se 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 1of153 Page ID #:4P6
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 in 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC 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,
Case Number(s): 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC
Case Assigned to: Judge Otis D Wright, II Plaintiff, Discovery Referred to: Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian
V.
EXHIBITS TO THE DECLARATION OF MORGAN E. PIETZ RE: PRENDA LAW, INC.
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
Cc
e 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 20f153 Page ID #:427
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 I- 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 Hamilton’s order in AF Holdings LLC v. John Doe et al., N.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-2049, ECF No. 45, 1/7/13, denying Prenda’s motion for leave to amend the complaint, and explaining why “Plaintiff's 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 Cooper’s attorney Paul Godfread filed on his behalf in two AF Holdings cases pending in Minnesota
Exhibit kK
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 Jn 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 Prenda’s attempted fraud on the court
Exhibit O
Illinois Business Entity Listing for Anti-Piracy Law Group, LLC
-2-
EXHIBITS TO THE DECLARATION OF MORGAN E. PIETZ RE: PRENDA LAW, INC.
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 2
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 3o0f153 Page ID #:428
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 3
Steele | MaaStei2:P2igv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 FilatQdkeh.iadivRage4/of116301PAGeHED -HWe2 Shtpirac...
INTURNET ARCHIVE J http://wefightpiracy.com/ DEC JAN JUN (
Go wayegeuiachine 21 captures 20 > tte
20 Jan 11 - 23 Nov 12
STEELE | HANSMEIER
e Home
e About Us e Services
e Contact Us e Disclaimer
e Steele | Hansmeier Jun 19, 2010 Steele | Hansmeier PLLC is a law firm dedicated to eradicating digital piracy. We represent prominent content producers and commence legal action against individuals and businesses who steal our client's content.
V4
¢ 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
lof 5 1/9/13 7:06 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 4
Steele | HadSfrerer PELG Hiapiwebtorchi ve cig 6b/201L0190 17 AGH http :7Fwebshtpirac... P p:7 stp
INTERNET ARCHIVE 1 N §Clc DEC 04) Cle WaYDGCHMMACHME — 21 captures < 20> Hi
” ii
t e 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.
Il
20 Jan 11 - 23 Nov 12
s22e2e>2e89@" seee8e gzectss see
Seeecercess = 8ee" 22
SSeeeeerererrrcoct ES” £58488 S4585 5844 6RR" ewreeeeseeeeens Oey
ere 4 Seeertererc > «#Ee"
ae
e Steele | Hansmeier
1/9/13 7:06 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 5
2 of 5
Steele | aaSte2: P2iav-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 FilekOMebdidivRage6/0f11630 1 Pagan) AHAB dhtpirac...
INTERNET ARCHIVE 1¢ 5 DEC JAN JUN Cle
(waubgel (gehine 21 captures r ry 20 > i |
20 Jan 11 - 23 Nov 12 2010 80) 2012R —
e Preserving the Creative Arts
Contact Us
About Us
Steele | Hansmeier PLLC is a Chicago-based 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.
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 reflect the lifecycle of a creative work. Such services include:
e Due diligence efforts to determine whether a proposed creative work lacks originality or infringes on another creative work;
e 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
e 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 file can be digitally fingerprinted based on a variety of characteristics (e.g. rhythm, length, melody, etc.). This fingerprint can be compared to those of other audio files. 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 artist’s bargaining power is much stronger before they invest millions of dollar into marketing and distributing a creative work.
In 2008, Joe Satriani filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the Grammy Award-winning band, Coldplay. Satriani’s suit alleged that Coldplay’s hit song, Vida la Vida, contained substantial portions of Satriani’s, If I Could Fly. The parties eventually reached an out-of-court monetary settlement for an undisclosed financial sum.
In addition to avoiding infringement lawsuits, it is important to know whether a given creative work will even be afforded
3 of 5 1/9/13 7:06 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 6
Steele | aaSte2: P2iav-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed PWehdidivRagect/afi1630 1 Pagenk) AHAB Ahtpirac...
INTERNET ARCHIVE DEC JAN JUN Cle
|G) Wwaungel (gehine 21 captures r ry 20 > i |
20 Jan 11 - 23 Nov 12 2010 §9') 2012
|=
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 artist’s 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 one’s copyrights. As a general rule, copyright registration is a prerequisite to filing a copyright infringement lawsuit in U.S. federal court and a timely filing will preserve remedies that may be lost indefinitely if one does not timely register his or her copyright.
Enforcing Copyrights
Copyright enforcement is a rapidly evolving field. Recent advances in communications technology have dramatically lowered the cost and increased the profitability 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 Office -Copyright Overview
-Copyright Statutes -Creative Commons
Resources
-Patry Blog -Geist Blog (Canadian law)
-IP Watch Pages
e About Us
4 of 5 1/9/13 7:06 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 7
Steele | aaSte2: P2iav-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 File PWehdidivRageB/0f11630 1 Pagenk) AHAB ahtpirac...
INTERNET ARCHIVE ( DEC 4 JUN Cle
’ > \_ Go ) Wauegel machine 21 captures a 20 > i |
|=
20 Jan 11 - 23 Nov 12 2010 80') 2012
Latest News
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 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. [...]
Pixar’s 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 Pixar’s ability to continue investing in the cutting-edge technology that’s brought us such movies as Wall-E, Monster’s, Inc., and Up — all of which are presumably registered trademarks of Pixar Animation Studios. At [...]
Robin Hood is the week’s most pirated movie
Ridley Scott’s 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
e Facebook e Twitter
e flickr
top
5 of 5 1/9/13 7:06 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 8
Prenda IGAGR 2 PrerceuinOBRARcADVopy Document 40-2 FilagkQAeébtchivPage Bod 1 FS oobagenip AWB shtpirac...
a
INTERNET ARCHIVE — http://wefightpiracy.com/ { Go ) OCT NOV DEC Close
Waybgeumachine = 4 29> 1 ils
21 captures Help
20 Jan 11 - 23 Nov 12 2010 —) 2012
Prenda Law Inc.
Protecting Intellectual Property
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 fights 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 difficult 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 filter out greater amounts of infringing results. Third, Google’s 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
Pixar’s president discusses copyright laws
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 Pixar's ability to continue investing in the cutting-edge technology that’s brought us such movies as Wall-E, Monster’s, Inc., and Up — all of which are presumably registered trademarks of Pixar Animation Studios. At his Utah Valley University speech, Catmull singled out
1 of 2 1/9/13 7:09 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 9
Prenda LawhaSProtanQ@nnaRadaPoyurnyC Document pee Filed Odd A4hhe ov age2d01 0f2465044P/age/ Mefightpirac...
INTERNET ARCHIVE f Go ) OCT NOV DEC Close 21 captures | is | < 29 . Help 20 Jan 11 - 23 Nov 12 2010 9° 2012
2 of 2 1/9/13 7:09 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 10
Prenda LawGiaSe 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 FiledQcb/44hk2 offage2b Li of0sGA25Page/M2fightpirac...
1 of 2
#:436
INTERNET ARCHIVE
Wayback aching
http: //wefightpiracy.com/?page_id=44
5 captures 21 Jan 11 - 8 Dec 11
renda Law.
otecting Intellectual Prope
Home About Us Contact Us Recent Sampling of Cases filed
Welcome
oe SEP DEC JAN
46
2010 ©) = =2012
305-748-2102
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
i Berne Convention
1 Copyright Office
i Copyright Overview 1 Copyright Statutes i Creative Commons
Resources
i Patry Blog i Geist Blog (Canadian law) 1 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.
1/10/13 7:13 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz
Page 11
Prenda LawGiase 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2
2 of 2
#:43
INTERNET ARCHIVE
Uaydaeh aching
5 captures 21 Jan 11-8 Dec 11
Pixar’s president discusses copyright laws Copyright Laws
According to a recently published article in the Salt Lake Tribune, Ed Catmull, president of Pixar Studios, linked international copyright protection to Pixar’s ability to continue investing in the cutting-edge technology that’s brought us such movies as Wall-E, Monster’s, 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 Pixar’s 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.
Home | About Us | Contact Us | Current Litigation Information © Copyright 2011 Prenda Law Inc.. All Rights Reserved. Web Design by No.1WebDesign.com.
' rik Oeb/ 14h? ofPage2b?2 f0sOA25PaAge/M2fightpirac...
co SEP Dec JAN
46
2010 =) 2012
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.
1/10/13 7:13 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz
Page 12
Prenda LawGiaSe 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Freq Qb/d4hke orPage2t Pon 4a8o4haqge/M2fightpirac...
1 of 2
#:438
INTERNET ARCHIVE http://wefightpiracy.com/litigation.php
Wayback Mechine It c i oo DEC J FEB 8 captures i < 14 >
14 Jan 12 - 4 May 12 rs 2011 =) 2013
renda Law.-
Protecting Intellectual Property
Home About Us Contact Us Recent Sampling of Cases filed 30 5-748-2102 »|
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. 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) Links
i Berne Convention : : I Copyright Office Florida (Chris Adekola) i Copyright Overview
i California (Phillip Williamson) i i Illinois (Christopher Plotts) i Copyright Statutes i Illinois (Jason Spain) I Creative Commons i Florida (William Trout) i Florida (Michael Golzman) Resources i Florida (Paul Williams) ae ; ; i Patry Blog : Illinois (Jamie Phiou) i Geist Blog (Canadian law) i Illinois (Klint Christensen) i IP Watch i Illinois (Edward Neese) i Illinois (Erik Schwarz) i Illinois (Stilian Pironkov) i Illinois (Hyung Kim) i California (Sauel Teitelbaum) i California (Jo Vasquez) i California (Steve Polan) i California (Jeff Goldberg) i California (Isaac Kamins) i California (Francisco Rivas) i California (Jason Angle) i 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.
Home | About Us | Contact Us | Current Litigation Information © Copyright 2011 Prenda Law Inc.. All Rights Reserved.
1/10/13 7:14 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 13
Prenda Lawhiase 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document an hiked eb adh? orbage2btbor4bo46/aqe/Mefightpirac... #:
INTERNET ARCHIVE
Wyaungel machine Close DEC JAN’ FEB ae
8 captures
14 Jan 12 - 4 May 12 2011 = .2013
2 of 2 1/10/13 7:14 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 14
Prenda Law@aGe 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 fried Qb/14tks orPage2bh of2368 1 sRage/MQfightpirac...
1 of 2
INTERNET ARCHIVE http://wefightpiracy.com/ \aGaul
#:440
APR “Ov DEC Close
WAUDICH MACHINE §=— > captures 4 23 iin |
20 Jan 11 - 23 Nov 12
About the Firm
HREDE ws
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
AEDS w i
2011 2012 201g—Ss Help
}
Attorneys | ' Practice — Giving Case
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.
1/10/13 7:19 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 15
Prenda Law@aGe 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 filed Qb/44hks orPage2b & 0f236:81 Page AR fiehtpirac... #:441
(wayogel Machine 21 captures 1a < 23 |
20 Jan 11 - 23 Nov 12 2011 2012 2013~S« Help
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
eeeeeee
PRENDA LAW INC. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS BLOG
Please visit our blog to find out about the lastest in the anti-piracy wars.
THE BLOG
2 of 2 1/10/13 7:19 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 16
Prenda LawhiaSe 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document nee Pike Web adh? orbage2b 120418 DS 1 36/age/Mefightpirac... #:
lof 1
INTERNET ARCHIVE http: //wefightpiracy.com/about.php
4 captures 10 Jan 12 - 18 Apr 12
Protecting Intellectual Property
Home About Us Contact Us Recent Sampling of Cases filed
Welcome
Close
co FEB 47h MAY
<4 18 > ae
2011 ©) = 2013
305-748-2102 »|
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. 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.
Home | About Us | Contact Us | Current Litigation Information © Copyright 2011 Prenda Law Inc.. All Rights Reserved. Web Design by No.1 Web Design.
Links
i Berne Convention
1 Copyright Office
i Copyright Overview 1 Copyright Statutes I Creative Commons
Resources i Patry Blog
i Geist Blog (Canadian law) 1 IP Watch
1/10/13 7:23 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz
Page 17
Prenda Law@age 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 18 of 153hufRag@i¢hpiracy.com/
1 of 2
#:443
About the Firm Attorneys | Practice Giving Case
BeEDaGasA
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
BEDE aw A
Cail: 1-800-380-0840
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:
CUureT ransaction
e copyrights e intellectual property litigation e intellectual property strategy
1/14/13 12:49 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 18
Prenda Law@ege 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 19 of 153hufRage@i¢hpiracy.com/ #:444
e licensing rights e trade secret actions e trademarks
e website hacking prosecution
PRENDA LAW INC. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS BLOG
Please visit our blog to find out about the lastest in the anti-piracy wars.
THE BLOG
2 of 2 1/14/13 12:49 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 19
$4 @ 5 © $ “4 MonJan14 12:43PM mepietz Q
JIJ/ Las LoS “ade ZU OT Loo) rade iV a —— ~~ awe Se — _ = == — ==
a AA Prenda Law INC.
J mm Prenda Law INC. | o- |
Co OO ae eee a (4 ) | |.) | @ wow .wefightpiracy.com C |EE~ Googie Q))
(i Surf> ["j Finch + [jtgiRsrch + (_j1P~ [ jCourts+ |) Corps~ [4] Bill4Time GI FBB.a OI FBB.k WY MLE >
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:
Cturel ransaction.. (hee * copyrights OaCAAs | Stale: « intellectual property litigation M Se
* intellectual property strategy « licensing rights
* trade secret actions
* trademarks
* website hacking prosecution
PRENDA LAW INC. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS BLOG
Please visit our blog to find out about the lastest in the anti-piracy wars.
, oi , Prenpa Law inc. Intellectual Prope: ty Attor
Home | About the Firm | Firm Resources | Attomeys | Practice Areas | Giving | Case Samples | Terms of Service © 2012 Copyright 2011 Prenda Law Inc. All Rights Reserved.
You may reproduce matenals 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 Prends Law Inc. {an
Hlinvoss Law firm organized es 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 sn atforney-ciient 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 matenals do not guarantees or suggest a similar result in other matiers. Pranda Law Inc.'s lawyers are ficansed in Illinois and a limited
number of other jurisdichons. They and the Firm cannot file actions in all stetes without associating locally licansed attorneys and/or becoming admitted in that jurisdichon for s limited purpose Prenda Lew Inc. lawyer responsible for the contents of this website is Paul Duffy.
Prenda Law@iaGe 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document ree Filed 01/1Ktp:Bweagsrats Oinlsads-abAGEiAD viduals.php #:44
About the Firm Attorneys , Practice Giving Case
Cali: 1-800-38(ieehiaiee
MENU —SSSSSC«&RReecent Cases Against Identified Individuals : . Prior to actually naming and serving individuals accused of various civil and criminal acts against our Suits Against clients, Prenda Law attempts to reach out and resolve the issue with the infringer/hacker and/or account Individuals 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 (Ml)
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
Suits Against Mass Does
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)
1 of 9 1/14/13 11:48 AM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 21
Prenda Lawhase 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document hee Filed 01/1Mp:BweRagsraty. OinlAas-aP-AGEMD viduals.php
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
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 22
Prenda Lawhase 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document rere Filed 01/14HA:BweRAGerad9. QinlDas-aP-AGEMD viduals.php
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 (Ml)
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 (Ml)
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 (Ml) Shehzad Lakdawala - 2:12-CV-14444-GCS-MKM (Ml)
Jason Hinds - 2:12-CV-14445-AJT-MJH (MI)
Michael Murray - 2:12-CV-14443-GAD-LJM (Ml) 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
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 23
Prenda Law@acGe 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document re Filed 01/14td:BweRagerat dfnlsats-ak-AGeih@viduals.php #:
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 (Ml
Adam Grote - Cl-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-Identified Individuals
Prenda Law also files lawsuits on behalf of the firm’s 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 wrongdoer’s 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
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 24
Prenda Lawhase 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document ro Filed 01/14HA:BweRagerath. Oink Aas-aP-AGEMD viduals.php
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-EAgJ, 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
2:12-CV-01078-GEB-GGH, John Doe, 98.208.97.196 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
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 25
Prenda Lawhase 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document ra Filed 01/1MHA:BweRAGer2§.OinlAas-aPAGEMD viduals.php
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-01655-GEB-GGH, John Doe, 174.134.231.94 2:12-CV-01656-KJM-GGH, John Doe, 174.134.185.411
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-01274-LMB-IDD, John Doe, 68.100.106.162
1:12-CV-01270-LMB-IDD, John Doe, 68.100.85.99 1:12-CV-01269-LMB-IDD, John Doe, 68.100.90.254
1:12-CV-01264-LMB-IDD, John Doe, 173.79.132.143
1:12-CV-01260-LMB-IDD, John Doe, 76.100.131.151 1:12-CV-01256-LMB-IDD, John Doe, 71.127.43.73 1:12-CV-01257-LMB-IDD, John Doe, 70.110.21.134
1:12-CV-01254-LMB-IDD, John Doe, 96.241.127.190 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
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 26
Prenda Lawhase 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document ree Filed 01/14HA:BweRAGSraty. QinlAas-aP-AGEMD viduals.php
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
6 ee Ee
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
eee
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
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 27
Prenda Lawhase 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 3 Filed 01/1MA:BweRAGR 29. QinlDis-aP-AGEMD viduals.php #:
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-08322-DMG-PJW, John Doe, 71.83.94.169
2:12-CV-08323-DMG-PJW, John Doe, 76.170.32.81
2:12-CV-08324-DMG-PJW, John Doe, 67.180.37.35 2:12-CV-08325-ODW-JC, John Doe, 173.58.57.119
2:12-CV-08326-DMG-PJW, John Doe, 76.175.182.136
2:12-CV-08327-GAF-AGR, John Doe, 71.104.194.84
2:12-CV-08328-DMG-PJW, John Doe, 76.175.251.189 2:12-CV-08329-DMG-PJW, John Doe, 68.185.77.225
2:12-CV-08330-DMG-PJW, John Doe, 76.170.133.8 2:12-CV-08332-DMG-PJW, John Doe, 96.40.162.169
2:12-CV-08333-DMG-PJW, John Doe, 108.13.119.253
2:12-CV-08334-DMG-PJW, John Doe, 173.6.105.180
2:12-CV-08336-DMG-PJW, John Doe, 71.104.70.247
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
ee
2:12-CV-01840, John Doe, 68.101.214.251
SE ee ee
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
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 28
Prenda LawGiaGe 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/1A(g:BweRager9.@fnlO8s-aPAgeihWviduals.php #:454
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).
PRENDA LAW INC. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS BLOG
Please visit our blog to find out about the lastest in the anti-piracy wars.
THE BLOG
9 of 9 1/14/13 11:48 AM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 29
GSO OC 4) Mon Jan 14 12:47PM mepietz Q Anti-Piracy Law Group
yo Anti-Piracy Law Group Mi tt ee rn
| *4- antipiracy law group dnsQ |
d oa ce er ene
(4 ) 4)>||O) | vefightpiracy.org.previewdns.com (_jSurf> (_jFinct» [ jtgiRsrch~ [| | 1P + {[_)Courts>+ ([_j Corps ~ _(isurt+ (Sj Finc + (jigtesrch~ [jp [jCourts+ [jCorps+ [4 Bill4Time @IFBBa OIFBBkK MSMIB 2 > OlFBBa OGFFBBk MLB
Anti-Piracy Law Group
NOTABLE DECISIONS SAMPLE CASES BITTORRENT BETTY
There is always interesting news and if you are a digital pirate you might see BitTorrent Betty is here to provide
important legal decisions regarding the your name end up here unless you stop commeniary regarding the latest
fight between right and wrong, creative your infringing ways. ff you are thinking develoomenis on the anti-piracy front.
artists vs. piracy about stealing conient, please reconsider.
Litigation is unpleasant for everyone
invervec.
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Prenda Law Inc.'s Dedicated Website Can be Reached at: | rm Page 30
» About Us Votable De n Sample Cases Anti-Piracy News Desh L-BOO- 300-0840 ‘ . . Piracy Costs American i 373, 375 Jobs Annually Anti-Piracy Law Group. Preserving Creativity
} wefightpiracy.org.previewdns.com/#
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 31 0f153 Page ID #:456
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 31
CORP/LLCCABELRZdIZREYORB333-ODW-JC Document pi Filed Ohib4hhow RAGS aed Pbrdtefce/CRgPAtlDicController
Jesse Wate | ¢$
SECRETARY OF STATE “saa 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 11/07/2011 State ILLINOIS (Domestic)
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 00/00/0000 For Year 2012
Date
Return to the Search Screen
BACK TO CYBERDRIVEILLINOIS.COM HOME PAGE
1 of 1 1/9/13 7:38 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 32
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 33 of 153 Page ID #:458
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 33
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 34 of 153 Image ID: ee sao a
DO0382270D02
POPP ILE
Doc. No. 382270
t 2 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LANCASTER COUNTY, NEBRASKA 575 S. 10th Street - 3rd Floor SEPARATE JUVENILE COURT-4th Floor Lincoln NE 68508
Lightspeed Media Corporation v. Jeremy Youngs Case ID: CI 12 2965
TO: Jeremy Youngs
You have been sued by the following plaintiff(s): OPY 3
Lightspeed Media Corporation
Plaintiff's Attorney: Matthew Jenkins Address: PO Box 6621 Lincoln, NE 68506
Telephone: (402) 417-6427
A copy of the complaint/petition is attached. To defend this lawsuit, an appropriate response must be served on the parties and filed with the office of the clerk of the court within 30 days of service of the complaint/petition. If
- you fail to respond, the court may enter judgment for the relief demanded in the complaint /petition.
