Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 1of97 Page ID#:1194
1 | ANDREW J. WAXLER, SBN 113682 WON M. PARK, SBN 194333 2 | WAXLER ¢CARNER @BRODSKY LLP 1960 East Grand Avenue, Suite 1210 3 | El Segundo, California 90245 Telephone: (310) 416-1300 4|Facsimile: (310) 416-1310 e-mail: awaxler@wceb-law.com 5 | e-mail: wpark(@web-law.com 6 | Specially Appearing for Respondent BRETT L. GIBBS . : 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | INGENUITY 13 LLC, ) Case No. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx) Consolidated with Case Nos.: 12 Plaintiff, :12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669; 2:12-cv- 6662; 2:12-cv-6668] 13 vs. [Assigned to Judge Otis D. Wright, II ] 14 | JOHN DOE, BRETT L. See one tO | 15 Defendant. ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO THE a Y):CO DECLARATION OF MORGAN E. 16 PIETZ, SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MORGAN E. 17 PIETZ AND DECLARATIONS OF BART HUFFMAN AND CAMILLE 18 D. KERR AND EXHIBITS THERETO 19 Filed Concurrently with Notice of 20 odging | 21 Date: March 11, 2013 Time: 1:30 p.m. a2 Dept.: 11 23 [Complaint Filed: September 27, 2012] 24 . Trial date: None set 25 26 27 28
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 2o0f97 Page ID#:1195
—
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: Respondent Brett L. Gibbs submits the following proposed order re 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. UNTIMELINESS OBJECTIONS
Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection: 1. Untimely filed in Sustained
Material Objected to:
So Oe IN DH WH Se WD LY
1. Supplemental Declaration
— i)
violation of Court’s Overruled
February 7, 2013 Order
of Morgan E. Pietz and all
— —
exhibits thereto
12]| 2. Declaration of Bart 2. Untimely filed in Sustained
Overruled
violation of Court’s
February 7, 2013 Order
13 || Huffman and exhibit thereto
Sustained
3. Declaration of Camille D. 3. Untimely filed in
violation of Court’s Overruled
February 7, 2013 Order
16 || Kerr and all exhibits thereto
18 19 OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MORGAN E. PIETZ
20 Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on 21 Objection:
221) 1. Declaration of Morgan 1. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained 23 || E. Pietz, pg. 294, as follows: | 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled
24 || My clients in the Prenda cases, | and/or Personal
25 including this case, each Knowledge (FRE §602); 26 || received letters from their ISPs | Assumes Facts Not In 27 informing them that Prenda Evidence; Improper
28
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 30f97 Page ID #:1196
I Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on 2 Objection: 3 || was attempting to subpoena Characterization of 4 || their identity as part of a Evidence. 5 ||| lawsuit. 6 || 2. Declaration of Morgan _| 2. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained 7 || E. Pietz, pg. 294, as follows: | 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled | 8 || Generally, my clients are the and/or Personal 9 || people who happen to pay the | Knowledge (FRE §602); 10 || Internet bill for their Argumentative; Assumes 11 || household, not necessarily the | Facts Not In Evidence; 12 |) people who actually committed | Improper Characterization 13 |) the alleged infringement or of Evidence. 14 || other wrongful conduct. 15} 3. Declaration of Morgan | 3. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained
16 || E. Pietz, pg. 294, as follows: | 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602);
17 || However, Prenda constructs its 18 || lawsuits so as to make it 19 |) unclear what exactly is the Improper Opinion (FRE §
20 || status of my clients. 701); Speculation (FRE
21 §602); Argumentative;
