Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 62-1 Filed 03/04/13 Page1of18 Page ID #:1105
EXHIBIT “6”
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 62-1 Filed 03/04/13 Page 20f18 Page ID #:1106
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DATE: 11/14/12 DEPT. G HONORABLE Michael P. Vicencia JUDGE] D. Oura DEPUTY CLERK
HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
K. Thomas, C.A. Deputy Sheriff] A, Parrish CSR#8909 Reporter
En or 8:30 am|NC057950 Plaintiff Counsel Brett Gibbs (X) LIGHTSPEED MEDIA CORPORATION Via Court Call VS Defendant JESSE NASON Counsel Morgan Pietz (X)
FORWARDED FILE TO RESEARCH ATTY 10/22/12 (KT)
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
DEMURRER
MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FURNISH SECURITY AND FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEYS
Matter is called for hearing. Motions for an order requiring Plaintiff to furnish
security and for an order imposing sanctions are denied.
Demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to the second, fourth and fifth causes of action.
Demurrer is sustained with twenty days leave to amend as to the first and third causes of action.
Notice waived.
MINUTES ENTERED Page 1 of 1 DEPT. G 11/14/12
COUNTY CLERK
EXHIBIT 6 3
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 62-1 Filed 03/04/13 Page 3o0f18 Page ID #:1107
EXHIBIT “7”
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 62-1 Filed 03/04/13 Page 4o0f18 Page ID #:1108
pow
& Ww bv
area: Ney Document1 Filed06/21/11, Page1 of 15
w
/, Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) yy wy €, oO Steele Hansmeier PLLC. oy BY W 2/ 38 Miller Avenue, #263 kee M A Mill Valley, CA 94941 "440 s'O y 2 415-325-5900 “ONS elie 27, blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com E -f j | i n g ‘ ag? tig
laity
Attorney for Plaintiff y/
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Cw
“11 angn
AF HOLDINGS LLC, ) No. ) Plaintiff, ) Judge: v. ) ) DOES 1-97 ) COMPLAINT ) Defendants, ) ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ) COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Plaintiff AF Holdings LLC, by and through its undersigned counsel, and complains and alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This action is reactionary. Plaintiff brings this civil action sade the United States Copyright Act and its related conspiracy claim to combat the Doe Defendants’ intentional infringement of Plaintiff's copyrighted creative works. The Doe Defendants, whose names Plaintiff expects to ascertain during expedited discovery, illegally reproduced and distributed the Work over an Internet computer network peer-to-peer “sharing” network and, upon information and belief,
continue to do so as of the filing of this suit.
EXHIBIT 7 4
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 62-1 Filed 03/04/13 Page 5of18 Page ID #:1109
ae ae Document? Filed06/21/11, Page2 of 15
wd
l 2. Per N.D, Cal. Local Rule 3-5, this Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction over 2 |I the copyright infringement claim under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seg., (commonly referred to as “the : Copyright Act”), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (granting federal courts federal question jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the laws of the United States), and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (granting federal courts 6 original jurisdiction over any Congressional acts relating to copyrights), This Court has
7 || supplemental jurisdiction over the civil conspiracy claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because it is 8 {| directly related to Plaintiff's copyright infringement claim, which is within this Court’s original
9 || jurisdiction, such that the two claims form part of the same case and controversy under Article III of
0 the United States Constitution.
. 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all of the parties because, upon credible . information and belief, all the Doe Defendants either reside or committed copyright infringement in 14 the State of California, Plaintiff used geolocation technology to trace the IP addresses of each Doe
15 || Defendant to a point of origin within the State of California. This Court also has personal 16 || jurisdiction over non-resident Defendants, if any, under the California long-arm statute, California
17 | Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10, because they downloaded copyrighted content from, or uploaded
it to, California residents, and thus committed copyright infringement in and through this State, and ” engaged in a civil conspiracy to commit copyright infringement with California residents. (See also , Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 4(k)(1)(A)).
2 4, Venue is properly founded in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)
23 || and 1400(a) because, on information and belief, Doe Defendants reside in this District, may be found
24 |/in this District, and/or committed acts in this District giving rise to Plaintiff's claims. Per N.D. Cal.