Date: SEPTEMBER 25, 2012 BY THE COURT: Auckland cm.
Clerk
PLAINTIFF'S DIRECTIONS FOR SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT/PETITION ON:
Jeremy Youngs Nebraska Dept. of HHS
7) 301 Centennial Mall South a Lincoln, NE 68508 S @ < BY: Lancaster County Sheriff PS . Method of service: Personal Service Oe r= Za | ~ You are directed to make such service within twenty days afterGikge Mesub | 2 and show proof of service as provided by law. Wag $ 7 2 zoe 4 B25 od g OEY
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 34
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 35 o0f153 PageID i. 2 #:460
a ' ‘
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LANCASTER COUNTY, NEBRASKA
} see ak my Of fe LIGHTSPEED MEDIA CORPORATION, 1 CaseMe. dal | aoe (62 ) Plaintifl, ) } COMPLAINT ¥. ) ) JEREMY YOUNGS, ) } JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. ,)
Plaimuifl Lightspeed Media Corporation, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby files this Complaint requesting damages and injunctive relief, and alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION i. PlaintiT LIGHTSPEED MEDIA CORPORATION (“Plaintiff”) files this action for computer fraud and abuse, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and negligence. Defendant YOUNGS (“Defendant”) used one or more hacked usernames/passwords to gain unauthorized access to Plaintiff's Internet website and protected coment and, upon information and belief, continues to do the same. PlaintifT seeks a permanent injunction, statutory damages or actual damages, award of costs and attorneys’ fees, and other relief. " THE PARTIES 2. Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Arizona, with its prmecipal place of business located in Arizona. 3. Defendant is an individual adult over the age of cighieen whom, upon information and belief, is currently, and at all relevant times mentioned herein, a resident of the County of
Lancaster.
Exhibits to the-Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 35
”
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 36 of 153 Page ID oe #:461
a Oe
4) 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
5) Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against Defendant, awarding Plaintiff declaratory and injunctive or other equitable relief as may be just and warranted
under the circumstances.
DATED: July 27, 2012 Respectfully submitted, LIGHTSPEED MEDIA CORPORATION, Plaintiff
By: Matthew Jenkins, Esq. (Bar No. 23319) PO Box 6621 Lincoln, NE 68506 Tel: (415) 325-5900 Email: blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
12
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 36
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 37 of 153 Page ID #:462
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 37
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 38 of 153 PageID #:463 Case 1:12-cv-00048-BAH Document 32 Filed 04/20/12 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AF HOLDINGS LLC, ) Plaintiff, v. Case : 1:12-cv-00048 DOES 1 — 1058, Judge : Hon. Beryl A. Howell Defendants. eae ar ee er
MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF JOHN L. STEELE I, Paul A. Duffy, hereby move pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.2(d) for the pro hac vice admission of John L. Steele to the bar of this Court to act as co-counsel in this action. Mr. Steele is of counsel with the firm of Prenda Law, Inc., and is a member in good standing of the bar of the State of Illinois and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On the basis of the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that this Court admit Mr. Steele pro hac vice for the purpose of appearing and participating as co-counsel on behalf of Plaintiff, AF Holdings, Inc., in
this action. Dated: April 20, 2012 Respectfully submitted,
By: __/s/ Paul A. Duffy
Paul A. Duffy (D.C. Bar # IL0014 ) Prenda Law Inc.
161 N. Clark Street, Suite3200 Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 880-9160 Facsimile: (312) 893-5677 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
AF Holdings LLC
Exhibit _A Exhibits to the Declaratife Marg han, of, 5
Page 38
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 39 of 153 Page ID #:464 Case 1:12-cv-00048-BAH Document 32 Filed 04/20/12 Page 2 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that on April 20, 2012, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the District Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of such filing
to all counsel of record.
Dated: April 20, 2012
Is/_ Paul A. Duffy Paul A. Duffy
Exhibit _/\ Exhibits to the nasa Wie ofS
Page 39
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 40 of 153 Page ID #:465 Case 1:12-cv-00048-BAH Document 32 Filed 04/20/12 Page 3of5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AF HOLDINGS LLC, ) Plaintiff, v. Case : 1:12-cv-00048 DOES 1 — 1058, Judge : Hon. Beryl A. Howell Defendants.
DECLARATION OF JOHN L. STEELE I, John Steele, declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and Local Civil Rule 83.2(d): l. | am of counsel with the law firm of Prenda Law, Inc., counsel for Plaintiff, AF Holdings, LLC in the above-captioned action. I submit this declaration in support of Paul A. Duffy’s Motion pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.2(d) for the pro hac vice admission of John Steele to the bar of this Court. Z My full name is John L. Steele. 3. My office address is 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, Illinois 60601. My office telephone number is (312) 880-9160. 4. I have also been admitted to practice before, and am a member in good standing
of, the bars of the United States Court District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and the
State of Illinois. 5. I have not been disciplined by any bar. 6. I have been admitted pro hac vice to this Court in one case (1:12-mc-00150-
ESH-AK) in the previous two years.
Exhibit A Pg_ 3 of 5
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 40
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 41 of 153 Page ID #:466 Case 1:12-cv-00048-BAH Document 32 Filed 04/20/12 Page 4of5
ce I do not engage in the practice of law from an office located in the District of Columbia. I am not a member of the District of Columbia bar, nor do I have an application for membership pending.
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: April 20, 2012
/s/_ John Steele
John Steele
Prenda Law Inc.
161 N. Clark St., Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 880-9160 Facsimile: (312) 893-5677
Exhibit iB Pg _-| of
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 41
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 42 of 153 Page ID #:467 Case 1:12-cv-00048-BAH Document 32 Filed 04/20/12 Page 5of5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AF HOLDINGS LLC, ) Plaintiff, v. Case : 1:12-cv-00048 DOES 1 —- 1058, Judge : Hon. Beryl A. Howell Defendants.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration of the Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of John L. Steele, it is
hereby
ORDERED that John L. Steele be specially admitted to appear and participate in the
above-captioned matter as counsel for Plaintiff AF Holdings, LLC.
Dated: April 20, 2012 Hon. Beryl A. Howell United States District Court Judge
Exhibit A Pg 5 of 3
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 42
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 43 of 153 Page ID #:468
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 43
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 44 of 153 Page ID
#:469
renda Law.
VIA U.S. MAIL
Re: Sunlust Pictures. LLC v. Does 1-120
1:12-cv-20920
Prenda Law, Inc, has been retained by Sunlust Pictures, LLC to pursue legal action against people who illegally downloaded their copyrighted content (i.e., “digital pi- rates’). Digital piracy is a very serious problem for adult content producers, such as our client, who depend on revenues to sustain their businesses and pay their employ-
PAS
On February fy 2012 a rec (UTC). ow age nts observed the IP 1ddress
with which you are associated illegally downloading and sharing with others via the
BitTorrent protocol the following copyrighted fil
Sunny Leone - Goddess j _ j }
The ISP you wer nner
We have received a subpoena return from your ISP confirming that you are indeed
the person that was associated with the IP address that was performing the illegal
downloading of our client's content listed above on the exact date(s) listed above
On 3/03/2012 we filed an action against several anonymous digital pirates (Sunlust
ictures, LLC y. Does 1-120). Under the applicable rules of civil procedure. our law-
suit against you personally will not commence unless we serve you with a Complaint
While it is too late to undo the illegal file sharing associated with your IP address, we
have prepared an offer to enable our client to recover damages for the harm caused by
the illegal downloading and to allow both parties to avoid the expense of a lawsuit 893.5677 L¢ N Clark S$ Su € I s I Lincoln Rd., Suite 400, Miar B f |
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz
Page 44
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 45 of 153 Page ID #:470
Under the Copyright Law of the United States, copyright owners may recover up to $150,000 in statutory damages (in cases where statutory damages are applicable. which may or may not be the case here) per infringing file plus attorney’s fees in cases, whereas here, infringement was willful. In it least one case where the Copyright Law has been applied to digital piracy and statutory damages were applicable, juries have awarded over $20,000 per pirated file. During the RIAA’s well-publicized campaign against digital music piracy, over 30,000 people nationwide settled their cases for amounts ranging from an average of $3.000 to $12,000. More recently, on December 22, 2010. a case in which a defendant was accused of illegally downloading six works via BitTorrent, a settlement was reached for $250,000.
In light of these factors, we believe that providing you with an opportunity to avoid litigation by working out a settlement with us, versus the costs of attorneys’ fees and the uncertainty associated with jury verdicts, is very reasonable and in good faith.
In exchange for a comprehensive release of all legal claims in this matter, which will enable you to avoid becoming a named Defendant in our lawsuit, our firm is authorized to accept the sum of $3,100.00 as full settlement for the claims. This offer will expire on 05/19/2012 at 4:00 p.m. CST. If you reject our settlement offers, we expect to serve you with a Complaint and commence litigation.
To reiterate: if you act promptly you will avoid being named as a Defendant in the lawsuit. You may pay the settlement amount by:
(a) Mailing a check or money order payable to "Prenda Law Inc. Trust Account" to:
Prenda Law, Inc.
1111 Lincoln Road Suite 400
Miami Beach, FL 33139;
(b) Completing and mailing/faxing the enclosed payment authorization to: Prenda Law, Inc. 1111 Lincoln Road Suite 400 Miami Beach, FL 33139 Facsimile: (305) 748-2103.
Be sure to reference your case number and your "Ref#' on your method of payment. Regardless of your payment method, once we have processed the settlement, we will mail you your signed Release as confirmation that your payment has been processed and that you have been released from the lawsuit.
Legal Correspondence Settlement Purposes Only Not Adnpgnitits t6 thé-DebiaratidAl 6f Morgan E. Pietz Page 45
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 46 of 153 Page ID #:471
Please consider this letter to constitute formal notice that until and unless we are able to settle our client’s claim against you, we demand that you not delete any files from your computer or any other computers under your control or in your possession. If forced to proceed against you in a lawsuit, we will have a computer forensic expert inspect these computers in an effort to locate the subject content and to determine if you have deleted any content. If in the course of litigation the forensic computer evidence suggests that you deleted media files, our client will amend its complaint to add a "spoliation of evidence’ claim against you. Be advised that if we prevail on this additional claim, the court could award monetary sanctions, evidentiary sanctions and reasonable attorneys’ fees. If you are unfamiliar with the nature of this claim in this context, please consult an attorney.
We strongly encourage you to consult with an attorney to review your rights in connection with this matter. Although we have endeavored to provide you with accurate information, our interests are directly adverse to yours and you should not rely on the information provided in this letter for assessing your position in this case. Only an attorney who represents you can be relied upon for a comprehensive analysis of our client’s claim against you.
Enclosed, please find a Frequently Asked Questions sheet, a payment authorization form and a sample of the Release that you will receive. We look forward to resolving our client’s claim against you in an amicable fashion, through settlement.
Sincerely,
eww
Joseph Perea Attorney and Counselor at Law
Enclosures
Legal Correspondence Setilement Purposes Only Not Adnegnibits to thé DecleratidAOf Morgan E. Pietz Page 46
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 47 of 153 Page ID #:472
EXHIBIT FE
EXHIBIT F
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 47
Case 2:12 Cas@&33B3B-QED0336 -LBibkcu Dec mhe6+243-ledFUeAeGZ174/PagP agedf di Page ID #:473
EXHIBIT A
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 48
Case 2:12 Cus@&33B3-CQE002 26 -LBibcumerw e124 Fle dAUAGZ124/ Page ageat dh Page ID
#:474 1) The date that Plaintiff's counsel served subpoenas on each ISP and the date the ISP responded. ISP Issued Response Advanced Colocation 8/5/11 Covad Communications Co. 8/5/11 AT&T Internet Services 8/5/11 11/15/11 Color Broadband 8/5/11 8/18/11 Sonic 8/5/11 Charter Communications 8/5/11 11/15/11
Comcast Cable Communications 8/5/11 10/10/11 Frontier Communications of America 8/5/11
Sprint PCS 8/5/11
Unwired Broadband 8/5/11 8/18/11
Black Oak Computers 8/5/11 /26/11
Wave Broadband 8/5/11 10/24/11
Clearwire US 8/5/11
Verizon Online 8/5/11
Surewest Broadband 8/5/11
Cox Communications 8/5/11 11/28/11
2) The IP addresses for which Plaintiff's counsel has made a settlement offer and how that
offer was communicated, e.g. by mail, phone, or email. The movants (for motions to quash) and objectors to whom Plaintiff's counsel has made a settlement offer and how that offer was communicated.
Status IP USMail 71.202.113.106 USMail 98.208.108.119 USMail 67.121.209.48 USMail 76.127.112.56 USMail 98.182.27.239 USMail 66.215.158.202 USMail 24.6.249.176 USMail 98.207.248.39 USMail 68.101.114.52 USMail 67.166.151.220 USMail 98.234.59.149 USMail 68.113.62.22 USMail 67.180.246.80 USMail 24.4.119.18 USMail 67.181.128.221 USMail 76.14.29.230 USMail 24.6.73.58 USMail 69.107.102.11 USMail 76.254.41.180 USMail 174.65.129.8 USMail 64.203.113.177 USMail 24.23.6.73 USMail 76.126.155.41 USMail 67.161.66.97 USMail 71.198.194.113 USMail 76.126.66.211 USMail 69.108.96.77 USMail 72.211.231.103 USMail 71.204.161.2 USMail 99.183.240.55 USMail 72.197.231.3 USMail 76.200.129.112 USMail 98.210.25.174 USMail 24.4.144.239 USMail 70.181.85.58 USMail 98.207.38.44 USMail 71.198.158.39 USMail 71.202.249.178 USMail 68.4.128.139 USMail 72.220.42.29 USMail 74.213.246.188 USMail 68.5.188.159 USMail 76.230.233.239 USMail 98.192.186.87 USMail 69.227.70.219 USMail 24.23.222.237 USMail 99.183.242.47 USMail 69.107.91.219 USMail 209.237.232.57 USMail 98.176.78.121 USMail 76.20.11.145 USMail 108.81.168.247 USMail 99.24.161.31 USMail 71.195.97.154 USMail 24.180.49.171 USMail 98.234.38.72 USMail 72.220.176.44 USMail 24.5.38.201 USMail 98.210.218.152 USMail 76.126.36.154 USMail 98.207.183.169 USMail 98.238.203.2 USMail 76.103.48.164 USMail 24.205.30.192 USMail 99.183.243.142 USMail 24.5.13.184 USMail 67.180.56.26 USMail 98.176.15.188 USMail 68.127.118.133 USMail 68.126.204.146 USMail 98.248.213.208 USMail 68.5.122.173 USMail 68.111.244.226 USMail 99.41.79.188 USMail 68.7.130.203 USMail 68.105.66.166 USMail 67.169.107.114 USMail 68.8.57.53 USMail 72.197.43.207 USMail 67.187.248.194
In cases where a motion to quash was filed. Status IP USMail 71.139.12.128
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 49
eee
Case 2:12 Cas@&33B3-QE00336-LBiécubecwhG+24 Fie drUeNG2124/ Page agecf dB Page ID PAIS
USMail 71.83.208.158
3) A list of ISPs not complying with Magistrate Judge Lloyd’s expedited discovery order, and for which IP addresses the ISP is not complying. Include the reason, if any, given by the ISP for not complying.
ISP IP Addresses Reason
Advanced Colocation ALL None provided
Black Oak Computers 66.160.133.102 Two Subpoenas issued, one completed, the other no response, no reason provided
Clearwire US ALL None provided
Covad Communications Co. ALL None provided
Frontier Communications of America ALL None provided
Sonic ALL None provided
Sprint PCS ALL None provided
Surewest Broadband ALL None provided
Verizon Online ALL None provided
4) A list of ISPs not complying with a subpoena, and for which IP addresses the ISP is not complying. Include the reason, if any, given by the ISP for not complying.
ISP IP Addresses Reason
Advanced Colocation ALL None provided
Black Oak Computers 66.160.133.102 Two Subpoenas issued, one completed, the other no response, no reason provided
Clearwire US ALL None provided
Covad Communications Co. ALL None provided
Frontier Communications of America ALL None provided
Sonic ALL None provided
Sprint PCS ALL None provided
Surewest Broadband 0 None provided
Verizon Online 0 None provided
5) A list of the ISPs for which there is a pending motion to quash.
AT&T, COMCAST, CHARTER & COX
6) Whether, when, and by what means Plaintiff's counsel has contacted John Doe 134, the movant in ECF No. 25.
Plaintiff's counsel has not attempted to contact the unidentified individual referred to by the Court as “John Doe 134.”
7) Whether, when, and by what means Plaintiff's counsel has contacted or attempted to contact Messrs. Ferlito and Smith.
Plaintiff's counsel attempted to contact Mr Ferlito by U.S mail. Plaintiff's counsel attempted to contact Mr. Smith by U.S. mail.
8) A list of the IP addresses for which Plaintiff's counsel received subpoena returns and whether the ISP provided all the categories of information requested by the subpoena. If the ISP did not provide all categories of information, identify which categories of information were not
provided.
IP Address Missing email 76.200.129.112 Phone,
68.126.204.146 Phone, 69.107.91.219 | Phone, email email email 76.254.41.180 Phone,
68.127.118.133 Phone, 69.108.96.77 Phone email email 69.227.70.219 Phone 99.183.240.55 Phone,
69.107.102.11 Phone, 71.139.12.128 Email email
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 50
Case 2:12 Cus@&33B3-CVE0032 36 -LBibcuberw e124 File dHUAGZ124/ Page agedf di Page ID
#:476
99.183.242.47 Phone, 24.5.13.184 Email 76.126.66.211 Email
email 67.161.66.97 Email 98.192.186.87 Email 99.183.243.142 Phone, 67.166.151.220 Email 98.207.248.39 Email
email 67.169.107.114 Email 98.208.108.119 Email 99.24.161.31 Phone, 67.180.56.26 Email 98.210.218.152 Email
email 67.181.128.221 Email 98.210.25.174 Email 99.41.79.188 Phone 67.187.248.194 Email 98.234.128.170 Email 209.237.232.57 Phone 71.198.158.39 Email 98.234.38.72 Email 68.113.62.22 Email 771.202.113.106 Email 98.234.59.149 = Email 74.213.246.188 Email 71,202.249.178 Email 98.248.213.208 Email 24.23.222.237 = Email 76.103.48.164 Email 68.101.114.52 Email 24.23.6.73 Email 76.126.155.41 = Email 72.197.231.3 Phone, 24.4.144.239 Email 76.126.36.154 Email email 9) A list of the BitTorrent copyright infringement cases involving multiple joined John Doe
Defendants filed Plaintiff's counsel's law firm or predecessor firm in federal court. Identify the case by name, case number, court, and filing date. For each case, indicate how many Doe Defendants were actually served.
Although our records indicate that we have filed suits against individual copyright infringement defendants, our records indicate that no defendants have been served in the below-listed cases.