22 Assumes Facts Not In
23 Evidence; Improper
24 Characterization of
25 Evidence.
26 |) 4, Declaration of Morgan | 4. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained 27 || E. Pietz, pg. 294, as follows: | 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 4o0f97 Page ID #:1197
] Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on 2 Objection: 3 |} The complaint does not exactly | and/or Personal 4 || come out and say that the ISP | Knowledge (FRE §602); 5 || subscriber equals the John Doe | Improper Opinion (FRE § 6 ||| defendant. 701); Speculation (FRE 7 §602); Argumentative; 8 Assumes Facts Not In ? Evidence; Improper 10 Characterization of 11 Evidence. 12/5. Declaration of Morgan | 5. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained
13 || E. Pietz, pg. 294, as follows: | 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled 14 || However, the requests for early | and/or Personal
15 || discovery, seeking leave to Knowledge (FRE §602); 16 || issue ISP subpoenas, generally | Improper Opinion (FRE 17 || tend to conflate ISP subscriber | §§701; Speculation (FRE
18 || with Doe defendant. §602); Argumentative; 19 Assumes Facts Not In 20 Evidence; Improper 21 Characterization of oe Evidence. 23 | 6. Declaration of Morgan | 6. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained 24 ||| E. Pietz, pg. 2 -3 5, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled | 25 || follows: I am informed and and/or Personal 26 || believe that Chicago law Knowledge (FRE §602); 27 || partners John Steele (formerly | Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 28 3
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 5of97 Page ID #:1198
Oo CO NY WB WO FB W NO KF
mm mp PO KL VP KR KH KR DR mm meee Co YN DO ON FP WY YO KF DD OO Fe HIT Do NH BR WD VY KF SC
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
a divorce attorney) and 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.
Ts 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 ofa Chicago Tribune article talking about Mr. Steele’s “fight against porn piracy”: http://articles.chicagotribune.co m/2010-11-15/news/ct-met- porn-attomey- 20101115 |_face-lawsuit-anti-piracy- campaign-copyright-violators
802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
=
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.
Sustained
Overruled
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 6of97 Page ID #:1199
Co Oo NY DWN CA Se WHO YN
pt peek mem ©
12
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.
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.
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection: 8. Declaration of Morgan | 8. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 3 § 6, as follows: | 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled I am informed and believe that | and/or Personal since the early days of Steele Knowledge (FRE §602); Hansemeier, in addition to Mr. | Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), Steele, both Paul Hansemeier, | 802); Speculation (FRE an attorney, and Paul’s brother | §602); Argumentative; Peter Hansemeier, who is Assumes Facts Not In purportedly knowledgeable Evidence; Improper about computers, have played | Characterization of an active role in the copyright | Evidence. litigation cases filed by this firm. 9. Declaration of Morgan | 9. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E, Pietz, pg. 3 § 6, as follows: | 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 7 of 97 Page ID #:1200
Oo Oe NI DB WH BP WY NO
_— i)
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: | Ruling on Objection: 10. Declaration of Morgan 10. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 3 §7, as follows: | 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled
It did not take long for courts to begin expressing skepticism about Prenda’s BitTorrent
lawsuits.
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 subpoena ISP subscriber information from all over the Country. See CP Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-300, No. 10-cv- 6255 (N.D. Ill. March 2, 2011)
and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. 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; Improper Characterization
of Evidence.
=
Sustained
Overruled
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 8of97 Page ID #:1201
dt Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Z Objection: 3 || (Shadur, Sen. J.) (minute order) 4 || (“This Court’s February 24, 5 || 2011 memorandum opinion 6 || and order has already sounded 7 ||| the death knell for this action, 8 || which has abused the 9 || litigation system in more than 10 || one way. But because the 11 || aggrieved Doe defendants 12 || continue to come out of the 13 || woodwork with motions to 14 || quash, indicating an 15 || unawareness of this Court’s 16 || dismissal of this action, 17 || [counsel John Steele] is 18 || ordered to appear in court on 19 || March 9, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. 20 || Counsel will be expected to 21 || discuss what steps should be 22 | taken to apprise all of the 23 || targeted “Doe” defendants that 24 ||| they will not be subject to any 25 || further trouble or expense as a 26 || result of this ill-fated (as well 27 || as ill-considered) lawsuit.’””)
