KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, SUITE 600 SAN DiEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

Case 2:1.2-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Pagei1of3/7 Page ID #:2850

Heather L. Rosing, Bar No. 183986 David M. Majchrzak, Bar No. 220860 Philip W. Vineyard, Bar No. 233628 KLINEDINST PC

501 West Broadway, Suite 600

San Diego, California 92101

(619) 239-813 1/FAX (619) 238-8707 hrosing@klinedinstlaw.com klinedinstlaw.com

Sie ae ar for

PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN

HEMEL, and PRENDA LAW, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

\O OO ~] oO on ks oS) we) — = © QD brent N 6

10 1] | INGENUITY 13 LLC, Case No. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW(JCx) 12 Plaintiff, PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN 13 HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S V. OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 14 JOHN DOE, Judge: Hon. Otis D. Wright, I 15 Magistrate Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Defendant. Chooljian 16 Courtroom: 11 Date: April 2, 2013 LF Time: 10:00 A.M. 18 Complaint Filed: September 27, 2012 Trial Date: None set 19 20 2] Paul Duffy, Angela Van Den Hemel, and Prenda Law, Inc. object to the

22 || following evidence presented by Morgan Pietz, purportedly on behalf of Defendant

23 || John Doe, in connection with order to show cause proceedings before this court:

24 A. Declaration of Morgan Pietz (ECF no. 40-1), Filed January 14, 2013

2 (1)Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1),

26 page 2, paragraph 4, in its entirety.

pa This evidence is objected to on the ground that it lacks foundation. (Pietz 28 has not established how he has_personal knowledge regarding his client’s

PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, SuITE 600 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 2o0f3/7 Page ID #:2851

l receipt of letters, internet payments, or internet usage, or of Prenda’s 2 litigation intentions.) FED. R. EVID. 602. 3 (2) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), za pages 2-3, paragraph 5, in its entirety. 5 This evidence is objected to on the ground that it lacks foundation. (Pietz 6 has not established how he has personal knowledge regarding another 7 law firm’s history.) FED. R. EVID. 602. This evidence also contains 8 inadmissible hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 801(c). 9 (3) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 10 page 3, paragraph 6, in its entirety. 1] This evidence is objected to on the ground that it lacks foundation. (Pietz IZ has not established how he has personal knowledge regarding another 13 law firm’s history and procedures.) FED. R. EVID. 602. 14 (4) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 15 pages 3, paragraph 7, in its entirety. 16 This evidence is objected to on the ground that it lacks foundation. (Pietz 17 has not established how he has personal knowledge regarding another 18 law firm’s history.) FED. R. EVID. 602. This evidence also contains 19 inadmissible hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 801(c). 20 (5)Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 21 page 4, paragraph 8, in its entirety. ZZ This evidence is objected to on the ground that it lacks foundation. (Pietz 23 has not established how he has personal knowledge regarding another 24 law firm’s history and procedures.) FED. R. EVID. 602. Zo (6) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 26 page 4, paragraph 9, “Since the early days of Steele Hansmeier, the Oe individuals noted above have maintained the same website, located at 28 wefightpiracy.com.”

se PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, SuITE 600

Case 2:1]2-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 3o0f37 Page ID #:2852

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

l This evidence is objected to on the ground that it lacks foundation. (Pietz 2 has not established how he has personal knowledge regarding another 3 law firm’s history and procedures.) FED. R. EVID. 602. This evidence 1s 4 also irrelevant. (None of the order to show cause proceedings are related 5 to any attorney’s website.) FED. R. EVID. 401. 6 (7) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 7 page 4, paragraph 10, “I am informed and believe that in November of 8 2011, Steele Hansmeier, PLLC gave way to ‘Prenda Law, Inc.’ an entity 9 organized under the laws of the State of Illinois.” 10 This evidence is objected to on the ground that it lacks foundation. (Pietz 1] has not established how he has personal knowledge regarding another 12 law firm’s history and procedures.) FED. R. EVID. 602. 13 (8) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 14 pages 4-5, paragraph 11, in its entirety. 15 This evidence is objected to on the ground that it lacks foundation. (Pietz 16 has not established how he has personal knowledge regarding Prenda’s 17 litigation and client histories.) FED. R. EVID. 602. 18 (9) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 19 pages 5-6, paragraph 12, in its entirety. 20 This evidence is objected to on the ground that it lacks foundation. (Pietz 21 has not established how he has personal knowledge regarding another Ze law firm’s history and procedures.) Fed. R. Evid. 602 ZS (10) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 24 page 6, paragraph 13, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 25 admissible evidence his personal knowledge regarding the purported pro 26 hac vice application or Mr. Steele’s purported status as “of counsel” to a, Prenda Law in a matter filed in Washington D.C. Exhibit D has not been 28 sufficiently authenticated to prove the content of the record and therefore

os PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, Surte 600 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

Case 2:1/2-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 4of37 Page ID #:2853

1 | is inadmissible hearsay for purposes of relying on the document’s content 2 to prove the matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 602, 802, 902, 1005. 3 (11) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 4 page 6, paragraph 14, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 5 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in 6 paragraph14 and further engages in inappropriate testimony and 7 argument, speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions, all based solely 8 on inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit E is hearsay and not properly 9 authenticated, Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 901. 10 (12) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 11 page 6, paragraph 15, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through IZ admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in 13 paragraph15 and further engages in inappropriate testimony and 14 argument, speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions. Exhibit E, IS | upon which Pietz declares, is hearsay and not properly authenticated. 16 Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 901. 17 ~ (13) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 18 pages 6-7, paragraph 16, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 19 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in 20 paragraph 16 and further engages in inappropriate testimony and 2] argument, speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions, all supported 22 solely on the hearsay statements of his alleged clients. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 23 602, 701, 801, 802, 805. 24 (14) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 25 page 7, paragraph 17, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 26 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in os7 paragraph17 and further engages in inappropriate testimony and 28 argument, speculative lay i assay and legal conclusions, all supported

PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, SurlTe 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page5of3/7 Page ID #:2854

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

l solely on the hearsay and double hearsay statements of his alleged clients

Z and the bloggers of the “DieTrollDie” website. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602,

3 701, 801, 802, 805.

4 (15) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1),

5 page 7, paragraph 18, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through

6 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in

7 paragraph18 and further engages in inappropriate testimony and

8 argument, speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions, all supported

9 solely on inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802. 10 (16) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 1] page 7-8, paragraph 19, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 12 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in 13 paragraph19 and further engages in inappropriate testimony and 14 argument, speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions, all supported 15 solely by hearsay. Exhibit F has not been sufficiently authenticated to 16 prove the content of the public record and therefore is inadmissible 17 hearsay for purposes of relying on the document’s content to prove the 18 matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701,801, 802, 901, 902, 1005. 19 (17) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 20 page 8, paragraph 20, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 21 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in 22 paragraph 20 and further engages in inappropriate testimony and 25 argument, speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions, all supported 24 solely on inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 25 1005. 26 (18) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), oa pages 8-9, paragraph 21, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 28 admissible evidence his ‘saawer knowledge of the matters asserted in

PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, SuITE 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 6of37 Page ID #:2855