Case Name Case Number Court Filing date Lightspeed Media Corporation v. Does 1-9 4:11-cv-02261 ND CA 5/6/11 MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-9 3:11-cv-02262 ND CA 5/6/11 CP Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-300 1:10-cv-06255 ND IL 9/29/10 Future Blue, Inc. v. Does 1-300 1:10-cv-06256 ND IL 9/29/10 First Time Videos LLC v. Does 1-500 1:10-cv-06254 ND IL 9/29/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inc.v. Does 1-100 1:10-cv-05606 ND IL 9/2/10 Lightspeed Media Corporation v. Does 1-100 1:10-cv-05604 ND IL 9/2/10 Millennium TGA, Inc. v. Does 1-100 1:10-cv-05603 ND IL 9/2/10 In the Matter Of a Petittion By Ingenuity13 LLC 2:11-mc-00084 ED CA 10/28/11 Pacific Century International Ltd, v. Does 1-101 4:11-cv-02533 ND CA 5/25/11 Boy Racer Inc. v. Does 1-10 1:11-cv-00592 SD OH 8/26/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-10 1:11-cv-02980 ND IL 5/4/11 Boy Racer Inc. v. Does 1-10 3:11-cv-00492 WD KY 8/31/11 CP Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-12 3:11-cv-02259 ND CA 5/6/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-11 1:11-cv-23033 SD FL 8/23/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-12 1:11-cv-00595 SD OH 8/26/11 MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-14 1:11-cv-02887 ND IL 4/29/11 CP Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-14 1:11-cv-22204 SD FL 6/17/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-14 1:11-cv-02981 ND IL 5/4/11 Pacific Century International LTD v. Does 1-14 1:11-cv-03118 ND IL 5/10/11 Boy Racer Inc. v. Does 1-17 1:11-cv-05416 ND IL 8/10/11 MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-316 1:10-cv-06677 ND IL 10/15/10 Hard Drive Productions, Inv. v. Does 1-16 1:11-cv-23064 SD FL 8/25/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-16 1:11-cv-03108 ND IL 5/10/11 VPR Internationale v. Does 1-17 4:11-cv-01494 ND CA 3/28/11 First Time Videos LLC v. Does 1-18 4:11-cv-00069 SD IN 6/14/11 MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-17 3:11-cv-50062 ND IL 3/9/11 Boy Racer Inc. v. Does 1-17 1:11-cv-03097 ND IL 5/9/11 VPR International v. Does 1-1017 2:11-cv-02068 ND IL 3/8/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-118 4:11-cv-01567 ND CA 3/3/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inv. v. Does 1-18 1:11-cv-23032 SD FL 8/23/11
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 51
i se
#:477
Case 2:12 Cuse&33B3-CE0026 -LBibcuberw e124 Fle dAUbdGZ124/ Page agedf dh Page ID
MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-18 3:11-cv-01495 ND CA 3/28/11 Pink Lotus Entertainment LLC v. Does 1-20 1:11-cv-03048 ND IL 5/6/11 MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-20 1:11-cv-04486 ND IL TAWA Millennium TGA, inc. v. Does 1-24 3:11-cv-02258 ND CA 5/6/11 MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-21 4:11-cv-01783 ND CA 4/12/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-21 4:11-cv-00059 SD IN 5/20/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inv. v. Does 1-20 1:11-cv-22208 SD FL 6/17/11 AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-20 3:11-cv-00491 WD KY 8/31/11 Millennium TGA, inc. v. Does 1-21 5:11-cv-01739 ND CA 4/8/11 Boy Racer Inc. v. Does 1-23 4:11-cv-00070 SD IN 6/14/11 First Time Videos LLC v. Does 1-23 1:11-cv-05417 ND IL 8/10/11 Boy Racer Inc. V. Does 1-22 1:11-cv-02984 ND IL 5/4/11 MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-24 1:11-cv-04488 ND IL 7A Hard Drive Productions Inc. v. Does 1-25 1:11-cv-03864 ND IL 6/7/11 Openmind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1-2,925 3:11-cv-00092 SD IL 2/2/11 MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-24 1:11-cv-02985 ND IL 5/4/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 1:11-cv-02829 ND IL 4/27/11 MCGIP LLC v. Does 1-26 5:11-cv-03679 ND CA 7/27/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-27 1:11-cv-03863 ND IL 6/7/11 First Time Videos LLC v. Does 1-27 1:11-cv-02890 ND IL 4/29/11 Pacific Century International Ltd, v. Does 1-129 5:11-cv-03681 ND CA 7/27/11 First Time Videos LLC v. Does 1-28 1:11-cv-02982 ND IL 5/4/11 MCGIP LLC v. Does 1-30 5:11-cv-03680 ND CA 7/27/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inv. v. Does 1-130 4:11-cv-03826 ND CA 8/3/11 AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-29 0:11-cv-01794 DMN 7/6/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-30 1:11-cv-22102 SD FL 6/9/11 Pacific century International LTD v. Does 1-31 1:11-cv-09064 ND IL 12/21/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inv. v. Does 1-33 4:11-cv-03827 ND CA 8/3/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inv. v. Does 1-32 1:11-cv-22206 SD FL 6/17/11 MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-32 1:11-cv-22210 SD FL 6/17/11 Pacific Century International LTD v. Does 1-34 1:11-cv-03857 ND IL 6/7/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-35 1:11-cv-03866 ND IL 6/7/11 Boy Racer Inc v. Does 1-34 1:11-cv-23035 SD FL 8/23/11 AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-135 4:11-cv-03336 ND CA 7/71 Bubble Gum Productions, LLC v. Does 1-37 1:12-cv-00595 ND IL 1/26/12 First Time Videos LLC v. Does 1-37 4:11-cv-01675 ND CA 4/6/11 Openmind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1-39 3:11-cv-03311 ND CA 7/6/11 First Time Videos LLC v. Does 1-541 1:11-cv-02031-RLW DC 11/15/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-42 3:11-cv-01956 ND CA 4/22/11 First Time Videos LLC v. Does 1-43 1:11-cv-09066 ND IL 12/21/11 MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-44 1:11-cv-03098 ND IL 5/9/11 Pacific Century International LTD v. Does 1-44 1:11-cv-04825 ND IL 7/18/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-44 1:11-cv-02828 ND IL 4/27/11 Pink Lotus Entertainment LLC v. Does 1-46 5:11-cv-02263 ND CA 5/6/11 First Time Videos LLC v. Does 1-46 3:11-cv-03822 ND CA 8/3/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inc v. Does 1-46 3:11-cv-01959 ND CA 4/22/11 Pacific Century International, LTD v. Does 1-48 = 3:11-cv-03823 ND CA 8/3/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-48 3:11-cv-01957 ND CA 4/22/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-48 1:11-cv-09062 ND IL 12/21/11 MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-49 5:11-cv-01801 ND CA 4/13/11 MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-149 4:11-cv-02331 ND CA 5/11/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-51 1:11-cv-05414 ND IL 8/10/11 Boy Racer Inc v. Does 2-52 5:11-cv-02834 ND CA 6/14/11 Boy Racer Inc. v. Does 1-52 5:11-cv-02329 ND CA 5/11/11 Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-53 3:11-cv-02330 ND CA 5/11/11 Pink Lotus Entertainment LLC v. John Does 1-53 1:11-cv-22103 SD FL 6/9/11
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 52
#:478
MCGIP LLC v. Does 1-55
Hard Drive Productions, Inv. v. Does 1-55 Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-58 AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-1,058
Boy Racer Inc v. Does 1-60
AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-62
AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-162
First Time Videos LLC v. Does 1-63 MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-1,164
Hard Drive Productions, Inv. v. Does 1-166 Openmind Solutions, Inc. v. Does 1-565 Hard Drive Productions, Inc.v. Does 1-66 Boy Racer Inc v. Does 2-71
Boy Racer Inc. v. Does 1-71
Heartbreaker Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-71 Boy Racer Inc v. Does 1-73
First Time Videos LLC v. Does 1-76
Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-80 Bubble Gum Productions, LLC v. Does 1-80 Hard Drive Productions, Inv. v. Does 1-84 Pacific Century International LTD v. Does 1-87 First Time Videos LLC v. Does 1-186
Hard Drive Productions, Inc v. Does 1-87 Hard Drive Productions, Inc v. Does 1-188 Hard Drive Productions, Inc v. Does 1-87 Hard Drive Productions, Inv. v. Does 1-90 First Time Videos LLC v. Does 1-294
Hard Drive Productions, Inv. v. Does 1-1,495 AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-96 : AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-97
Boy Racer Inc. v. Does 1-98
3:11-cv-03312 1:11-cv-02798 4:11-cv-02537 1:12-cv-00048 3:11-cv-01738 1:11-cv-00593 1:11-cv-23036 1:11-cv-03837 1:10-cv-07675 5:11-cv-03682 1:11-cv-01883 5:11-cv-03005 5:11-cv-02833 5:11-cv-01958 1:11-cv-02860 3:11-cv-02534 1:11-cv-03831 5:11-cv-02535 1:12-cv-20367 5:11-cv-03648 3:11-cv-02915 3:11-cv-03310 3:11-cv-02333 3:11-cv-01566 5:11-cv-03004 5:11-cv-03825 3:11-cv-02916 1:11-cv-01741 3:11-cv-03335 4:11-cv-03067 3:11-cv-02536
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz
Page 53
Case 2:12 Cus@&33B3-CVE003 36 -LBibcuberwhe+24 File dAUAGZ124/ Page &geéf dK Page ID
7/6/11 4/27/11 5/25/11 1/11/12
4/8/11 8/26/11 8/23/11
6/6/11 12/2/10 7/27/11
10/25/11 6/17/11 6/14/11 4/22/11 4/28/11 5/25/11
6/6/11 5/25/11 1/30/12 7/26/11 6/14/11
7/6/11 5/11/11 3/31/11 6/17/11
8/3/11 6/14/11 9/27/11
7/7/11 6/21/11 5/25/11
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 54 0f 153 Page ID #:479
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 54
=
(eS)
Nn
ase 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 55 of 153 Page ID
#:480
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 in 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
INGENUITY 13, LLC, a Limited Liability _| Case Number(s): 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC
Company Organized Under the Laws of the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis,
Plaintiff, Jacqueline Chooljian V.
JOHN DOE,
Defendant.
-|-
Case Assigned to: Judge Otis D Wright, II Discovery Referred to: Magistrate Judge
DECLARATION OF JESSE NASON
DECLARATION OF JESSE NASON
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz
Page 55
ase 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 56 of 153 Page ID #:481
DECLARATION OF JESSE NASON 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.
19
DECLARATION OF JESSE NASON
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 56
se 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 57 of 153 Page | #:482
5. As a result of Prenda’s lax approach to its obligations to perform a reasonable investigation and to have good faith basis to believe something (i.¢., that J was the actual wrongdoer) before it alleges it, I have been publicly—but wrongly—accused of downloading “teen” pornography. I am a teacher, and this is a problem for me. After my attorney got the case against me dismissed on demurrer, but with leave to amend, Prenda filed a first amended complaint. On the eve of my attorney filing a demurrer to that first
amended complaint, Prenda simply dismissed this case against me without prejudice.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: January 14, 2013 At Long Beach California,
Jesse Nason, Declarant
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: January 14, 2013 THE PIETZ LAW FIRM /s/ Morgan E. Pietz Morgan E. Pietz THE PIETZ LAW FIRM Attorney for Putative John Doe(s) Appearing on Caption
By DECLARATION OF JESSE NASON
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 57
eee
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 58 of 153 Page ID #:483
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT H
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 58
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Cas
oOo © Oa NO oO FP WO YP =
PM PO Po Pp Pp Pw PO Pp NMP =|] =|] |] =|] = = =|] =F | |S Oo N DO oO FP WoW NYS + DBD Oo WO N DO Oo FP WO PHS +
2:12-0a98832-OD02.049-Dibtu Meade 24 5 ilédl@dOL40731P dgaged of 123 Page ID #:484
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
AF HOLDINGS LLC,
Plaintiff, No. C 12-2049 PJH V. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED JOHN DOE, et al., COMPLAINT Defendants.
Plaintiff's 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 Josh 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
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 59
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Cas
Go © OA NO Oa FPF WO YP =
Po PO Po Pp Pp Pw PO Pp NMP =|] =|] =|] =|] = =| =|] = | |S Oo N ODO oO FP WoW NYS +t FD O WO N DO Oo KP WO PS +
2:12-0298832-OD02.049- Mitt uMeatis@a2t4 5 ilédl Od 01401731 PP dgage? of 123 Page ID #:485
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 July 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 July 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 Josh 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 January 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
2
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 60
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Cas
Go © Oa NO oO FP WO YP =-
Po PO PO Pp Pp Po PhO Pp NM =|] =|] =|] =|] =| FF] |S FS | SS Oo N ODO oO FP WoW NYS + TD Oo WO N DO Oo KP WO PSO +
2:12-0298832-OD02049- Mitt uMeatis@a2t4 5 ilédl Od 01401731 PP dGegeB of 123 Page ID #:486
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 Hatfield’s 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 party’s use of Hatfield’s Internet connection to commit the infringement, and Hatfield’s failure to secure his Internet connection and/or failure to monitor the unidentified third party’s use of his Internet connection. In a footnote on page 1, AF Holdings stated that “[alt this stage of the litigation, [p]laintiff does not know if [djefendant Doe is the same individual as Josh Hatfield.” FAC at 1, n.1.
On June 30, 2012, Hatfield moved to dismiss the negligence claim asserted in the FAC. In its opposition, filed July 16, 2012, AF Holdings asserted that it had not alleged that Hatfield knowingly facilitated and actively participated in anyone’s 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 anda duty to secure one’s Internet connection.
On September 4, 2012, the court issued an order granting the motion, on the basis
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 61
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Cas
oO © OA NO oO FP WO YP =
Po PO PP Pp Pp Po PO Pp NM =|] =|] =|] =|] = =|] |] = | S| Oo N DO oO FP WO NS + DBD Oo WO N DO Oo KR WO PSO +
2:12-0a98832-OD02049 -DibtuMeotiAe2t4 Filédl@ad0140731 Pagagés of 123 Page ID #:487
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 defendant’s 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
4
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 62
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Cas
Go OO Oa NO oO FPF WO YP =-
Po PO PO Pp Pp Pw PO Pp NM =|] =|] =|] =|] = |] |] Fs | |S Oo N ODO oO FBP WoO NYS + FD Oo WHO N DO Oo KP WO PS +
2:12-0298832-OD02049- Pitt uMeatis@2t4 5 ilédl Od 01401731 PP dgageS of 123 Page ID #:488
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 “Plaintiff's Further Investigation of Defendant.” In this section, AF Holdings alleges that it
— initiated an online Internet investigation on September 8, 2012, which “determined [djefendant’s general online presence,” from which AF Holdings “concluded” that Hatfield had “a large Internet presence” and that “that presence demonstrated [djefendant’s knowledge of computers and the Internet,” Revised Proposed SAC 30;
~ located a Facebook page “purportedly attributed to a Josh Hatfield living in the Bay Area fitting the age range of [djefendant,” which stated that the individual “likes” movies — “pretty much any movie,” id. J 31;
- located a MySpace page “purportedly attributed to a Josh Hatfield living in the Bay Area fitting the age range of [djefendant,” 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. J 32;
- conducted a search on September 8, 2012 relating to Hatfield’s 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. J 34;
- was able to obtain no information about Hatfield’s neighbors or whether he in fact had any neighbors, id. { 34;
— conducted “more research” on September 8, 2012 regarding the
building’s “other potential residents,” which indicated that “while a residential building, it had
5
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 63
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Cas
Go © OA NO oO FP WO YP =-
Po PO PP Pp Pp Pw PO Pp NMP =|] =|] |] =|] = =| |] FF | SS Oo N ODO oO FP WoO NOS + DBD Oo WO N DO Oo FP WO PSO +
2:12-0298832-OD02049- Mitt uMeatis@a2t4 5 ilédl Od 01401731 PP dgeageé of 123 Page ID #:489
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. J 39;
— searched the court’s 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 Josh Hatfield as the infringing [djefendant 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.” ld. | 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).
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 64
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Cas
Go OO OA NO Oo FPF WO YP =
PM PO PO Pp Pp Po PO Pp NM =|] =|] =|] =|] = FF =|] = | S| Oo N DO oO FP WoW NOS + DBD Oo WO N ODO Oo KR WO PSO +
2:12-0298832-OD02.049- Mitt uMeotis@a2t4 5 iléedl Od 01401731 PP dgagey of 123 Page ID #:490
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. Plaintiff's 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 [Hatfield’s] interactions on the computer and living situation (among other things),” which information it asserts allows it to have “a good faith basis to name Josh Hatfield as the infringing [djefendant in this case.”
AF Holdings contends that the motion is timely, and that in order to respond to the court’s 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 court’s 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
7
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 65
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Cas
oO OO OA NO Oa FPF WO YP =
Po PO PO Pp Pp Pw PO Pp NM =|] =|] =|] =|] = FS | FS |S |S Oo N ODO oO FP WoW NS + DB Oo WO N DO Oo KF WO PSO +
2:12-0a98832-OD02049-Dibtu Meat 4@ 24 5 ilédl @AOL40731 P aGages of 1273 Page ID #:491
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.
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 66
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Cas
oO O© OA NO oO FP WO YP =-
Po PO PO Pp Pp Pw PhO Pp NMP =|] =|] =|] =|] = FS] =|] = =| S| Oo N DO oO FP WoW NOS + BD Oo WO N DO Oo KP WO PS +
2:12-0268832-OD0200-DibtuMeott@atd F ileal Od 0140721 dQageD of 123 Page ID #:492
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 Hatfield’s 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 Hatfield’s 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
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 67
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Cas
oOo © Oa NO Oo FPF WO PP =-
PM PO PO Pp Pp Pw PhO Pp NM =|] =|] |] =|] = =| |] FF] | SS Oo N DO oO FP Wo NOS +t FD Oo WO N DO Oo KP WO PSO +
2:12 Cas@43B2-OD204G-PDidcultantY ere SF ilEdeOl/14/14.3 Pee) 6B00bf153 Page ID #:493
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 June 14, 2012, AF Holdings asserted that it did not know if the Doe defendant was the same individual as Hatfield; and in its July 16, 2012 opposition to Hatfield’s 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.”
10
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 68
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Cas
oO OO OA NO oO FP WO YP =
Po PO Po Pp Pp Po PO Pp NM =|] =|] =|] =|] = FS =|] = =| S| Oo N DO oO FP WoW NYS + FD Oo WO N DO Oo KP WO PSO
2:12 Cas@43B3-OM2049-PDidc Ulta 6r24 SF ilBdea1//214.3 Pagey6H106f1b3 Page ID #:494
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 Hatfield’s “neighbors” is contradicted by the alleged “research” regarding the other residents of the building, as AF Holdings claims to have discovered no information about Hatfield’s neighbors, and to have simultaneously learned that “a few [unidentified] tenants” in Hatfield’s 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.
11
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 69
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Cas
Go OO Oa NO Oa FP WO YP =
Po PO PO Pp Pp Pw Pho Pp NMP =|] =|] =|] =|] = =|] =|] FF | S| Oo N ODO oO FP Wo NYS + BD Oo WO N DO Oo KP WO PSO +
2:12 Cas@43B2-OD204G-PDdcultantY er? ilEdeOl14/14.3 Pee D206f152 Page ID #:495
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 Hatfield’s opposition to the motion is DENIED, as is Hatfield’s
request that the case be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2013 (ip2w—
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge
12
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 70
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 71 0f153 Page ID #:496
EXHIBIT I
EXHIBIT I
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 71
2/11/2012 23°98 #1423 P.o0 1/002 Casqj2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 72 0f 153 PageID #:497 .
Nicholas Ranallo, Attorney at Law #275016
1 11371 Dogwood Way 5) Boulder Creek, CA 95006 Telephone No.; (831) 703 - 4011 3 || Fax No.: (831) 533-5073 P Email: nick@ranallolawoffice.com 5} Attorney for Defendant Joe Navasca | é ) 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 |) AF HOLDINGS, LLC., Case No. 3:12-cv-02396-EMC 2 Plaintiff, ; 13 JOSH HATFIELD’S DECLARATION IN v. | SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION 14 TO POST UNDERTAKING JOE NAVASCA
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF JOSH HATFTELD
1. I am over the age of 18, and presently reside in Oakland, CA. The instant declaration is based on my personal knowledge and J could and would testify competently to the truth of the facts herein.
2. 1am the defendant named in AF Holdings v. Josh Hatfield (4:12-cv-2049-PJH), presently pending in the Northern District of California.
3. AF Holdings initially accused me of negligence in that action, though the cause of action for negligence was dismissed.
4, On September 28, 2012, Plaintiff sought to amend the complaint in the above-noted matter to accuse me of sharing their clients work, though they had previously admitted that they did not know the identity of the alleged infringer.
tre rere —___Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz CV 12-2396-EMC Declaration In Support of Mosigardar Undertaking ——
T2/11%20712 Cas
aR wv Ft WD NH &
23.08
#1429 P. O02 /002
12:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 73 of 153 Page ID
#:498
After being ordered by the court, Plaintiff submitted a ‘Proposed Second Amended Complaint’, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit A.
This proposed complaint includes a section entitled “Plaintiff's Further Investigation of Defendant,” beginning on Page 8, which purportedly explains how they chose me as the “infringer” in that matter.
{31 of Plaintiff's proposed complaint discusses a Facebook page that supposedly includes evidence of guilt, including that “Defendant ‘likes’ movies, ‘pretty much atiy movie,’ among other things.”
The Facebook page identified in 431 of Plaintiff’s complaint does not belong to me, nor am [ responsible for any of the content thereon.
{32 of Plaintiff's proposed complaint discusses a MySpace page that also supposedly includes evidence of guilt, including “pictures of his various activitics, including, but not limited to, playing video games.”
The MySpace page identified in 932 of Plaintiff's proposed complaint likewise does not
belong to me, nor am I responsible for any of the content thercon.
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 12+, day of December, 2012, in Oakland, CA
AA hed bevel!
Josh Hatfield
2
ibi j E. Piet: CV 12-2396-EMC Declaration In Support of Matiexvfor Undertalcing ne
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 74 0f153 Page ID #:499
EXHIBIT J
EXHIBIT J
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 74
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 750f153 PageID #:500
GODFREAD LAW FIRM, PC.