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 9of97 Page ID #:1202
Oo Oo NN HD OO BP WD NO
et et eo S| ©
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection: (emphasis added); see also Boy Racer, Inc. v. Does 1-22, No. 11 C 2984, Slip Op. (N.D. Il. May 9, 2011) (Shadur, Sen. J.) (noting that the Court “rejected attorney Steele’s effort to shoot first and 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 12. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 4 § 8, as follows: | 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled Undeterred, Steele Hansemeier | and/or Personal actually expanded. Knowledge (FRE $602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (PRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. 13. Declaration of Morgan | 13. Irrelevant (FRE | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 49 8, as follows: | §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
I am informed and believe that
Foundation and/or
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 10o0f97 Page ID #:1203
—
Co wo NIN Dn AH Fe. W WD
Material Objected to: = for Objection: ]
Ruling on Objection:
starting in March, 2011, Steele Hansemeier, through attorney Brett L. Gibbs in California, began filing cases outside of
Illinois.
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 14. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 49 8, as follows: | §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled Mr, Gibbs, under the banner of | Foundation and/or Steele Hansemeier, PLLC, Personal Knowledge (FRE filed a slew of actions in the §602); Hearsay (FRE Northern District of California | §§801(c), 802); Improper on behalf of various Opinion (FRE §701); pornographers. See, e.g., Speculation (FRE §602); MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-18, Argumentative; Assumes N.D. Cal. Case No. 12-cv- Facts Not In Evidence; 1495, ECF No. 1, 3/28/11. Improper Characterization of Evidence. 15. Declaration of Morgan 15. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 4 § 8, as follows: | §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
Steele Hansemeier, through
other attorneys, also began
Foundation and/or
Personal Knowledge (FRE
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 11o0f97 Page ID #:1204
_—
Oo Oo NI DB WH Be W NY
10
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
filing actions in other states around the country, including the Southern District of
Florida, among other places.
§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 16. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 499, as follows: | 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled Since the early days of Steele | and/or Personal Hansemeier, the individuals Knowledge (FRE §602); noted above have maintained Speculation (FRE §602); the same website, located at Assumes Facts Not In wefightpiracy.com. Evidence; Improper
Characterization of
Evidence. 17, Declaration of Morgan 17. Irrelevant (FRE | Sustained E, Pietz, pg. 499, as follows: | §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
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
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602);
Improper Characterization
10
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 12 o0f97 Page ID #:1205
—
oO Oo JN DBO AW -& WY WY
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
well as a screenshot from the site as it appeared live on January 14, 2013, are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
of Evidence; Improper Authentication of
Document (FRE §901).
18. Declaration of Morgan E, Pietz, pg. 4 § 10, as follows: I am informed and believe that in November of 2011, 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.
Sustained
Overruled
19. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 4 | 10, 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.
Sustained
Overruled
el
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 13 o0f97 Page ID #:1206
Oo Oe NY DB A SP WY NO Ke
—_ >)
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
20. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 4 § 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).
E. Pietz, pg. 4-5 § 11, as follows: I am informed and believe that after the switch from Steele Hansemeier, PLLC to Prenda Law, Inc., the firm continued to file cases on behalf of the same group of clients, most, if not all of whom, produce pornography and/or hold some kind of
copyright rights to
21. Declaration of Morgan [21. 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
| Sustained
Overruled
Sustained
Overruled
12
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 14 o0f97 Page ID #:1207
Oo COCO AN DB vA SF WY NO eK
— et et NO SS ©
13
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection: pornography. authentication of document (FRE §901). 22. Declaration of Morgan | 22. Irrelevant (PRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 4-5 ¥ 11, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: These clients of Foundation and/or Prenda included: Personal Knowledge (FRE ¢ AF Holdings, LLC; §602); Hearsay (FRE
¢ Arte de Oaxaca, LLC;
* Boy Racer, Inc.; * Bubble Gum Productions, LLC;
¢ CP Productions, Inc.;
* First Time Videos, LLC;
* Future Blue, Inc.;
* Guava, LLC;
¢ Hard Drive Productions, Inc.;
* Ingenuity 13, LLC; ¢ Lightspeed Media Corporation;
* MCGIP, LLC;
* Millenniuem TGA,
Inc.;
* Openmind Solutions,
§§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
13
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 15o0f97 Page ID #:1208
Oo Oo NI WDB A FP W HNO —
—_ oO
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
Inc.;
* Pacific Century International Ltd.;
¢ Pink Lotus Entertainment LLC;
¢ Sunlust Pictures, LLC;
¢ VPR Internationale;
23. Declaration of Morgan | 23. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 4-5 § 11, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: Between September | Foundation and/or
2, 2010 and February 24, 2012, | Personal Knowledge (FRE
Prenda filed over 118 §602); Hearsay (FRE
copyright infringement actions | §§801(c), 802);
in various federal courts Speculation (FRE §602);
around the country, against Assumes Facts Not In
more than 15,000 John Doe Evidence; Improper
Defendants, on behalf of some | Characterization of
of the above entities. Evidence.