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

l paragraph 21 and further engages in inappropriate testimony and 2 argument, speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions, all supported 3 solely on inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802. 4 (19) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 5 pages 9-10, paragraph 22, in its entirety. Pietz has not established 6 through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters i asserted in paragraph 22 and further engages in inappropriate testimony 8 and argument, speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions, all 9 supported solely on inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 10 801, 802, 1005. 1] (20) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 12 page 10, paragraph 23, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 13 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in 14 paragraph 23 and further engages in inappropriate testimony and 1S argument, speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions, all supported 16 solely on inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802. l7 (21) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 18 page 10, paragraph 24, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 19 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in 20 paragraph 24 and further engages in inappropriate testimony and 21 argument, speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions, all supported 22 | solely on inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit G constitutes inadmissible 23 hearsay and double hearsay and contains inappropriate argument, 24 speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 25 701, 801, 802, 805. 26 (22) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 27 page 11, paragraph 25, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 28 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in

-6- PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West BRoADWay, Sutte 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 7 of37 Page ID #:2856

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

1 paragraph 25 and further engages in inappropriate testimony and a argument, speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions, all supported 3 solely on inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802. 4 (23) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed J anuary 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 5 pages 11-12, paragraph 26, in its entirety. Pietz has not established 6 through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters fi asserted in paragraph 26 and further engages in inappropriate testimony 8 and argument, speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions, all 9 supported solely on inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 10 801, 802, 901, 1005. 1] (24) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), [2 pages 12-13, paragraph 27, in its entirety. Pietz has not established 13 through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters 14 asserted in paragraph 27 and further engages in inappropriate testimony 15 and argument, speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions, all 16 supported solely on inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, Ly 801, 802, 901, 1005. 18 (25) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 19 page 13, paragraph 28, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 20 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in 21 paragraph 28 and further engages in inappropriate testimony and p10) argument, speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions, all supported 23 solely on inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit H has not been sufficiently 24 authenticated to prove the content of the public record and therefore 1s 25 inadmissible hearsay for purposes of relying on the document’s content 26 to prove the matters asserted. Exhibit I constitutes inadmissible hearsay. oie Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 901, 1005. 28 (26) Declaration of Morgan sa filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1),

PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West BRoapway, SurTte 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 8of37 Page ID #:2857

ed

pages 13-14, paragraph 29, in its entirety. Pietz has not established

SAN DieEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

Z through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters 3 asserted in paragraph 29 and further engages in inappropriate testimony 4 and argument, speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions, all 5 supported solely on inadmissible hearsay. Exhibits J and K have not 6 been properly authenticated , lack foundation, and contain and constitute 7 inadmissible hearsay and double hearsay. Exhibit K has not been 8 sufficiently authenticated to prove the content of the public record and 9 therefore is inadmissible hearsay for purposes of relying on the 10 document’s content to prove the matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 1] 602, 701, 801, 802, 805, 901, 902, 1005. 12 (27) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 13 page 14, paragraph 30, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 14 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in 15 paragraph 30 and further engages in inappropriate testimony and 16 argument, and speculative lay opinion, all supported solely on bey inadmissible hearsay. Exhibits J and K have not been properly 18 authenticated , lack foundation, and contain and constitute inadmissible 19 hearsay and double hearsay. Exhibit K has not been sufficiently 20 authenticated to prove the content of the public record and therefore is 21 inadmissible hearsay for purposes of relying on the document’s content 27 to prove the matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 805, 23 901, 902, 1005. 24 (28) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 2 page 14, paragraph 31, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 26 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in pa paragraph 31 and further engages in inappropriate testimony and 28 argument, and speculative lay opinion, all supported solely on

-8- PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broabway, SUITE 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 9of37 Page ID #:2858

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

l inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit J has not been properly authenticated , 2 lacks foundation, and contains and constitutes inadmissible hearsay and 3 double hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 805, 901. 4 (29) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), > page 14, paragraph 32, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 6 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in 7 paragraph 32 and further engages in inappropriate testimony and 8 argument, and speculative lay opinion, all supported solely on 9 inadmissible hearsay. Exhibits J has not been properly authenticated , 10 lacks foundation, and contains and constitutes inadmissible hearsay and 11 double hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 805, 901. 12 (30) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 13 page 14, paragraph 33, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 14 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in 15 paragraph 33 and further engages in inappropriate testimony and 16 argument, and speculative lay opinion, all supported solely on 17 inadmissible hearsay. Exhibits J has not been properly authenticated , 18 lacks foundation, and contains and constitutes inadmissible hearsay and 19 double hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 805, 901. 20 (31) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 21 page 14, paragraph 34, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 22 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in Zo paragraph 34 and further engages in inappropriate testimony and 24 argument, and speculative lay opinion, all supported solely on ZS inadmissible hearsay. Exhibits J has not been properly authenticated , 26 lacks foundation, and contains and constitutes inadmissible hearsay and 27 double hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 805, 901. 28 _ (32) Declaration of Morgan se January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1),

PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, Suite 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 10of37 Page ID #:2859

| page 15, paragraph 35, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 2 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in 3 paragraph 35 and further engages in inappropriate testimony and 4 argument, speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions, all supported 5 solely on inadmissible hearsay. Pietz has AGI established himself as an 6 expert on handwriting and therefore engages in inappropriate expert 7 testimony on the issue of matching handwriting samples. Exhibit K has 8 not been properly authenticated , lacks foundation, and contains and 9 constitutes inadmissible hearsay and double hearsay. Exhibit K has not So 10 been sufficiently authenticated to prove the content of the public record 11 and therefore is inadmissible hearsay for purposes of relying on the : 12 document’s content to prove the matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, . 602, 701, 801, 802, 805, 901, 902, 1005. Z 14 (33) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), é 15 pages 15-16, paragraph 36, in its entirety. Pietz has not established 16 through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters 17 asserted in paragraph 36 and further engages in inappropriate testimony 18 and argument, speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions, all 19 supported solely on inadmissible hearsay. Pietz has not established 20 himself as an expert on handwriting and therefore engages in ZA inappropriate expert testimony on the issue of matching handwriting 22 samples. Exhibit L has not been properly authenticated , lacks 23 foundation, and contains and constitutes inadmissible hearsay and double 24 hearsay. Exhibit L has not been sufficiently authenticated to prove the 2 content of the public record and therefore is inadmissible hearsay for 26 purposes of relying on the document’s content to prove the matters Ze asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 702, 801, 802, 805, 901, 902, 28 1005.

-10- PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 WEsT BRoADWay, SuITE 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 11of37 Page ID #:2860

| meomoan!

(34) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1),

2 page 16, paragraph 37, lines 7-8 (“by Minnesota Alan Cooper’s 3 attorney”). Pietz has not established through admissible evidence his 4 personal knowledge of the matters asserted in paragraph 37, as they > pertain to Cooper’s attorney, and further engages in inappropriate 6 argument and speculative lay opinion. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 7 802. 8 (35) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 9 page 16, paragraph 38, line 13 (“Both Mr. Cooper’s attorney...”). Pietz 2 10 has not established through admissible evidence his personal knowledge : 1] of the matters asserted in paragraph 38, as they pertain to Cooper’s : 12 attorney. Pietz further engages in inappropriate argument and legal : lke: conclusions in line 14 (“the original notarized Alan Cooper verification : 14 he was obligated to maintain...”). Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802. A 15 (36) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 16 pages 16-17, paragraph 39. Pietz has not established through admissible 17 evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in paragraph 39 18 and engages in inappropriate testimony, argument, and speculative lay 19 opinion, all supported solely by inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit N has not 20 been properly authenticated , lacks foundation, and contains and 21 constitutes inadmissible hearsay and double hearsay. Exhibit N has not ZZ been sufficiently authenticated to prove the content of the public record 23 and therefore is inadmissible hearsay for purposes of relying on the 24 document’s content to prove the matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, Zo 602, 701, 801, 802, 805, 901, 902, 1005. 26 (37) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 27 page 17, paragraph 40. Pietz has not established through admissible 28 evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in paragraph 40

wht « PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 12 o0f37 Page ID #:2861

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, SUITE 600 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

Oo nN DO A BP WW NO ee

ON DA NW Bh WwW HO KF |

and engages in inappropriate testimony, argument, speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions, all supported solely by inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit N has not been properly authenticated , lacks foundation, and contains and constitutes inadmissible hearsay and double hearsay. Exhibit N has not been sufficiently authenticated to prove the content of the public record and therefore is inadmissible hearsay for purposes of relying on the document’s content to prove the matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 805, 901, 902, 1005.