25 || Local Rule 3-2(c), this intellectual property action is exempt from these requirements. 26 es 5. Joinder of Defendants is proper for just adjudication because all Defendants
27
participated in a civil conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, which comprised of a series of 28
2 COMPLAINT CASE NO, EXHIBIT 7
3)
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 62-1 Filed 03/04/13 Page 6of18 Page ID #:1110
Bese tT eye Cw Documentt Een Page3 of 15
1 || transactions that ultimately ended in the Doe Defendants’ illicit distribution of Plaintiff's unique
2 copyrighted work amongst one another. The series of transactions in this case involved exchanging oie
pieces of the Work’s file over the Internet amongst Doe Defendants with each Doe Defendant 4
sharing pieces of Plaintiff's copyrighted file with each other (otherwise known as “torrent 5
swarming”) to obtain a complete copy of Plaintiff's Work. The nature of the BitTorrent distribution 7 || protocol necessitates a concerted action by many people in order to disseminate files, such as 8 || Plaintiffs Work. Due to BitTorrent’s setup and this concerted action, it is impossible for individuals
9 lito the simply download files on BitTorrent without the active participation of others. Doe
10 Defendants in this case, in order to download Plaintiff's Work, intentionally engaged in this ' concerted action with other Doe Defendants and other yet unnamed individuals on BitTorrent by entering the torrent swarm. The Doe Defendants are properly joined even if they were not engaged 14 in a contemporaneous swarm because they have contributed to the chain of data distribution due to
15 || their prior involvement in like swarms. Doe Defendants also share the same questions of law with
16 |/ respect to their copyright infringement, including, but not limited to:
17 (A) Whether Plaintiff is the rights holder of the copyrighted works at issue;
e (B) Whether “copying” has occurred within the meaning of the Copyright Act;
= (C) Whether entering a “torrent swarm” constitutes a willful act of infringement;
i, (D) Whether entering a “torrent swarm” constitutes a civil conspiracy; and
oy) (E) Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff has been damaged by the Doe Defendants’ 23 conduct.
24 || All of these questions should be answered as part of a single suit for all of the reasons outlined by
25 | PRCP 19(a). Such joinder is mandated if “feasible.” Such joinder is entirely “feasible” in this case.
ss i 27 if 28 ‘ COMPLAINT CASE NO, EXHIBIT 7
6
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 62-1 Filed 03/04/13 Page 7of18 Page ID #:1111
Case4:1 bee Document1 Beebe Page4 of 15
1 PARTIES 2 6. Plaintiff AF Holdings, LLC, is a limited liability company organized and existing : under the laws of the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis. ve The unique copyrighted work at issue in this case is an adult video entitled “Sexual 6 Obsession” (hereinafter “Work”), The Work was available for download from well-known 7 || BitTorrent piracy sites within days of its publication and was among the most popular adult video downloads on a highly popular BitTorrent site-the appropriately named “Pirate Bay”. 9 8. The Doe Defendants’ actual names are unknown and unascertainable to Plaintiff. o Instead, Plaintiff knows each Doe Defendant only by an Internet Protocol address (hereinafter “IP I address”), which is a number assigned to devices, such as computers, connected to the Internet by an : Internet Service Provider (hereinafter “ISP”). In the course of monitoring Intemet-based 14 infringement of its copyrighted content, Plaintiff's agents observed unlawful reproduction and
15 || distribution occurring among IP addresses listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto, via the BitTorrent 16 ||Internet protocol, an Internet website allowing for “peer-to-peer” (hereinafter “P2P”) data
\7 exchanging. Plaintiff believes that the Defendants’ identities will be revealed through expedited
discovery, at which time Plaintiff will seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to identify 19 Defendants by name. 20 mT BACKGROUND 2 9. BitTorrent is a modem file sharing method (hereinafter “‘protocol”) used for
23 || distributing data via the Internet.