24. Declaration of Morgan | 24. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 5-6 § 12, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled
follows: I am informed and believe that after the switch from Steele Hansemeier, LLC to Prenda Law, Inc., attorney
Paul Duffy became the new
and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not
14
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 16 of 97 Page ID #:1209
1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on 2 Objection: 3 || nominal head of Prenda Law. | In Evidence; Improper 4 Characterization of 5 Evidence. 6] 25. Declaration of Morgan | 25. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained 7 || E. Pietz, pg. 5-6 § 12, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled 8 || follows: John Steele and Brett | Foundation and/or 9 || Gibbs continued to file Personal Knowledge (FRE 10 || pleadings and communicate §602); Hearsay (PRE 11 || with opposing counsel on §§801(c), 802);
12 || behalf of Prenda, but typically | Speculation (FRE §602);
13 || referred to themselves as “of Assumes Facts Not In
14 |) counsel.” Evidence; Improper
15 Characterization of
16 Evidence.
17 || 26. Declaration of Morgan 26. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained 18 || E. Pietz, pg. 5-6 § 12, as §8§401, 402); Lacks Overruled 19 || follows: Prenda also filed Foundation and/or
20 ||| many cases through “local Personal Knowledge (FRE
21 || counsel” in various §602); Hearsay (FRE
22 || jurisdictions, where Prenda §§801(c), 802); Improper 23 || Law was not technically on the | Opinion (FRE §701);
24 || pleadings, but was actually Speculation (FRE §602); 25 || steering the litigation. See, Argumentative; Assumes 26 || e.g, Sunlust Pictures, Inc. v. Facts Not In Evidence;
27 || Tuan Nguyen, M.D. Fl. Case __| Improper Characterization
15
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 17 of 97 Page ID #:1210
and correct copy of a complaint | Personal Knowledge (FRE filed by local counsel Matthew | §602); Hearsay (FRE Jenkins of Nebraska, filed for | §§801(c), 802);
10 || Prenda on behalf of Lightspeed | Speculation (FRE §602);
I Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on
2 Objection:
3 || No. 8:12-CV-1685-T-35MAP. | of Evidence.
41} 27. Declaration of Morgan | 27. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained 5 || E. Pietz, pg. 5-6 § 12, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled 6 || follows: Exhibit C - A true Foundation and/or
7
8
9
11 |) Media Corporation is attached | Assumes Facts Not In
12 || hereto as Exhibit C. Evidence; Improper
13 Characterization of
14 Evidence; Improper
15 Authentication of
16 Document (FRE §901).
17 a oo Irrelevant (FRE Sustained | 18] E. Pietz, pg. 5-6 § 12, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
19 || follows: This document shows | Foundation and/or 20 |) how the email address used by | Personal Knowledge (FRE 21 || local counsel on the leadings $602); Hearsay (FRE
22 || was Brett Gibbs’ email §§801(c), 802); 23 || address, Speculation (FRE §602); 24 || blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com. | Argumentative; Assumes 25 Facts Not In Evidence; 26 Improper Characterization 27 of Evidence. 28
16
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 18 of97 Page ID #:1211
1 Material Objected to: | Grounds for Objection: Ruling on 2 Objection: 3/29. Declaration of Morgan | 29. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained | 4] E. Pietz, pg. 5-6 § 12, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled | 5 || follows: I do not believe this is | Foundation and/or 6 || an isolated incident, of local Personal Knowledge (FRE 7 || counsel from Prenda using Mr. | §602); Hearsay (FRE 8 || Gibbs’ email address on §§801(c), 802); Improper 9 || pleadings. Opinion (FRE §701); 10 Speculation (FRE $602); 11 Argumentative; Assumes 12 Facts Not In Evidence; 13 Improper Characterization 14 of Evidence. 15 || 30. Declaration of Morgan | 30. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained 16 || E. Pietz, pg. 6 { 13, as follows: | 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled 17 || | am informed and believe that | and/or Personal 18 || as of April 12, 2012, John Knowledge (FRE §602); 19 I) Steele was still identifying Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 20 || himself as “of counsel” to 802); Speculation (FRE 21 ||| Prenda Law, Inc. §602); Argumentative; 22 Assumes Facts Not In 23 Evidence; Improper 24 Characterization of 22 Evidence. 26]/ 31. Declaration of Morgan | 31. Irrelevant (FRE | Sustained ee 27 || E. Pietz, pg. 6 § 13, as follows: | $8401, 402); Lacks Overruled | 28
i
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 19 of97 Page ID #:1212
oO Oo YN DB OH &e WD YY
— ja)
11
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
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 I- 1058, D.D.C. No. 12-cv-0048-
BAH, ECF No. 32, 4/20/12.