(38) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), pages 17-18, paragraph 41. Pietz has not established through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted 1n paragraph 41 and engages in Inappropriate testimony, argument, speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions, all supported solely by inadmissible hearsay. Exhibits J, K, L, and N have not been properly authenticated , lack foundation, and contain and constitute inadmissible hearsay and double hearsay. Exhibits K, L, and N have not been sufficiently authenticated to prove the content of the public record and therefore constitute inadmissible hearsay for purposes of relying on the documents’ content to prove the matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 805, 901, 902, 1005S.

(39) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), page 18, paragraph 43. Pietz has not established through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in paragraph 43 and engages in inappropriate testimony, argument, speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions, all supported solely by inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit N has not been properly authenticated , lacks foundation, and contains and constitutes inadmissible hearsay and double hearsay. Exhibit N has not ae Searemeons authenticated to prove the

PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, SurTe 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 13 0f 37 Page ID #:2862

l content of the public record and therefore is inadmissible hearsay for 2 purposes of relying on the document’s content to prove the matters 3 asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 805, 901, 902, 1005. 4 (40) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 5 page 18, paragraph 44. Pietz has not established through admissible 6 evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in paragraph 44 7 and engages in inappropriate testimony, argument, speculative lay 8 opinion, and legal conclusions, all supported solely by inadmissible 9 hearsay. Exhibit B has not been properly authenticated , lacks So 10 foundation, and contains and constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit B : 1] has not been sufficiently authenticated to prove the content of the public : 12 record and therefore is inadmissible hearsay for purposes of relying on : 13 the document’s content to prove the matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, : 14 602, 701, 801, 802, 901, 902, 1005. B15 (41) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 16 page 18, paragraph 45. Pietz has not established through admissible 17 evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in paragraph 45 18 and engages in Inappropriate testimony, argument, speculative lay 19 opinion, and legal conclusions, all supported solely by inadmissible 20 hearsay. Exhibit O has not been properly authenticated , lacks 21 foundation, and contains and constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit O py) has not been sufficiently authenticated to prove the content of the public 23 record and therefore is inadmissible hearsay for purposes of relying on 24 the document’s content to prove the matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 25 602, 701, 801, 802, 901, 902, 1005. 26 (42) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 27 page 18, paragraph 46. Pietz has not established through admissible 28 ||. evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in paragraph 46

or PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broabway, Suite 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 14o0f37 Page ID #:2863

yt and engages in inappropriate testimony, argument, and speculative lay 2 opinion, all supported solely by inadmissible hearsay. Exhibits B and O, 3 upon which Pietz relies, have not been properly authenticated, lack 4 foundation, and contain and constitute inadmissible hearsay. Exhibits B 5 and O have not been sufficiently authenticated to prove the content of the 6 public record and therefore constitute inadmissible hearsay for purposes 7 of relying on the documents’ content to prove the matters asserted. Fed. 8 R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 901, 902, 1005. 9 (43) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), S 10 pages 18-19, paragraph 47, in its entirety. Pietz has not established 1] through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters : 12 asserted in paragraph 47 and further engages in inappropriate testimony, 13 argument, and speculative lay opinion, all supported solely by 5 14 inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit A has not been properly authenticated , é 15 lacks foundation, and contains and constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Fed. 16 R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 901. le (44) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed January 14, 2013 (ECF no. 40-1), 18 page 19, paragraph 48, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 19 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in 20 paragraph 48 and further engages in inappropriate testimony, argument, 21 and speculative lay opinion and legal conclusions, all supported solely on 22 inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802. 23 B. Supplemental Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz (ECF no. 53), Filed on 24 February 20, 2013 25 (45) Supplemental Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed February 20, 2013 26 (ECF no. 53), page 2, paragraph 2, line 7. Pietz has not established aT through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the alleged 28 evolution of Prenda Law, Inc. — Steele Hansmeier PLLC; thus, his

PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broadway, SuITe 600

Case 2:1|\2-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 15o0f37 Page ID #:2864

commentary that Prenda Law, Inc. was formerly known as Steele

joan

2 Hansmeier PLLC is nothing but speculative lay opinion and constitutes 3 an unsupported legal conclusion. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701. 4 (46) Supplemental Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed February 20, 2013 > (ECF no. 53), page 2, paragraph 4, lines 18-23. Pietz has not established 6 through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters 7 asserted in paragraph 4, lines 18-23 (starting with “However, Prenda...’’), 8 and further engages in inappropriate testimony, argument, and 9 speculative lay opinion and legal conclusions, all supported solely by o 10 inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802. : 1] (47) Supplemental Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed February 20, 2013 : 12 (ECF no. 53), page 3, paragraph 8, in its entirety. Pietz has not . 13 established through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the E 14 matters asserted in paragraph 8. Exhibit Q has not been properly i 15 authenticated, lacks foundation, and contains and constitutes inadmissible 16 hearsay. Exhibit Q has not been sufficiently authenticated to prove the 17 content of the public record and therefore constitutes inadmissible 18 hearsay for purposes of relying on the documents’ content to prove the 19 matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 801, 802, 901, 902, 1005S. 20 (48) Supplemental Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed February 20, 2013 Zz} (ECF no. 53), page 3, paragraph 9, in its entirety. Pietz has not 22 established through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the 23 matters asserted in paragraph 9. Exhibit R has not been properly 24 authenticated, lacks foundation, and contains and constitutes inadmissible ZS hearsay. Exhibit R has not been sufficiently authenticated to prove the 26 content of the public record and therefore constitutes inadmissible ZF hearsay for purposes of relying on the documents’ content to prove the 28 matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 801, 802, 901, 902, 1005.

_15- PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, SuITe 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 16o0f37 Page ID #:2865

(49) Supplemental Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed February 20, 2013

ped

2 (ECF no. 53), page 3, paragraph 10, in its entirety. Pietz has not 3 established through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the 4 matters asserted in paragraph 10. Exhibit S has not been properly 5 authenticated, lacks foundation, and contains inadmissible hearsay, 6 double hearsay, and inappropriate testimony, argument, and speculative Z lay opinions and legal conclusions of the declarant. Exhibit S has not 8 been sufficiently authenticated to prove the content of the public record 9 and therefore constitutes inadmissible hearsay for purposes of relying on S 10 the documents’ content to prove the matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, : 1] 602, 701, 801, 802, 805, 901, 902, 1005. : 12 (50) Supplemental Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed February 20, 2013 13 (ECF no. 53), page 3, paragraph 11, in its entirety. Pietz has not é 14 established through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the Bo 45 matters asserted in paragraph 11 and further engages in inappropriate 16 testimony, argument, and speculative lay opinion, all supported solely by 17 inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit T has not been properly authenticated, 18 lacks foundation, and contains and constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Fed. 19 R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 901. 20 (51) Supplemental Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed February 20, 2013 Zi (ECF no. 53), page 3, paragraph 12, in its entirety. Pietz has not 22 established through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the 23 matters asserted in paragraph 12 and further engages in inappropriate 24 testimony, argument, and speculative lay opinion, all supported solely by ZS inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit U has not been properly authenticated, 26 lacks foundation, and constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit U has not 2d been sufficiently authenticated to prove the content of the public record 28 and therefore constitutes inadmissible hearsay for purposes of relying on