24 10. Traditional file transfer protocols involve a central server, which distributes data 25 directly to individual users. This method is prone to collapse when large numbers of users request ae data from the central server, in which case the server can become overburdened and the rate of data 7 transmission can slow considerably or cease altogether. In addition, the reliability of access to the anu CASENO. EXHIBIT 7
7
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 62-1 Filed 03/04/13 Page 8o0f18 Page ID #:1112
a ea Documentt enon Paged of 15
1 || data stored on a server is largely dependent on the server’s ability to continue functioning for 2 prolonged periods of time under high resource demands.
; 11. In contrast, the BitTorrent protocol is a decentralized method of distributing data. . Instead of relying on a central server to distribute data directly to individual users, the BitTorrent 6 protocol allows individual users to distribute data among themselves by exchanging pieces of the file
7 || with each other to eventually obtain a whole copy of the file. When using the BitTorrent protocol, 8 || every user simultaneously receives information from and transfers information to one another.
9 12. In BitTorrent vernacular, individual downloaders/distributors of a particular file are called peers. The group of peers involved in downloading/distributing a particular file is called a
swarm. A server which stores a list of peers in a swarm is called a tracker. A computer program
12
‘8 that implements the BitTorrent protocol is called a BitTorrent client. Each swarm is unique to a 14 particular file.
15 13. The BitTorrent protocol operates as follows. First, a user locates a small “torrent”
16 || file. This file contains information about the files to be shared and about the tracker, the computer 17 || that coordinates the file distribution. Second, the user loads the torrent file into a BitTorrent client, which automatically attempts to connect to the tracker listed in the torrent file. Third, the tracker responds with a list of peers and the BitTorrent client connects to those peers to begin downloading data from and distributing data to the other peers in the swarm. When the download is complete, the BitTorrent client continues distributing data to other peers in the swarm until the user manually 23 || disconnects from the swarm or the BitTorrent client otherwise does the same.
24 14. The degree of anonymity provided by the BitTorrent protocol is extremely low.
25 || Because the protocol is based on peers connecting to one another, a peer must broadcast identifying
2 « * ? information (i.e. an IP address) before it can receive data, Nevertheless, the actual names of peers in 27 28 i COMPLAINT CASE NO. EXHIBIT 7
8
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 62-1 Filed 03/04/13 Page 9of18 Page ID #:1113
Caseanl reve 0er-Cw Document ene Page6 of 15
fone
a Swarm are unknown, as the users are allowed to download and distribute under the cover of their
2 Whip addresses.
: 15. The BitTorrent protocol is an extremely popular method for transferring data. The size of swarms for popular files can reach into the tens of thousands of unique peers. A swarm will 6 commonly have peers from many, if not every, state in the United States and several countries 7 ||around the world. And every peer in the swarm participates in distributing the file to dozens, 8 || hundreds, or even thousands of other peers.
9 16. The BitTorrent protocol is also an extremely popular method for unlawfully copying, 10
reproducing, and distributing files in violation of the copyright laws of the United States, A broad
range of copyrighted albums, audiovisual files, photographs, software, and other forms of media are
12 a available for illegal reproduction and distribution via the BitTorrent protocol. 14 17. Efforts at combating BitTorrent-based copyright infringement have been stymied by
15 || BitTorrent’s decentralized nature. Because there are no central servers to enjoin from unlawfully
16 || distributing copyrighted content, there is no primary target on which to focus anti-piracy efforts.
17 ll Indeed, the same decentralization that makes the BitTorrent protocol an extremely robust and
18 . ise a ‘ ae efficient means of transferring enormous quantities of data also acts to insulate it from anti-piracy 19 measures. 20 a1 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 2 18. Plaintiff is the assignee and owner of all right, title and interest worldwide in the
23 || Work and all proprietary rights therein including, without limitation, all copyrights and all past and
24 || future causes of action with respect to the same.
25 19. | Upon information and belief, Plaintiff received this assignment from the Work’s 26 author and/or assignees of the Work’s author. 27 28 P COMPLAINT CASE NO. EXHIBIT 7
9
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 62-1 Filed 03/04/13 Page 10o0f18 Page ID #:1114
Case4:1 as ae Document eee) Page7 of 15
1 20. The Work has been granted a Certificate of Registration from the U.S. Copyright 2 |! Office (PA-1-725-120). 21. The Work is legally available for purchase to bona fide purchasers, but was obtained
by Defendants through illegal distribution means.