100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1900, Minneapolis, MN 55402
November 29, 2012
Via ECF
The Honorable Richard H. Kyle 772 Federal Building
316 N. Robert Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
The Honorable Joan N. Erickson 12W US. Courthouse
300 South Fourth Street Minneapolis, MN 55415
Re: Alan Cooper - AF Holdings, LLC and Ingenuity13, LLC Dear Judge Kyle and Judge Erickson:
I represent Alan Cooper who is concerned that his name or identity is being used without his consent as the CEO of AF Holdings, LLC, a plaintiff in several cases pending in the District of Minnesota. His name appears in attachments to the pleadings in these cases. Perhaps, the CEO of AF Holdings has the same name as my client, we have substantial information that would indicate that this is not a mere coincidence. I would like to be certain my client is not at risk of liability for the outcome of these cases and others like it and that he is not being made a front for the litigation activities of plaintiffs. I have attempted to contact counsel for AF Holdings and their reaction has not been reassuring.
My client had for several years acted as a caretaker for a Minnesota property owned by an attorney by the name of John Steele. When visiting his property, Steele had on numerous occasions bragged to my client about a plan involving massive copyright litigation in multiple jurisdictions. He also specifically instructed my client to contact him if anyone asked about various corporations, that Cooper was to call him. When Cooper confronted Steele about that, Steele told him not to worry about it. Needless to say, my client was suspicious, but did not know what to make of this situation. Upon learning about the many lawsuits filed by AF Holdings and learning that AF Holdings has a CEO with an identical name he began to investigate further, eventually prompting him to retain counsel.
Steele has filed numerous lawsuits across the country similar to the ones before this court involving copyright infringement over Bittorrent and may be heavily involved in the cases filed here by AF Holdings. Steele has appeared on behalf of AF Holdings in at least one case (see Ex. A). Steele also shares an office address (161 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60601) with the office listed on the website of plaintiff’s counsel (www.wefightpiracy.com) (see Ex. B and C). Steele’s former law firm, Steele Hansmeier, appears to be the predecessor firm to Prenda Law and used the same domain name (see Ex. D - a screenshot of a cached copy of Steele’s law firm Steele Hansmeier at www.wefightpiracy.com in February 2011) Steele Hansmeier has also represented Ingenuity 13, which also appears to have a similar case pending here (0:12-cv-02686-RHK-JJG) which apparently also has a manager named Alan Cooper. (See Ex. E, page 8). From these exhibits, it is also clear that attorney Dugas shares a phone number with attorney Gibbs of Steele Hansmeier (415-325-5900).
paul@godfreadlaw.com phone 612-284-7325 www.godfreadlaw.com fax 612-465-3609
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 75
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 76 0f 153 PageID #:501
Hon. Richard H. Kyle and Hon. Joan N. Ericksen November 29, 2012 Page Two
When investigating this matter and calling the number listed on the wefightpiracy.com website, I confirmed that Steele is currently “of counsel” with Prenda Law. I called and emailed local counsel, Michael Dugas to give notice of representation and to find out if there was in fact a different Alan Cooper with AF Holdings. Within an hour after giving notice to Prenda Law and local counsel of my representation, Steele himself called my client several times in a row and asked if he had been talking to attorneys in Minnesota. Because I had not yet heard from attorneys Dugas or Steele, I looked for an alternative phone number for attorney Dugas and found a different number than the one that appears on the pleading (312-880-9160, See Ex. F). This number appears as attorney Steele’s number in Exhibit A as well. Calling that number, I heard a voicemail message which said “Prenda Law.” I again left a message, but have received no response. Because I have received no response from Dugas or Steele, and because Steele has contacted my client, my suspicions ate now increased.
Today, I received an email from another attorney from Prenda Law, Paul Duffy, suggesting that their client, AF Holdings, probably would not volunteer information. I reasserted my request to confirm that there was another Alan Cooper at AF Holdings. Shortly before sending this letter, Duffy emailed me again and said that I should not contact his office again.
My client would like certainty that his identity is not being used without his knowledge and against his will as the would be CEO of AF Holdings, LLC or as a manager of Ingenuity13, LLC. Because both are Nevis based companies, discovering the true officers or directors is at best difficult. I have attempted to contact plaintuffs’ attorneys, but have not received a response that would allow me to advise my client that he should not be concerned.
I respectfully request leave to file a motion to intervene and to seek discovery regarding the true identity of AF Holdings, LLC’s CEO and Ingenuity 13, LLC’s manager, Alan Cooper.
GACL
Paul Godfread
Exhibits
cc: John Steele, Esq. (via email) Paul Duffy, Esq. (via email) Michael Dugas (via ECF)
paul@godfreadlaw.com phone 612-284-7325 www godfreadiaw.com fax 612-465-3609
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 76
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 77 of 153 PageID #:502 Case 1:12-cv-00048-BAH Document 32 Filed 04/20/12 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AF HOLDINGS LLC, ) Plaintiff, v. Case : 1:12-cv-00048 DOES 1 — 1058, Judge : Hon. Beryl A. Howell Defendants. eae ar ee er
MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF JOHN L. STEELE I, Paul A. Duffy, hereby move pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.2(d) for the pro hac vice admission of John L. Steele to the bar of this Court to act as co-counsel in this action. Mr. Steele is of counsel with the firm of Prenda Law, Inc., and is a member in good standing of the bar of the State of Illinois and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On the basis of the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that this Court admit Mr. Steele pro hac vice for the purpose of appearing and participating as co-counsel on behalf of Plaintiff, AF Holdings, Inc., in
this action. Dated: April 20, 2012 Respectfully submitted,
By: __/s/ Paul A. Duffy
Paul A. Duffy (D.C. Bar # IL0014 ) Prenda Law Inc.
161 N. Clark Street, Suite3200 Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 880-9160 Facsimile: (312) 893-5677 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
AF Holdings LLC
Exhibit _A Exhibits to the Declaratife Mag han, of, 5
Page 77
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 78 of 153 Page ID #:503 Case 1:12-cv-00048-BAH Document 32 Filed 04/20/12 Page 2 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that on April 20, 2012, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the District Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of such filing
to all counsel of record.
Dated: April 20, 2012
Is/_ Paul A. Duffy Paul A. Duffy
Exhibit _/\ Exhibits to the nasa Wie ofS
Page 78
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 79 of 153 Page ID #:504 Case 1:12-cv-00048-BAH Document 32 Filed 04/20/12 Page 3of5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AF HOLDINGS LLC, ) Plaintiff, v. Case : 1:12-cv-00048 DOES 1 — 1058, Judge : Hon. Beryl A. Howell Defendants.
DECLARATION OF JOHN L. STEELE I, John Steele, declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and Local Civil Rule 83.2(d): l. | am of counsel with the law firm of Prenda Law, Inc., counsel for Plaintiff, AF Holdings, LLC in the above-captioned action. I submit this declaration in support of Paul A. Duffy’s Motion pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.2(d) for the pro hac vice admission of John Steele to the bar of this Court. Z My full name is John L. Steele. 3. My office address is 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, Illinois 60601. My office telephone number is (312) 880-9160. 4. I have also been admitted to practice before, and am a member in good standing
of, the bars of the United States Court District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and the
State of Illinois. 5. I have not been disciplined by any bar. 6. I have been admitted pro hac vice to this Court in one case (1:12-mc-00150-
ESH-AK) in the previous two years.
Exhibit A Pg_ 3 of 5
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 79
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 80 of 153 Page ID #:505 Case 1:12-cv-00048-BAH Document 32 Filed 04/20/12 Page 4of5
ce I do not engage in the practice of law from an office located in the District of Columbia. I am not a member of the District of Columbia bar, nor do I have an application for membership pending.
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: April 20, 2012
/s/_ John Steele
John Steele
Prenda Law Inc.
161 N. Clark St., Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 880-9160 Facsimile: (312) 893-5677
Exhibit iB Pg _-| of
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 80
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 81 of 153 Page ID #:50 Case 1:12-cv-00048-BAH Docurient 32 Filed 04/20/12 Page 5of5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AF HOLDINGS LLC, ) Plaintiff, v. Case : 1:12-cv-00048 DOES 1 —- 1058, Judge : Hon. Beryl A. Howell Defendants.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration of the Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of John L. Steele, it is
hereby
ORDERED that John L. Steele be specially admitted to appear and participate in the
above-captioned matter as counsel for Plaintiff AF Holdings, LLC.
Dated: April 20, 2012 Hon. Beryl A. Howell United States District Court Judge
Exhibit A Pg 5 of 3
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 81
11/2
ts
7/12
STEELE LAW FIRM
Chicago Divorce Lawyer, Child Support Attorney, Child Custody Lawyers, Family Law Attorneys - Ste...
312-893-5888
(IN NORTHERN ILLIn
MAKE A FRESH START
vHome Attorney Profi
Divorce And Family Law Child Custody
Child Support
Modification & Enforcement
Collaborative Divorce & Mediation
Prenuptial & Postnuptial Agreements
Spousal Support / Maintenance
Domestic Violence & Orders of Protection
Adoption
Bankruptcy
LAW FIRM, LLC
31 3-5838 Toll-Free
STEELE
e
Office Locations:
Downtown Chicago
Suite 3200
www.steele-law.com
[URN OVER
Steele Law Firm Ove
NEW LEAI
nily Law Rs s Contact Us
WELCOME TO THE STEELE LAW FIRM, LLC with Offices in Chicago, IL.
Family Law ¢ Bankruptcy e Divorce e Child Custody Child Support e Prenuptial Agreements
If you are going through a divorce, or if your financial troubles are leading you to consider bankruptcy, you now have the opportunity to take a situation that isn't working out and make it better.
All of our clients have unique personal problems that they need help with. We are in the business of solving thos problems, whether they be related to family law matters, such as divorce, child custody or child support, or consumer bankruptcymatters, Contacting a lawyer can be the first step toward taking hold of your future and building a better life.
If you are looking for an attorney who will do what it takes to get you relief from your legal concerns, contact us to schedule a free initial consultation about your case.
Quality Legal Assistance in Illinois
The Steele Law Firm is one of Chicagoland's premier family law and consumer bankruptcy law firms. Our attorneys and staff are committed to providing high quality, accessible, compassionate service to our clients. We give each client and case the individual attention they deserve, and do everything in our power to reach our clients’ overall needs and goals.
Our main office is located in the Loop in downtown Chicago, and we also have an office location in the Chicago suburb of Naperville. We represent clients with matters in Cook County, DuPage County, Kane County, Lake County, and Will County family courts, and the Norther, Southern and Central Districts of Illinois federal bankruptcy courts.
Whether you are looking for an advocate in a divorce proceeding, need help enforcing a child support order, want to know whether Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy is better for you, you need the advice and assistance of a skilled, experienced Illinois attorney to help you protect all of your legal rights.
Give us a call today at (312) 893-5888 or 1-800-DIVORCE (in Northern Illinois) or contact us to learn more about how we can help you or to set up a FREE consultation.
Rate Information:
Fixed Hourly Rates Fixed Flat Fees Available
FREE Consultation
We Accept Major Credit Cards « Visa
* MasterCard
* American Express
* Discover
We Can Assist You With:
* Matrimonial Law
° Family Law
* Divorce
* Domestic Relations
* Dissolution of Marriage and Legal Separation * Litigation in Trial Courts
* Negotiated Settlements
* Alternative Dispute Resolution, such as Collaborative Law and Mediation * Appeals to Reviewing Courts
* Financial Discovery and Analysis
© Property Division
* Retirement Benefits
* Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) * Paternity
* Adoption
Exhibit 3 Exhibits to the 2
Page 82
1-800-DIVORCE
1/2
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 83 of 153 Page ID
11/27/12 Chicago Divorce Lawyer, Child Support Attorney, Child isAA awyers, Family Law Attorneys - Ste...
www. steele-law.com
* Child Custody, including Joint Custody and Sole Custody * Child Visitation
¢ Child Support
* Child Abductions
* Maintenance, formerly known as Alimony
* Spousal Support
* Marital Settlement Agreements
« Premarital Agreements
* Postnuptial Agreements
« Annulments
* Domestic Violence
* Post-Decree and Post-Judgment Issues and Modifications * Restraining Orders
* Separation Agreements
We are a debt relief agency.
Exhibit 0 Exhibits to the oP aiordeuREnvictz
Page 83
2/2
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 84 of 153 Page ID 11/27/12 Prenda tawitto09
ry } firm Oem Doc rroc ttarnove Aboutthefirm FirmResources Attorneys
OF1| i ro 10)Ore10 0 0157-10
DISCLAIMER
The information provided on Prenda Law, Inc.'s website is not intended to be legal advice, but merely conveys general information related to legal issues commonly encountered. This information is not intended to create any legal relationship between Prenda Law, Inc. Intellectual Property Attorneys or any attorney and the user. Neither the transmission nor receipt of these website materials will create an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver.
The information is not guaranteed to be correct, complete, or current. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, about the accuracy or reliability of the information at this website or at any other website to which this site is linked.
Please note that recovery results vary per client. The recovery amounts in each case reflect the specific facts of that case. Further, recovery amounts in past cases are not a guarantee of future results.
There are no photos of clients on this website. Photos used on this website have been purchased from stock photography companies.
This website is not intended to create and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the user and Prenda Law, Inc. Intellectual Property Attorneys. An attorney-client relationship with us cannot be formed by reading the information at this website. The only way to become our client is through a mutual agreement in a formal letter. This website is not soliciting clients and does not propose any type of transaction. You should not act or rely on any information at this website without seeking the advice of an attorney. The determination of whether you need legal services and your choice of a lawyer are very important matters that should not be based on websites or advertisements.
THIS SITE IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS", "AS AVAILABLE" BASIS AND PRENDA LAW INC. EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
PRENDA LAW DISCLAIMS ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LOSS, INJURY, CLAIM, LIABILITY, OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND RESULTING FROM, ARISING OUT OF OR ANY WAY RELATED TO (A) ANY ERRORS IN OR OMISSIONS FROM THIS SITE AND ITS CONTENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO TECHNICAL INACCURACIES AND TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS, (B) ANY THIRD PARTY WEBSITES OR CONTENT THEREIN DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ACCESSED THROUGH LINKS IN THIS SITE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY ERRORS IN OR OMISSIONS THEREFROM, (C) THE UNAVAILABILITY OF THIS SITE OR ANY PORTION THEREOF, (D) YOUR USE OF THIS SITE, OR (E) YOUR USE OF ANY EQUIPMENT OR SOFTWARE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SITE.
PERSONAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO THE WEBSITE
Any information that you send us in an email message might not be confidential or privileged. Prenda Law, Inc. makes effort to protect personal information submitted by users of the website, including through the use of firewalls and other security measures on our servers. However, no server is 100 percent secure, and you should take this into account when submitting personal or confidential data about yourself on any website, including this one.
Additionally, while the website does not gather your name, email address or similar information about you without your knowledge or consent, the website does permit you to voluntarily submit data about yourself so that we can provide you with requested services. The information gathered will be incorporated into our mailing database and will not be sold to third parties for marketing purposes. At your request, we will remove your personal information from our files.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by email communication.
The telephone numbers for our office are listed in this website. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
PRACTICE JURISDICTIONS
Prenda Law, Inc. is an Illinois law firm. Always directly confirm with the individual attorney whom you contact whether he or she practices the type of law with which you need assistance in your jurisdiction.
wefightpiracy.com/terms-of-service.php Exhibit C 1/3
Exhibits to thE Qetaralion of MErgadePietz
Page 84
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 85 of 153 Page ID 11/27/12 Prenda tawitie LO
TERMS OF USE MAY BE MODIFIED BY THE FIRM
Prenda Law, Inc. periodically changes, adds, or updates the material in this website without notice. Prenda Law, Inc. assumes no liability or responsibility for any errors or omissions in the contents of this website. Your use of this website is at your own risk. Under no circumstances shall Prenda Law, Inc. or any other party involved in the creation, production or delivery of this website be liable to you or any other person for any indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any kind arising from your access to, or use of, this website.
THIRD-PARTY WEBSITES
This website may occasionally contain links to third party websites for the convenience of our users. Prenda Law, Inc. does not endorse any of these third party sites and does not intent to imply any association between the firm and the party(ies) involved. Furthermore, Prenda Law, Inc. does not control these third party websites and cannot represent that their policies and practices will be consistent with these Terms of Use. If you use any links to websites not maintained by Prenda Law, Inc., you do so at your own risk. Prenda Law, Inc. is not responsible for the contents or availability of any linked sites. These tinks are provided only as a convenience to the recipient.
LEGAL AND ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS
Prenda Law, Inc. has tried to comply with all legal and ethical requirements in compiling this website. We do not want to represent clients based on their review of any portion of this website that jot comply with legal-or. ethical requirements.
les of any jurisdiction require us to designate a principal ° ice or an attorney responsible for in 161 N Clark St., Suite 3200, Chicago, IL 60601 and its telephone number as (312) 880-
To the extent that the professional responsibility this website, Prenda Law, Inc. designates its offi
2160 STATE ADVERTISING DISCLAIMERS eee
Alabama: No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
——
Colorado: Colorado does not certify attorneys as specialists in any field.
Florida: The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience.
Illinois: Untess otherwise stated, our attorneys claiming certification in an area of law are not certified by the Illinois Board of Lega! Specialization.
lowa: The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. This disclosure is required by rule of the Supreme Court of lowa.
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: Memberships and offices in legal fraternities and legal societies, technical and professional licenses, and memberships in scientific, technical and professional associations and societies of law or field of practice do not mean that a lawyer is a specialist or expert in a field of law, nor do they mean that such a lawyer is necessarily any more expert or competent than any other lawyer. All potential clients are urged to make their own independent investigation and evaluation of any lawyer being considered. This notice is required by rule of the Supreme Court of lowa.
Kentucky and Oregon: THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT.
Mississippi: The Mississippi Supreme Court advises that a decision on legal services is important and should not be based solely on advertisements.
Missouri: Neither the Supreme Court of Missouri nor the Missouri Bar reviews or approves certifying organizations or specialist designations. Nevada: The State Bar of Nevada does not certify any lawyer as a specialist or expert. New Mexico: LAWYER ADVERTISEMENT.
Tennessee: None of the attorneys in this firm are certified as a Civil Trial, Criminal Trial, Business Bankruptcy, Consumer Bankruptcy, Creditor's Rights, Medica! Malpractice, Legal Matpractice, Accounting Malpractice, Estate Planning or Elder Law specialist by the Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal Education and Specialization. Certification as a speciafist in all other listed areas is not currently available in Tennessee.
Wyoming: The Wyoming State Bar does not certify any lawyer as a specialist or expert. Anyone considering a lawyer should independently investigate the lawyer's credentials and ability, and not rely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise.
LAWYER'S LISTINGS
The information in the directory of lawyers is provided by the listees. Prenda Law, Inc. does not warrant the validity of the information, nor does it guarantee the quality of the work product.
The determination of the need for iegal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. Prenda Law. Inc. does not review the contents of the listings, which are provided by the listees or any links; Prenda Law, inc. is not responsible for any material or information contained in the linked sites or provided by listees.
A description or indication of limitation of practice by a lawyer does not mean that any agency or board has certified such lawyer as a specialist or expert in any indicated field of law practice, nor does it mean that such lawyer is necessarily any more expert or competent than any other
lawyer. All potential clients are urged to make their own independent investigation and evaluation of any lawyer being considered.
OWNERSHIP, LICENSE & RESTRICTIONS ON USE
As between Prenda Law, Inc. and you, all right, title and interest (including all copyrights, trademarks and other intellectual property rights) in this website belongs to Prenda Law, Inc., its licensors, or tistees. In addition, the names, images, pictures, logos and icons identifying Prenda Law, Inc. products and services in many countries are proprietary marks of Prenda Law, Inc. and/or its subsidiaries or affiliates. Except as expressly provided below, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right, by implication, estoppel or otherwise, under copyright or other intellectual property rights.
wefightpiracy.com/terms-of-service.php Exhibit C 2/3
Exhibits to the aratiehof Oban _Pictz
Page 85
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 86 of 153 Page ID
11/27/12
Prenda tawitelt
You are hereby granted a nonexclusive, nontransferable, limited license to view and use information retrieved from this website provided solely for your personal, informational, non-commercial purposes, and provided you do not remove or obscure the copyright notice or other notices. Except as expressly provided above, no part of this website, including but not limited to materials retrieved there from and the underlying code, may be reproduced, republished, copied, transmitted, or distributed in any form or by any means. In no event shall materials from this website be stored in any information storage and retrieval system without prior written permission from Prenda Law, Inc. Intellectual Property Attorneys.
Use, duplication, or disclosure by or for the United States Government is subject to the restrictions set forth in DFARS 252.227-7013 (c)1)(ii) and FAR 52.227-19.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
A covered party (as defined below) shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, or consequential damages of any kind whatsoever (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and lost profits or savings) in any way due to, resulting from, or arising in connection with this site, including its content, regardless of any negligence of any covered party. "Covered party" means Prenda Law, Inc., its affiliates, its listees, and any officer, director, employee, subcontractor, agent, successor, or assign Prenda Law, Inc., its affiliates, and its listees.