-16- PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 WeEsT Broapway, SurTe 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 17 of37 Page ID #:2866

the documents’ content to prove the matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401,

—

2 602, 701, 801, 802, 901, 902, 1005. 3 (52) Supplemental Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed February 20, 2013 4 (ECF no. 53), page 3, paragraph 14, in its entirety. Pietz has not 5 established through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the 6 matters asserted in paragraph 14 and further engages in inappropriate 7 testimony, argument, and speculative lay opinion and legal conclusions, 8 all supported solely by inadmissible hearsay and double hearsay. Exhibit 9 W has not been properly authenticated, lacks foundation, and constitutes 2 10 and contains inadmissible hearsay and double hearsay. Exhibit W has . 1] not been sufficiently authenticated to prove the content of the public : [2 record and therefore constitutes inadmissible hearsay for purposes of 2 13 relying on the documents’ content to prove the matters asserted. Fed. R. : 14 Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 901, 902, 1005. B15 (53) Supplemental Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed February 20, 2013 16 (ECF no. 53), page 3, paragraph 15, in its entirety. Pietz’s recitation of 17 what John Steele purportedly told him is inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. 18 Evid. 401, 801, 802. 19 (54) Supplemental Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed February 20, 2013 20 (ECF no. 53), page 3, paragraph 16, in its entirety. Pietz has not 21 established through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the p19) matters asserted in paragraph 16 and further engages in inappropriate 23 testimony, argument, and speculative lay opinion, all supported solely by 24 inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit X has not been properly authenticated, ZS lacks foundation, and constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 26 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 901. | pe (55) Supplemental Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed February 20, 2013 28 (ECF no. 53), page 3, ede ice 7, in its entirety. Pietz has not

PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INCU’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, SurITe 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 18 o0f37 Page ID #:2867

established through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the

—

Z matters asserted in paragraph 17 and further engages in inappropriate 3 testimony, argument, and speculative lay opinion, all supported solely by 4 inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit Y has not been properly authenticated, 5 lacks foundation, and constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 6 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 901. 7 (56) Supplemental Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed February 20, 2013 8 (ECF no. 53), page 4, paragraph 18, in its entirety. Pietz has not 9 established through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the So 10 matters asserted in paragraph 18. Exhibit Z has not been properly : 1] authenticated, lacks foundation, and constitutes inadmissible hearsay. : 12 Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 801, 802, 901. | 13 (57) Supplemental Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed February 20, 2013 : 14 (ECF no. 53), page 4, paragraph 19, in its entirety. Pietz has not A 15 established through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the 16 matters asserted in paragraph 19 and further engages in inappropriate LZ testimony and argument, all supported solely by inadmissible hearsay and 18 double hearsay. Exhibit AA has not been properly authenticated, lacks 19 foundation, and constitutes and contains inadmissible hearsay and double 20 hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 805, 901. 21 (58) Supplemental Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed February 20, 2013 22 (ECF no. 53), page 4, paragraph 20, in its entirety. Pietz has not 23 established through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the 24 matters asserted in paragraph 20 and further engages in inappropriate 23 testimony, argument, and speculative lay opinion, all supported solely by 26 inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit BB has not been properly authenticated, ZF lacks foundation, and constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit BB has 28 not been sufficiently authenticated to prove the content of the public

2419: PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, SUITE 600

Case 2:112-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 19o0f37 Page ID #:2868

l record and therefore constitutes inadmissible hearsay for purposes of 2 relying on the documents’ content to prove the matters asserted. Fed. R. c Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 901, 902, 1005. 4 (59) Supplemental Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed February 20, 2013 5 (ECF no. 53), page 4, paragraph 21, in its entirety. Pietz has not 6 established through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the 7 matters asserted in paragraph 21 and further engages in inappropriate 8 testimony and argument, all supported solely by inadmissible hearsay and 9 double hearsay. Exhibit CC has not been properly authenticated, lacks S 10 foundation, and constitutes and contains inadmissible hearsay and double : 1] hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 805, 901. : 12 (60) Supplemental Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed February 20, 2013 : 13 (ECF no. 53), page 4, paragraph 22, in its entirety. Pietz has not 6 14 established through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the é 15 matters asserted in paragraph 22. Exhibit DD has not been properly 16 authenticated, lacks foundation, constitutes inadmissible hearsay, and 17 expressly states that the attached Memorandum is “not appropriate for 18 publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9" Cir. R. 36-3.” 19 Exhibit DD has not been sufficiently authenticated to prove the content 20 of the public record and therefore constitutes inadmissible hearsay for 21 purposes of relying on the documents’ content to prove the matters 22 asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 801, 802, 901, 902, 1005. 23 C. Declaration of Bart Huffman (ECF no. 54), Filed on February 20, 2013 24 (61) Declaration of Bart Huffman (ECD no. 54), filed on February 20, 25 2013, page 1, paragraph 3, line 23. Huffman has not established through 26 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of Paul Duffy’s signature or 27 an expertise that would permit him to opine that Paul Duffy signed the 28 purported subpoena. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 702.

-19- PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, SuITe 600 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

Case 2:1/2-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 20 of 37 Page ID #:2869

reel

(62) Declaration of Bart Huffman (ECD no. 54), filed on February 20,

2 2013, page 2, paragraph 4, in its entirety. Huffman has not established 3 through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters 4 asserted in paragraph 4 and further engages in inappropriate testimony, 5 argument, speculative lay opinions, and legal conclusions, all supported 6 solely by unauthenticated and inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, f) 602, 701, 801, 802, 901, 902, 1005. 8 (63) Declaration of Bart Huffman (ECD no. 54), filed on February 20, 9 2013, page 3, paragraph 7, in its entirety. Huffman has not established 10 through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters 11 asserted in paragraph 7 and further engages in inappropriate testimony, I2 argument, speculative lay opinions, and legal conclusions, based on the 13 hearsay declarations of Camille D. Kerr. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 14 801, 802. 15 (64) Declaration of Bart Huffman (ECD no. 54), filed on February 20, 16 2013, page 3, paragraph 8, in its entirety. Huffman has not established 17 through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters 18 asserted in paragraph 8 and further engages in inappropriate testimony © 19 and argument, based on the hearsay declarations of Camille D. Kerr. 20 Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802. 21 D. Reply Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz (ECF no. 59-1), Filed on March 4 22 2013 23 (65) Reply Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed March 4, 2013 (ECF no. 59- 24 1), page 2, paragraph 2, line 7. Pietz has not established through 25 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the alleged evolution of 26 Prenda Law, Inc. from Steele Hansmeier PLLC; thus, his commentary 27 that Prenda Law, Inc. was formerly known as Steele Hansmeier PLLC is 28 nothing but speculative lay opinion and constitutes an unsupported legal

mole PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West BrRoabway, SuITe 600 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 21 0f37 Page ID #:2870

conclusion. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701.

2 (66) Reply Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed March 4, 2013 (ECF no. 59-

3 1), page 2, paragraph 4, lines 18-23. Pietz has not established through

4 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in

5 paragraph 4, lines 18-23 (starting with “However, Prenda...”), and

6 further engages in inappropriate testimony, argument, and speculative lay

7 opinion and legal conclusions, all supported solely on inadmissible

8 hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802.