22. Plaintiff employs proprietary P2P network forensic software to perform exhaustive
6
7 {|teal time monitoring of BitTorrent-based swarms involved in distributing Plaintiff's copyrighted 8 ||creative works. This software is effective and accurate in capturing data about the activity of peers 9
in a swarm and their infringing conduct.
10 23. Doe Defendants, without Plaintiffs authorization or license, intentionally is downloaded a torrent file particular to Plaintiff's Work, purposefully loaded that torrent file into . their BitTorrent clients, entered a BitTorrent swarm particular to Plaintiff's Work, and reproduced 14 and distributed the Work to numerous third parties.
15 24, Plaintiff observed the Doe Defendants’ activities in the torrent swarm specific to the
16 || Work and created a log of IP addresses identifying each Defendant and the date and time of the Doe
17 |) Defendant’s activity, attached hereto as Exhibit A. - COUNT I —- COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT (U.S, Copyright Act — 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1332)
iad 25, Plaintiff hereby incorporates by this reference each and every allegation contained in 2] the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 22 93 26. Doe Defendants’ conduct infringes upon Plaintiffs exclusive rights of reproduction
24 |{and distribution that are protected under the Copyright Act. 25 27, Each Doe Defendant knew, should have known, or had some constructive knowledge
26 || that their acts constituted copyright infringement.
28 ; COMPLAINT CASE NO.
EXHIBIT 7 10
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 62-1 Filed 03/04/13 Page 11of18 Page ID #:1115
Passe eiegs J00cGiy Document1 pies Pages of 15
l 28. Doe Defendants’ conduct was willful within the meaning of the Copyright Act: 2 intentional, and with indifference to the Plaintiff's rights. Doe Defendants’ active participation on ? BitTorrent swarms relating to Plaintiff's Work make this fact abundently clear.
29. Plaintiff has been damaged by Doe Defendants’ conduct including, but not limited to, 6 economic and reputation losses. Plaintiff continues to be damaged by such conduct, and has no
7 ||adequate remedy at law to compensate Plaintiff for all of the past, and possibly future, damages 8 ||stemming from the Doe Defendants’ conduct. In fact, further irreparable harm to Plaintiff's
9 || copyrights and exclusive rights is imminent without Court intervention. Without restrictions, these
infringers will run rampant.
7 30. _— Plaintiff hereby reserves the right, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), to elect to recover . statutory damages for each infringement, in lieu of seeking recovery of actual damages.
14 31. As Defendants’ infringement was intentional and willful, the Plaintiff is entitled to an
15 || award of statutory damages, exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees, and the costs of the suit.
16 COUNT II — CIVIL CONSPIRACY 17 (California Common Law Tort) 18 32. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by this reference each and every allegation contained in
19 Il the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
ad 33. In using the P2P BitTorrent file distribution method, each Doe Defendant participated 21
in, aided in, attempted to aid in, or at least knew of the formation and operation of a common-plan 22 93 conspiracy to unlawfully reproduce and distribute Plaintiff's Work by exchanging pieces of the
24 Work file in a torrent swarm on BitTorrent. 25 34. Doe Defendants, in participating in said conspiratorial file exchanging network,
26 || agreed to engage in a concerted tortious action with other (currently discovered and undiscovered)
27 || Doe Defendants on the network to reproduce and distribute Plaintiff's Work. 28 é COMPLAINT CASE NO. EXHIBIT 7
11
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 62-1 Filed 03/04/13 Page 12 o0f18 Page ID #:1116
eed ONY Document1 Filed06/21/11 , Page9 of 15
wi
l 35. Each of the Doe Defendants was an active participant in downloadeding a torrent file, 2 opening it using a BitTorrent client, and then entering a torrent swarm comprised of other : individuals improperly distributing and reproducing Plaintiff's Work without Plaintiff's permission, causing infringement damage to Plaintiff.
6 36. Participants in the torrent swarm, including Doe Defendants, have conspired to
7 || Provide other individuals with pieces of Plantiff's Work in exchange for receiving other pieces of the 8 || same Work, eventually obtaining a complete copy of the file.
9 37. In furtherance of this civil conspiracy, Doe Defendants committed overt tortious and unlawful acts by using BitTorrent software to download the Work from, and distribute it to, others,
and were willful participants in this joint activity.
12 i 38. | Doe Defendants were fully aware of their participation in this conspiracy by taking 14 part of these swarms on BitTorrent, and, in downloading Plaintiff's Works, demonstrate their
15 || understanding of their role in this conspiracy. 16 39, As a proximate result of this conspiracy, Plaintiff has been damaged as alleged above,
17 |l and seeks just compensation for Doe Defendants’ unjust acts.
18 // 19
// 20
// 21 23,4 // 24 IW // 25 I! 26
if 27 28 5
COMPLAINT CASE NO. EXHIBIT 7
IZ
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 62-1 Filed 03/04/13 Page 13 o0f18 Page ID #:1117
Cacao ree Document! Filed06/21/11 ,Page10 of 15
wd
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 || WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby respectfully prays this Court for Judgment and relief as follows:
3 1) That the Court enter a written judgment declaring that the Doe Defendants have : infringed Plaintiffs rights in federally registered copyrights under 17 U.S.C. § 501, and that such infringement was willful;
4 2) That the Court enter a written judgment declaring that the Doe Defendants have g |{injured the business reputation and business of Plaintiff by Defendants’ acts and conduct set forth in
9 || this Complaint; 10 3) That the Court issue injunctive relief against Doe Defendants, enjoinng and
restrianing the Doe Defendants and all others in active concert with them from further violating
" Plaintiff's copyrighted Works, and further issue an order impounding or requiring Doe Defendants to : destroy all copies of those unlawfully copyrighted files in Doe Defendants’ possession, custody, 15 and/or control pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 503 & S09(a);
16 4) That the Court enter a written judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against Defendants
17 || for actual damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(a) or statutory damages up to one-hundred and fifty-
18 || thousand dollars ($150,000) pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § $04(b), at the election of Plaintiff, in an amount
ed to be ascertained at trial;
= 5) As to Count II, that the Court order Doe Defendants jointly and severally liable to : Plaintiff in the full amount of the Judgment on the basis of a common law claim for civil conspiracy 93 || t0 commit copyright infringement; and for an award of compensatory damages based on the civil
4 || conspiracy count in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount
25 || to be determined at trial;
26 27 28 “ COMPLAINT CASE NO. EXHIBIT 7
13
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 62-1 Filed 03/04/13 Page 14o0f18 Page ID #:1118
aaa, ac Document1 i ca
—
6) That the Court enter a written judgment in favor of Plaintiff against the Defendants awarding the Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses (including fees and costs of
expert witnesses), and other costs of this action pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505; and
am WY bP
7) That the Court issue any such further relief as the Court deems approriate,
LA
6 q Respectfully Submitted, 8 AF Holdings LLC
9 || DATED: June 21, 2011
w By: 1] Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) 12 Steele Hansmeier PLLC. 38 Miller Avenue, #263 13 Mill Valley, CA 9494] blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com 14 Attorney for Plaintiff 15 16 17 DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL 18 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial as provided by FRCP 38(a). 19 a By: /s/ Brett L. Gibbs a Brett L. Gibbs, Esq. (SBN 251000) a Attorney for Plaintiff 23 24 25 26 27 28 i, i COMPLAINT CASE NO.
EXHIBIT 7 14
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 62-1 Filed 03/04/13 Page15o0f18 PageID #:1119
Coxe ere Document1 Filed06/21/11 , Page12 of 15
wd
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT 7 15
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 62-1 Filed 03/04/13 Page 16 o0f18 Page ID #:1120
one NR
Me Sh id Document1 ae ee of 15
IP Address ISP Date/Time (UTC)
108.0.221.94 Verizon Online 2011-04-08 08:10:13 PM 108.13.156.153 Verizon Online 2011-04-09 11:53:55 PM 108.13.17.195 Verizon Online 2011-04-01 06:43:32 AM 132.239.76.253 University of California at San Diego 2011-04-01 07:46:44 PM 173,55.149.143 Verizon Online 2011-04-09 10:33:24 AM 173.55.71,204 Verizon Online 2011-04-09 06:16:44 PM 173.55.81.60 Verizon Online 2011-04-01 10:05:26 PM 173.58.139.80 Verizon Online 201 1-04-05 01:40:44 AM 173.60.201.4 Verizon Online 201 1-04-09 01:56:51 PM 174.50.130.4 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-04-05 07:20:10 PM 174.65.117.224 Cox Communications 2011-04-09 05:02:43 AM 208.51.82.210 Global Crossing 2011-04-01 02:41:52 AM 24.130.125.113 Comcast Cable Communications 201 1-04-08 01:22:38 AM 24.205.189.206 Charter Communications 2011-04-08 10:49:32 PM 24.205.97,.222 Charter Communications 201 1-04-09 06:48:03 AM 24.4.51.10 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-04-06 01:41:13 PM 24,5,156.70 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-04-01 09:20:54 PM 24.6.134.18 Comcast Cable Communications 201 1-04-02 01:35:48 AM 66.74.84.162 | Road Runner 201 1-04-01 10:12:56 PM 67.125.135.224 AT&T Internet Services 2011-04-09 08:02:18 AM 67.160.193.242 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-04-01 08:23:52 PM 67.161.65.207 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-04-01 12:15:18 AM 67.166.130.140 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-04-07 08:26:09 PM 67.169.166.241 Comcast Cable Communications 201 1-04-05 03:29:56 PM 67.170.246.36 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-04-09 04:33:58 PM 67.172.169.92 Comcast Cable Communications 201 1-04-09 12:18:20 AM 67.180.235.233 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-04-01 03:55:48 PM 67.180.8.210 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-04-01 03:28:40 AM 67.181.120.80 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-04-09 01:03:51 AM 67.181.252.132 Comcast Cable Communications 201 1-04-08 09:07:20 PM 67.182.96.201 Comcast Cable Communications 201 1-04-01 06:30:48 PM 67.187.159.119 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-04-05 04:43:05 PM 67.188.13.70 Comcast Cable Communications 201 1-04-06 03:20:50 AM 67.188.132.6 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-04-01 06:30:06 PM 67.188.29.151 Comcast Cable Communications 201 1-04-01 02:14:42 PM 68.107.63.75 Cox Communications 2011-04-01 05:08:35 AM 68.111,.82.122 Cox Communications 2011-04-09 11:00:22 PM 68.189.90.137 Charter Communications 2011-04-07 10:32:44 PM 68.190.213.81 | Charter Communications 2011-04-01 12:29:48 AM 68.228.68.212 Cox Communications 201 1-04-06 06:58:00 AM 68.238.68.159 Verizon Online 2011-04-05 04:16:51 PM 68.4.190.86 Cox Communications 2011-04-01 07:45:44 PM 68.4.75.98 Cox Communications 201 1-03-31 07:24:48 PM 68.6.129,195 Cox Communications 2011-04-09 06:49:44 PM 69.62.177.84 Surewest Broadband 2011-04-02 12:58:45 AM
70.181.121.68
Cox Communications
201 1-04-07 07:59:08 PM
EXHIBIT 7 16
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 62-1 Filed 03/04/13 Page 17 of 18 Page ID
#:1121
. Case4:11-cv-03067-CW Document
71,105.74.53 71.107.86,104 71.177.196.218 71.193.57,.203 TLUGS.LI6.115 71,198.218.90 7% ,202.110.72 71.202.139,202 71 ,.202,155.132 71.202.157.241 71.204.190,102 72.197.70.131 72.207,59.3 72.220,54.32 735.142.198.119 75,214.139.48 76,103.240.210 76.103.33.246 76.126,120.10 76,126.4.163 76.126.62.167 76.127.101.203 76,169.127.173 76.191.247.76 76.198.93.50 76.20.107.195 76.20.68.238 76.90.74.24 76.95.141.99 96.229,199,.53 96.251.23.65 96.39.244.199 97.90.5.46 97,93.16.237 98.112.115,222 98.154.127.38 98.164.242.246 98.176.143.37 98.185.227.121 98.192.162.61 98.207 153.229 98.207.3.211 98.207.51.159 98.210.36.121 98.210.99.31 98.234,155.220 98.239,109.55
Verizon Online
Verizon Online
Verizon Online
Comcast Cable Communications Comeast Cable Communications Comcast Cable Communications Comcast Cable Communications Comcast Cable Communications Comcast Cable Communications Comcast Cable Communications Comcast Cable Communications Cox Communications
Cox Communications
Cox Communications
Charter Communications
Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Comcast Cable Communications Comcast Cable Communications Comcast Cable Communications Comeast Cable Communications Comcast Cable Communications Comcast Cable Communications Road Runner
Sonoma Interconnect
AT&T Internet Services Comeast Cable Communications Comcast Cable Communications Road Runner
Road Runner
Verizon Online
Verizon Online
Charter Communications Charter Communications Charter Communications Verizon Online
Road Runner
Cox Communications
Cox Communications
Cox Communications
Comcast Cable Communications Comcast Cable Communications Comcast Cable Communications Comcast Cable Communications Comcast Cable Communications Comcast Cable Communications Comcast Cable Communications Comcast Cable Communications
Wireless
| ee ee Filed06/21/11 Page14 of 15 wd
201 1-04-02 02:52:49 AM 201 1-04-08 09:41:46 PM
201 1-04-06 02:09:22 AM 2011-04-06 08:38:33 AM 201 1-04-07 06:55:06 PM
201 1-04-09 07:52:18 AM 2011-04-01 07:58:55 AM 2011-04-01 05:28:12 AM 2011-04-08 11:34:19 PM
2011-04-06 02:07:51 AM 2011-04-09 10:08:42 AM 2011-04-08 05:45:17 AM 2011-04-07 10:30:13 PM
2011-04-06 12:25:40 PM
2011-04-02 04:53:24 AM 2011-04-05 10:10:15 PM
2011-04-09 04:00:58 AM 2011-04-01 08:35:52 PM
201 1-04-01 02:31:53 AM 2011-04-01 10:52:32 PM
2011-04-06 05:26:26 PM
2011-04-01 07:58:56 AM 2011-04-06 10:10:05 AM 201 1-04-02 02:45:50 AM 201 1-04-08 09:15:20 PM
201 1-04-09 01:21:27 PM
201 1-04-09 09:15:09 AM 201 1-04-06 01:16:42 AM 2011-04-08 02:52:52 PM 2011-04-01 07:17:07 PM 2011-04-05 10:34:15 PM
2011-04-01 07:53:15 PM 2011-04-01 01:05:50 AM 201 1-04-02 02:21:48 AM 2011-03-31 11:21:28 PM 2011-04-06 03:02:58 PM 201 1-04-06 02:38:13 PM 2011-04-09 04:02:11 AM 2011-04-09 03:47:27 AM 201 1-04-09 07:03:34 AM 2011-04-01 12:45:41 PM 2011-04-04 05:27:16 PM 201 1-04-08 03:22:52 PM 2011-04-01 12:52:20 AM 2011-04-01 09:12:53 PM 2011-04-05 04:16:51 PM 2011-04-07 10:23:13 PM
EXHIBIT 7 17
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 62-1 Filed 03/04/13 Page 18 of18 Page ID . #:1122 |
eas reey aN Documenti aes Page15 of 15
98.248.49.19 Comcast Cable Communications 2011-04-02 03:52:52 AM 98.255.19.175 Comcast Cable Communications 201 1-04-06 08:08:34 AM 99,121.204.166 AT&T Internet Services 2011-04-01 04:17:28 AM 99.151.17.82 AT&T Internet Services 201 1-04-01 08:27:52 PM
EXHIBIT 7 18