GOVERNING LAWS IN CASE OF DISPUTE; JURISDICTION
These Terms of Use shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois, USA, as they apply to agreements made and solely performed therein. Disputes arising hereunder shall be exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the United States of America and/or the state courts of Illinois and jurisdiction therefore shall rest solely in Illinois, USA.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT; SEVERABILITY
These Terms of Use incorporate by reference any notices contained on this Site and constitute the entire agreement with respect to your access to and use of this Site. If any provision of these Terms and Conditions is unlawful, void or unenforceable, then that provision shall be deemed severable from the remaining provisions and shall not affect their validity and enforceability.
Material available in Prenda Law, Inc. website is protected by copyright law.
Prenda Law, Inc. All rights reserved.
Home | About the Firm | Firm Resources | Altomeys | Practice Areas | Givina | 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 shoukl not be construed as legal advice on any specilic fact or circumstance. e conere wes Devers by Prenda Law Inc. {an Uinois law fem organized as a lxnted liability company with Rs principal office at 161 North Clark Street, Sute 3200, Chicago, Minois 60601, Ph 1-300-380-0840) for information purposes only. Your receipt of such information does not create an attomey-cient relationship with Prenda Law Inc. or any of ts 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 sirriar result in other matters. Prenda Law Inc's lawyers are Scensed in Ifinols and @ imited number of other jurisdictions. They end He Fan cannes) fie pacers Oat Mates wkhout associating locally Ecensed attomeys and/or becoming admitted in that n fora limited purpose Prenda Law Inc. bueyervenrenats for the contents of this website Is Paul Duffy.
wefightpiracy.com/terms-of-service.php Exhibit © _ c
Exhibits to the Reni cr Ofand ree
Page 86
3/3
Steele | HansméierPLLE
11/28/12
PBOBSO LES AERKEDER EH BEE KH ASSOC CHPHEERG CEES US HVOCELE PROPS SSBLEBE SHO SCROBESSEEA POOCEOCLEARSCS RRO KERB EEE ~B - - ae hte eee PCOS SASSARKOOREKHERSKA . peprererensey"e"e"9
OSH VSERESRLARESEEBBBEEE PPPEHCOCARESRHSE A ARAEKBEEEDE
LSS eEEEECS ERE HEHE KAGE PEP SSLE LEAH OKAHEABHABHEWS POASESEHEAEHEHMEBEHBBLE * <2. PDO OSS HE RSHSERKRAEB HES PEP SSONERS LP SOR OTHE EEBEHSEDEH MSCS eTERLSAERASWRREHEERLE PFCHOCRE DBEBSAEME S@ueeszs SOE SSE SEHRBEBSESSE. SP SRRRERESSORCOSRSRSEDEESS + eA Sha SSCLRSSOSESSES. CORSE PECERESSOH EO KESHSEEES 26655 25004400868858888 SERCROSELORESES SSS SSSSESSESRSOORSES SSSPOSSHSSS ececesesssescys 24 486565550886680688 Se ee ee BBO SSS REO SESERRSEE SSS POERP COPED DHE SKEAGHRE DE Secs POSSSPASSHS** Se ec saeveseaeatos SVSPSSPSS SS OSES HOOEEHEZESES POSH SROSSA AHP SHH SKEE HESS PORSSBESOSRSL HORSES ie eee “ PLA HATH SACHA H RHEE PEDROH PH OVEPEE BR EHKDSENHBEE Ol ei ee ed PHPO SRA THESE FE SERAREH EME SDT UPEGCELH CULE SEEK SSENOSL® PMSF SSOPOStYSeHoEssBenSe2s POPS O HST SV SHO FEBEHEEABREECE ertesvessvessac 368° ~Segge + SRS SBESSH SCOT E Te: ke - : 5 Serer r rc. st) ee ies PP kee Paaeses PROTEST EEGOEED POPPE SORE DET ESE OROMEaRESZSA - ee SSS. Cerne ee 5265S 2RbRREESD PPLE EY OOO SE RERRBE SER GK SERS SSOKEESESSE: Se ee ee ee ee Mle bh a a A SOS RHEE ESEERREE: + 6 SMSO SSHHSSSSRSE: oe S22 2eee
.
* POTS AKERS OE PPPPCHEERE STOASFREEP BER SRRPRES SECS eh esseessuws POPES E SHPO See eHHOsweEnaeD LECKOLLAL EHTEL ERY RRESE EK HOSE BROOwe— SES HK SSS CEPR KTTEEHE GOS + ORO em wwe ~~ Pe etree wse oeeOen ae MORO Re wee PRES ERED SE Oe ee Om ow ee ee BbbCwrowe - PPTTSRSTES DER HEH OWE HEN eRe mewn - PPECERPASOF HE HME EE ORK ~eGennn~—- PPEOPSR NES ee rn woeess eee PEST SSE eerareene ee ewewn ¢ receer -eetece=- al PVCS PT Sere ew eeen- PEST ORE ees —e@eeen-- 5 4h ened Pree es & Seen eee eean See eue Cee eevens LPEERES Hee CONOR S eee Ee > RET EE CP o eA Bo LE SCL SSS HTS ERA Re Oe Bee Ow ae nt me om PPO RE RED Fe OH OOH wwe er eee
LEPOPT ELLE KPOR eH ee ewe ~ehoes~
See oe ee eed ~seewe - . > a hon heh 2 hed 4 oebece - PROTH He ewe ocrs ‘ - —eOeee
Pete beet ences ~ a Rigseas -
SESPHRE STE
$ee ft
54 +4 sea rt
Sipetht
and businesses who steal our client's content.
Fee ee
5 a
LIPS TES EPCOT EH Fees : ~ebeuwne VETO SSO EN He oe ee ve twnne Sy Oda ehhh , ehowes— PEPOSOTOCSHE SP Sr ESC ee TT Sere ~e@orwn-- icpunabeeseaabebbhaebane . eb awne- POLPSOR Pewee woeweweronns cabeoce—
¥ Sah ae Ee ie ee cevere ~-6Becen~ LRELST TST ESET TERT Sew e - be ww swerve + ee temewn
cornetnes Abe e |
action against individuals
|http://wefightpiracy.com/ the vast majority of infringement occurs under the cover of IP addresses
e Steele | Hansmeier Jun 19, 2010 Steele | Hansmeier PLLC is a law firm dedicated to eradicating digital piracy. We represent prominent content e Combating Piracy in the Digital Age Jun 19, 2010 Our practice includes addressing the unique legal issues posed by Internet-based piracy, where
mM = steseste SSbesss fe &, sesEeEeoe =Saeees v ~~Reece —_ a) He wen-- 5] 2 IEE SC SRST S Se SS$eere- st c RSTO Tet rete TF ~ g oe : e E ete Z; E $30 4 8 Ss pt ~ # eo) ep e a >: = 4 = 2 5 = Ss i. oH & 2 cad [= qo Z +2 = is 4a g Settee het sh ereteenesete « & * = = — 2 | Saed ¥ 4 _— x a490 4. Fe) Pk hraerersesee tree Rneten ses : sa) aa S ree i fx] a vO ro t [= > eeeee i? 2]
1/4
l
a
digit:
’
If left unchecked
Exhibi Exhibits to the BG eretbnet Rhea -pietz
Page 87
generations.
arts for future
creative world.
gthe
Ss preservin around the
a
ssionals
fe
view our mission arts pro
eative //wefightpiracy.com/
, 2010 We
e Arts Jun 19 existential threat to cr
piracy represents an
e Preserving the Creativ web.archive.org/web/20110207181155/http
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 88 of 153 Page ID 11/28/12 Steele | Hansmelor PLS
e Steele | Hansmeier
e Combating Piracy in the Digital Age
e Preserving the Creative Arts
20 Js
About Us
Steele | Hansmeier PLLC is a Chicago-based 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.
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 reflect 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
e 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.
rop 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
web.archive.org/web/20110207181155/http://wefightpiracy.com/ Exhibit 2 2/4
Exhibits to the Declaratjon of Morgan. Rip tZ
Page 88
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 89 of 153 Page ID 11/28/12 Steele | Hansmeler PLLC
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 file can be digitally fingerprinted based on a variety of characteristics (e.g. rhythm, length, melody, ete.). This fingerprint can be compared to those of other audio files. 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 artist’s bargaining power is much stronger before they invest millions of dollar into marketing and distributing a creative work.
In 2008, Joe Satriani filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the Grammy Award-winning band, Coldplay. Satriani’s suit alleged that Coldplay's hit song, Vida la Vida, contained substantial portions of Satriani’s, If | Could Fly. The parties eventually reached an out-of-court monetary settlement for an undisclosed financial sum.
In addition to avoiding infringement lawsuits, it is important to know whether a given creative work will even be afforded 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 artist’s 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 one’s copyrights. As a general rule, copyright registration is a prerequisite to filing a copyright infringement lawsuit in U.S. federal court and a timely filing will preserve remedies that may be lost indefinitely if one does not timely register his or her copyright.
Enforcing Copyrights
Copyright enforcement is a rapidly evolving field. Recent advances in communications technology have dramatically lowered the cost and increased the profitability 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
web.archive.org/web/20110207181155/http://wefightpiracy.com/ Exhibit 3/4
Exhibits to the Decladit@ of MpraarQef Pidt
Page 89
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 90 of 153 Page ID 11/28/12 Steele | Hansmdferdere:
Latest News
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 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. [...]
According to a recently published article in the Salt Lake Tribune, Ed Catmull, president of Pixar Studios, linked international copyright protection to Pixar’s ability to continue investing in the cutting-edge technology that’s brought us such movies as Wall-E, Monster's, Inc., and Up - all of which are presumably registered trademarks of Pixar Animation Studios. At [...]
Ridley Scott’s 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
e RSS e Facebook © Twitter e flickr top web.archive.org/web/20110207181155/http://wefightpiracy.com/ Exhibit 4/4
Exhibits to the nectar eects OF
Page 90
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 91 0f 153 PageID #:516
Case 2:11-mc-00084-JAM-DAD Document1 Filed 10/28/11 Page 1 of 8
—
Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000)
Steele Hansmeier PLLC. 2 {138 Miller Avenue, #263 Mill Valley, CA 94941 3 || 415-325-5900 blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com 4 Attorney for Petitioner 5 6 ” IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 || In the Matter Of a Petition By ) ) 11 || INGENUITY 13 LLC, ) No. ) 12 ) Judge: ) 13 ) VERIFIED PETITION TO ) PERPETUATE TESTIMONY 14 ) ee 15 16 1. Petitioner Ingenuity13 LLC by and through its undersigned attorney, hereby
17 || petitions this Court for an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 authorizing the 18 || issuance of subpoenas duces tecum to the Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) listed on Exhibit A to 19 || this petition.
20 pa Petitioner is limited liability company organized and existing under the laws 21 || of the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis. Petitioner produces adult entertainment content and this 22 |jcontent is being unlawfully reproduced and distributed over the Internet via the BitTorrent file 23 || transfer protocol. An individual or individuals wrongfully reproduced and distributed Petitioner’s 24 ||copyrighted works via the BitTorrent protocol in violation of Petitioner’s exclusive rights under 25 || United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, ef seq. Petitioner anticipates bringing a civil action 26 || against the person or persons engaging in such unlawful activity. This action would be cognizable in 27 ||a United States court as United States courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright actions.
2g || Without knowing the identity or identities of the anonymous infringers, Petitioner has no means to
Exhibit _C_
Exhibits to the neclaratint Aerere-rOl Se
Page 91
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 92 of 153 Page ID #:517
Case 2:11-mc-00084-JAM-DAD Document1 Filed 10/28/11 Page 2 of 8
—_
name and serve the individual or individuals in an action with summons and complaint. The purpose
2 || of this petition is to ascertain these identity or identities. 3 3. Petitioner seeks the name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and 4 || Media Control Access number of each account holder associated with the Internet Protocol (“IP”) 5 || addresses listed on Exhibit B to this petition. Each of the IP addresses was identified by Petitioner’s 6 || agents as being associated with infringing activity on the corresponding dates and times listed on 7 || Exhibit B. The reasons to perpetuate the testimony are multiple. First, without this information 8 || Petitioner has no means to name and serve a complaint on the infringing parties. Second, on 9 || information and belief, this information is destroyed in the regular course of business and will be 10 || unavailable to Petitioner after it is destroyed. An example of an ISP’s data retention policy is shown 11 || as Exhibit C. Finally, under the Cable Communications Policy Act, 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), a court 12 || order is necessary to discover an account holder’s identity. 13 4. The names and addresses of the person or persons whom Petitioner expects to 14 || be adverse parties are unknown to Petitioner. The individual or individuals responsible for infringing 15 || Petitioner’s works are known to Petitioner only by an IP address—a number that is assigned to 16 || devices, such as computers, that are connected to the Internet. Petitioner used geolocation to trace 17 ||the IP addresses of the expected adverse party or parties to a point of origin within the State of 18 || California. 19 5. The name and address of each responding party is set forth on Exhibit A to 20 || this petition. Petitioner is seeking the name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and Media 21 ||Control Access number of each account holder associated with the Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses 22 || listed on Exhibit B to this petition. 23 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 24 6. Petitioner is the owner of the copyright for the motion picture set forth in 25 || Exhibit D to this petition. 26 7. As set forth below, Petitioner has actionable claims for direct and contributory 27 || copyright infringement and a claim for civil conspiracy against the individual or individuals who 28
2 VERIFIED PETION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY
Exhibit Z Exhibits to the Declaration PG erthoaicOf f
Page 92
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 93 0f 153 PageID #:518
Case 2:11-mc-00084-JAM-DAD Document1 Filed 10/28/11 Page 3 of 8
—_
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 Petitioner’s work(s).
A. The Unknown Infringers used BitTorrent to Infringe Petitioner’s Copyrights
& Ww bw
8. BitTorrent is a modern file sharing method (“protocol”) used for distributing 5 || data via the Internet. BitTorrent protocol is a decentralized method of distributing data. Instead of 6 || relying on a central server to distribute data directly to individual users, the BitTorrent protocol 7 || allows individual users to distribute data among themselves by exchanging pieces of the file with 8 || each other to eventually obtain a whole copy of the file. When using the BitTorrent protocol, every 9 || user simultaneously receives information from and transfers information to one another. 10 9. The BitTorrent protocol is an extremely popular method for transferring data. 11 || A group of individuals transferring data among one another (the “swarm”) will commonly include 12 || peers from many, if not every, state in the United States and several countries around the world. And 13 || every peer in the swarm participates in distributing the file to dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of 14 || other peers. 15 10. The BitTorrent protocol is also an extremely popular method for unlawfully 16 || copying, reproducing, and distributing files in violation of the copyright laws of the United States. A 17 || broad range of copyrighted albums, audiovisual files, photographs, software, and other forms of 18 || media are available for illegal reproduction and distribution via the BitTorrent protocol. 19 11. Efforts at combating BitTorrent-based copyright infringement have been 20 || stymied by BitTorrent’s decentralized nature. Because there are no central servers to enjoin from 21 || unlawfully distributing copyrighted content, there is no primary target on which to focus anti-piracy 22 || efforts. Indeed, the same decentralization that makes the BitTorrent protocol an extremely robust and 23 || efficient means of transferring enormous quantities of data also acts to insulate it from anti-piracy 24 || measures. 25 12. The infringing parties in this action were all observed using the BitTorrent 26 || protocol to unlawfully reproduce and distribute Plaintiff's copyrighted work by exchanging pieces
27 || with one another either directly or via a chain of data distribution.
3 VERIFIED PETION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY
Exhibit _¢
—
Exhibits to the Declaration of vdeQ ote: of - a
Page 93
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 940f153 PageID #:519
Case 2:11-mc-00084-JAM-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/28/11 Page 4 of 8
_—
B. Each infringer installed a BitTorrent Client on his or her computer
Z 13. The individual or individuals associated with the infringing activity installed a 3 || BitTorrent Client onto his or her computer(s). Normal commercial computers do not come pre- 4 || loaded with BitTorrent software. Each infringer must have separately installed on their respective 5 ||}computers special software that allows peer-to-peer sharing of files by way of the Internet. The 6 || infringers use software known as BitTorrent clients. Among the most popular BitTorrent clients are 7 || Vuze (formerly Azureus), 1.Torrent, Transmission and BitTorrent 7, although many others are used 8 || as well. 9 14. Once installed on a computer, the BitTorrent “Client” serves as the user’s 10 || interface during the process of uploading and downloading data using the BitTorrent protocol. 11 C. The Initial Seed, Torrent and Tracker 12 15. A BitTorrent user who wants to upload a new file, known as an “Initial 13 || Seeder,” starts by creating a “torrent” descriptor file using the client he or she installed onto his or 14 || her computer. The Client takes the target computer file, the “initial seed,” in this case, one of the 15 || copyrighted Works, and divides it into identically sized groups of bits known as “pieces.” The Client 16 ||then gives each one of the computer file’s pieces, in this case, pieces of one of the copyrighted 17 || works, a random and unique alphanumeric identifier known as a “hash” and records these hash 18 || identifiers in the torrent file. 19 16. | When another peer later receives a particular piece, the hash identifier for that 20 || piece is compared to the hash identifier recorded in the torrent file for that piece to test whether the 21 ||piece is free of errors. In this way, the hash identifier works like an electronic fingerprint to identify 22 || the source and origin of the piece and ensure that the piece is authentic and uncorrupted. 23 17. Torrents files also have an “announce” section, which specifies the Uniform 24 || Resource Locator (“URL”) of a “tracker” and an “info” section, containing (suggested) names for 25 || the files, their lengths, the piece length used, and the hash identifier for each piece, all of which are 26 ||used by the Client on peer computers to verify the integrity of the data they receive. The “tracker” is 27 ||a computer or set of computers that a torrent file specifies and to which the torrent file provides 28
4 VERIFIED PETION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY
Exhibit £ Exhibits to the Declaration of Pg ELfietz of 3
Page 94
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 95 of 153 Page ID #:520
Case 2:11-mc-00084-JAM-DAD Document1 Filed 10/28/11 Page 5 of 8
—
peers with the URL address(es). The tracker computer or computers direct a peer user’s computer to
2 || another peer user’s computer that have particular pieces of the file, in this case, one of the copyright 3 || Works on them, and facilitates the exchange of data among the computers. Depending on the 4 || BitTorrent Client, a tracker can either be a dedicated computer (centralized tracking) or each peer 5 || can act as a tracker (decentralized tracking). 6 D. Torrent Sites 7 18. “Torrent Sites” are websites that index torrent files that are currently being 8 || made available for copying and distribution by the people using the BitTorrent protocol. There are 9 || numerous torrent websites, such as www.torrentz.eu or thepiratebay.org.
10 19. Upon information and belief, each infringer went to a torrent site to upload
11 |{and download one of the Petitioner’s copyrighted Works.
12 E. Uploading and Downloading a Work Through a BitTorrent Swarm
13 20. Once the initial seeder has created a torrent and uploaded it onto one or more 14 || torrent sites, then other peers begin to download and upload the computer file to which the torrent is 15 || linked (here, one of the copyright Works) using the BitTorrent Client that the peers installed on their 16 || computers.
17 21. The BitTorrent protocol causes the initial seed’s computer to send different 18 ||pieces of the computer file, here, one of the copyrighted Works, to the peers who are seeking to 19 || download the computer file. Once a peer receives a piece of the computer file, it starts transmitting 20 || that piece to other peers. In this way, all of the peers and seeders are working together in what is
91 || called a “swarm.”