9 (67) Reply Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed March 4, 2013 (ECF no. 59- 10 1), page 3, paragraph 6, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 1] admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in 12 paragraph 6 and further engages in inappropriate testimony, argument, 13 and speculative lay opinion, all supported solely by inadmissible hearsay. 14 Exhibit EE has not been properly authenticated, lacks foundation, and 15 constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit EE has not been sufficiently 16 authenticated to prove the content of the public record and therefore 17 constitutes inadmissible hearsay for purposes of relying on the 18 documents’ content to prove the matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401,

19 602, 701, 801, 802, 901, 902, 1005.

20 (68) Reply Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed March 4, 2013 (ECF no. 59- Zi 1), page 3, paragraph 7, lines 9-14. Pietz has not established through

py) admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in

Z3 paragraph 7, lines 9-14, and further engages in inappropriate testimony, 24 argument, and speculative lay opinion, all supported solely by

25 inadmissible hearsay. Lines 16-17 (starting with “Mr. Hoerner

26 - responded...”) are objectionable as hearsay. Exhibit FF has not been

af properly authenticated, lacks foundation, and constitutes inadmissible

28 hearsay. Exhibit FF has not - sufficiently authenticated to prove the

PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West BRoaDway, SUITE 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 22 of 37 Page ID #:2871

1 content of the public record and therefore constitutes inadmissible 2 hearsay for purposes of relying on the documents’ content to prove the 3 matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 901, 902, 1005. 4 (69) Reply Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed March 4, 2013 (ECF no. 59- 5 1), page 3, paragraph 8, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 6 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in 7 paragraph 8 and further engages in inappropriate testimony, argument, 8 and speculative lay opinion, all supported solely by inadmissible hearsay. 9 Exhibit GG has not been properly authenticated, lacks foundation, and 2 10 constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit GG has not been sufficiently 1] authenticated to prove the content of the public record and therefore : [2 constitutes inadmissible hearsay for purposes of relying on the : 13 documents’ content to prove the matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, : 14 602, 701, 801, 802, 901, 902, 1005. B15 (70) Reply Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed March 4, 2013 (ECF no. 59- 16 1), page 3, paragraph 9, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 17 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in 18 paragraph 9 and further engages in inappropriate testimony, argument, 19 and speculative lay opinion, all supported solely by inadmissible hearsay. 20 Exhibit HH has not been properly authenticated, lacks foundation, and 24 constitutes and contains inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 22 701, 801, 802, 901. 23 (71) Reply Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed March 4, 2013 (ECF no. 59- 24 1), page 4, paragraph 10, lines 2-4 (starting with “In order to 25 illustrate...”). Pietz has not established through admissible evidence how 26 he scaled his photos, justifying the graphic illustration of the hypothetical 27 circumferences of an available wi-fi signal. Pietz has not established his 28 expert experience in establishing scale on a third party provider’s satellite

oa PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broadway, Suite 600

Case 2:1\2-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 23 of 37 Page ID #:2872

photos, the potential ranges for a wi-fi signal, or the graphical

2 representations of those hypothetical ranges. Thus, Exhibit II 1s 2 inadmissible as an altered copy of an original document, which has not 4 been properly authenticated and lacks foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 5 602, 701, 702, 901. 6 (72) Reply Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed March 4, 2013 (ECF no. 59- 7 1), page 4, paragraph 11, lines 7-9. Pietz engages in inappropriate 8 testimony, argument, and speculative lay and expert opinion concerning 9 Exhibit JJ, for which no foundation has been laid and which has not been 2 10 properly authenticated. Pietz has not established his expert experience in : 1] determining that Exhibit JJ “is simply an example of the kind of signal : 12 range available on the a not-state-of-the-art router” or that the stated 300- : 13 500 foot range is the actual range of the router described in the manual. : 14 Furthermore, Pietz has not established the relevance of a 10-year old B15 router to the instant action. Finally, Pietz’s inappropriate arguments 16 concerning the range are based solely on the hearsay contained in the 17 document. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 702, 801, 802, 901.

18 E. Notice of Lodging Deposition Transcript From 30(b)(6) Deposition of 19 AF Holdings (ECF no. 69) and Transcript from 30(b)(6) Deposition of

20 AF Holdings (ECF nos. 69-1 and 71)

21 (73) Notice of Lodging Deposition Transcript from 30(b)(6) Deposition of 22 AF Holdings (ECF no. 69), in its entirety, and Transcript from 30(b)(6) 23 Deposition of AF Holdings (ECF nos. 69-1 and 71), in its entirety. The 24 purported transcript contains and constitutes hearsay, 1s lodged without pis foundation, and is improperly authenticated. The transcripts lodged with 26 the court is neither verified by the deponent nor authenticated by the

27 court reporter. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 801, 802; Orr v. Bank of Am.,

28 285 F.3d 764, 774 (9" Cir. 2002)" It is insufficient for a party to submit,

PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, SUITE 600 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 24 of 37 Page ID #:2873

l without more, an affidavit from her counsel identifying the names of the 2 deponent, the reporter, and the action and stating that the deposition is a 3 ‘true and correct copy.’ Such an affidavit lacks foundation even if the 4 affiant counsel were present at the deposition.” (internal citations 5 omitted)); Pavone v. Citicorp Credit Servs., 60 F. Supp. 2d 1040, 1045 6 (S.D. Cal. 1997) (excluding a deposition for failure to submit a signed 7 certification from the reporter). 8 F. Declaration of Sean Moriarty From Verizon Online, LLC Re: 9 Subpoenas in AF Holdings Litigation (ECF no. 77), Filed on March 11 10 2013 1] (74) Declaration of Sean Moriarty from Verizon Online, LLC re: 12 Subpoenas in AF Holdings Litigation (ECF no. 77), filed on March 11, 13 2013, page 2, paragraph 4, in its entirety. Moriarty fails to provide 14 foundation (i.e., describing Verizon Online, LLC’s document retention 15 procedures and whether he actually searched the documents received), 16 while engaging in inappropriate testimony, argument, and speculative lay 17 opinions concerning Verizon Online, LLC’s non-receipt of documents 18 from the court or AF Holdings and its attorneys and Verizon’s 19 hypothetical response to receipt of the documents. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 20 602, 701. 21 (75) Declaration of Sean Moriarty from Verizon Online, LLC re: pp Subpoenas in AF Holdings Litigation (ECF no. 77), filed on March 11, 23 2013, page 3, paragraph 5, lines 3-4. Moriarty fails to provide foundation 24 (i.e., describing Verizon Online, LLC’s document retention procedures 25 and whether he actually searched the documents received), while 26 engaging in inappropriate testimony, argument, and speculative lay ZT opinions concerning the accuracy of Brett Gibbs’ declaration. Fed. R. 28 Evid. 401, 602, 701.