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
I am informed and believe that
and/or Personal
Document (FRE §901).
'32. Declaration of Morgan | 32. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 6 § 13, as follows: | §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled In the application, Mr. Steele Foundation and/or recites that he is “of counsel Personal Knowledge (FRE with the law firm of Prenda §602); Hearsay (FRE Law, Inc.” §§801(c), 802);
Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. 33. Declaration of Morgan | 33. Irrelevant (FRE $8401, | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 6 § 14, as follows: | 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled
18
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 20 of 97 Page ID #:1213
—
Oo Oo NY DB WH eR W LY
10
Material Objected to:
7 Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
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.
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, E. Pietz, pg. 6 ¥ 14, as follows:
Declaration of Morgan
Prenda sends out misleading
demand letters.
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; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization
of Evidence.
Sustained
Overruled
35. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 6 § 14, as follows:
Exhibit E - A true and correct
35. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks
Foundation and/or
ee
Sustained
Overruled
ee,
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC haa as " Filed 03/05/13 Page 21 0f97 Page ID
oOo Fe YN DB DO F& WD HNO eS
BO PO HN PO VY KN NO KR DR wm mm ie oo NY DH wn FS WD NYO KY CT CO Fe AD DA FP WY VY S| CO
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection: copy of such a letter is attached | Personal Knowledge (FRE hereto as Exhibit E. $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. Declaration of Morgan | 36. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 6 § 15, as follows: | 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled In particular, note how the and/or Personal letter, on page 1, identifies Knowledge (FRE §602); “Your IP address you were Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), assigned during your illegal 802); Improper Opinion activity.” Id. p.1 (emphasis (FRE §701); Speculation added). (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. 37. Declaration of Morgan 37. Irrelevant (FRE | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 6 § 15, as follows: | §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled 20
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 22 of 97 Page ID #:1215
a
Co my ND DWN F&F W WN
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection: Thus the letters sent to ISP | Foundation and/or subscribers tend to conflate the | Personal Knowledge (FRE ISP subscriber with the actual | §602); Hearsay (FRE infringer. §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. 38. Declaration of Morgan | 38. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 6 § 15, as follows: | §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled Another scare tactic are the Foundation and/or citations to cases awarding Personal Knowledge (FRE astronomical statutory §602); Hearsay (FRE damages, without explaining §§801(c), 802); Improper the importance of willfulness | Opinion (FRE §701); into the calculation of such Speculation (FRE §602); damages. /d. p. 2. Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. 39. Declaration of Morgan 39. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 6-7 { 16, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled follows: Iam informed and and/or Personal
21
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 23 of 97 Page ID #:1216
0 Oo IN DH HH SP W YN
— i)
11
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
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.
Ruling on Objection:
| 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 | 40. Irrelevant (PRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 6-7 § 16, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: I have never received | Foundation and/or
one of these phone calls Personal Knowledge (FRE
personally, but multiple §602); Hearsay (FRE
potential and actual clients of | §§801(c), 802); Improper
mine have told me much the Opinion (FRE §701);
same story in this regard: Speculation (FRE §602);
sometimes as many as three Argumentative; Assumes
phone calls a day, sometimes _| Facts Not In Evidence;
non for a month, but then they | Improper Characterization
would start back up again, of Evidence.
according to no discernible
pattern.