22 22. Here, each infringing peer member participated in a swarm through digital 23 || handshakes, the passing along of computer instructions, uploading and downloading, and by other 24 || types of transmissions. 25 23. In this way, and by way of example only, one initial seeder can create a 26 || torrent that breaks a movie up into hundreds of piece saved in the form of a computer file, like the 37 || Works here, upload the torrent file onto a torrent site, and deliver a different piece of the computer 28 5 VERIFIED PETION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY Exhibit { Exhibits to the Declaration of Pere Dia of ¢
Page 95
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 96 of 153 Page ID #:521
Case 2:11-mc-00084-JAM-DAD Document1 Filed 10/28/11 Page 6 of 8
—
file to each of the peers. The receiving peers then automatically begin delivering the piece they just
2 || received to the other peers in the same swarm. 3 24. Once a peer, here an infringer, has downloaded the full file, the BitTorrent 4 ||Client reassembles the piece and the peer is able to view the video. Also, once a peer has 5 || downloaded a full file, that peer becomes known as “an additional seed” because it continues to 6 || distribute the torrent file which, in this case, was one of the copyrighted Works. 7 F. Petitioner’s Computer Investigators Identified Each Infringer’s IP Address as an 9 Infringer of Petitioner’s Copyright Works 9 25. Petitioner retained 6881 Forensics, LLC (“6881”) to identify the IP addresses 10 used by the individual or individuals that were misusing the BitTorrent protocol to unlawfully 1 distribute Petitioner’s copyrighted Work. 2 26. 6881 used forensic software, “BitTorrent Auditor” to audit a swarm for the 13. || Presence of infringing transactions. 14 27. 6881 extracted the resulting data gathered from the investigation, reviewed the 15 evidence logs, and isolated the transactions and the IP addresses associated with the copyrighted 16 work listed on Exhibit D hereto. 7 28. The IP addresses and hit dates contained on Exhibits B accurately reflects 18 what is contained in the evidence logs and show that: 19 (A) _ Each infringer copied a piece of one of Petitioners copyrighted work; 20 and 1 (B) Each infringer was part of a BitTorrent swarm. ” 29. 6881’s technician analyzed each BitTorrent “piece” distributed by the IP 73 addresses listed on Exhibit B and verified that each piece consisted of part of the copyrighted work. 24 30. In order for petitioner to be able to take appropriate action to protect its 95 copyrighted work under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, ef seg, petitioner must be authorized issuance of 2% subpoenas duces tecum to the ISPs listed on Exhibit A to this petition. 77 31. No prior application has been made for the relief sought herein. 28
6 VERIFIED PETION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY
Exhibit £
Exhibits to the Declaration PQ cake viof Xx
Page 96
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 97 of 153 Page ID #:522
Case 2:11-mc-00084-JAM-DAD Document1 Filed 10/28/11 Page 7 of 8
_
WHEREFORE, petitioner requests that an order be made and entered directing that petitioner
2 |}may compel the production of documents to the extent of determining the name, current (and 3 || permanent) addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Media Access Control addresses of 4 || the person or persons whose IP addresses are listed in Exhibit B from the ISPs listed on Exhibit A 5 || for the purposes of determining the true identity of unknown infringers. To further support its 6 |} Petition, Petitioner attaches as Exhibit F its Memorandum of Law in Support of Petitioner’s Verified 7 || Petition to Perpetuate Testimony. 8 9 10 || Respectfully Submitted, 11 Ingenuity13 LLC, 12 || DATED: October 28, 2011 By: /s/_ Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) 15 Steele Hansmeier PLLC. 38 Miller Avenue, #263 16 Mill Valley, CA 94941 415-325-5900 17 blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com Attorney for Plaintiff 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
VERIFIED PETION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY
Exhibit Z
—_
Exhibits to the Declaration of MoM Piptz of %
Page 97
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 98 of 153 Page ID
—
mo Oo NHN DO HW FR WY NY
#:523 Case 2:11-mc-00084-JAM-DAD Document1 Filed 10/28/11 Page 8 of 8
NOTARIZED VERIFICATION
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 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
By: /s/ Brett L. Gibbs, Esq.
Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) Steele Hansmeier PLLC.
38 Miller Avenue, #263
Mill Valley, CA 94941 415-325-5900
blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com Attorney for Plaintiff
8 VERIFIED PETION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY
Exhibit ©
Exhibits to the Declaration Pg erg Pie Page 98 oft
woz Case 2:12-cv-083teGhkb erate Jin .usMexeneaibapdOsap=t6is65 44/14/13 Page 99 of 153 Page ID
Skip to Main Content Logout My Accourt Search Menu Naw Ci Search Refine Search Back Location . Al MNCIS Sites - Case Search Help
REGISTER OF ACTIONS Case No. 27-CV-12-17079
Guava LLC vs CenturyLink Inc
COI COCO EO?D
Case Type: Date Filed: Location: Judicial Officer:
Civil Other/Misc.
08/10/2012
+ Hennepin Civil
Steenson DuFresne, Mary E.
Se eee see eee
Party INFORMATION
Defendant CenturyLink tnc
Plaintiff Guava LLC
Events & Orpers oF THE Court OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS
08/10/2012] Motion
08/20/2012] Notice of Case Assignment (Judicial Officer: Steenson DuFresne, Mary E. }
09/24/2012} Proposed Document
09/24/2012} Certificate of Representation
09/24/2012 | Memorandum
09/24/2012 | Affidavit-Other
09/24/2012| Affidavit of Service
09/27/2012] Notice of Appearance
09/27/2012| Notice of Appearance
09/27/2012| Motion
09/27/2012| Responsive Motion
09/28/2012| Order-Other
09/28/2012| Notice of Appearance
10/01/2012] Motion Hearing (9:15 AM) (Judicial Officer Steenson DuFresne, Mary E.) Result: Held
10/01/2012| Taken Under Advisement (Judicial Officer: Steenson DuFresne, Mary E. )
10/12/2012] Correspondence
10/15/2012! Correspondence
10/29/2012 Lang ligete Motion Hearing (9:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Steenson DuFresne, Mary E.) Result: Hel
10/29/2012| Order Granting Motion (Judicial Officer: Steenson DuFresne, Mary E.
FINnaNciAL INFORMATION
Defendant CenturyLink Inc Total Financial Assessment Total Payments and Credits Balance Due as of 11/29/2012
09/25/2012] Transaction Assessment
09/25/2012 | E-File Electronic Payment Receipt # EP27C-2012-12417 CenturyLink Inc
09/25/2012 | Transaction Assessment
09/25/2012 | E-File Electronic Payment Receipt # EP27C-2012-12420 CenturyLink Inc Plaintiff Guava LLC
Total Financial Assessment Total Payments and Credits Balance Due as of 11/29/2012
08/20/2012] Transaction Assessment
08/21/2012] Mail Payment Receipt # 1227-2012-19301 09/27/2012 | Transaction Assessment
09/27/2012 | E-File Electronic Payment Receipt # EP27C-2012-12743 09/28/2012 | Transaction Assessment
09/28/2012 | E-File Electronic Payment Receipt # EP27C-2012-12816 Guava LLC
Prenda Law Inc
Guava LLC
Lead Attorneys
DAVID EARLE CAMAROTTO Retained
612-333-3000(W)
MICHAEL KEVIN DUGAS Retained 312-880-9160
422.00 422.00 0.00
322.00 (322.00) 100.00 (100.00)
622.00 622.00 0.00
422,00 (422.00) 100.00 (100.00) 400.00 (100.00)
a Exhibit {
\_ of \_
Exhibits to the seseeieate Morgan E. Pietz
Page 99 da.courts. State.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaselD= 1615554847
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 100 of 153 Page ID #:525
EXHIBIT K
EXHIBIT K
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 100
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 101 of 153 Page ID #:526
AFFIDAVIT OF ALAN COOPER I, Alan Cooper, under the penalty of perjury state that the following is true:
My name is Alan Cooper and I live at 2170 Highway 47 North, Isle, MN 56342. I am 38 years old and was born in Colleen, TX.
I work seasonally as a construction worker.
=e e
I was was hired in 2006 as a caretaker for a property owned by John L. Steele at
21255 220th Street, McGrath, MN 56350.
5. The attached agreement is a true copy of the contract between myself and John Steele for taking care of his property.
6. While taking care of his property I would regularly submit receipts to Steele for reimbursements of costs in repairing or maintaining the property. These receipts might include my signature when I paid by a credit card or debit card.
7. It is my belief that Steele has used my name as the name of a CEO or manager for one or more companies.
Steele did occasionally visit his property and we would talk.
9. Steele had told me on at least one occasion that if anyone asked about companies that I should call him.
10. Steele has hold me that he had this plan involving copyright lawsuits.
11. Iam not an owner or officer of any corporation or limited liability company.
12. Iam not the owner or CEO of AF Holdings, LLC.
13. Iam not the owner or a manager of Ingenuity13, LLC.
14. I did not give Steele permission to use my name or sign documents on my behalf.
15. Idid not know that my name was being used in connection with these companies.
Alan Cooper
Subscribed and sworn before me this 4 ROD day of December, 2012
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 101
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 102 o0f 153 PageID #:527
MOOJS VRAM SHYAL stdud yietol BloneaniM gs1iqxd .mmod yi erOS tense Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 102
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 103 of 153 Page ID #:528
THIS RENTAL AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") made and entered into this 17th day of November, 2006, by and between John Steele
(hereinafter referred to as "Landlord") and __ # iain Ce CO} =2 . THIS IS A MONTH TO MONTH RENTAL AGREEMENT IN WHICH EITHER PARTY
MAY CANCEL WITH 30 DAYS NOTICE.
1. TERM. Landlord leases to Tenant and Tenant leases from Landlord the above described Premises together with any and all appurtenances thereto, on a month to month basis.
2. RENT. In exchange for paying monthly rent, the Renter agrees to work on the Landlord's property on projects designated by Landlord. Renter agrees to complete all work to the best of his ability. Landlord will determine the projects, but in no event will the time requirement be less than 15 hours a month. Satisfaction of the Renters work to satisfy the Rent requirement of this lease will be at the sole discretion of the Landlord.
3. Blank
4. USE OF PREMISES. The Premises shall be used and occupied by Tenant and Tenant's
* immediate family, consisting of one daughter, exclusively, as a private single family
dwelling, and no part of the Premises shall be used at any time during the term of this
Agreement by Tenant for the purpose of carrying on any business, profession, or trade of
any kind, or for any purpose other than as a private single family dwelling. Tenant shall
not allow any other person, other than Tenant's immediate family or transient relatives and friends who are guests of Tenant, to use or occupy the Premises without first obtaining Landlord's written consent to such use. Tenant shall comply with any and all laws, ordinances, rules and orders of any and all governmental or quasi-governmental authorities affecting the cleanliness, use, occupancy and preservation of the Premises.
NDITION OF PREMISES. Tenant stipulates, represents and warrants that Tenant has examined the Premises, and that they are at-the time of this Lease in good order, repair, and in a safe, clean and tenantable condition.
ASSIGNMENT AND SUB-LETTING. Tenant shall not assign this Agreement, or sub-let or grant any license to use the Premises or any part thereof without the prior written consent of Landlord. A consent by Landlord to one such assignment, sub-letting or license shall not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment, sub-letting or license. An assignment, sub-letting or license without the prior written consent of Landlord or an assignment or sub-letting by operation of law shall be absolutely null and void and shall, at Landlord's option, terminate this Agreement.
ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS. Tenant shall make no alterations to the buildings or improvements on the Premises or construct any building or make any other improvements on the Premises without the prior consent of Landlord. Any and all alterations, changes, and/or improvements built, constructed or placed on the Premises by Tenant shall, unless otherwise provided by written agreement between Landlord and Tenant, be and become the property of Landlord and remain on the Premises at the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.
8. blank
9., HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Tenant shall not keep on the Premises any item of a dangerous, flammable or explosive character that might unreasonably increase the danger of fire or explosion on the Premises or that might be considered hazardous or extra hazardous by any responsible insurance company.
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 103
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 104 of 153 Page ID
#:529
10. UTILITIES. Tenant shall be responsible for arranging for and paying for all utility services required on the Premises for his own use.
11. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR; RULES. Tenant will, at its sole expense, keep and maintain the Premises and appurtenances in good and sanitary condition and repair during the term of this Agreement and any renewal thereof. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Tenant shall:
(a)
(b)
(c) (d)
(e)
(f)
(g) (h)
G)
(k)
Not obstruct the driveways, sidewalks, courts, entry ways, stairs and/or halls, which shall be used for the purposes of ingress and egress only;
Keep all windows, glass, window coverings, doors, locks and hardware in good, clean order and repair;
Not obstruct or cover the windows or doors;
Not leave windows or doors in an open position during any inclement weather;
Not hang any laundry, clothing, sheets, etc. from any window, rail, porch or balcony nor air or dry any of same within any yard area or space;
Not cause or permit any locks or hooks to be placed upon any door or window without the prior written consent of Landlord;
Keep all air conditioning filters clean and free from dirt;
Keep all lavatories, sinks, toilets, and all other water and plumbing apparatus in good order and repair and shall use same only for the purposes for which they were constructed. Tenant shall not allow any sweepings, rubbish, sand, rags, ashes or other substances to be thrown or deposited therein. Any damage to any such apparatus and the cost of clearing stopped plumbing resulting from misuse shall be borne by Tenant;
And Tenant's family and guests shall at all times maintain order in the Premises and at all places on the Premises, and shall not make or permit any loud or improper noises, or otherwise disturb other residents;
Keep all radios, television sets, stereos, phonographs, etc., turned down to a level of sound that does not annoy or interfere with other residents;
Deposit all trash, garbage, rubbish or refuse in the locations provided therefore and shall not allow any trash, garbage, rubbish or refuse to be deposited or permitted to stand on the exterior of any building or within the common elements;
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 104
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 105 o0f153 Page ID #:530
(1) Abide by and be bound by any and all rules and regulations affecting the Premises or the common area appurtenant thereto which may be adopted or promulgated by the Condominium or Homeowners' Association having control over them.
12. DAMAGE TO PREMISES. In the event the Premises are destroyed or rendered wholly uninhabitable by fire, storm, earthquake, or other casualty not caused by the negligence of Tenant, this Agreement shall terminate from such time except for the purpose of enforcing rights that may have then accrued hereunder. The rental provided for herein shall then be accounted for by and between Landlord and Tenant up to the time of such injury or destruction of the Premises, Tenant paying rentals up to such date and Landlord refunding rentals collected beyond such date. Should a portion of the Premises thereby be rendered uninhabitable, the Landlord shall have the option of either repairing such injured or damaged portion or terminating this Lease. In the event that Landlord exercises its right to repair such uninhabitable portion, the rental shall abate in the proportion that the injured parts bears to the whole Premises, and such part so injured shall be restored by Landlord as speedily as practicable, after which the full rent shall recommence and the Agreement continue according to its terms.
13. INSPECTION OF PREMISES. Landlord and Landlord's agents shall have the right at all reasonable times during the term of this Agreement and any renewal thereof to enter the Premises for the purpose of inspecting the Premises and all buildings and improvements thereon. And for the purposes of making any repairs, additions or alterations as may be deemed appropriate by Landlord for the preservation of the Premises or the building. Landlord and its agents shall further have the right to exhibit the Premises and to display the usual "for sale", "for rent" or "vacancy" signs on the Premises at any time within forty- five (45) days before the expiration of this Lease. The right of entry shall likewise exist for the purpose of removing placards, signs, fixtures, alterations or additions, that do not conform to this Agreement or to any restrictions, rules or regulations affecting the Premises.
14. SUBORDINATION OF LEASE. This Agreement and Tenant's interest hereunder are and shall be subordinate, junior and inferior to any and all mortgages, liens or encumbrances now or hereafter placed on the Premises by Landlord, all advances made under any such mortgages, liens or encumbrances (including, but not limited to, future advances), the interest payable on such mortgages, liens or encumbrances and any and all renewals, extensions or modifications of such mortgages, liens or encumbrances.
16. SURRENDER OF PREMISES. Upon the expiration of the term hereof, Tenant shall surrender the Premises in as good a state and condition as they were at the commencement of this Agreement, reasonable use and wear and tear thereof and damages by the elements excepted.
17. ANIMALS. Tenant shall obtain permission from Landlord for all be entitled to keep any animals on the premises.
18. QUIET ENJOYMENT. Tenant, upon payment of all of the sums referred to herein as being payable by Tenant and Tenant's performance of all Tenant's agreements contained herein and Tenant's observance of all rules and regulations, shall and may peacefully and quietly have, hold and enjoy said Premises for the term hereof.
19. INDEMNIFICATION. Landlord shall not be liable for any damage or injury of or to the Tenant, Tenant's family, guests, invitees, agents or employees or to any person entering the Premises or the building of which the Premises are a part or to goods or equipment,
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 105
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 106 of 153 Page ID #:531
or in the structure or equipment of the structure of which the Premises are a part, and Tenant hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Landlord harmless from any and all claims or assertions of every kind and nature.
20. DEFAULT. If Tenant fails to comply with any of the material provisions of this Agreement, other than the covenant to pay rent, or of any present rules and regulations or any that may be hereafter prescribed by Landlord, or materially fails to comply with any duties imposed on Tenant by statute, within seven (7) days after delivery of written notice by Landlord specifying the non-compliance and indicating the intention of Landlord to terminate the Lease by reason thereof, Landlord may terminate this Agreement. If Tenant fails to pay rent when due and the default continues for seven (7) days thereafter, Landlord may, at Landlord's option, declare the entire balance of rent payable hereunder to be immediately due and payable and may exercise any and ail rights and remedies available to Landlord at law or in equity or may immediately terminate this Agreement.
21. LATE CHARGE. In the event that any payment required to be paid by Tenant hereunder is not made within three (3) days of when due, Tenant shall pay to Landlord, in addition to such payment or other charges due hereunder, a "late fee" in the amount of twenty five dollars.
22. ABANDONMENT. If at any time during the term of this Agreement Tenant abandons the Premises or any part thereof, Landlord may, at Landlord's option, obtain possession of the Premises in the manner provided by law, and without becoming liable to Tenant for damages or for any payment of any kind whatever. Landlord may, at Landlord's discretion, as agent for Tenant, relet the Premises, or any part thereof, for the whole or any part thereof, for the whole or any part of the then unexpired term, and may receive and collect all rent payable by virtue of such reletting, and, at Landlord's option, hold Tenant liable for any difference between the rent that would have been payable under this Agreement during the balance of the unexpired term, if this Agreement had continued in force, and the net rent for such period realized by Landlord by means of such reletting. !f Landlord's right of reentry is exercised following abandonment of the Premises by Tenant, then Landlord shall consider any personal property belonging to Tenant and left on the Premises to also have been abandoned, in which case Landlord may dispose of all such personal property in any manner Landlord shall deem proper and Landlord is hereby relieved of all liability for doing so.
23. ATTORNEYS' FEES. Should it become necessary for Landlord to employ an attorney to enforce any of the conditions or covenants hereof, including the collection of rentals or gaining possession of the Premises, Tenant agrees to pay all expenses so incurred, including a reasonable attorneys’ fee.
24. RECORDING OF AGREEMENT. Tenant shall not record this Agreement on the Public Records of any public office. In the event that Tenant shall record this Agreement, this Agreement shall, at Landlord's option, terminate immediately and Landlord shall be entitled to all rights and remedies that it has at law or in equity.
25. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed, construed and interpreted by, through and under the Laws of the State of Minnesota.
_ 26. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof shall, for any reason and to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, neither the remainder of this Agreement nor the application of the provision to other persons, entities or circumstances shall be affected thereby, but instead shall be enforced to the maximum extent permitted by law.
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 106
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 107 of 153 Page ID
27. 28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
fs ee ee
#:532
BINDING EFFECT. The covenants, obligations and conditions herein contained shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the heirs, legal representatives, and assigns of the parties hereto.
DESCRIPTIVE HEADINGS. The descriptive headings used herein are for convenience of reference only and they are not intended to have any effect whatsoever in determining the rights or obligations of the Landlord or Tenant.
CONSTRUCTION. The pronouns used herein shall include, where appropriate, either gender or both, singular and plural.
NON-WAIVER. No indulgence, waiver, election or non-election by Landlord under this Agreement shall affect Tenant's duties and liabilities hereunder.
MODIFICATION. The parties hereby agree that this document contains the entire agreement between the parties and this Agreement shall not be modified, changed, altered or amended in any way except through a written amendment signed by all of the parties hereto.
NOTICE. Any notice required or permitted under this Lease or under state law shall be
deemed sufficiently given or served if sent by United States certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows:
If to Landlord to: John Steele 21067 220" St McGrath, MN 56350
If to Tenant to:
Landlord and Tenant shall each have the right from time to time to change the place notice is to be given under this paragraph by written notice thereof to the other party.
SIGNED THIS 17™ OF NOVEMBER, 2006 #
John Steele, 21067 220" St. McGrath MN 56350.
Landlord:
Tenant: Cs pe —
a feeh AMD Foe Setetry, Depre'T f Me
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 107
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 108 of 153 Page ID #:533
EXHIBIT L
EXHIBIT L
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 108
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 109 of 153 Page ID Case 2:11-mc-00084-JAM-DAD Déeetfent 1 Filed 10/28/11 Page 1 of 8
1 Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) Steele Hansmeier PLLC.
2 38 Miller Avenue, #263 Mill Valley, CA 94941
3. 415-325-5900 blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com
4 Attorney for Petitioner 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 7 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 Inthe Matter Of a Petition By ) ) 11 INGENUITY13 LLC, ) No. ) 12 ) Judge: ) 13 ) VERIFIED PETITION TO ) PERPETUATE TESTIMONY 14 ) ) 15 16 1. Petitioner Ingenuity13 LLC by and through its undersigned attorney, hereby
17. petitions this Court for an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 authorizing the
18 issuance of subpoenas duces tecum to the Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) listed on Exhibit A to
19 _ this petition.
20 az Petitioner is limited liability company organized and existing under the laws
21 of the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis. Petitioner produces adult entertainment content and this
22 content is being unlawfully reproduced and distributed over the Internet via the BitTorrent file
23 +transfer protocol. An individual or individuals wrongfully reproduced and distributed Petitioner’s
24 copyrighted works via the BitTorrent protocol in violation of Petitioner’s exclusive rights under
25 United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq. Petitioner anticipates bringing a civil action
26 against the person or persons engaging in such unlawful activity. This action would be cognizable in
27. a United States court as United States courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright actions.