Aa PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, SUITE 600 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101

Case 2:1/2-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 25 of3/7 Page ID #:2874

—

(76) Declaration of Sean Moriarty from Verizon Online, LLC re: Subpoenas in AF Holdings Litigation (ECF no. 77), filed on March 11, 2013, page 3, paragraph 6, lines 7-9 (starting with “If Verizon had received...”). Moriarty fails to provide foundation (i.e., describing Verizon Online, LLC’s document retention procedures and whether he actually searched the documents received), while engaging in inappropriate testimony, argument, and speculative lay opinions concerning Verizon Online, LLC’s non-receipt of documents from the

court or AF Holdings and its attorneys and Verizon’s hypothetical

Cc OU DAN DO OH He YW BD

response to receipt of the documents. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701. 1] G. Declaration of Sean Moriarty From Verizon Online, LLC Re:

12 Subpoenas in AF Holdings Litigation (ECF no. 78), Filed on March 11 13 2013

14 (77) Declaration of Sean Moriarty from Verizon Online, LLC re:

15 Subpoenas in AF Holdings Litigation (ECF no. 78), filed on March 11, 16 2013, page 2, paragraph 4, in its entirety. Moriarty fails to provide

17 foundation (i.e., describing Verizon Online, LLC’s document retention 18 procedures and whether he actually searched the documents received),

19 while engaging in inappropriate testimony, argument, and speculative lay 20 opinions concerning Verizon Online, LLC’s non-receipt of documents

pal from the court or AF Holdings and its attorneys and Verizon’s

a2 | hypothetical response to receipt of the documents. Fed. R. Evid. 401,

23 602, 701.

24 (78) Declaration of Sean Moriarty from Verizon Online, LLC re:

25 Subpoenas in AF Holdings Litigation (ECF no. 78), filed on March 11, 26 2013, page 3, paragraph 5, lines 3-4. Moriarty fails to provide foundation om (i.e., describing Verizon Online, LLC’s document retention procedures 28 | and whether he actually ee the documents received), while

PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INCU’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West BrRoapway, SuITte 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 26 of 37 Page ID #:2875

1 | engaging in inappropriate testimony, argument, and speculative lay Z opinions concerning the accuracy of Brett Gibbs’ declaration. Fed. R. 3 Evid. 401, 602, 701. 4 (79) Declaration of Sean Moriarty from Verizon Online, LLC re: 5 Subpoenas in AF Holdings Litigation (ECF no. 78), filed on March 11, 6 2013, page 3, paragraph 6, lines 7-9 (starting with “If Verizon had 7 received...”). Moriarty fails to provide foundation (7.e., describing 8 Verizon Online, LLC’s document retention procedures and whether he —&¢9 actually searched the documents received), while engaging in 2 10 inappropriate testimony, argument, and speculative lay opinions : 1] concerning Verizon Online, LLC’s non-receipt of documents from the : 12 court or AF Holdings and its attorneys and Verizon’s hypothetical : 13 response to receipt of the documents. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701. 2 14 H. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz (ECF no. 117-1), Filed on April 16, 2013 ds 15 (80) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed April 16, 2013 (ECF no. 117-1), 16 page 2, paragraph 2, line 6-8. Pietz has not established through 17 admissible evidence his personal knowledge that Prenda Law, Inc. had 18 “targeted” his client “as the supposed John Doe defendant in /ngenuity 19 13, LLC v. John Doe, C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-8333.” Pietz also engages in 20 inappropriate testimony, argument, and speculative lay opinion. Indeed, pA | Pietz’s client was never named a defendant in this matter. Fed. R. Evid. 22 401, 602, 701. 23 (81) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed April 16, 2013 (ECF no. 117-1), 24 page 2, paragraph 3, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 25 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in 26 paragraph 3 and further engages in inappropriate testimony, argument, 27 and lay and expert opinion, all supported solely by inadmissible hearsay 28 and double hearsay. Exhibit —— not been properly authenticated,

PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, Sutte 600

Case 2:1/?-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 27 of 37 Page ID #:2876

lacks foundation, and constitutes and contains inadmissible hearsay and

———t

2 double hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 805, 901. 3 (82) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed April 16, 2013 (ECF no. 117-1), 4 page 2, paragraph 4, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through > admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in 6 paragraph 4 and further engages in inappropriate testimony, argument, 7 and speculative lay opinion, all supported solely by inadmissible hearsay. 8 Pietz has not shown that the author of the letter was acting within his 9 scope of agency on behalf of John Steele. Further, Exhibit LL 1s o 10 irrelevant, as “an interest in Prenda clients” does not necessarily equate to . 1] an ownership interest in AF Holdings, LLC or Ingenuity 13, LLC. : 12 Exhibit LL has not been properly authenticated, lacks foundation, and ° 13 constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit LL has not been sufficiently : 14 authenticated to prove the content of the public record and therefore B15 constitutes inadmissible hearsay for purposes of relying on the 16 documents’ content to prove the matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 17 602, 701, 801, 802, 901, 902, 1005. 18 (83) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed April 16, 2013 (ECF no. 117-1), 19 page 2, paragraph S, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 20 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in 2] paragraph 5 and further engages in inappropriate testimony, argument, 22 speculative lay opinion, and legal conclusions, all supported solely by 23 inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit MM has not been properly authenticated, 24 lacks foundation, and constitutes and contains inadmissible hearsay and 25 double hearsay. Exhibit MM has not been sufficiently authenticated to 26 prove the content of the public record and therefore constitutes Oe | inadmissible hearsay for purposes of relying on the documents’ content 28 to prove the matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 805,

D7 = PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, SUITE 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 28 of 37 Page ID #:2877

l 901, 902, 1005. 2 (84) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed April 16, 2013 (ECF no. 117-1), 3 pages 2-3, paragraph 6, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 4 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in 5 paragraph 6 and further engages in inappropriate testimony and 6 argument, all supported solely by inadmissible hearsay. Exhibits MM 7 and NN have not been properly authenticated, lack foundation, and 8 constitute and contain inadmissible hearsay and double hearsay. Exhibits 9 MM and NN have not been sufficiently authenticated to prove the 2 10 content of the public record and therefore constitutes inadmissible : 11 hearsay for purposes of relying on the documents’ content to prove the : 12 matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 805, 901, 902, 13 1005. 6 14 (85) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed April 16, 2013 (ECF no. 117-1), B15 page 3, paragraph 7, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 16 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted 1n 17 || paragraph 7 and further engages in inappropriate testimony, argument, 18 and speculative lay opinion, all supported solely by inadmissible hearsay. 19 Pietz has no foundation to state that the CM/ECF was current as of April 20 12, 2013, or that “Nazaire remains counsel of record of AF Holdings, 21 LLC.” Exhibit OO and has not been properly authenticated, lacks pp foundation, and constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Exhibit OO has not pe been sufficiently authenticated to prove the content of the public record 24 | and therefore constitutes inadmissible hearsay for purposes of relying on 25 the documents’ content to prove the matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 26 602, 701, 801, 802, 901, 902, 1005. 27 (86) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed April 16, 2013 (ECF no. 117-1), 28 page 3, paragraph 8, 1n its ns: Pietz has not established through

PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, SurTe 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 29 of 37 Page ID #:2878

admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in

et

2 paragraph 8 and further engages in inappropriate testimony, argument, 3 and speculative lay opinion, all supported solely by inadmissible hearsay. 4 Pietz has no personal knowledge that the Brent Berry of the Pietz > declaration is the Brent Berry who provided a declaration concerning 6 Alan Cooper in this matter or that the real estate pictured at the website f, provided in the Pietz declaration was once owned by John Steele. 8 Exhibit PP has not been properly authenticated, lacks foundation, and 9 constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, So 10 901. . 11 (87) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed April 16, 2013 (ECF no. 117-1), : 12 page 3, paragraph 9, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through . 13 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in é 14 paragraph 9 and further engages in inappropriate testimony, argument, B15 and speculative lay opinion, all supported solely by inadmissible hearsay. 16 Exhibit PP, upon which Pietz relies for his improper testimony and 17 argument, has not been properly authenticated, lacks foundation, and 18 constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 19 901. 20 (88) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed April 16, 2013 (ECF no. 117-1), 21 page 3, paragraph 10, in its entirety. Pietz has not established through 22 admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the matters asserted in ZS paragraph 10. Exhibit QQ and has not been properly authenticated, lacks 24 foundation, and constitutes and contains inadmissible hearsay and double 25 hearsay (a transcript downloaded from a link provided on the Wall Street 26 Journal’s blogsite). Exhibit QQ has not been sufficiently authenticated to 27 prove the content of the public record and therefore constitutes 28 inadmissible hearsay for purposes of relying on the documents’ content