41. Declaration of Morgan | 41. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained
oe
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 24 of 97 Page ID #:1217
So © JN DWN WO Fe WD HPO —
pt eet Oo = ©
13
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection: E. Pietz, pg. 7 § 17, as follows: | 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled Similarly, I am informed and and/or Personal believe, because several Knowledge (FRE §602); potential and actual clients Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), have told me so, that the phone | 802); Improper Opinion calls included so-called “robo- | (FRE §701); Speculation calls,” where it was a machine | (FRE §602); doing the dialing. See: Argumentative; Assumes http://dietrolldie.com/2012/06/ | Facts Not In Evidence; 16/prenda-robo-calls- Improper Characterization stupidity-gone-automatic/ of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE §901). 42. Declaration of Morgan | 42. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 7 § 18, as follows: | §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
I am informed and believe that most of the people working in the Prenda call centers are not
attorneys.
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.
23
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 25 of 97 Page ID #:1218
Oo Oo NY WB A F&F WY NO
— ©
11
Material Objected to: | Grounds for Objection: | Ruling on Objection: 43. Declaration of Morgan | 43. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 7 § 18, as follows: | §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled Rather, they are similar to Foundation and/or professional telemarketers or Personal Knowledge (FRE debt collectors, who often work | §602); Hearsay (FRE from specific guidelines, and §§801(c), 802); Improper are possibly paid on Opinion (FRE §701); commission. Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. 44, Declaration of Morgan \aa. Irrelevant (FRE | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 7 § 18, as follows: | §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled The common theme in these Foundation and/or harassing communications is Personal Knowledge (FRE pressure to “settle.” §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 | 45. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained
24
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 26 of 97 Page ID #:1219
Co Oo NI DH & W LP
a — ©
12
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
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (PRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization
of Evidence.
4
Material Objected to: | Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection: E. Pietz, pg. 7-8 § 19, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: I am informed and Foundation and/or believe that in February 2012, | Personal Knowledge (FRE Prenda Law was forced to §602); Hearsay (FRE make a damaging admission by | §§801(c), 802); Improper Judge Lucy Koh of the Opinion (FRE §701); S Northern District of California. | Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. '46. Declaration of Morgan | 46. Irrelevant (FRE | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 7-8 § 19, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
20
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 27 of 97 Page ID #:1220
WN
5S Oo SD
Material Objected to: | Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection: counsel’s law firm or predecessor firm in federal court. 47, Declaration of Morgan | 47. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 7-8 § 19, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: Identify the case by | Foundation and/or name, case number, court, and | Personal Knowledge (FRE
filing date.
§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 1-135, N.D. Cal. Case No. 5:11-cv-0336-LHK, ECF No. 42, 2/23/12.
48. 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;
Sustained
Overruled
26
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 28 of 97 Page ID #:1221
Oo Oo HN DB Wn FF WY HNO
—_ ©
12
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
Improper Characterization
of Evidence.
49. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 7-8 § 19, as
49. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks
follows: Judge Koh asked just | Foundation and/or
the right question.
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
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. 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.
Sustained
Overruled
Sustained
Overruled
at
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 29 of 97 Page ID #:1222
CS CO NN DB wn BP WO NO
nt oS
11
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection: ]
Ruling on Objection:
served zero (0) John Does in
any of these cases. Jd, at ECF No, 43-1, 2/24/12. pp. 4-6.
52.
51. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 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.