28 Without knowing the identity or identities of the anonymous infringers, Petitioner has no means to
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 109
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 110 of 153 Page ID Case 2:11-mc-00084-JAM-DAD DéeeAFent 1 Filed 10/28/11 Page 2 of 8
1 name and serve the individual or individuals in an action with summons and complaint. The purpose
2 of this petition is to ascertain these identity or identities.
2 2: Petitioner seeks the name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and
4 Media Control Access number of each account holder associated with the Internet Protocol (“IP”)
5 addresses listed on Exhibit B to this petition. Each of the IP addresses was identified by Petitioner’s
6 agents as being associated with infringing activity on the corresponding dates and times listed on 7
Exhibit B. The reasons to perpetuate the testimony are multiple. First, without this information
8 Petitioner has no means to name and serve a complaint on the infringing parties. Second, on
9 information and belief, this information is destroyed in the regular course of business and will be
10 unavailable to Petitioner after it is destroyed. An example of an ISP’s data retention policy is shown
11 as Exhibit C. Finally, under the Cable Communications Policy Act, 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), a court
12 order is necessary to discover an account holder’s identity.
13 4. The names and addresses of the person or persons whom Petitioner expects to
14 be adverse parties are unknown to Petitioner. The individual or individuals responsible for infringing
15 Petitioner’s works are known to Petitioner only by an IP address—a number that is assigned to
16 devices, such as computers, that are connected to the Internet. Petitioner used geolocation to trace
17. the IP addresses of the expected adverse party or parties to a point of origin within the State of
18 California.
19 S: The name and address of each responding party is set forth on Exhibit A to
20 ‘this petition. Petitioner is seeking the name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and Media
21 Control Access number of each account holder associated with the Internet Protocol (“IP’’) addresses
22 listed on Exhibit B to this petition.
23 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
24 6. Petitioner is the owner of the copyright for the motion picture set forth in
25 Exhibit D to this petition.
26 7d As set forth below, Petitioner has actionable claims for direct and contributory
27. copyright infringement and a claim for civil conspiracy against the individual or individuals who
2
VERIFIED PETION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 110
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 111 0f 153 Page ID Case 2:11-mc-00084-JAM-DAD Déeetfent 1 Filed 10/28/11 Page 3 of 8
1 engaged in infringing activities via the IP addresses set forth on Exhibit B hereto based on the
2 parties’ use of the BitTorrent protocol to illegally reproduce and distribute Petitioner’s work(s).
3 A. The Unknown Infringers used BitTorrent to Infringe Petitioner’s Copyrights
4 8. BitTorrent is a modern file sharing method (“protocol”) used for distributing
5 data via the Internet. BitTorrent protocol is a decentralized method of distributing data. Instead of
6 relying on a central server to distribute data directly to individual users, the BitTorrent protocol 7
allows individual users to distribute data among themselves by exchanging pieces of the file with
8 each other to eventually obtain a whole copy of the file. When using the BitTorrent protocol, every
9 user simultaneously receives information from and transfers information to one another.
10 9. The BitTorrent protocol is an extremely popular method for transferring data.
11. A group of individuals transferring data among one another (the “swarm”’) will commonly include
12 peers from many, if not every, state in the United States and several countries around the world. And
13. every peer in the swarm participates in distributing the file to dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of
14 other peers.
15 10. The BitTorrent protocol is also an extremely popular method for unlawfully
16 copying, reproducing, and distributing files in violation of the copyright laws of the United States. A
17. broad range of copyrighted albums, audiovisual files, photographs, software, and other forms of
18 media are available for illegal reproduction and distribution via the BitTorrent protocol.
19 11. Efforts at combating BitTorrent-based copyright infringement have been
20 stymied by BitTorrent’s decentralized nature. Because there are no central servers to enjoin from
21 unlawfully distributing copyrighted content, there is no primary target on which to focus anti-piracy
22 ~ efforts. Indeed, the same decentralization that makes the BitTorrent protocol an extremely robust and
23 ~ efficient means of transferring enormous quantities of data also acts to insulate it from anti-piracy
24 measures.
25 12. The infringing parties in this action were all observed using the BitTorrent
26 protocol to unlawfully reproduce and distribute Plaintiff's copyrighted work by exchanging pieces
27. with one another either directly or via a chain of data distribution.
3
VERIFIED PETION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 111
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 112 of 153 Page ID Case 2:11-mc-00084-JAM-DAD Déée*fent 1 Filed 10/28/11 Page 4 of 8
1 B. Each infringer installed a BitTorrent Client on his or her computer
2 13. The individual or individuals associated with the infringing activity installed a
3 BitTorrent Client onto his or her computer(s). Normal commercial computers do not come pre-
4 loaded with BitTorrent software. Each infringer must have separately installed on their respective
5 computers special software that allows peer-to-peer sharing of files by way of the Internet. The
6 infringers use software known as BitTorrent clients. Among the most popular BitTorrent clients are -
Vuze (formerly Azureus), uTorrent, Transmission and BitTorrent 7, although many others are used
8 as well.
9 14. Once installed on a computer, the BitTorrent “Client” serves as the user’s
10 interface during the process of uploading and downloading data using the BitTorrent protocol.
11 C. The Initial Seed, Torrent and Tracker
12 15. A BitTorrent user who wants to upload a new file, known as an “Initial
13. Seeder,” starts by creating a “torrent” descriptor file using the client he or she installed onto his or
14 her computer. The Client takes the target computer file, the “initial seed,” in this case, one of the
15 copyrighted Works, and divides it into identically sized groups of bits known as “pieces.” The Client
16 then gives each one of the computer file’s pieces, in this case, pieces of one of the copyrighted
17. works, a random and unique alphanumeric identifier known as a “hash” and records these hash
18 identifiers in the torrent file.
19 16. | When another peer later receives a particular piece, the hash identifier for that
20 piece is compared to the hash identifier recorded in the torrent file for that piece to test whether the
21 piece is free of errors. In this way, the hash identifier works like an electronic fingerprint to identify
22 the source and origin of the piece and ensure that the piece is authentic and uncorrupted.
23 7: Torrents files also have an “announce” section, which specifies the Uniform
24 Resource Locator (“URL”) of a “tracker” and an “info” section, containing (suggested) names for
25 the files, their lengths, the piece length used, and the hash identifier for each piece, all of which are
26 used by the Client on peer computers to verify the integrity of the data they receive. The “tracker” is
27. acomputer or set of computers that a torrent file specifies and to which the torrent file provides
4
VERIFIED PETION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 112
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 113 of 153 Page ID Case 2:11-mc-00084-JAM-DAD DéeeAfent 1 Filed 10/28/11 Page 5 of 8
1 peers with the URL address(es). The tracker computer or computers direct a peer user’s computer to
2 another peer user’s computer that have particular pieces of the file, in this case, one of the copyright
3 Works on them, and facilitates the exchange of data among the computers. Depending on the
4 BitTorrent Client, a tracker can either be a dedicated computer (centralized tracking) or each peer
5 can act as a tracker (decentralized tracking).
6 D. Torrent Sites 7
18. “Torrent Sites” are websites that index torrent files that are currently being
8 made available for copying and distribution by the people using the BitTorrent protocol. There are
9 numerous torrent websites, such as www.torrentz.eu or thepiratebay.org.
10 19. Upon information and belief, each infringer went to a torrent site to upload
11. and download one of the Petitioner’s copyrighted Works.
12 E. Uploading and Downloading a Work Through a BitTorrent Swarm
13 20. Once the initial seeder has created a torrent and uploaded it onto one or more
14 torrent sites, then other peers begin to download and upload the computer file to which the torrent is
15 linked (here, one of the copyright Works) using the BitTorrent Client that the peers installed on their
16 computers.
17 21. The BitTorrent protocol causes the initial seed’s computer to send different
18 pieces of the computer file, here, one of the copyrighted Works, to the peers who are seeking to
19 download the computer file. Once a peer receives a piece of the computer file, it starts transmitting
20 that piece to other peers. In this way, all of the peers and seeders are working together in what is
21 ~called a “swarm.”
22 22. Here, each infringing peer member participated in a swarm through digital
23 handshakes, the passing along of computer instructions, uploading and downloading, and by other
24 types of transmissions.
25 23. In this way, and by way of example only, one initial seeder can create a
26 torrent that breaks a movie up into hundreds of piece saved in the form of a computer file, like the
27. Works here, upload the torrent file onto a torrent site, and deliver a different piece of the computer
5
VERIFIED PETION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 113
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 114 of 153 Page ID Case 2:11-mc-00084-JAM-DAD DéeeAfent 1 Filed 10/28/11 Page 6 of 8
1 file to each of the peers. The receiving peers then automatically begin delivering the piece they just
2 received to the other peers in the same swarm.
2 24. Once a peer, here an infringer, has downloaded the full file, the BitTorrent
4 Client reassembles the piece and the peer is able to view the video. Also, once a peer has
5 downloaded a full file, that peer becomes known as “an additional seed” because it continues to
6 distribute the torrent file which, in this case, was one of the copyrighted Works. fi
F. Petitioner’s Computer Investigators Identified Each Infringer’s IP Address as an Infringer of Petitioner’s Copyright Works
8
9 25) Petitioner retained 6881 Forensics, LLC (“6881”) to identify the IP addresses 10 used by the individual or individuals that were misusing the BitTorrent protocol to unlawfully ll distribute Petitioner’s copyrighted Work. 2 26. 6881 used forensic software, “BitTorrent Auditor” to audit a swarm for the 13 Presence of infringing transactions. 14 21. 6881 extracted the resulting data gathered from the investigation, reviewed the 15 evidence logs, and isolated the transactions and the IP addresses associated with the copyrighted 16 work listed on Exhibit D hereto. 7 28. The IP addresses and hit dates contained on Exhibits B accurately reflects 18 what is contained in the evidence logs and show that: 19 (A) Each infringer copied a piece of one of Petitioners copyrighted work; 20 and 71 (B) Each infringer was part of a BitTorrent swarm. 99 29. 6881’s technician analyzed each BitTorrent “piece” distributed by the IP 73 addresses listed on Exhibit B and verified that each piece consisted of part of the copyrighted work. 44 30. In order for petitioner to be able to take appropriate action to protect its 95 copyrighted work under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq, petitioner must be authorized issuance of 26 subpoenas duces tecum to the ISPs listed on Exhibit A to this petition. 77 31. | No prior application has been made for the relief sought herein. 28
6
VERIFIED PETION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 114
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 115 of 153 Page ID
Case 2:11-mc-00084-JAM-DAD Déeetfent 1 Filed 10/28/11 Page 7 of 8
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 Petitioner’s Verified
Petition to Perpetuate Testimony.
Respectfully Submitted, Ingenuity13 LLC,
DATED: October 28, 2011
By: /s/_ Brett L. Gibbs, Esq.
Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) Steele Hansmeier PLLC.
38 Miller Avenue, #263
Mill Valley, CA 94941 415-325-5900 blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com Attorney for Plaintiff
7
VERIFIED PETION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 115
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 116 of 153 Page ID
Case 2:11-mc-00084-JAM-DAD Dééetdent 1 Filed 10/28/11 Page 8 of 8
NOTARIZED VERIFICATION
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 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
By: /s/_Brett L. Gibbs, Esq.
Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) Steele Hansmeier PLLC.
38 Miller Avenue, #263
Mill Valley, CA 94941 415-325-5900 blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com Attorney for Plaintiff
8
VERIFIED PETION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 116
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 117 of 153 Page ID #:542
EXHIBIT M
EXHIBIT M
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 117
Gmail - AcraG4n4C182-LV208-3333 ODWE-POV Ihkesument por : Fil@@sOAdditgdcdle Pag Mall BoObiL28 ikagns 306 & view...
- Cma i | Morgan Pietz <morganpietz@gmail.com> by 0K gle
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 To: Brett Gibbs <blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com>
Brett,
| called Prenda's main number earlier today and asked for you. After being put on hold, | 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 | did not have an opportunity to leave you a voicemail.
Please give me a call -- | 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, | didnt yell or even raise my voice much less swear at you. | 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, | did not hang up on you. | take offense to your purposefully twisted versions of things. At the end of our conversation, | said that "it was nice speaking with, | 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, | 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 | frankly had other things of import to accomplish on my schedule -- the conversation was ten minutes long and the abuse | 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. | 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. | 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
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 118
Gmail - Arana s2-LY2N833IBODWGE-POV Ibsesument BS : Fil@@s OAdditgddle RAY Mall GoOhL28 ik-Bagns 30c6& view...
As | told you over the phone, when you asked "Is there another Alan Cooper?", | said, "| am sure there are hundreds of Alan Coopers in this world." If your question had been framed more pointedly, and not so vague, maybe | could have provided you with a specific answer.
| don't wish to discuss this matter further with you because of the verbal abuse | experienced in our first phone call. You know, as well as |, 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. | 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 | 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. | explained that | disagreed, because as far as | 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, | can only continue to assume that everything in that letter is correct.
| 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
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 119
Gmail - Acdagandcdse-£V208 933 ODMWG-POW Ibesurment Bote ‘ FikagsOAlditgdcble Rag malAM OtiL28 ik-Bags 30 c6& view...
3 of 9
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Morgan E. Pietz <mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com> wrote:
Re-forward.
woceenenes 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)
To: Brett Gibbs <blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com>
Brett,
If lam 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? | 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.” | think this twisting of my words is intentional -- and | do not like playing childish and manipulative games. So, | will not be drawn into this baseless banter, wasting everyone's time and money.
If want to have an honest adult conversation, | will participate. If you want to have a meet and confer on these issues, | will be available to do that next week. Let me know when you are available.
Regards,
12/13/12 1:59 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 120
Gmail - Acagandcdse-£V208 9333 ODMWGE-POW Ibesurment a ‘ FilagsOaddinddeble Rag malAdoetilas ik Bags tl0c6& view...
4 of 9
Brett Gibbs
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Morgan E. Pietz <mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com> wrote: Brett,
| 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, | 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, | 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
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Morgan E. Pietz <mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com> wrote: 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:
"|, 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."
12/13/12 1:59 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 121
Gmail - Acagandcise-£V208 9333 ODMWE-POW Ibesurment tee : FikagsOAlditgdcble Rag malléoOtiL28 ik-Bags 3h0c6& view...
5 of 9
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
wonennnnne Forwarded message ----------
From: <cacd_ecfmail@cacd.uscourts.gov>
Date: Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 12:41 PM
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)
12/13/12 1:59 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 122
Gmail - Adagandcdse-£V208 9333 ODMWG-POW Ibesurment Bey : Fika@s Aldi debe Rag MallAr0OtiL28 ik-Bags 30 c6& view...
6 of 9
2:12-cv-08333-DMG-PJW Notice has been electronically mailed to: Brett Langdon Gibbs     blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com, docket@wefightpiracy.com Morgan E Pietz     mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com, Irudolph@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
] [8fa7b4078f2edcb17f48906046f07 1 18f65a1 7d9fd4cc4bb72a832a81 9fbb9d764c 53cad2cb7709c732642941 7cf1da8198fa258763750d699bdcfb8302432f5]]
Document description:Appendix 1 - Letter Filed by Counsel for Alan Cooper in District of Minnesota
Original filename:1 - Alan Cooper - ECF Letter.pdf
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=1 2/3/2012] [FileNumber=14739678-1
] [b67f59fd3ea3af034988085bb0050c0b7bec0b51f4a2a1b9e1a86d884bee70902F8 b185448643eaaf0c168ea094d9bb795cfe18ea0a76694db229c8d4f0ed93b]] Document description:Appendix 2 - Transcript of Prenda Hearing in Middle District of Florida
Original filename:2 - Nguyen Hearing Transcript - Tampa.pdf
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=12/3/2012] [FileNumber=14739678-2
] [800d30a30660cee9e1e1cd9e2085b2203c5f1560dc35331306948d42d5db2bacbb1 4c9c0de2ba4111a44f943f62244c47022c110fb78c02cb7bc79c5b6db298]]
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
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP cacdStamp_ID=1020290914 [Date=12/3/2012] [FileNumber=14739678-3
] [bae2ecc869dce997f6937 75d8ff426a8a3c48b190e25e753128678117c874da161b d2e4141ae7449e578ee22e9cd67e8a02439f2880ed9596a082b3653152487]]
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301 www.pietzlawfirm.com
12/13/12 1:59 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 123
Gmail - Adag§andcdse-LV208 9333 ODMWG-POW Ibesumment eee A Fika@sOAlditgdcble Rag malAdoOtiL28 ik-Bags 3h0c6& view...
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301 www.pietzlawfirm.com
Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) Of Counsel to Prenda Law Inc.
38 Miller Avenue, #263
Mill Valley, CA 94941 415-325-5900 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 requited 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-telated matters addressed herein.
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com
7 of 9 12/13/12 1:59 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 124
Gmail - Adag§andcdse-LV208 9333 ODMWG-POW Ibesurment a : FikagsOAlditgdcble Rag MallAh0OtiL28 ik-Bags 3k0c6& view...
Ph: (310) 424-5557 Fx: (310) 546-5301 www.pietzlawfirm.com
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301 www.pietzlawfirm.com
Morgan E. Pietz
THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com Ph: (310) 424-5557
Fx: (310) 546-5301 www.pietzlawfirm.com
Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) Of Counsel to Prenda Law Inc.
38 Miller Avenue, #263
Mill Valley, CA 94941 415-325-5900 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
8 of 9 12/13/12 1:59 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 125
Gmail - AchraG4n4C1s2-LV208-3333 ODWE-POV Ihsesument ore ; Fil@@sOAdditgdcdle RaQ MalAGOObL28 ik Bags 3HlOc6& view...
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
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 126
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 127 of 153 Page ID #:552
EXHIBIT N
EXHIBIT N
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 127
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 128 of 153 Page ID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
SUNLUST PICTURES, LLC., CASE NO: 86:12-CV-1685-T-35MAP
Plaintiff, VS. Tampa, Florida 10:00 a.m, TUAN NGUYEN, November 27, 2011
Defendant.
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE MARY S. SCRIVEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES:
Counsel for Plaintiff: JONATHAN TORRES, ESQUIRE
(Telephonically) 1417 N. Semoran Boulevard Suite 205 Orlando, FL 32807 (407) 953-5818 jonathantorresllic@gmail.com
Counsel for Defendant: GRAHAM W. SYFERT, ESQUIRE 1529 Margaret Street Unit 2 Jacksonville, FL 32204 (904) 383-7448 graham@syfert.com
Court Reporter: CLAUDIA SPANGLER-FRY, RPR, CM Official Court Reporter 801 North Florida Avenue 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 301-5575 cookiefry@aol.com
CLAUDIA SPANGLER-FRY, OFFICIAL U. S. COURT REPORTER
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 128
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 129 of 153 Page ID
PROCEEDINGS November 27, 2012 kK kK KK Kk THE COURT: Mr. Torres, what sort of noise are you making on the line? MR. TORRES: I apologize, I'm in the Courthouse. COURT; All right. TORRES: In Orange County. COURT: Please call the case. CLERK: In the matter of Sunlust Pictures, LLC -- MR. TORRES: Is that better? THE COURT: That's better, yes. THE CLERK: -- versus Tuan Nguyen, Case Number etl 2-CVHL6E54 Counsel and parties, please state your appearances, starting with parties for the Plaintiff. MR. LUTZ: Mark Lutz, appearing on behalf of Sunlust Pictures, THE COURT: And for the defense?
MR. SYFERT: Your Honor, Graham Syfert here on behalf
of Tuan Nguyen, who is also present in Court today.
THE COURT: And on the phone? MR. TORRES: Attorney Jonathan Torres, Florida counsel for Plaintiff.
THE COURT: And Mr. Lutz, where's your coat and tie
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 129
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 130 of 153 Page ID
Page 3
this morning? Did you know you were coming to Federal Court?
MR. LUTZ: I did.
THE COURT: Where's your coat and tie?
MR. LUTZ: I apologize, I did not wear one.
THE COURT: Are you an attorney barred in the State of Florida?
MR. LUTZ: I am not, no, I'm a corporate representative.
THE COURT: And who is your counsel?
MR. LUTZ: I'm sorry?
COURT: Who is your lawyer?
MR. LUTZ: Our counsel is on the phone here.
THE COURT: Where is your other lawyer; he hasn't been permitted to withdraw?
MR. LUTZ: He wasn't able to appear today.
THE COURT: Mr. Torres, are you in the case or out of the case?
MR. TORRES: No, I'm still in the case, Your Honor. presented a motion for telephonic appearance due to an emergency hearing conflict in Orange County and I was allowed to appear by phone and by order that was sent to me yesterday.
THE COURT: Well, I'm a little confused. There was a
lawyer who moved to withdraw, and there was another lawyer who
moved to appear, then he moved to withdraw, so who is on first,
I guess?
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 130
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 131 0f 153 Page ID
Page 4
MR. TORRES: Right now, Your Honor, I'm still on the case. And there is still discussions with my client which I have to confer with them, but right for now, I'm the counsel on the case, Your Honor. THE COURT: And Mr. Torres, how did you come to be the lawyer in this case? MR. TORRES: Your Honor, I was contacted by the client, Prenda Law, in order to -- THE COURT: The client and Prenda Law or Prenda Law? MR. TORRES: Prenda Law, Your Honor, COURT: And what is their relation to you? TORRES: Just co-counsel arrangement, Your Honor. COURT: And what is that arrangement? MR. TORRES: For me to appear for any local hearings, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I got a letter from someone from the
Prenda Law Group saying they were not representing any party in
this case and were not involved in the case and had no authority to speak on anyone's behalf in this case, so is Prenda Law principal counsel in the case or not?
MR. TORRES: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: So what is their relationship again then to you as counsel in this case?
MR. TORRES: Well, Your Honor, I was --
THE COURT: I'm sorry, I'm sorry, hold on a second.
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 131
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 132 of 153 Page ID
Page 5
Ms. Vizza, would you please swear this witness, on the phone, yes.
Mr. Torres, if you would please raise your right hand.
Ms. Vizza.
MR. TORRES: Yes.
Thereupon,
JONATHAN TORRES, having first been duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, was examined and testified as follows:
MR. TORRES: Yes.
THE COURT: All right, sir. You're under oath, you have to give truthful answers to the questions that are asked or face penalties of perjury for false answers.
Do you understand that?
MR. TORRES: I understand.
THE COURT: All right.
So, starting over now, Prenda is the referring law
firm to your firm or the originating firm or principal counsel?
MR. TORRES: My understanding, Your Honor, is that Prenda Law was the counsel for Plaintiffs and is still counsel for Plaintiffs.
I was contacted by Brett Gibbs in order to be counsel to appear on behalf of Prenda Law.
THE COURT: So, Prenda Law purports to be the
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 132
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 133 of 153 Page ID
principal law firm in this case?
MR. TORRES: Correct.
THE COURT: Did Prenda Law file a notice of appearance as principal law firm in this case?
MR. TORRES: My understanding, Your Honor, is that they were, at one point, counsel in the case. I'm not sure if they actually have a current notice of appearance or not, I'm not sure.
THE COURT: And what is your financial arrangement with Prenda Law?
MR. TORRES: Well, I'm working on a contingency basis, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And what percentage is your cut of the contingency?
MR. TORRES: My understanding is that it's 75 percent,
my understanding, of whatever the fees are generated, my
understanding, at least.
THE COURT: Yours will be 75 percent and Prenda's will be 25 percent?
MR. TORRES: That is correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Who is principally responsible for the case; Prenda or you?
MR. TORRES: Well, my understanding is that I was recently contacted in regards to this case.
My understanding is that I was going to be primarily
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 133
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 134 of 153 Page ID
Page 7
responsible and be the local counsel for this case, but the reason why I presented a motion to withdraw is because just recently I was contacted by defense counsel and was advised of certain issues that were going on in the case.
THE COURT: When were you retained?
MR. TORRES: Well, I was contacted, I believe, Your Honor, it was about 15 days ago.
THE COURT: And who were you contacted by?
MR. TORRES: I was contacted by Mr. Brett Gibbs from Prenda Law.
THE COURT: And who did he tell you was current counsel in the case?
MR. TORRES: Well, he told me that Prenda Law through another attorney locally was the current counsel in the case, and that's why, you know, they were substituting me for counsel in this case, and eight other cases -—- actually seven other cases that purportedly Prenda Law was the counsel on.
THE COURT: Give me one second, I need to look up something in the docket.
(Brief pause.)
And did Mr. Wasinger call you?
MR. TORRES: No, Your Honor, Mr. Wasinger apparently
presented a motion to withdraw or substitution of counsel at
that point.
THE COURT: And then the Court ordered that he was not
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 134
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 135 of 153 Page ID
Page 8
granted his leave and directed that he was to appear at this hearing and that his motion for withdrawal would be taken up at this hearing. And did you see that on the docket when you filed your notice of appearance?
MR. TORRES: No, Your Honor, I did not.
THE COURT: Did you look at the docket when you filed your notice of appearance?
MR. TORRES: I presented the notice of appearance and did not see that Mr. Wasinger was still counsel.
THE COURT: Did you look at the docket is what I asked
MR. TORRES: I looked at -- I did look at the docket,
per se, I didn't —-
THE COURT: The answer is no, you did not read the docket on the case you were appearing in?
MR. TORRES: Correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And then shortly after you file your notice of appearance, you moved to withdraw?
MR. TORRES: That is correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And why is that?
MR. TORRES: Well, Your Honor, I'll be perfectly honest with you. Defense counsel contacted me shortly thereafter of being counsel of record, instructed me to call him immediately.
And so I -- actually I did, and left him a message,
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 135
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 136 of 153 Page ID
Page 9
then he returned my phone call. And there was discussions between Defendant and -- Defendant's counsel and myself in regards to this case.
The only thing that -- the first thing that I heard from defense counsel was, you know, rather than see how this case might be settled or anything to that effect, was the fact that there were -- there had been some bar complaints or something to that effect associated with this case or something to that effect, and based on that statement from defense counsel, I decided to present my motion to withdraw and have no further involvement with any of the cases.
THE COURT: Did you have any contact with
Mr. Wasinger?
MR. TORRES: No, I did not, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you have a written contract with Prenda Law Group?
MR. TORRES: No, I do not, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Have you filed a notice of appearance in all of the other cases that Mr. Wasinger has withdrawn from?
MR. TORRES: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Have you moved to withdraw in all those cases as well?
MR. TORRES: Yes, I did, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Have those motions been granted?
MR. TORRES: No, Your Honor, based on local rule,
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 136
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 137 of 153 Page ID
Page 10
after conferring with counsel, but that's something I'll remedy, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I got a letter on the 18th froma Mr. Duffy at Prenda Law, Inc.
MR. TORRES: Okay.
THE COURT: And he advises that he was recently made aware that the Court ordered a principal of Prenda Law to appear in person at the motion to dismiss hearing scheduled for today's date.
As the sole principal of Prenda Law, Inc., that would be me. For the record, I was never served with notice of the Court's 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 I am located in Chicago and my attendance would require air travel and he has had surgery on his eyes and this and that.
Then he says, I also respectfully question how my appearance could benefit the Court, particularly since I am not representing anyone, in italics, in this case and have no authority to speak on anyone's behalf.
It would certainly -- it would clearly be improper for
me to make any statement on a pending matter in a jurisdiction
in which I am not licensed and on behalf of a client I do not
represent. In light of the foregoing, I pray that the Court
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 137
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 138 of 153 Page ID
Page 11
will excuse my attendance at this hearing.
Now, is Prenda Law, Inc. different than the entity that you are dealing with?
MR. TORRES: Your Honor, my only understanding is that Prenda Law is the one that has been in contact with me. That's the only thing I know.
To be honest, Your Honor, I responded to an ad for a local appearance, that's all I did, Your Honor. And other than that, I was brought into these cases, and that's pretty much oh mae
THE COURT: Who is Prenda Law, Inc.? Is that the person you're local counsel for?
MR. TORRES: That's technically my understanding of the situation or the arrangement, if you will.
THE COURT: Who is Mr. Gibbs in relation to Mr. Duffy?
MR. TORRES: Well, Mr. Gibbs apparently is a principal at Prenda Law, to my understanding.
THE COURT: Who is Mr. Duffy?
MR. TORRES: Mr. Duffy, I have no contact with
Mr. Duffy. I've never had any contact with Mr. Duffy.
THE COURT: Mr. Lutz, who is the individual who you just spoke to in the Courtroom with you?
MR. LUTZ: Sorry?
THE COURT: Who is that behind you?
MR. STEELE: Your Honor, my name is John Steele.
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 138
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 139 of 153 Page ID
Page 12
THE COURT: Who are you?
MR. STEELE: I'm an attorney, but not involved in this
THE COURT: You're an attorney with what law firm?
MR. STEELE: I'm not an attorney with any law firm right now, but I have worked with Mr. Duffy in the past and I am certainly familiar with this litigation just because I've been involved in many different cases like this in the past.
THE COURT: But not this case?
MR. STEELE: Correct.
THE COURT: So, Mr. Torres, you don't know who your general counsel is other than Mr. Gibbs, and you don't have a written agreement and you just answered a random ad and put your name on a docket in Federal Court?
MR. TORRES: Well, Your Honor, I was going to make a local appearance for someone that, you know, needed a local counsel, and so I did.
THE COURT: Well, you're still a lawyer.
MR. TORRES: I understand.
THE COURT: And Mr. Lutz, did Mr. Wasinger speak with
you about his decision not to appear at this hearing?
MR. LUTZ: They did not, no. THE COURT: Do you know who Mr. Duffy is? MR. LUTZ: I believe he is a principal of Prenda Law.
THE COURT: And who is Mr. Gibbs?
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 139
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 140 of 153 Page ID
Page 13
MR. LUTZ: Mr. Gibbs is also affiliated with Prenda Law, I don't know his official title.
THE COURT: Is he an attorney?
MR. LUTZ: I believe so, in the State of California.
COURT: But not in the State of Illinois?
MR. LUTZ: I can't say for sure.
THE COURT: Do you know if he is a partner in the Prenda Law Group?
MR. LUTZ: I do not know his official title, no.
THE COURT: Who is your counsel, who is your lawyer?
MR. LUTZ: Prenda Law is one of them, they represent Sunlust in several cases, not in this case, particularly.
THE COURT: What does that mean; particularly?
MR. LUTZ: Well, it's not in this matter, they represent us in various different cases.
THE COURT: So they were not retained to be your lawyer and they did not refer this matter to Mr. Torres?
MR. LUTZ: I don't know what their affiliation with
Mr. Torres is, officially.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. SYFERT: Your Honor, if I may interject, Mr. Lutz used to work for Mr. Steele down in Miami. Mr. Lutz was actually a paralegal and debt collector for Prenda Law when it was a multi-state, multi-jurisdictional law firm between here
and Illinois. That's Mr. Lutz.
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 140
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 141 0f153 Page ID
Page 14
So if he's —- he should have better information about the structure of Prenda Law than this and probably has very little structure about the -—- or very little information about the actual structure of Sunlust Pictures, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Will you swear this witness, Ms. Vizza, Mr. Lutz.
Thereupon,
JOHN LUTZ, having first been duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, was examined and testified as follows:
MR. LUTZ: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Lutz, you're under oath, you have to
give truthful answers or you face penalties of perjury.
Do you understand that? MR. LUTZ: Yes. THE COURT: What is your position with Sunlust? MR. LUTZ: I'ma representative of them. COURT: What does that mean? LUTZ: Corporate representative. COURT: What does that mean? MR. LUTZ: They asked me to appear on various matters throughout the country. THE COURT: Are you an officer of the company?
MR. LUTZ: I'm not, no.
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 141
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 142 of 153 Page ID
Page 15
THE COURT: Are you authorized to bind the company to any legal contracts?
MR. LUTZ: I am not.
THE COURT: Are you salaried?
MR. LUTZ: No, 1099.
THE COURT: So you are a 1099 contracted entity and you just go around and sit in a Court and represent yourself to be the corporate representative of the company?
MR. LUTZ: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Torres, did you know this was Mr. Lutz's position, a paid corporate representative?
MR. TORRES: No, Your Honor, I did not.
COURT: Who is the president of Sunlust? LUTZ: I'm unaware.
COURT: Who is the vice president?
LUTZ: I'm unaware
COURT: Who is the secretary?
LUTZ: I have no idea.
COURT: Who owns Sunlust?
LUTZ: I do not know.
COURT: Who signs your checks?
MR. LUTZ: I believe somebody in the accounting
department. THE : What is their name?
MR. To be honest with you, I can't read the
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 142
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 143 of 153 Page ID
Page 16
signature.
THE : Where is the accounting department
located?
I'm sorry?
Where is the accounting department located?
MR. LUTZ: I've received checks from California.
THE COURT: How much are you paid monthly to be the corporate representative?
MR. LUTZ: Again, it depends on my appearances, the number of appearances that I do.
THE COURT: How much were you paid last month?
MR. LUTZ: Approximately $1,000.
THE COURT: And do you have any other job than to around go to Courts representing yourself to be the corporate representative of Sunlust?
MR. LUTZ: For Sunlust, no.
THE COURT: Do you have any other job for the Prenda
Law holdings to do anything other than go around the country
and represent yourself to be their corporate representative?
MR. LUTZ: I do not work for Prenda Law.
THE COURT: Do you serve in this capacity for any other entity than Sunlust?
MR. LUTZ: Yes.
COURT: What companies?
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 143
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 144 of 153 Page ID
Page 17
MR. LUTZ: Hard Drive Productions would be one and Guava, LLC. THE COURT: Do they have similar lawsuits around the country? MR. LUTZ: They do. THE COURT: Do you receive a percentage of the recovery of any of these lawsuits? MR. LUTZ: I do not. THE COURT: Do you know Mr. Duffy? MR. LUTZ: Not personally, no. COURT: Have you talked to him before? LUTZ: I have not, no.
COURT: Is he your lawyer?
LUTZ: He is not my attorney
COURT: Is he the lawyer for Prenda Law -- or
Sunlust?
MR. LUTZ: In various matters, yes.
THE COURT: How many matters do you represent Sunlust in, in the country?
MR. LUTZ: Approximately a dozen.
THE COURT: So half of them are located here in the Middle District and there are others elsewhere?
MR. LUTZ: I believe we have three here in the Middle District.
THE COURT: Mr. Torres, I thought you entered an
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 144
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 145 of 153 Page ID
Page 18
appearance on five of them here in the Middle District.
MR. TORRES: But not for that particular company. THE COURT: What was the other company?
MR. TORRES: I believe it's FTG Videos. I don't have
access to my computer at this time, Your Honor, because I'm in
the Court in Orange County, but I believe one of them is FTG
Videos.
Sunlust?
involved
Sunlust.
COURT: F as in Frank or S as in Sam? TORRES: F as in Frank, Your Honor.
COURT: Mr. Steele, who is the principal of
STEELE: I'm sorry, you're asking me, ma'am? COURT: Yes, sir. STEELE: IT wouldn't know. COURT: You don't know who owns Sunlust? MR. STEELE: That's correct. THE COURT: You don't know who the president is?
MR. STEELE: I -- the only person that I know that's
with Sunlust is Sunny Leone.
THE COURT: Sunny Leone?
MR. STEELE: Is one of the people involved with That's the only person I've ever --
THE COURT: What is the name?
MR. STEELE: Sunny Leone.
THE COURT: Spell it.
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 145
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 146 of 153 Page ID
MR. STEELE: S-O-N-N-Y, Leone --
THE COURT: L-E-O-N?
MR. STEELE: I believe there's an E at the end of that, I'm not certain.
THE COURT: Where's is he located.
MR. STEELE: Well, I believe it's a she, and I believe that the last time I heard, she was in India filming a major motion picture with some studio down there, but I don't keep up with that, I don't represent Sunlust or anybody anymore. I no longer actively practice law.
THE COURT: You're not practicing law?
MR. STEELE: Correct. I do appear occasionally at hearings on an ad hoc basis, but I do not have any current clients.
THE COURT: You still have a bar license in the State of Florida?
MR. STEELE: No, I'm licensed only in the State of Tllinois.
I want to make very clear to this Court I'm not
purporting in any way to be an attorney licensed in the State
of Florida.
THE COURT: Have you ever been licensed in the State of Florida?
MR. STEELE: No.
THE: COURT; All right,
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 146
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 147 of 153 Page ID
Page 20
Thank you, sir.
So, Mr. Lutz, you don't know who you serve for, you're just sitting here in the Courtroom purporting to be a corporate representative?
MR. LUTZ: I was contacted by Sunny Leone several months ago.
THE COURT: And told what?
MR. LUTZ: She asked me to -- when they needed for me to appear for various reasons, if I would do it ona representative basis.
THE COURT: You can sit away from the table, you're not a corporate representative of anybody if you don't have any information about the corporation.
You're not an officer or principal of the corporation. The Court will exclude you as a proper corporate entity for this Defendant.
Mr. Torres, your motion to withdraw is granted, you are removed from this case. Any other lawyer who purports to come in to represent this Defendant would need to file a motion for leave to do so.
The case is dismissed for failure to appear at this hearing, 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 the Court will hear, by motion, a motion
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 147
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 148 of 153 Page ID
Page 21
for sanctions and fees against this Sunlust entity and everyone affiliated with it, including a motion against Mr. Wasinger for his purposeful failure to appear at this hearing.
And a motion will also be heard on Mr. Duffy for his lack of candor in relation to his connection with this matter based upon the representation of Mr. Torres that he was contacted by the Prenda Law Group or Prenda Law, Inc. for the purpose of being retained as local counsel in this case and that was not presented to the Court in this purported correspondence. The case is dismissed.
TI intend to advise the other Judges in the Courthouse
of the nature of this matter and may refer this matter to the
Florida Bar for further proceedings.
Is there anything further from the Plaintiff -- I'm sorry -- from the defense?
MR. SYFERT: No, Your Honor.
Well, yes, Your Honor, we have one other case that was transferred to Orlando, same issues exist as in this case.
THE COURT: Who is the Judge in the case.
MR. SYFERT: The First Time -—- it's First Time Videos versus Oppold, O-P-P-O-L-D.
It was originally filed in Tampa then transferred to Orlando. Spaulding I believe is the Judge, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Judge Spaulding is a Magistrate Judge. Do
you know the case number?
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 148
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 149 of 153 Page ID
Page 22
MR. SYFERT: I don't have that with me. I have the old case number from the --
THE COURT: Tampa case?
MR. SYFERT: I have -- yeah, the Tampa case number was 8:12-CV-1685-MSS—MAP.
THE COURT: All right. I'1l take a look at it.
Mr. Torres, a word to the wise, sir. When you represent an entity, no matter how limited your role is, you're placing your bar number at issue and you're placing your name and your goodwill at issue before a Court.
And saying you're local counsel and you only intended to file on their behalf and pick up a small fee for that
limited role does not absolve you from responsibility for
making sure that whatever you sign on to, whatever you enter an
appearance on behalf of is a legitimate entity with legitimate concerns, because you run a strong risk that you could be Sanctioned or lose your bar license behind conduct of the type that you're witnessing here.
I hope that this is a lesson to you about how to proceed going forward with characters such as the ones that are presented here.
MR. TORRES: Yes, Your Honor, I totally understand and thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. TORRES: Am I excused, Your Honor?
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 149
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 150 of 153 Page ID
THE COURT:
You are excused.
This matter is dismissed.
MR. SYFERT: THE COURT:
(Thereupon,
Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you.
the proceedings concluded.)
KkKKKKKKK
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 150
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 151 of 153 Page ID
CERTIFICATE
STATE OF FLORIDA Sis) COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH )
IT, CLAUDIA SPANGLER-FRY, Official Court Reporter for the United States District Court, Middle District, Tampa, Division,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that I was authorized to and did, through use of Computer Aided Transcription, report in shorthand the proceedings and evidence in the above-styled cause, as stated in the caption hereto, and that the foregoing
pages numbered 1 to 24 inclusive, constitute a true and correct
transcription of my shorthand report of said proceedings and
evidence. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand in the City of Tampa, County of Hillsborough, State of Florida,
this 29th day of November, 2012.
CLAUDIA SPANGLER-FRY, Official Court Reporter
BY: /s/ CLAUDIA SPANGLER-FRY
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 151
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed 01/14/13 Page 152 of 153 Page ID #:577
EXHIBIT O
EXHIBIT O
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 152
LLC - File DASE Repoe CV-08333-ODW-JC Document 40-2 Filed O1dA42w Rages etaldec&RgGeclRController
lof 1
#:578
ILLINOIS.COM
LLC FILE DETAIL REPORT
Entity Name
Status
Entity Type
File Date
Agent Name
Agent Street Address
Agent City
Agent Zip
Annual Report Filing Date
Series Name
ANTI-PIRACY LAW GROUP LLC
ACTIVE
LLC
11/08/2012
JEFFREY LIVINGSTON
161 N CLARK ST STE 3200
CHICAGO
60601
00/00/0000
File Number
On
Type of LLC
Jurisdiction
Agent Change Date
Principal Office
Management Type
Duration
For Year
NOT AUTHORIZED TO ESTABLISH SERIES
Return to the Search Screen
BACK TO CYBERDRIVEILLINOIS.COM HOME PAGE
JESSE WHITE
SECRETARY OF STATE
04147731
11/08/2012
Domestic
IL
11/08/2012
161 N. CLARK ST. SUITE 3200
CHICAGO, IL 606010000
MBR View
PERPETUAL
Purchase Certificate of Good Standing
(One Certificate per
Transaction)
1/14/13 1:18 PM
Exhibits to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Page 153