620
Supp. E.R. 1438
#:1621
Supp. E.R. 1439
#:1622
Supp. E.R. 1440
#:1623
Supp. E.R. 1441
#:1624
Supp. E.R. 1442
#:1625
Supp. E.R. 1443
#:1626
Supp. E.R. 1444
#:1627
Supp. E.R. 1445
#:1628
Supp. E.R. 1446
#:1629
Supp. E.R. 1447
#:1630
Supp. E.R. 1448
#:1631
Supp. E.R. 1449
#:1632
Supp. E.R. 1450
#:1633
Supp. E.R. 1451
#:1634
Supp. E.R. 1452
#:1635
Supp. E.R. 1453
#:1636
Supp. E.R. 1454
#:1637
Supp. E.R. 1455
#:1638
Supp. E.R. 1456
#:1639
Supp. E.R. 1457
#:1640
Supp. E.R. 1458
#:1641
Supp. E.R. 1459
#:1642
Supp. E.R. 1460
#:1643
Supp. E.R. 1461
#:1644
Supp. E.R. 1462
#:1645
Supp. E.R. 1463
#:1646
Supp. E.R. 1464
#:1647
Supp. E.R. 1465
#:1648
Supp. E.R. 1466
#:1649
Supp. E.R. 1467
#:1650
Supp. E.R. 1468
#:1651
Supp. E.R. 1469
#:1652
Supp. E.R. 1470
#:1653
Supp. E.R. 1471
#:1654
Supp. E.R. 1472
#:1655
Supp. E.R. 1473
C a s e 2 : 1 2 - c v - 0 8 3 3 3 - O D W - J C D o c u m e n t 6 9 - 2 F i l e d 0 3 / 0 6 / 1 3 P a g e 6 4 o f 1 0 4 P a g e I D
# : 1 6 5 6
Supp. E.R. 1474
C a s e 2 : 1 2 - c v - 0 8 3 3 3 - O D W - J C D o c u m e n t 6 9 - 2 F i l e d 0 3 / 0 6 / 1 3 P a g e 7 1 o f 1 0 4 P a g e I D
# : 1 6 6 3
Supp. E.R. 1475
C a s e 2 : 1 2 - c v - 0 8 3 3 3 - O D W - J C D o c u m e n t 6 9 - 2 F i l e d 0 3 / 0 6 / 1 3 P a g e 1 0 1 o f 1 0 4 P a g e I D
# : 1 6 9 3
Supp. E.R. 1476
# : 1 6 9 4
Supp. E.R. 1477
# : 1 6 9 5
Supp. E.R. 1478
# : 1 6 9 6
Supp. E.R. 1479

Lead Appeal No. 13-55859

Consolidated Case Nos.:
13-55880; 13-55881; 13-55882; 13-55883; 13-55884; 13-56028

********************************************************************
When All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing Supplemental Excerpts of
Record (Volumes I to V) with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system on

January 17, 2014.

I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service
will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.

/s/ Morgan E. Pietz

Morgan E. Pietz
Attorney for Defendant-Appellee,
Putative John Doe

********************************************************************

Wright Case Nutshell

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wright Case Nutshell

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

i

No. 13-55859 (Lead Appeal)

4 addresses were found

You might also like