DO PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, SUITE 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 30 of 37 Page ID #:2879

l to prove the matters asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 805, 2 901, 902, 1005. 3 (89) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed April 16, 2013 (ECF no. 117-1), 4 page 4, paragraph 11, lines 3 (“reasonably expended”), 4-5 (“which I was 5 surprised to see special counsel attack, given that it 1s on the low end of 6 the applicable range for an attorney with my experience.’’), 8-10 (“I view 7 the reply and related filings as made necessary by the late filing of new 8 arguments by Prenda Senior Management, and by the legal issues 9 broached by the surprising invocation of the Fifth Amendment”). Pietz 2 10 engages in inappropriate testimony, argument, lay and expert opinions, 1] and legal conclusions. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 702. : ie (90) Declaration of Morgan Pietz, filed April 16, 2013 (ECF no. 117-1), 13 page 4, paragraph 12, in its entirety. Pietz engages in inappropriate 5 14 testimony, argument, and speculation. Further, the sanctions to which é 15 Pietz refers in paragraph 12, arising from Prenda Law’s purported failure 16 to respond to discovery, arise from application of Federal Rule of Civil 17 Procedure 26, not Rule 11 or Rule 83. The Court’s OSC order arose after 18 dismissal of the underlying cases; therefore, Pietz’s improper argument is 19 also irrelevant to the issues before the court. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701; 20 FRCP Rules 11, 26, 83. 21 I. Declaration of Graham W. Syfert (ECF no. 124), Filed on April 18, 2013 22 (91) Declaration of Graham W. Syfert (ECF no. 124), filed on April 18, 23 2013, page 2, paragraph 2, lines 9-12 (starting with “conducted the 24 hearing...”).' Syfert has not established through admissible evidence his Zo personal knowledge of the matters asserted in lines 9-12 and further 26 engages in inappropriate testimony, argument, speculative lay opinion, 27 and legal conclusions, all supported solely by inadmissible hearsay (the

28 |! | It is highly doubtful that Mr. Syfert “conducted” the hearing.

PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 WEST BRoaDway, SuITE 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 31 0f37 Page ID #:2880

l rebuke allegedly provided by Judge Scriven and Exhibit N). Exhibit N, 2 upon which Syfert relies, has not been properly authenticated, lacks 3 foundation, and contains and constitutes inadmissible hearsay and double f hearsay. Exhibit N has not been sufficiently authenticated to prove the 5 content of the public record and therefore is inadmissible hearsay for 6 purposes of relying on the document’s content to prove the matters 7 asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 805, 901, 902, 1005. 8 (92) Declaration of Graham W. Syfert (ECF no. 124), filed on April 18, 9 2013, page 2, paragraph 3, lines 15-17 (starting with “and hereby 2 10 affirm...” and ending with “a Florida Attorney...”). Syfert has not : 1] established through admissible evidence his personal knowledge of the : 12 matters asserted in lines 15-17 regarding whether Exhibit LL was John e 13 Steele’s “answer to the Florida bar complaint” filed by Syfert. Exhibit : 14 LL has not been sufficiently authenticated to prove the content of the A 15 public record and therefore constitutes inadmissible hearsay for purposes 16 of relying on the documents’ content to prove the matters asserted. Fed. 17 R. Evid. 401, 602, 701, 801, 802, 901, 902, 1005. 18 (93) Declaration of Graham W. Syfert (ECF no. 124), filed on April 18, 19 2013, page 2, paragraph 4, lines 22-25 (starting with “or the Florida 20 Bar...”). Syfert has not established through admissible evidence his Z) | personal knowledge of the matters asserted in lines 22-25 regarding 22 whether the Florida Bar added the asterisks to Exhibit LL and how 23 additional headers and footers appeared on Exhibit LL. Fed. R. Evid. 24 401, 602, 701. pis J. March 11, 2013 Hearing on Order to Show Cause 26 (94) Exhibit 6 at March 11, 2013 hearing, Declaration of Bart Huffman, in oa | its entirety. 28 |] /// aie

PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West BroabDway, SuITE 600

Case 2:1\2-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 32 of 37 Page ID #:2881

This evidence is objected to on the ground that it lacks foundation. (Pietz

_Reevtstah

2 has not established how he has personal knowledge regarding the 3 authenticity of this document.) FED. R. Evip. 602. This evidence also 4 contains inadmissible hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 801(c). 5 The following portions of this exhibit are also objected to as follows: 6 (a) Paragraph 3, “The Subpoena to AT&T (i) is signed by Paul Duffy of 7 Prenda Law, Inc.” This evidence is objected to on the ground that it 8 lacks foundation. (Huffman has not established how he has personal 9 knowledge regarding a third party’s conduct.) FED. R. EVID. 602. 2 10 (b) Paragraph 4, in its entirety. This evidence is objected to on the : 1] ground that it lacks foundation. (Huffman has not established how : 12 he has personal knowledge regarding a third party’s conduct and/or 13 thoughts.) FED. R. EVID. 602. 6 14 (c) Paragraph 5, in its entirety. This evidence 1s objected to on the GB 15 ground that it lacks foundation. (Huffman has not established how 16 he has personal knowledge regarding a third party’s conduct and/or 17 thoughts.) FED. R. EvID. 602. This evidence also contains 18 inadmissible hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 801(c). 19 (d) Paragraph 6, in its entirety. This evidence is objected to on the 20 ground that it lacks foundation. (Huffman has not established how 21 he has personal knowledge regarding a third party’s conduct and/or 22 thoughts.) FED. R. EVID. 602. This evidence also contains 23 inadmissible hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 801(c). 24 (e) Paragraph 7, in its entirety. This evidence is objected to on the 2 ground that it lacks foundation. (Huffman has not established how 26 he has personal knowledge regarding a third party’s conduct and/or pe | thoughts.) FED. R. EVID. 602. This evidence also contains 28 inadmissible hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 801(c).

| - 32 - PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, SuITe 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 33 of 37 Page ID #:2882

| (f) Paragraph 8, in its entirety. This evidence is objected to on the 2 ground that it lacks foundation. (Huffman has not established how 3 he has personal knowledge regarding a third party’s conduct and/or 4 thoughts.) FED. R. EvID. 602. This evidence also contains 5 inadmissible hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 801(c). 6 (95) Exhibit7 at March 11, 2013 hearing, Declaration of Camille D. Kerr, 7 in its entirety. This evidence is objected to on the ground that it lacks 8 foundation. (Pietz has not established how he has personal knowledge 9 regarding the authenticity of this document.) FED. R. EVID. 602. This 2 $10 evidence also contains inadmissible hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 801(c). : 1] (96) Exhibit 8 at March 11, 2013 hearing, Declaration of Sean Moriarty, in : 12 its entirety. This evidence is objected to on the ground that it lacks : 13 foundation. (Pietz has not established how he has personal knowledge Z 14 regarding the authenticity of this document.) FED. R. EviD. 602. This 5 15 evidence also contains inadmissible hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 801(c). 16 The following portions of this exhibit are also objected to as follows: 17 (a) Paragraph 3, in its entirety. This evidence is objected to on the ground 18 that it lacks foundation. (Moriarty has not established how he has 19 personal knowledge, including, for example, whether he personally 20 reviewed Verizon records.) FED. R. EVID. 602. 21 (b) Paragraph 4, in its entirety. This evidence is objected to on the ground 22 that it lacks foundation. (Moriarty has not established how he has 23 personal knowledge, including, for example, whether he personally 24 reviewed Verizon records.) FED. R. EVID. 602. ZS (c) Paragraph 5, “Again, based on Verizon’s records this statement 26 appears to be wrong.” for example, whether he personally reviewed oe Verizon records.) FED. R. EVID, 602. This evidence also contains 28 inadmissible hearsay. FED. ms EVID. 801(c).

PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West BrRoapway, SUITE 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 34 of 37 Page ID #:2883

l (d) Paragraph 6, in its entirety. This evidence is objected to on the ground 2 that it lacks foundation. (Moriarty has not established how he has 3 personal knowledge, including, for example, whether he personally 4 reviewed Verizon records.) FED. R. EVID. 602. 5 (97) Exhibit 10 at March 11, 2013 hearing, Declaration of Michael B. 6 Stone, in its entirety. This evidence is objected to on the ground that it 7 lacks foundation. (Pietz has not established how he has personal 8 knowledge regarding the authenticity of this document.) FED. R. EVID. 9 602. This evidence also contains inadmissible hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 2 10 8O01(c). . 1] The following portions of this exhibit are also objected to as follows: : 12 (a) Paragraph 4, in its entirety. This evidence is objected to on the : 13 ground that it lacks foundation. (Stone has not established how he g 14 has personal knowledge regarding a third party’s conduct.) FED. R. é iD EVID. 602. 16 (b) Paragraph 5, in its entirety. This evidence is objected to on the Ae ground that it lacks foundation. (Stone has not established how he 18 has personal knowledge regarding a third party’s conduct.) FED. R. 19 EvIp. 602. | 20 (98) Exhibit 11 at March 11, 2013 hearing, Declaration of Samuel 21 Teitelbaum, in its entirety. This evidence is objected to on the ground 22 that it lacks foundation. (Pietz has not established how he has personal 23 knowledge regarding the authenticity of this document.) FED. R. EVID. 24 602. This evidence also contains inadmissible hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 2a 801(c). This evidence also contains irrelevant material. (It concerns 26 litigation involving none of the same parties, attorneys, or law firms as zy the cases subject to this order to show cause hearing.) FED. R. Evip. 401. 28 The following portions of this exhibit are also objected to as follows:

=e PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, Surte 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 35o0f37 Page ID #:2884

lessee”

(a) Paragraph 2, “which has since changed its name [sic] Prenda Law,

Z Inc.” This evidence is objected to on the ground that it lacks 3 foundation. (Teitelbaum has not established how he has personal 4 knowledge regarding the relative organizational histories of Steele . Hansmeier, PLLC and Prenda Law, Inc.) FED. R. EVID. 602. 6 (b) Paragraph 2, in its entirety, except first two sentences. This evidence 7 contains inadmissible hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 801(c). 8 (c) Paragraph 5, in its entirety. This evidence contains inadmissible 9 hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 801(c). This evidence also contains irrelevant So #10 material. FED. R. Evip. 401. : 1] (d) Paragraph 6, “Apparently after the Boy Racer Inc. vs. Does 1-60 é iZ case was dismissed.” This evidence is objected to on the ground that e 13 it lacks foundation. (Teitelbaum has not established how he has Z 14 personal knowledge regarding when the case was dismissed such é iS that he can reach a definitive conclusion regarding the relative times 16 of the dismissal and new case filing.) FED. R. EVID. 602. 17 (ec) Paragraph 7, “I was informed by my lawyer that plaintiff had served 18 me with a Deposition Subpoena notice at my former residence in 19 Menlo Park, CA on February 1, 2012.” This evidence is objected to 20 on the ground that it lacks foundation. This evidence is objected to 21 on the ground that it lacks foundation. (Teitelbaum has not oH) established how he has personal knowledge regarding service.) FED. 23 R. EvipD. 602. This evidence contains inadmissible hearsay. FED. R. 24 EVID. 801(c). 75 (99) Exhibit 12 at March 11, 2013 hearing, Affidavit of John Steele, in its 26 entirety. This evidence is objected to on the ground that it lacks Oy foundation. (Pietz has not established how he has personal knowledge 28 regarding the authenticity of this document.) FED. R. EvipD. 602. This

~35- PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INCU’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, Surte 600 SAN DieGo, CALIFORNIA 92101

Case 2:12?-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 36 of 37 Page ID #:2885

l evidence also contains inadmissible hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 801(c). 2 (100) Exhibit 13 at March 11, 2013 hearing, Motion for Withdrawal and 3 Substitution of Counsel, in its entirety. This evidence 1s objected to on 4 the ground that it lacks foundation. (Pietz has not established how he has 5 personal knowledge regarding the authenticity of this document.) FED. R. 6 EvIbD. 602. This evidence also contains inadmissible hearsay. FED. R. 7 EvID. 801(c). This evidence also contains irrelevant material. (It concerns 8 litigation outside the cases subject to this order to show cause hearing.) 2 FED. R. EVID. 401. 10 (101) Exhibit 14 at March 11, 2013 hearing, Declaration of Matt Catlett, in 1] its entirety. This evidence contains inadmissible hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 12 801(c). This evidence also contains irrelevant material. (It concerns 13 litigation outside the cases subject to this order to show cause hearing.) 14 FED. R. EVID. 401. 15 The following portions of this exhibit are also objected to as follows: 16 (a) Paragraph 3, “On the last page, where Matthew Jenkins, the local 17 counsel who filed the complaint, lists his contact information, the 18 email address he lists on the pleadings is 19 ‘blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com’” This evidence is objected to on the 20 ground that it lacks foundation. (Catlett has not established how he pa has personal knowledge regarding who filed or prepared the 22 pleadings.) FED. R. EviD. 602. This evidence also contains 23 inadmissible hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 801(c). 24 (b) Paragraph 4, “apparently in error, from Sirh-Ryun Douglas. I believe ZS this e-mail was intended for my opposing counsel in the Lightspeed 26 Case, Matthew Jenkins (we have the same first name). This e-mail 27 appears to show Ms. Dugas involved in an active role managing 28 — Prenda Matters with ee counsel.’” This evidence is

PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

KLINEDINST PC 501 West Broapway, SuITeE 600

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 127 Filed 04/23/13 Page 37 of 37 Page ID #:2886

l objected to on the ground that it lacks foundation. (Catlett has not 2 established how he has personal knowledge regarding third parties’ 3 thoughts or conduct.) FED. R. EVID. 602. 4 (102) Exhibit 18 at March 11, 2013 hearing, demand letter in Guava LLC vy. 5 Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., in its entirety. This evidence is 6 objected to on the ground that it lacks foundation. (Pietz has not 7 established how he has personal knowledge regarding the authenticity of 8 this document.) FED. R. EVID. 602. This evidence also contains 9 inadmissible hearsay. FED. R. EVID. 801(c). This evidence also contains So 10 irrelevant material. (It concerns litigation outside the cases subject to this . 1] order to show cause hearing.) FED. R. EVID. 401. : iZ 13 6 14 , Klinedinst PC a a

16 || DATED: April 23, 2013

Casta M. Majchrzak

18 Philip W. Vineyard Specially appearing for

i? Paul Duffy, Angela Van Den Hemel, and Prenda Law, Inc.

15521967v1

“67. PAUL DUFFY, ANGELA VAN DEN HEMEL, AND PRENDA LAW, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE