Oo COC SI DR A BR WD NRO mm
— eet —_- ©
ANDREW J. WAXLER, SBN 113682 WON M. PARK, SBN 194333
WAXLER #¢CARNER @BRODSKY LLP
1960 East Grand Avenue, Suite 1210
El] Segundo, California 90245
Telephone: (310) 416-1300
Facsimile: (310) 416-1310
e-mail: awaxler@wceb-law.com
e-mail: wpark(@wcb-law.com
Specially Appearing for Respondent
BRETT 1. GIBBS ° .
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INGENUITY 13 LLC, Case No. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx) Plaintiff, [Assigned to Judge Otis D. Wright, IT ] VS. BRETT L. GIBBS’ OBJECTIONS
TO THE DECLARATION OF
JOHN DOE, MORGAN E. PIETZ, SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION
Defendant. OF MORGAN E. PIETZ AND DECLARATIONS OF BART HUFFMAN AND CAMILLE D. KERR AND EXHIBITS THERETO ce Concurrently with Brett Gibbs’ upplemental Brief; Supplemental ad Deets of Brett L. ibbs;
Sa eae Request for Judicial Notice and Proposed Order re Objections to Evidence] [OSC Filed: August 1, 2012] Trial date: None set
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 2 of 69 Page ID #112
Oo CO “SY DBD ON & W PO em
bt i)
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
Respondent Brett L. Gibbs submits the following objections to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, Supplemental Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, and Declarations of Bart Huffman and Camille D. Kerr and exhibits thereto submitted in response to the Court’s February 7, 2013 Order to Show Cause. Mr. Gibbs objects to the Supplemental Declaration of Morgan Pietz and Declarations of Bart Huffman and Camille D. Kerr on the grounds that they were untimely filed on February 20, 2013 as the Court’s February 7, 2013 Order to Show Cause required the declarations to be filed by February 19, 2013. Mr. Gibbs also asserts the following objections:
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MORGAN E. PIETZ
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: M1. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pe. | 1. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
2 § 4, as follows: My clients in the Prenda | Lacks Foundation and/or Personal cases, including this case, each received Knowledge (FRE §602); Assumes letters from their ISPs informing them that | Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Prenda was attempting to subpoena their _| Characterization of Evidence.
identity as part of a lawsuit.
2 Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. | 2. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
24 4, as follows: Generally, my clients Lacks Foundation and/or Personal are the people who happen to pay the Knowledge (FRE §602);
Internet bill for their household, not Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not necessarily the people who actually In Evidence; Improper
committed the alleged infringement or Characterization of Evidence.
other wrongful conduct. 3. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. | 3. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
2 4 4, as follows: However, Prenda Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
SOC ELL TE AYLI LE LEE LYELL SELENE ELSE Y SELLE SII ISIE LIE SI ALIEN
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 F Page 3 of 69 “Page ID #1125
—
So Oe SI DR WN FF WH tO
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
constructs its lawsuits so as to make it
| unclear what exactly is the status of my
clients.
| 4. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
2 44, as follows: The complaint does not
exactly come out and say that the ISP
subscriber equals the John Doe defendant.
5; Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
2 44, as follows: However, the requests for early discovery, seeking leave to issue ISP subpoenas, generally tend to conflate
ISP subscriber with Doe defendant.
Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE § 701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
4. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE § 701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence.
5. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §§701; Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
6. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
2 -3 § 5, as follows: I am informed and believe that Chicago law partners John
Steele (formerly a divorce attorney) and
6. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation
Wa
Co CO NS DN
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
| Paul Hansemeier, of what was then called
Steele Hansemeier, PLLC, began filing copyright infringement cases on behalf of pornographers on or around September 2, 2010. See, Hard Drive Prod’s., Inc. v. Does 1-100, N.D. Ill. No. 1:10-cv-0506, ECF No, 1, 9/2/10.
(FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
7 Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 2-3 5, as follows: Steele Hansemeier’s efforts in this regard started to arouse public attention starting at least as early as November 15, 2010, which is the date of a Chicago Tribune article talking about Mr. Steele’s “fight against porn piracy”: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010- 11-15/news/ct-met-porn-attomey- 20101115 1 face-lawsuit-anti-piracy- campaign-copyright-violators
7. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402):
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §$§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
8. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 3 § 6, as follows: I am informed and believe that since the early days of Steele Hansemeier, in addition to Mr. Steele, both Paul Hansemeier, an attorney, and Paul’s brother Peter Hansemeier, who is purportedly knowledgeable about
computers, have played an active role in
8. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13
SO OC SI DR MH BR WD tO
tet = ©
Page 5 of 69 Page ID #:11
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
the copyright litigation cases filed by this
firm.
9. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 3 { 6, as follows: Typically, Peter Hansemeier would sign declarations in Steele Hansemeier (and later, Prenda Law, Inc.) copyright cases, averring that he had logged IP addresses that were allegedly used to download pornography illegally
using the BitTorrent file sharing protocol.
| 9. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402):
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE $602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
all 10. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
3 § 7, as follows: It did not take long for courts to begin expressing skepticism
about Prenda’s BitTorrent lawsuits.
10. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE $602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
11. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 3 { 7, as follows: In early 2011, Judge Milton Shadur of the Northern District of Illinois, who sits in Chicago, where Steele Hansemeier was originally based, dismissed one of the firm’s early cases,
wherein Mr. Steele had sought to
11. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative;
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 6of69 Page ID #:1128
—
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection:
subpoena ISP subscriber information from | Improper Characterization of
all over the Country. See CP Productions, | Evidence. Inc. v. Does 1-300, No. 10-cv-6255 (N.D. Ill. March 2, 2011) (Shadur, Sen. J.) (minute order) (“This Court’s February 24, 2011 memorandum opinion and order
has already sounded the death knell for
Oo Oo SI DO AW BR WH Pp
this action, which has abused the 10 || litigation system in more than one way. 11 || But because the aggrieved Doe defendants
12 || continue to come out of the woodwork
13 || with motions to quash, indicating an
14 || unawareness of this Court’s dismissal of 15 || this action, [counsel John Steele] is
16 || ordered to appear in court on March 9,
17 || 2011 at 9:00 a.m. Counsel will be
18 || expected to discuss what steps should be 19 | taken to apprise all of the targeted “Doe” 20 || defendants that they will not be subject to 21] any further trouble or expense as a result 22 || of this ill-fated (as well as ill-considered) 23 || lawsuit.”) (emphasis added); see also Boy 24 || Racer, Inc. v. Does 1-22, No. 11 C 2984, 25 | Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 9, 2011) (Shadur, 26 | Sen. J.) (noting that the Court “rejected
27 || attorney Steele’s effort to shoot first and
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 7 of 69 Page ID #112¢
SO CS SY DR MW BR WD BDH eo
mt pet = SS
12
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
identify his targets later,” and making clear that suits against a “passel of ‘Does’” would not get anywhere in that
Court).
12. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 44 8, as follows: Undeterred, Steele
Hansemeier actually expanded.
12. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE $602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
'13. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pe. |
44 8, as follows: I am informed and believe that starting in March, 2011, Steele Hansemeier, through attorney Brett L. Gibbs in California, began filing cases
outside of Illinois.
13. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
14. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 4 8, as follows: Mr, Gibbs, under the banner of Steele Hansemeier, PLLC, filed a slew of actions in the Northern District
of California on behalf of various
14. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper
Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation
SS COLE LEE SEDI SEED AG SEY SBE MELE P ESSAI IG ES SSILY,
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 | Page 8 of 69 Page ID #:1130
SO CO SY DR WN & ww PO om
ed CS
1]
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
pornographers. See, e.g., MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-18, N.D. Cal. Case No. 12-cv- 1495, ECF No. 1, 3/28/11.
(FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
15. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 4 8, as follows: Steele Hansemeier, through other attorneys, also began filing actions in other states around the country, including the Southern District of Florida,
among other places.
| 15. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402):
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
16. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pe. |
4 4 9, as follows: Since the early days of Steele Hansemeier, the individuals noted above have maintained the same website,
located at wefightpiracy.com.
16. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
17. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 499, as follows: Exhibit A - True and correct copies of several iterations of the wefightpiracy.com website, showing how it has changed over time, as downloaded
by me from web.archive.org, as well as a
screenshot from the site as it appeared aye)
17. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Improper Characterization of Evidence;
Improper Authentication of
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03
/04/13 Page 9 of 6
9 Page ID #113
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
on January 14, 2013, are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
| Document (FRE §901).
18. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 410, as follows: I am informed and believe that in November of 201 1, Steele Hansemeier, PLLC gave way to “Prenda Law, Inc.,” an entity organized under the
laws of the State of Illinois.
18. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
19. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. |
410, as follows: Curiously, “Prenda Law, Inc.” appears to have been organized as a regular corporation, not a professional
corporation.
19. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
20. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 44 10, as follows: Exhibit B - A true and correct copy of the entity detail for Prenda Law, Inc. on the Illinois Secretary of State website as of January 9, 2013 is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
| 20. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of
Document (FRE §901).
21. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
| 21. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
i
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 10 of 69 Page ID #1132
| Material Objected to: i Grounds for Objection: 2} 4-5 411, as follows: Iam informed and | Lacks F oundation and/or Personal 3 || believe that after the switch from Steele Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay 4 || Hansemeier, PLLC to Prenda Law, Inc., (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper 5 || the firm continued to file cases on behalf Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation 6 || of the same group of clients, most, ifnot | (FRE §602); Argumentative; 7} all of whom, produce pornography and/or | Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; 8 || hold some kind of copyright rights to Improper Characterization of 9 || pornography. Evidence; Improper authentication 10 of document (FRE §901). 11]/22. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. | 22. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); 12 || 4-5 9 11, as follows: These clients of Lacks Foundation and/or Personal 13 || Prenda included: Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay 14 * AF Holdings, LLC; (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation 15 * Arte de Oaxaca, LLC; (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In 16 * Boy Racer, Inc.; Evidence; Improper 17 * Bubble Gum Productions, LLC; | Characterization of Evidence. 18 * CP Productions, Inc.; 19 * First Time Videos, LLC; 20 ¢ Future Blue, Inc.; 21 * Guava, LLC; 22 * Hard Drive Productions, Inc.; 23 * Ingenuity 13, LLC; 24 * Lightspeed Media Corporation; 25 * MCGIP, LLC; 26 * Millenniuem TGA, Inc.; Zi * Openmind Solutions, Inc.; 28 9
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 11o0f69 Page ID #:113
* Pink Lotus Entertainment LLG: * Sunlust Pictures, LLC;
* VPR Internationale;
4
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: * Pacific Century International Ltd.;
23. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 4-54 11, as follows: Between September 2, 2010 and February 24, 2012, Prenda filed over 118 copyright infringement actions in various federal courts around the country, against more than 15,000 John Doe Defendants, on behalf of some
of the above entities.
5-6 § 12, as follows: I am informed and believe that after the switch from Steele Hansemeier, LLC to Prenda Law, Inc., attorney Paul Duffy became the new
nominal head of Prenda Law.
23. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
24. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. | 24. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
25. 5-6 ¥ 12, as follows: John Steele and
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
Brett Gibbs continued to file pleadings and communicate with opposing counsel on behalf of Prenda, but typically referred
to themselves as “of counsel.”
| 25. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In
Evidence; Improper |
10
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04
—
SCS OS SI DR mH FB W LO
10
13 Page 12 of 69 Page ID #:1134
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Characterization of Evidence.
26. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 5-6 § 12, as follows: Prenda also filed many cases through “local counsel” in various jurisdictions, where Prenda Law was not technically on the pleadings, but was actually steering the litigation. See, e.g., Sunlust Pictures, Inc. v. Tuan Nguyen, M.D. FI. Case No. 8:12-CV- 1685-T-35MAP.
26. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE $602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
5-6 § 12, as follows: Exhibit C - A true and correct copy of a complaint filed by local counsel Matthew Jenkins of Nebraska, filed for Prenda on behalf of Lightspeed Media Corporation is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
'27. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. | 27. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of
Document (FRE §901).
28. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 5-6 § 12, as follows: This document shows how the email address used by local counsel on the leadings was Brett
Gibbs’ email address,
blgibbs@wefi ghtpiracy.com.
/28. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402):
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization of
1]
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 13 of 69 Page ID #113
SO COC Ss DO Um BR WD PO =
ro i)
1]
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
=
Evidence.
29. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 5-6 { 12, as follows: I do not believe this is an isolated incident, of local counsel from Prenda using Mr. Gibbs’ email
address on pleadings.
29. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
30. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 6 § 13, as follows: I am informed and believe that as of April 12, 2012, John Steele was still identifying himself as “of
counsel” to Prenda Law, Inc.
| 30. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402):
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
31. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 6 § 13, as follows: Exhibit D - Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a pro hac vice application Mr. Steele filed in an important mutli-Doe case pending in Washington, D.C. AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-1058, D.D.C.
/31. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE $§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE $602); Argumentative;
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization of |
12
Si tS ELSE EBISU ORES,
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 14 of 69 Page ID #:1136
—
Oo Oe YN DB WH BR WH PP
10
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
No. 12-cv-0048-BAH, ECF No. 32, 4/20/12.
Evidence; Improper Authentication
of Document (FRE §901).
| 33.
32. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
6 § 13, as follows: In the application, Mr.
| Steele recites that he is “of counsel with
the law firm of Prenda Law, Inc.”
| 32. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative;
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 6 4 14, as follows: I am informed and believe that where courts have allowed Prenda to utilize the subpoena power to obtain subscriber information from ISPs, over ISP and subscriber objections, the result has been a stream of unrelenting, debt collector style harassment, all designed to pressure these ISP subscribers
to quickly settle their cases.
33. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
| 34.
6 § 14, as follows: Prenda sends out
misleading demand letters.
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. |
34. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE $602); Argumentative;
13
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 15 o0f69 Page ID
SO YD NM BR WwW PO we
—_ cm)
2 IOSD SIE
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
| Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
35. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 135. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
6 § 14, as follows: Exhibit E - A true and correct copy of such a letter is attached
hereto as Exhibit E.
36. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 6 415, as follows: In particular, note how the letter, on page 1, identifies “Your IP address you were assigned during your
illegal activity.” Id. p.1 (emphasis added).
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE §901).
36. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
37. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 6 § 15, as follows: Thus the letters sent to ISP subscribers tend to conflate the ISP
subscriber with the actual infringer.
| 37. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay
(FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 16 of 69 Page ID #:1138
fone,
So Oe IN DH DH FB WH PbO
10
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
| Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation
(FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
38. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 6 4 15, as follows: Another scare tactic are the citations to cases awarding astronomical statutory damages, without explaining the importance of willfulness
into the calculation of such damages. /d.
Pp. 2:
138. Inelevant (FRE §§401, 402),
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
39. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 6-7 | 16, as follows: I am informed and believe that once Prenda has obtained a subscriber’s information, in addition to sending out demand letters, it also begins calling that person incessantly, with threats that if they do not settle, they will be “named” in a federal lawsuit accusing them of illegally downloading pornography.
39. Irrelevant (FRE §§$401, 402); _| Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
40. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
6-7 § 16, as follows: I have never
| 40. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
15
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Pa
—
Oo © SI DR NH BR WD Bw
age 17 of 69 Page ID #:1139
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
received one of these phone calls
personally, but multiple potential and actual clients of mine have told me much the same story in this regard: sometimes as many as three phone calls a day, sometimes non for a month, but then they would start back up again, according to no
discernible pattern.
| Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay | (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper
Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
41. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 79 17, as follows: Similarly, I am informed and believe, because several potential and actual clients have told me so, that the phone calls included so-called “robo-calls,” where it was a machine
doing the dialing. See:
http://dietrolldie.com/2012/06/1 6/prenda- robo-calls-stupidity-gone-automatic/
41. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication
of Document (FRE §901).
42. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 74 18, as follows: I am informed and believe that most of the people working in
the Prenda call centers are not attorneys.
'42. Irrelevant (FRE §$401, 402). Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative;
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization of
16
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 18 of 69 Page ID #:1140
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Evidence.
43. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 7418, as follows: Rather, they are similar to professional telemarketers or debt collectors, who often work from specific guidelines, and are possibly paid
on commission.
| 43. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402).
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
'44. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
7 4 18, as follows: The common theme in these harassing communications is
pressure to “settle.”
'44. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
45. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 7-8 § 19, as follows: I am informed and believe that in February 2012, Prenda Law was forced to make a damaging admission by Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern
District of California.
| 45. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402):
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper
Opinion (FRE §701); S Speculation
(FRE §602); Argumentative;
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Li
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 19 of 69 Page ID #:1141
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
| Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
46. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 7-8 § 19, as follows: After initially allowing subpoenas but then becoming suspicious of Prenda’s attempt to obtain an extension of the Rule 4(m) service of process deadline, Judge Koh ordered Mr. Brett Gibbs to file a “list of the BitTorrent copyright infringement cases involving multiple joined John Doe Defendants filed [by] Plaintiffs counsel’s law firm or
predecessor firm in federal court.
46. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
i
| 47, Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
7-89 19, as follows: Identify the case by
name, case number, court, and filing date.
| 47. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
48. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 7-8 | 19, as follows: For each case, indicate how many Doe defendants were
actually served.” AF Holdings v. Does 1-
| 48. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay
(FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper
18
(RC LADD BEE IEAP IEE BEEP A EA IEY IIE IIE BLS
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 “Page 20 of 69 Page ID #:1142
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
135, N.D. Cal. Case No. 5:11-cv-0336- LHK, ECF No. 42, 2/23/12.
| Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation
(FRE $602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
49, Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 7-8 § 19, as follows: Judge Koh asked Just the right question.
49. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
'50. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
7-8 § 19, as follows: The next day, Mr. Gibbs filed a status report with an Exhibit disclosing that over the year and a half prior, Prenda Law f/k/a Steele Hansemeier, had filed 178 multiple- defendant cases, against a staggering 15,878 Doe defendants, but they had served zero (0) John Does in any of these cases, Id, at ECF No, 43-1, 2/24/12. pp. 4- 6.
. 150. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
51. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
[| 51. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
19
ry
SO COC SY DR WN BR W BO
10
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 21 of 69 Page ID #:1143
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
| 7-8 § 19, as follows: Exhibit F - A true | and correct copy of this Exhibit A to the
status report, which lists Prenda’ cases, is
attached hereto as Exhibit F.
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE $602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication
of Document (FRE §901).
52; 7-8 § 19, as follows: Specifically, the status report stated, as to the list of the 118 cases, “Although our records indicate that we have filed suits against individual copyright infringement defendants, our records indicate that no defendants have been served in any of the below-listed
cases.”
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 52. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
53. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 8 § 20, as follows: I am informed and believe that once word of this admission by Prenda got out (defense attorneys began including the status report as an exhibit to motions to quash in other cases)
Prenda rightly recognized that in order to
have any credibility with both the courts
and the people it was threatening with
53. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
20
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 22 of 69 Page ID #1144
SO OS DR WH BR WH pO we
— i)
11
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
suit, it was going to have to start naming
and serving some people.
54. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 8 | 20, as follows: So, from a list of what T suspect must be several thousand ISP subscribers who it has identified in prior court actions where the courts allowed the ISP subpoenas, Prenda started naming and
serving some individual defendants, a few
54. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative;
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
at a time. Improper Characterization of Evidence. _ 55. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. | 55. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
8 § 20, as follows: Once it did start serving people, Prenda used the Opportunity to create a section on its website where it could publicly shame the defendants it went after individually, with searchable links to their names, and to the case documents, as a warning to the many John Doe’s its “settlement negotiators”
were still actively pursuing.
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
—
56. 8 § 20, as follows: As of January 11,
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
2013, this section of Prenda’s website lists 140 cases against individual, named
defendants (although many of these suits
=a
| 56. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper
Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation
21
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 23 0f69 Page ID #1145
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
have already been dismissed, usually without prejudice, at the first hint of
litigation difficulty).
(FRE $602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
57, 8 § 20, as follows: Each of these listings
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
identifies the plaintiff by name.
"| 57. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402):
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE $602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
58. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 8 § 20, as follows: The page also separately lists 208 lawsuits Prenda has filed against John Does, which are described as “Recent Cases Against Soon- to-be-Identified Individuals.” See
http.//wefightpiracy. com/suits-against-
individuals.php, as of January 11, 2013.
| 58. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); _|
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
59. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 8-9 § 21, as follows: I am informed and believe that on multiple occasions, in half-
hearted attempts to request an extension of
59. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper
22
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 24 of 69 Page ID #:1146
So CG HS DBD NH BR WD BRO nm
— ee — ©
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
‘the Rule 4(m) deadline, but explain why
no service has yet been effected in his case, Mr. Gibbs has explained that the lack of service should be excused because he cannot, consistent with Rule 11(b)(3), form the “reasonable basis” necessary to support a factual allegation that an ISP subscriber is the actual infringer without some kind of further discovery beyond the mere fact that a person happens to pay the Internet bill. Hard Drive Proa’s, v. Doe, N.D. Cal. Case No. 22-1566, ECF No. 29, 11/11/11 (status report filed by Brett Gibbs); see also Boy Racer, Inc. v. Does 1-52, 2011 WL 7402999 (N.D. Cal, 2011) (Mr. Gibbs admitted that the ISP subpoenas “were not sufficient to ‘fully identify’ ‘each P2P network user suspected of violating the plaintiffs copyright”); Hard Drive Productions v. Doe, No. 4:1 l-cv-05634-PJH, ECF No. 9, pp. 9-10, 1/6/12 (plaintiffs ex parte application for further discovery, seeking leave to depose an ISP subscriber) (Mr. Gibbs represented to the Court that
“Plaintiff must conduct additional limited
Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE §901).
23
wy
Oo CO MI D
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
‘ex parte discovery [beyond the subpoenas |
which had already been issued] to determine who should be named as the
defendant in this case.”).
60. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 8-9 § 21, as follows: Footnote 1 - Generally, a case that is nominally still pending against someone is more effective as settlement leverage than is a case that
has been fully terminated.
61. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 8-9 | 21, as follows: Thus, Prenda generally tries to keep its cases alive, on life support, for as long as possible, but while doing as little actual litigating as
possible.
60. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE $602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence.
61. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE $602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
62. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 9-10 § 22, as follows: Further, I am informed and believe that Mr. Gibbs has been specifically warned by Judge Seeborg of the Northern District of
California that, based on his admission
| 62. Irrelevant (FRE §$401, 402): Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative;:
24
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 26 of 69 Page ID #:1148
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
that the ISP address alone is not enough to justify naming and serving someone with a pornography complaint, threatening to actually name and serve an ISP subscriber
is inappropriate.
i Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
63. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
9-10 § 22, as follows: Specifically, “Given plaintiffs’ admission that it lacks knowledge as to whether Wang [an ISP subscriber] is responsible for the alleged infringement, naming her as a defendant at this juncture would present a serious Rule 11 issue. As such, the argument has the appearance of an improper threat.” Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. John Doe, No. 4:11-cv-05630 (Order Granting Leave to Issue Deposition Subpoena)(N.D. Cal, January 18, 2012)(ECF No, 10 at 2) (emphasis added).
| 63. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE §901).
64. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
9-10 § 22, as follows: In short, Mr. Gibbs
has both admitted, and been specifically
warned by a federal Judge, that something
| 64. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402), Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay One §§801(c), 802); Improper
25
| | |
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 27 of 69 Page ID #.
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
more is required, beyond the mere fact that someone happens to pay the Internet bill, in order to justify naming and serving that person with a complaint in a case like
this.
| Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation
(FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
65. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 10 § 23, as follows: Despite the above admissions and specific warning from Judge Seeborg on Rule 11, 1 am personally aware of at least two occasions where Mr. Gibbs of Prenda law has actually done precisely the opposite, and gone ahead and named and served someone (or tried to do so) based on the fact that they were the account billing
contact identified by the ISP.
65. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE $602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
bs 66. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. | 66. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
10 § 23, as follows: In both instances, Prenda has tried to defend itself by saying that it did perform some kind of online
Internet investigation.
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
67. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 10 § 23, as follows: But in both
'67. Inelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
26
PE LE LLY IEE ALLELE A IIIT
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 28 of 69 Page ID #:1150
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
instances, the investigation was a farce and the “facts” supposedly yielded by the investigation were so wildly incorrect that one has to wonder whether Prenda was not
really just making these “facts” up.
| Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper
Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
=
68. 10-11 {| 24, as follows: The first example
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
of Prenda’s bad faith in naming and serving an ISP subscriber that I am aware
of concerns my client Jesse Nason.
68. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE $602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
69. 10-11 §[ 24, as follows: Facing a
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
“stiffening judicial headwind” in federal court a newer Prenda law tactic is to dress copyright infringement claims up in state
law and “computer fraud” clothing, in
order to file suit in state courts.
69. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
70. 10-11 § 24, as follows: Such was the
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
case in Lightspeed Media Corporation v. John Doe, Circuit Court of St. Clair
70. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation
ea
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 29 of 69 Page ID #:1151
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
County, IL, No. 11 L 683.
wena
(FRE $602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
71. 10-11 § 24, as follows: In that original
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
Lightspeed case, Prenda, on behalf of Lightspeed, filed suit against a single John Doe, alleging claims for violations of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seg.) (“CFAA”) as well as several state law claims that were
all pre-empted by the Copyright Act.
71. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
as 10-11 § 24, as follows: In addition to
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
seeking ISP information for this single defendant, Prenda also sought to subpoena a list of 6,600 IP addresses for supposed “co-conspirators,” located all over the country, who had supposedly assisted the lead defendant in his “password hacking”
and computer fraud.
|
72. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
73. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 10-11 §[ 24, as follows: Mr. Nason was not given the required notice by his ISP,
so he was not able to object to the
73. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay ae §§801(c), 802); Improper
28
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 30 of 69 Page
ID #1152
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
subpoena seeking his information.
Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
74. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 10-11 §[ 24, as follows: Although some ISPs later objected to these subpoenas, resulting in the Illinois Supreme Court stepping in to issue a “supervisory order” curtailing the IP address discovery issuing out of St. Clair County, Mr. Nason’s ISP simply handed Mr. Nason’s info over
before any of that played out.
‘74, Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
——
75. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 10-11 § 24, as follows: A few months after his information was released by his ISP, a process sever showed up on Mr. Nason’s doorstep, and he was served in Lightpseed Media Corporation v. Nason, Los Angeles Superior Court No. NC057950.
75. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
76. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 10-11 § 24, as follows: When Mr. Gibbs
was pressed at the first hearing in the
| 76. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay
4.
29
_ oe eRe enue OHreRTIOMnmmrnanii
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 31
Oo COC SI DD NW B&B WH tO
— i)
11
of 69 Page ID #:1153
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
matter to explain how, based on the prior admissions noted above, he could justify having named and served Mr. Nason ina public complaint, Mr. Gibbs responded that Prenda had determined that Mr.
Nason “lived alone.”
(FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
cee 10-11 24, as follows: After I had a
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
chance to confer with my client, I learned this was untrue; Mr, Nason has been
married for several years, and lives with
77. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative;
10-11 § 24, as follows: No other
Justification for naming and serving Mr. Nason was presented (other than that he paid the Internet bill, and “lived alone,”
which was untrue).
his wife. Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. "78. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. | 78. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
79. 10-11 § 24, as follows: After Mr. Nason
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
had his first demurrer sustained, and all
the state law claims dismissed with
‘| 79. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper
Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation Ness
30
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 32 of 69 Page ID #:1154
WG
Oo CO NY DN
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
prejudice, on the eve of a second demurrer being filed, Prenda dismissed the remaining CFAA claim (without
prejudice, of course).
(FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
80. 10-11 § 24, as follows: Exhibit G-A
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
true and correct copy of the Declaration of Jesse Nason is attached hereto as Exhibit
G.
180. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402):
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication
of Document (FRE §901).
81. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 11 § 25, as follows: The second concrete example of Prenda’s bad faith with respect to naming and serving an ISP subscriber that I am aware of occurred in AF Holdings LLC v. John Doe et al, N.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-2049, ECF No. 45, 1/7/13
in a case pending before Judge Hamilton.
81. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
82. 11 § 25, as follows: Prenda learned the
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
ISP subscriber’s identity in that case from
82. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay
31
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 33 of 69 Page ID #:115
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
"AF Holdings v. Does 1-135, ND. Cal | Case No. 5:1 l-cv-0336-LHK, which was
the same case where Judge Koh ordered
Mr. Gibbs to file the now infamous status
(FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative;
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
report. Improper Characterization of Evidence. P tT 83. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. | 83. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
11 § 25, as follows: Prior to the earlier case being dismissed by Judge Koh on March 27, 2012 (1 l-cv-336, ECF No. 45) for failure to serve, however, an ISP subpoena was processed resulting in the identification of one Josh Hatfield as the ISP billing contact who paid for an account that was assigned one of the
allegedly infringing IP addresses at issue.
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE $§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE $602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
84. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. | 11-12 § 26, as follows: I am informed and believe that on April 24, 2012, Prenda filed a complaint asserting claims for copying infringement and contributory copyright infringement against an unidentified Doe defendant, and another
cause of action for negligence against Josh
Hatfield (the 12-cv-2049 action).
84. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
85. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
t 85. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Hi
32
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 34 of 69 Page ID #:1156
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
11-12 § 26, as follows: The initial complaint in the 12-cv-2049 action did not assert claims for copyright infringement
against Hatfield.
| Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
86. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 11-12 § 26, as follows: Instead, the gravamen of the negligence claim against Hatfield was that he failed to secure his
Internet network.
86. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
11-12 § 26, as follows: After Hatfield moved to dismiss the negligence claim, Prenda filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) asserting copyright infringement against the Doe, “and a claim of negligence against Hatfield, based on alleged third party’s use of Hatfield’s Internet connection to commit the infringement, and Hatfield’s failure to secure this Internet connection and/or
failure to monitor the unidentified third
party’s use of his Internet connection.” AF
'87. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. | 87. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
a3
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 35 o0f69 Page ID #:1157
CA
Oo CO SN NN
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
| Holdings LLC v. John Doe et al., N.D.
Cal. No. 12-cv-2049, ECF No. 45, 1/7/13, pio:
88. 11-12 § 26, as follows: The FAC also
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
explained in a footnote on page | that “at this stage of the litigation, [p]laintiff does not know if [defendant Doe is the same
individual as Josh Hatfield.” FAC at 1, nl.
| 88. Irrelevant (FRE §$401, 402):
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
89. 11-12 § 26, as follows: Hatfield then
moved to dismiss the negligence claim, and the Court granted the motion, with
prejudice.
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. | 89. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
90. 11-12 § 26, as follows: The Court also pointed out that the case was well past the 120-day Rule 4(m) service of process deadline, and ordered the plaintiff to file a proof of service by October 4, 2012.
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. | 90. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
91. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 11-12 § 26, as follows: The plaintiff did
(91. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
34
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 36 of 69 Page
Material Objected to:
_—
Grounds for Objection:
not do so.
| Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
92. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 11-12 § 26, as follows: Instead, it filed a motion on September 28, 2012, seeking leave to amend the complaint again, to now allege that Hatfield was the Doe defendant.
93. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 11-12 § 26, as follows: I am informed and believe that a November 7, 2012, hearing on plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the complaint to allege that the ISP subscriber Hatfield actually was the Doe defendant being sued for copyri ght infringement, Judge Hamilton advised Mr. Gibbs 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 discovered additional
evidence, based on the same
| 92. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence.
93. Irrelevant (FRE $8401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
—
Jo
RA SSH LBC DELLE LU IIIES SY BOUL IIIEI IIS A ILS E
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 37 of 69 Page ID #:1159
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
identification of a defendant that he had know 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,”
94. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 11-12 § 26, as follows: Mr. Gibbs did indeed file a proposed revised second amended complaint against Mr, Hatfield, which contained a new section entitled “Plaintiffs Further Investigation of Defendant.”
| 94, Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
95. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 13 { 28, as follows: Iam informed and believe that as in the Nason case, the “investigation” plaintiff claims to have conducted in the Hatfield case was (a) woefully insufficient as to methodology, and (b) resulted in wildly incorrect
“facts,”
95. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
'96. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. | 96. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
13 § 28, as follows: Judge Hamilton’s order denying the motion for leave to
amend the complaint, a true and correct
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper
36
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 38 of 69 Page ID #:1160
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit H explains all of the ways “Plaintiffs Further Investigation of Defendant” which appears to have mainly consisted of a bit of light google
searching, was insufficient.
Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
97. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 13 §| 28, as follows: Exhibit H - Judge Hamilton’s order denying the motion for leave to amend the complaint, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit H explains all of the ways “Plaintiffs Further Investigation of Defendant” which appears to have mainly consisted of a bit of light google
searching, was insufficient.
97. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
'98. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
13 { 28, as follows: However, even more notably, as in the Nason case, the “facts” Prenda came up with are wildly incorrect. In large measure, Mr. Gibbs explained his “good faith” belief that Mr. Hatfield was the actual infringer by pointing to facebook and Myspace pages that do not actually belong to Mr. Hatfield.
98. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
99. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
99. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402):
oa
cnn ROSSI OTR EEL I EI
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 39 of 69 Page ID #:1161
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
13 § 28, as follows: Exhibit I - A true and |
correct copy of Mr. Hatfield’s declaration
swearing to this is attached as Exhibit I.
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative;
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication
of Document (FRE §901).
100. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 13 § 28, as follows: Just as Prenda’s “investigation” supposedly revealed that Mr. Nason “lived alone,” when he had been married for years, the “investigation” of Mr. Hatfield resulted in Prenda submitting to the Court facebook and Myspace pages that did not actually belong to Mr. Hatfield.
100. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
101. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 13-14 § 29, as follows: I am informed and believe that starting in November of 2012, facts began to come to light regarding one Alan Cooper of Minnesota, all of which seem to suggest that Prenda has been engaged in systemic fraud, both on the
courts and on the copyright office;
| 101. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402):
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative;
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization of
38
a
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 40
ODER DIDI PE AIRY LS
of 69 Page ID #:1162
fee splitting, and concealment of the identity of the real parties in interest in these cases, among other very troubling
issues.
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: | forgery; identity theft, as well as improper | Evidence.
102. Declaration of Morgan E, Pietz, pg. 13-14 § 29, as follows: My knowledge of the Alan Cooper issues is based primarily on two sources: (i) a letter Mr, Cooper’s attorney filed on his behalf in two AF Holdings cases pending in Minnesota, a true and correct copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit J: and (ii) a sworn
affidavit executed by Mr. Cooper himself, a true and correct copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit K.
| 102. Irrelevant (FRE §$401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
103. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 13-14 | 29, as follows: Exhibit J - (i)a letter Mr. Cooper’s attorney filed on his behalf in two AF Holdings cases pending in Minnesota, a true and correct copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit J:
| 103. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication
of Document (FRE §901).
104. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
1104. Irrelevant (FRE §$401, 402); _!
39
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 41 of 69 Page ID #:1163
So Om YD Dm BR WD PO me
— ba = &
12
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
| 13-14 29, as follows: Exhibit K - (ii) a
_ sworn affidavit executed by Mr. Cooper
himself, a true and correct copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit K.
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication
of Document (FRE §901).
105. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 14 ¥ 30, as follows: Specifically, I am informed and believe that there is a gentleman from Minnesota named Alan Cooper who formerly worked as a caretaker on a property owned by John
Steele. Exhibit J; Exhibit K 94.
105. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE §901).
106. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 14431, as follows: I am informed and believe that Mr. Steele bragged to his caretaker Alan Cooper about a copyright scheme Exhibit J, p 1., and, according to Mr. Cooper “Steele had told me on at least one occasion that if anyone asked about
companies that I should call him.”
Appendix 2, §8.
+ 106. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
40
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 42 of 69 Page ID #:1164
SILER LEDEL IY EEE SY BEGIN SETI
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: 107. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 107. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
1493 believe that after this Minnesota Mr.
2, as follows: I am informed and
Cooper became suspicious, and searched online, he found out that Prenda Law had been using the name “Alan Cooper” as the supposed principal of AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13, in various federal court filings, including copyright assignment forms, and verifications filed on behalf of Ingenuity 13, all of which were purportedly executed by “Alan Cooper” on behalf of these entities. Exhibit J. (Exhibit E thereto, page 8 of 8).
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence: Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
bt 108. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
14 ¥ 33, as follows: I am informed and believe that, concerned about his potential personal liability in connection with the scores of Ingenuity 13 and AF Holdings copyright infringement lawsuits pending across the country, Mr. Cooper hired a lawyer named Paul Godfread who asked Prenda Law to confirm that there was another Alan Cooper who is the true principal of AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13, and that the identity of Alan Cooper of
b
i. accerircomh 108. Irrelevant (FRE §8401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
4]
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 43 of 69 Page ID #:1165
ot
NSN OO Be B&H BP
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Exhibit J.
Minnesota is not being misappropriated.
109. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 14 34, as follows: I am informed and believe that immediately after Mr. Cooper’s attorney filed a notice of appearance on Mr. Cooper’s behalf in an AF Holdings case pending in Minnesota, John Steele attempted to call Mr. Cooper multiple times, despite the fact that Mr. Cooper was represented by counsel.
Exhibit J.
109. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE $602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
'110. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 15 { 35, as follows: The signature used by Alan Cooper of Minnesota on his lease agreement with John Steele appears to be somewhat similar to the “Alan cooper” signature used on various copyright
assignments in Prenda’s AF Holdings
cases: Image of Image of “Alan Authenticated Cooper” Signature of Signature Used Minnesota Alan | on Copyright Cooper from His | Assignment Lease with John | Filed in CD. Cal. Steele:? 12-cv-S709 (Low-number Case):°
110. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
‘Lemme nee
42
SHARIN MANDAN
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 44 of
a ceae ARESLEL LIBEL AY GY GENE
69 Page ID #:1166
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
111. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
15 § 35, as follows: Footnote 2 - The signature pictured here is from the lease
agreement between Mr. Steele and Mr.
Cooper that was attached to the affidavit of Alan Cooper, which is attached hereto
as Exhibit K.
a 111. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
——
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
43
PLL LEPPARD YA. HIYY GILES GSH IE
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 45 of 69 Page ID #:1167
SO CO ND WH B&R WH PHO we
ae a)
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
113.
1¥2. 15 § 35, as follows: Footnote 3 - This
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
signature pictured here was found on the last page of Exhibit B to the complaint in AF Holdings, LLC v. John Doe et al., C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-5709, at ECF No. Lp. Xs.
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 15-16 § 36, as follows: I am informed and believe that another example of this mysterious Alan Cooper supposedly signing federal court documents, this time a verification to a Rule 27 petition filed under penalty of perjury, occurred in Jn the Matter of a Petition by Ingenuity 13, LLC, E.D. Cal. Case No. 11-mc-0084- JAM-DAD, ECF No. 1, p. 8 of 8, 10/28/11.
112. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
113. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
114. 15-16 § 36, as follows: Exhibit L - A true
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
and correct copy of the petition Mr. Gibbs
| 114. Irrelevant (FRE §$401, 402):
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay
44
une RRA RUE
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
filed on behalf of Ingenuity 13 in this
matter is attached hereto as Exhibit L.
(FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation
(FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE §901).
115. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 15-16 § 36, as follows: A look at the verification page reveals: (1) the petition is verified with an electronic “/s/” signature by “Alan Cooper, Manager of Ingenuity 13 LLC”; (ii) although the heading of the verification page says “Notarized Verification” there is no notary seal or other notary information on the document; (iii) instead, Mr. Gibbs himself swears that “I, Brett L. Gibbs, Esgq., 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.”
| 115. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402):
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
116. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 16 37, as follows: Since at least November, Prenda has been dodging all questions asked by Minnesota Alan
Cooper’s attorney, and by me, about
4 116. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation
(FRE §602); Argumentative; al
45
LEEDS LEE ELLIS DERE ELT I INL IIE YI IIR
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page AT of 69 Page ID #:1169
rey
Oo CO SI DBD NW BB WH Pp
~
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
whether there is another person with the name Alan Cooper who was the true principal of AF Holdings and Ingenuity 3:
+ Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
118.
117. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 16 37, as follows: Prenda refuses to say.
| 117. Irrelevant (FRE §$401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 16 § 37, as follows: Exhibit M - A true and correct copy of and email chain showing my attempts to have Mr. Gibbs answer these questions, and his evasive responses, is attached hereto as Exhibit
M.
» | 118. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication
of Document (FRE §901).
119. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 16 { 38, as follows: Both Mr. Cooper’s attorney and I have also asked Mr. Gibbs
to produce a copy of the original notarized
(119. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402):
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper
46
ANOS
resco ovonssoornnenasnse
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 “Page 48 of 69 Page ID #:11
ciiminemmmmee
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Alan Cooper verification he was obligated to maintain in the Rule 27 petition filed on behalf of Ingenutiy 13 in the Eastern District of California. Mr. Gibbs has refused to produce the original Alan
Copper signature. See Exhibit M.
Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation
(FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
120. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 16-17 4 39, as follows: I am informed and believe that at almost the exact same time the Alan Cooper allegations were coming to light, another incident occurred at a Florida hearing in a Prenda case, involving a separate fraud on the court. In Sunlust Pictures, Inc. vy. Tuan Nguyen, M.D. Fl. Case No. 8:12-CV-1685-T- 35MAP Judge Scriven ordered a principal of Prenda Law, Inc. to attend a hearing on a John Doe motion, and also ordered a principal of Sunlust Pictures, the plaintiff in that action, to attend the hearing as
well.
120. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
121. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 16-17 § 39, as follows: Exhibit N - A true and correct copy of the complete hearing
transcript is attached hereto as Exhibit N.
- 121. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE $602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Assumes
Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
=
47
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Pa
SoS eG SI DO NH BR WH pO Ww
pat hme — ©
age 49 of 69 Page ID #:1171
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE §901).
"122. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 16-17 § 39, as follows: According to the transcript, Prenda’s purported “sole principal” Paul Duffy, belatedly notified the Court that he could not attend due to a
health issue.
123. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 16-17 § 39, as follows: After two prior local counsel sought to withdraw from the matter, Prenda placed an advertisement in a local newspaper and obtained a new, third local counsel (hired by plaintiffs counsel here Brett Gibbs) who, after filing a notice of appearance and conferring with defense counsel, almost immediately
sought to withdraw.
122. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence.
123. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402). | Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
124. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 17 4 40, as follows: I am informed and
believe that Sunlust also did not send a
principal to the Florida hearing; rather, it
124. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper
48
emacs HRS R ROS
SN BEC CEL ME ELLA LEGA GEASS
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 50 of 69 Page
DES ID #:1172
=
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
sent John Steele’s former paralegal, a man | Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation
named Mark Lutz, as the plaintiffs
“corporate representative” for hire.
(FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
125. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 17 ¥ 40, as follows: However, upon questioning Mr. Lutz, Judge Scriven quickly determined that Mr. Lutz had no authority to bind the company, and that he
did not know who owned or managed it.
126. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 17 4 40, as follows: Accordingly, despite a Court order requiring them to do SO, neither Prenda Law nor its client Sunlust
Pictures sent a principal to the hearing.
125. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402). Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence.
126. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative;
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
| 127. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 17 4 40, as follows: Note in particular page 20 of the transcript where Judge
"127. Inrelevant (FRE $401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE $602); Hearsay
49
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 51 0f 69 Page ID #
So OC NI DO NW BR WH Dp KW
— a)
S WEES SABLA OBIT
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Scriven orders the purported “corporate representative” for the plaintiff, Mark Lutz (i.e., John Steele’s former paralegal), away from the plaintiffs table and dismisses the case for “failure to present a lawful agent, for attempted fraud on the Court by offering up a person who has no authority to act on behalf of the corporation as its corporate representative” and invites a motion for
sanctions. Exhibit N.
128. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 17 4 40, as follows: Footnote 4 - Although one person closely connected with Prenda did attend the hearing: John Steele sat in the gallery, and purported not to be involved in the case, but after the Court noticed Mr. Lutz constantly trying to confer with Mr. Steele, the Judge asked Mr. Steele who he was, and then asked him for answers to some of her questions about Sunlust Pictures, which Mr. Steele
provided. Exhibit N. p. 18:12-24.
(FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
ta 128. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
129. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
17-18 § 41, as follows: The combination
of: (i) the facts averred by Mr. Cooper of
129. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay
50
Sorc neconteonontonmntnnrmne
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 52 of 69 Page ID #:1174
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Minnesota (Exhibits J and K): (ii) Prenda’s almost comical attempts to stonewall on the question of whether there was another Alan Cooper who was the true principal of AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13, or answer any other questions on these matters (Exhibit M); (iii) Mr. Gibb’s refusal or inability to produce the original Alan Cooper verification page from the Eastern District of California Rule 27 petition (/d.; Exhibit L); and (iv) the facts revealed in the Florida hearing transcript in Prenda’s Sunlust case (Exhibit N), made me
extremely suspicious.
(FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
17-18 § 41, as follows: Taken together, these facts suggest a pattern of deception
with respect to who is really behind these
b —~ 130. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
130. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation
17-18 § 41, as follows: Specifically, it
appears that there is a pattern where, when
lawsuits. (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence.
131. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. | 131. Irrelevant (FRE §$401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper
5]
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 53 of 69 Page ID
iy
oc fC SID HW BR WwW BD
AOE REIT ERIE LESLIE DEER,
#1175
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
L
pressed, Prenda has fraudulently held out close/former associates of John Steele as purported representative for the purported
client in these cases.
| Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation
(FRE $602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
132. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 18 { 42, as follows: Based on these suspicions, I sought leave of court to conduct limited early discovery into these issues, on behalf of my putative John Doe
clients being threatened by Prenda.
133. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 18 4 42, as follows: On December 26, 2012, Judge Wright of the Central District granted my application for leave to take early discovery on the Alan Cooper questions (Ingenuity 13, LLC v. John Doe, CD. Cal. No. 12-cv-8333-ODW, ECF No. 32), and on January 4, 2013, I duly propounded special interrogatories and requests to produce documents seeking
answers about Alan Cooper.
| 132. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
133. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
134. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 18 § 42, as follows: As of today, Prenda
has not yet responded.
134. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
135. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
| 135. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
a2
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 54 of
69. Page ID #:117
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
18 § 43, as follows: Like a snake shedding its skin, and for reasons that are not hard to imagine given the Florida hearing transcript (Exhibit N), among other reasons, it appears that Prenda has recently decided to try and rebrand itself (again) and is now moving away from the
name Prenda Law, Inc.
| Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
136. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 18 ¥ 43, as follows: Thus, I am informed and believe that starting around the first of 2013, letters issuing from Prenda’s offices in Chicago have issued under the letterhead of the “Anti-Piracy Law Group”
rather than Prenda Law.
136. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
137. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 18 44, as follows: Further, as of January 9, 2013, the Prenda law, Inc. entity registered in Illinois is listed as “not in good standing” with the Illinois Secretary
of State. Exhibit B.
| 137. Irrelevant (FRE $8401, 402):
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
all,
a)
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 55 of 69 Page ID #:1177
CEE DEEL GEILE GS IIE
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
138. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 18 4 45, as follows: However, there is an active listing in Illinois for an “Anti- Piracy Law Group LLC,” formed on November 8, 2012.
| 138. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
"139, Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 18 ¥ 45, as follows: Exhibit O - A true and correct copy of the Illinois Secretary of State business entity listing for the Anti-Piracy Law Group LLC, as of January 14, 2013, is attached hereto as Exhibit QO.
| 139. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE §901).
140. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 18 | 46, as follows: The Illinois business entity details for both Prenda Law, Inc. and the Anti-Piracy Law Group, LLC list the same Chicago address for the agent for service, of 161 North Clark Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, Illinois 60601.
[ 140. Irrelevant (FRE §$401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE $602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
141. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
141. Inelevant (FRE §$401, 402):
54
YD ESOL REET EYRE IL ESTE U IY STEIN RII
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 56 of 69 Page ID #:1178
SD Oo SYD MN B® W PO we
—_ i)
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
18-19 § 47, as follows: According to the footer at the bottom of the January 14, | 2013 version of the wefightpiracy.com website, the content on the site “was prepared by Prenda Law Inc. (an Illinois law firm organized as a limited liability company with its principal office at 161 North Clark Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, Illinois 60601, Ph. 1-800-380-0840).” Exhibit A.
—
| Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
142. 19 4 48, as follows: I am informed and
believe that the Anti-Piracy Law Group, LLC is nothing more than a continuation
of Prenda Law, Inc., which itself is
Hansemeier, PLLC.
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
nothing more than a continuation of Steele
| 142. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402), Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE $602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
4.
OBJECTIONS TO SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MORGAN E. HE RR AL DECLARATION OF MORGAN E.
PIETZ
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
lL Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz,
pg. 2 9 4, as follows: However, Prenda
constructs is lawsuits so as to make it
(FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE L
| 1. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge
aD
UOT
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 57 of 69 Page ID #:1179
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
unclear what exactly is the status of my
clients.
§701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
cs Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 2 4, as follows: The complaint does not exactly come out and say that the ISP subscriber equals the John Doe defendant.
pg. 2 { 4, as follows: However, the requests for early discovery, seeking leave to issue ISP subpoenas, generally tend to conflate ISP subscriber with
Doe defendant.
| 2. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
aaa . . 3, Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, | 3. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
| 4. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz,
pg. 3 § 7, as follows: Exhibit P - Attached as Exhibit P hereto is a true and correct copy of an email chain I received wherein Mr. Gibbs noticed me that Mr. Duffy would be substituting in to this case as counsel of record, and an
email where Mr. Duffy attempted to
4. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE §901).
56
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 58 of 69 Page ID #:1180
pon,
0 CO NY HD WN FB W LO
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
meet and confer with on 12-cv-8333.
2. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 3 ¥ 8, as follows: Exhibit Q - Attached as Exhibit Q hereto is a true and correct copy of Cooper’s complaint
for identify theft, etc.
6. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 3 7 9, as follows: Exhibit R - Attached as Exhibit R hereto is a true and correct copy of documents identifying “Salt March” as the “owner” of AF Holdings.
5. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE §901).
6. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of
Document (FRE §901).
q: Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 3 § 10, as follows: Exhibit S -
| Attached as Exhibit S hereto is a true
and correct copy of a declaration attorney Nicholas Ranallo prepared
regarding Anthony Saltmarsh.
7. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of
Document (FRE §901).
8. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, | 8. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks
57
A RSDP DIB ISS
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 59 of 69 Page ID #:1181
poner
Material Objected to: ] Grounds for Objection:
2 || pg. 3 ¥ 11, as follows: Exhibit T - iF oundation and/or Personal Knowledge 3 |, Attached as Exhibit T hereto is a true (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c),
4 || and correct copy of a website 802); Speculation (FRE §602);
5) registration document showing “Alan | Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In 6 || Cooper” at an address in Phoenix Evidence; Improper Characterization of 7} linked to, John Steele, his sister and Evidence; Improper Authentication of 8 || Anthony Slatmarsh. Document (FRE §901).
9
9. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, | 9. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks
— i)
pg. 3 ¥ 12, as follows: Exhibit U - Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge I || Attached as Exhibit U hereto is atrue | (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c),
12 || and correct copy of the petition inthe | 802); Argumentative; Assumes Facts
13 |! St. Clair County Guava, LLC case, Not In Evidence; Improper
14 || which appears to be verified by “Alan | Characterization of Evidence: Improper 15 || Moay” or “Alan Mony”. Authentication of Document (FRE
16 §901).
17 1 10. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, | 10. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
18 || pg. 3 | 13, as follows: Exhibit V- Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
19 | Attached as Exhibit V hereto is atrue | Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE 20 |) and correct copy of my reply in the St. §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE
21] Clair County Guava, LLC case. §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts 22 Not In Evidence; Improper 23 Characterization of Evidence; Improper 24 Authentication of Document (FRE 25 §901). | 261/11. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, it. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks | 27} pg. 3 {| 14, as follows: Exhibit W - | Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge 28 58
SO CS SND WN B® WD PO oo
— jo)
1]
es
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 60 of 69 Page ID #:1182
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Attached as Exhibit W hereto is a true
and correct copy of the declaration
| about the collusion in a Minnesota
Guava LLC case.
| (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of
Document (FRE §901).
4.
12. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 3 15, as follows: Johns Steele
told me, in front of other, on February 13, 2013 in St. Clair County that he is
currently of counsel to Prenda Law.
12. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802);
Improper Characterization of Evidence.
= —|
13. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 3 §] 16, as follows: Exhibit X - Attached as Exhibit X hereto is a true and correct copy of a demand letter, dated January 30, 2013, from the St. Clair County case listing Mr. Gibbs as
in house counsel for Guava, LLC.
13. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE $602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE §901).
14. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 3 { 17, as follows: Exhibit Y - Attached as Exhibit Y hereto is a true and correct copy of a letter Mr. Duffy sent to Judge Scriven in Florida
wherein he represents that he is the sole
| 14. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE $602); Hearsay (FRE §§$801(c), 802); Argumentative;
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization of Evidence;
1
ao
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 61 of 69 Page ID #:1183
~
Material Objected to:
+
Grounds for Objection:
principal of Prenda Law.
Improper Authentication of Document
(FRE 8901).
15. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 4 { 18, as follows: Exhibit Z - Attached as Exhibit Z hereto is a true and correct copy of Mr. Duffy’s bio from the wefightpiracy.com website, accessed February 20, 2013.
| 15. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE $901).
pg. 3 § 19, as follows: Exhibit AA - Attached as Exhibit AA hereto is a true and correct copy of John L. Steele’s LinkedIn profile where he states that he “sold [his] client book to Prenda Law in 2011.”
——__{.___
16. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz,
16. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402),
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE §901).
17. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 4 § 20, as follows: Exhibit BB - Attached as Exhibit BB hereto is a true and correct copy of a complaint listing
wherein Paul Hansemeier’s firm Alpha
Law Firm, LLC represents Guava, LLC |
117. Irrelevant (FRE §$401, 402);
-|
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts
Not In Evidence; Improper
60
nner
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 62 of 69 Page ID #:1184
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
|
in Minnesota.
Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE $901).
18. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 4 § 21, as follows: Exhibit CC - Attached as Exhibit CC hereto is a true and correct copy of the LinkedIn profile for Michael Dugas listing
Prenda Law.
18. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE
| $901).
19, Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz,
pg. 4 § 22, as follows: Exhibit DD - Attached as Exhibit DD hereto is a true and correct copy of an unpublished
Ninth Circuit sanctions opinion.
19. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Argumentative; Improper
Characterization of Evidence; Improper
Authentication of Document (FRE 901).
Ls )
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF BART HUFFMAN ELL ARATION OF BART HUFFMAN
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
l. Declaration of Bart Huffman, pg 1-2 ¥ 3, as follows: The subpoena to AT&T: (i) is signed by Paul Duffy of Prenda Law, Inc.; (ii) specifies that production should be made at the offices of Prenda Law, Inc., 161 N.
.| L. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE $602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602);
Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In
i
Evidence; Improper Characterization of
61
_teomeenternenerenneieennntnennnnt
a
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 63 of
69 Page ID #:1185
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
' Clark Street, Suite 3200, Chicago IL
60601; (iii) is issued from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; and (iv) was served under cover of a letter from the “Prenda Law
Inc. Subpoena Team.
Evidence.
ay Declaration of Bart Huffman, pg. 2 4 4, as follows: There is no apparent reason for the issuance of the Subpoena to At&T from the Northern District of Illinois other than that Mr. Duffy specified Prenda Law’s office address in Chicago as the place of production. 3 Declaration of Bart Huffman, pg. 2 4 4, as follows: This practice has
been criticized by federal courts.
2. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks |
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE $602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence.
3. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Argumentative; Improper
Characterization of Evidence.
4, Declaration of Bart Huffman, pg. 27 5, as follows: According to court records available on PACER, the 5725 Lawsuit was transferred to Judge Otis Wright on or about October 5, 2012. The 5725 Lawsuit was thereafter administered in connection with related
case AF’ Holdings LLC v. Doe, No. 12-
4. Inrelevant (FRE §$401, 402):
a
Improper Characterization of Evidence.
62
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 64 of 69 Page ID #:118
Material Objected to: | Grounds for Objection: ev-5709 (C.D. Call). |
5 Declaration of Bart Huffman, pg. 15. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
~oOE CU RNSCNR enh
2
3
4/2 96, as follows: On or about October Improper Characterization of Evidence. >} 19, 2012 Judge Wright entered in the 6 || 5725 Lawsuit an Order Vacating Prior 7
8
9
Early Discovery Orders and Order to
Show Cause. (5725 Lawsuit, ECF No. 9.) . 10 fT 6. Declaration of Bart Huffman, pg. | 6. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
11 || 296, as follows: In that Order, Judge Improper Characterization of Evidence.
12 || Wright ordered Plaintiff to “cease its
13 discovery efforts relating to or based on 14 || information obtained through [Rule 45 13 || subpoenas allowed by a prior early
16 || discovery order].” (/d.)
17) 7, Declaration of Bart Huffman, pg. 5, Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks 7
18 |) 3 {| 7, as follows: As reflected in the Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge 19 I! Kerr Declaration, on November ie (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 20 I 2012, Angela Van Den Hemel of 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701);
21!) Prenda Law, Inc. sent an e-mail Speculation (FRE §602);
22 message to Camille D. Kerr forwarding Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In 23} a copy of the Subpoena to AT&T Evidence; Improper Characterization of 24 (along with proof of service) and Evidence; Improper Authentication of 25 asking for an update on the 5725 Document (FRE §901).
26 || Lawsuit. (Kerr Decl. § 2 and Ex. 1.) 27H 8. Declaration of Bart Huffman, pg. | 8. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks
63
ECR ESE TESTE SEED IEE IID
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 65 of 69 Page ID #:1187
l Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: 3 47, as follows: Ms. Van Den TF oundation and/or Personal Knowledge | Hemel’s e-mail message also included | (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §$801(c), a copy of the same early discovery 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701);
order that Judge Wright had vacated Speculation (FRE §602);
and expressly stated should not be the Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In
basis of subsequent discovery efforts. Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
9. Declaration of Bart Huffman, pg. | 9, Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks 3 § 7, as follows: Ms. Van Den Hemel | F oundation and/or Personal Knowledge 11 | e-mail message could only have been | (FRE 8602): Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 12 || referring to whether AT&T had or was | 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701);
2S 2 IY DN BR Ww BD
— —)
13 || going to produce information in Speculation (FRE §602);
14 |! response to the Subpoena to AT&T, Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In 15 || because AT&T had no other Evidence; Improper Characterization of 16 || involvement in the case. Evidence.
17110. _ Declaration of Bart Huffman, pg. | 10. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
181) 3 49, as follows: On November 8, Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802);
19 |) 2012, I sent an e-mail message to Ms. | Improper Opinion (FRE §701);
20 || Van Den Hemel concerning the 5725 Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In 21 || Lawsuit, in which I stated, “Upon Evidence; Improper Characterization of 22 || review of the court files, it appears that | Evidence.
23H) any early discovery orders in this case
24 I (and a number of other AF Holdings
| |
25 || cases) were vacated. Please let us
26 || know if you have information to the
27 || contrary.”
64
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 66 of 69 Page ID #:1188
pea,
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
So Oo SY DO NH F&F WH PV
11. Declaration of Bart Huffman, pg. 3 4 9, as follows: Exhibit 4 - A true and correct copy of that e-mail message
is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
11. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of
Document (FRE §901).
U2
3 9 9, as follows: I never received any
Declaration of Bart Huffman, pg.
response to my e-mail message, and I never received any further information or communication from Prenda Law, Inc. concerning the Subpoena to AT&T or the 5725 Lawsuit.
13. Declaration of Bart Huffman, pg. 3 § 10, as follows: No attorney or paralegal for Prenda Law, Inc. has notified me of such dismissal; nor, to my knowledge, has any attorney or paralegal for Prenda Law, Inc. ever notified anyone else associated with
AT&T or Locke Lord LLP of such
dismissal.
12. Irrelevant (FRE §§402); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Argumentative;
Improper Characterization of Evidence.
aa | Irrelevant (FRE §§402); Hearsay (FRE
§§801(c), 802); Argumentative;
Improper Characterization of Evidence.
65
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 67 of 69 Page ID #:1189
ri,
Oo Oo SY DR HW &® WH bw
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF CAMILLE D. KERR
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
i- Declaration of Camille D. Kerr, pg. 1 § 2, as follows: On November 1, 2012, I received an e-mail message from Angela Van Den Hemel, whom I believe to be a paralegal with Prenda Law Inc., wherein Ms. Van Den Hemel requested an update with respect to a subpoena to AT&T issued in AF Holdings LLC v. John Doe, No. 12-cv- 05725 (C.D. Cal.) (the “Subpoena to AT&T” issued in the “5725 Lawsuit”).
1. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization of Evidence.
2: Declaration of Camille D. Kerr,
pg. 1 2, as follows: Ms. Van Den Hemel’s e-mail message to me attached a copy of the corresponding subpoena package, consisting of a cover letter, the July 11, 2012 Order Granting Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Leave to Take Expedited Discovery, and the Subpoena to AT&T with proof
of service.
2. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks | Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE $602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
3. Declaration of Camille D. Kerr, pg. 1 § 2, as follows: Exhibit 1 - A true and correct copy of Ms. Van Den
Hemel’s e-mail message to me
k 3. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802);
Improper Characterization of Evidence;
Improper Authentication of Document
66
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 68 of 69 Page ID #:1190
po
Oo oO ND UN B&B WH tO
10
7
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection:
(including its attachments) is attached | (FRE §901). hereto as Exhibit 1.
4, Declaration of Camille D. Kerr, 4. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
pg. 2 § 3, as follows: On November 6, | Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802);
2012, Angela Van Den Hemel sent Improper Characterization of Evidence. another e-mail message to me asking about the 5725 Lawsuit and the Subpoena to AT&T.
eS oman | <7iiia| 6. Declaration of Camille D. Kerr, | 6. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
os Declaration of Camille D. Kerr, B Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
pg. 2 J 3, as follows: Exhibit 2 - A true | Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802);
and correct copy of that e-mail message | Improper Characterization of Evidence; is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Improper Authentication of Document
(FRE §901).
pg. 2 { 4, as follows: On November 8, | Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802);
2012, I was copied on an e-mail Improper Characterization of Evidence; message from Bart Huffman to Ms. Improper Authentication of Document Van Den Hemel concerning the 5725 (FRE §901).
Lawsuit, in which Mr. Huffman stated, “Upon review of the court files, it appears that any early discovery orders in this case (and a number of other AF Holdings cases) were vacated. Please let us now if you have information to
the contrary.”
‘2 Declaration of Camille D. Kerr, | 7. Irrelevant (FRE §§402); Hearsay
67
neuen ALERIRORIRRE
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 63 Filed 03/04/13 Page 69 of 69
ROCIO AD
| thereafter received any information or Improper Characterization of Evidence.
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: pg. 2 § 4, as follows: I have not | (FRE §§801(c), 802); Argumentative;
communication from Prenda Law, Inc. concerning the Subpoena to AT&T or the 5725 Lawsuit.
Dated: March 4, 2013 WAXLER #¢CARNER ¢BRODSKY LLP
LU dy. [? ces
ANDREW J. WAXLER
WON M. PARK
Specially Appearing for Respondent BRETT L. GIBBS
By:
68