51. 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).
| Sustained
Overruled
Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 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
52. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (F'R §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper
my
Characterization of
Evidence.
sks
| Sustained
Overruled
28
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 30 of 97 Page ID #:1223
—y
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection: records indicate that no defendants have been served in any of the below-listed cases.” 53. Declaration of Morgan | 53. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 8 § 20, as follows: | 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled I am informed and believe that | and/or Personal once word of this admission by | Knowledge (FRE §602); Prenda got out (defense Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), attorneys began including the | 802); Improper Opinion status report as an exhibit to (FRE §701); Speculation motions to quash in other (FRE §602); cases) Prenda rightly Argumentative; Assumes recognized that in order to have | Facts Not In Evidence; any credibility with both the Improper Characterization courts and the people it was of Evidence. threatening with suit, it was going to have to start naming and serving some people. 54. Declaration of Morgan | 54. Irrelevant (PRE | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 8 § 20, as follows: | §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
So, from a list of what I suspect must be several thousand ISP subscribers who it has identified in prior court
actions where the courts
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701);
29
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 31 o0f97 Page ID #:1224
C0 Oo YT DO A BP WD YO
— i)
Material Objected to:
| Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
allowed the ISP subpoenas, Prenda started naming and serving some individual
defendants, a few at a time.
| Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization
of Evidence. 55. Declaration of Morgan | 55. Irrelevant (PRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 8 § 20, as follows: | §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled Once it did start serving Foundation and/or people, Prenda used the Personal Knowledge (FRE opportunity to create a section | §602); Hearsay (FRE on its website where it could §§801(c), 802); Improper publicly shame the defendants | Opinion (FRE §701); it went after individually, with | Speculation (FRE §602); searchable links to their names, | Argumentative; Assumes and to the case documents, as a | Facts Not In Evidence; warning to the many John Improper Characterization Doe’s its “settlement of Evidence. negotiators” were still actively pursuing. 56. Declaration of Morgan | 56. Irrelevant (PRE | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 8 § 20, as follows: | §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
As of January 11, 2013, this section of Prenda’s website lists 140 cases against
individual, named defendants
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper
eee |
30
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 32 of 97 Page ID #:1225
Oo Oe YN DB A SF WD Ne
— i)
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
(although many of these suits have already been dismissed, usually without prejudice, at the first hint of litigation difficulty).
Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization
of Evidence.
57. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 8 § 20, as follows: Each of these listings 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.
Sustained
Overruled
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
58. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701);
| Sustained
Overruled
a1
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 33 of 97 Page ID #:1226
Oo Oo SI DW WA Fe WD HNO
— ©
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
Individuals.” See
http://wefightpiracy.com/suits-
against-individuals.php, as of January 11, 2013.
Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization
of Evidence. 59. Declaration of Morgan | 59. Irrelevant (FRE | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 8-9 § 21, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
follows: Iam informed and believe that on multiple occasions, in half-hearted attempts to request an extension of 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
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).
a2
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 34 of 97 Page ID #:1227
ory
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection:
to pay the Internet bill. Hard Drive Prod’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, 10 || 2011) (Mr. Gibbs admitted that
So fe ND A FSF WY WN
11 |] the ISP subpoenas “were not 12 || sufficient to ‘fully identify’
13 || ‘each P2P network user
14 || suspected of violating the
15 || plaintiffs copyright’”); Hard 16 ||| Drive Productions v. Doe, No. 17 || 4:1 l-cv-05634-PJH, ECF No. 18 |) 9, pp. 9-10, 1/6/12 (plaintiffs 19 || ex parte application for further 20 || discovery, seeking leave to
21 || depose an ISP subscriber) (Mr. 22 ||| Gibbs represented to the Court
23 || that “Plaintiff must conduct 24 || additional limited ex parte
25 || discovery [beyond the
26 || subpoenas which had already
27 ||| been issued] to determine who
33
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 35 of 97 Page ID #:1228
So Oe HN DN A BR WD HN Re
ee es Wo NO S&S &
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
should be named as the
defendant in this case.’’).
60. Declaration of Morgan | 60. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 8-9 § 21, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: Footnote | - Foundation and/or Generally, a case that is Personal Knowledge (FRE nominally still pending against | §602); Improper Opinion someone is more effective as (FRE §701); Speculation settlement leverage than is a (FRE §602); case that has been fully Argumentative; Assumes terminated. Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. 61. Declaration of Morgan | 61. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 8-9 § 21, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: Thus, Prenda Foundation and/or generally tries to keep its cases | Personal Knowledge (FRE alive, on life support, for as §602); Improper Opinion long as possible, but while (FRE §701); Speculation doing as little actual litigating | (FRE §602); as possible. Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. 62. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained
62. Declaration of Morgan |
34
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 36 of 97 Page ID #:1229
—
Oo Oo NY DB wn Se W WN
10
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection: E. Pietz, pg. 9-10 § 22, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled follows: Further, Iam and/or Personal informed and believe that Mr. | Knowledge (FRE §602); Gibbs has been specifically Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), warned by Judge Seeborg of 802); Improper Opinion the Northern District of (FRE §701); Speculation California that, based on his (FRE §602); admission that the ISP address | Argumentative; Assumes alone is not enough to justify Facts Not In Evidence; naming and serving someone Improper Characterization with a pornography complaint, | of Evidence. threatening to actually name and serve an ISP subscriber is inappropriate. 63. Declaration of Morgan | 63. Irrelevant (PRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 9-10 § 22, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
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
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of
Document (FRE §901).
3)
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 37 of 97 Page ID #:1230
1 Material Objected to: | Grounds for Objection: Ruling on 2 Objection: 3 this juncture would 4 present a serious Rule 5 11 issue. As such, the 6 argument has the 7 appearance of an 8 improper threat.” Hard 9 Drive Productions, Inc. 10 v. John Doe, No. 4:11- 11 cv-05630 (Order 12 Granting Leave to Issue I3 Deposition 14 Subpoena)(N.D. Cal, 1D January 18, 2012)(ECF 16 No, 10 at 2) (emphasis 17 added). 18 | 64. Declaration of Morgan | 64. Irrelevant (PRE Sustained 19 || E. Pietz, pg. 9-10 4 22, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled 20 || follows: In short, Mr. Gibbs | Foundation and/or 21 |) has both admitted, and been Personal Knowledge (PRE 22 || specifically warned by a §602); Hearsay (FRE 23 ||| federal Judge, that something | §§801(c), 802); Improper 24 || more is required, beyond the Opinion (FRE §701); 25 || mere fact that someone Speculation (FRE §602); 26 || happens to pay the Internet bill, | Argumentative, Assumes 27 || in order to justify naming and | Facts Not In Evidence;
36
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 38 of 97 Page ID #:1231
—
Oo Oo YN DB OW & WD KN
10
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
serving that person with a
Improper Characterization
complaint in a case like this. of Evidence.
65. Declaration of Morgan | 65. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 10 § 23, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled follows: Despite the above and/or Personal
admissions and specific Knowledge (FRE §602);
warning from Judge Seeborg Improper Opinion (FRE
on Rule 11, I am personally §701); Speculation (FRE
aware of at least two occasions | §602); Argumentative;
where Mr. Gibbs of Prenda law | Assumes Facts Not In
has actually done precisely the | Evidence; Improper
opposite, and gone ahead and _| Characterization of
named and served someone (or | Evidence.
tried to do so) based on the fact
that they were the account
billing contact identified by the
ISP.
66. Declaration of Morgan | 66. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 10 § 23, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
follows: In both instances, Prenda has tried to defend itself by saying that it did perform some kind of online Internet
investigation.
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602);
Argumentative; Assumes
a7
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 39 of 97 Page ID #:1232
oOo Oo YN DBD HH BP W NO =
— oO
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization
of Evidence. 67. Declaration of Morgan | 67. Irrelevant (FRE ~ | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 10 23, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: But in both Foundation and/or instances, the investigation was | Personal Knowledge (FRE a farce and the “facts” §602); Improper Opinion supposedly yielded by the (FRE §701); Speculation investigation were so wildly (FRE §602); incorrect that one has to Argumentative; Assumes wonder whether Prenda was Facts Not In Evidence; not really just making these Improper Characterization “facts” up. of Evidence. 68. Declaration of Morgan | 68. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 10-11 § 24, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled
follows: The first example of Prenda’s bad faith in naming and serving an ISP subscriber that Iam aware of concerns my
client Jesse Nason.
and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
38
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 40 of 97 Page ID #:1233
Oo Oo ND OH FP W NH
— oO
follows: In that original
Foundation and/or
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection: 69. Declaration of Morgan | 69. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 10-11 24, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: Facing a “stiffening | Foundation and/or judicial headwind” in federal Personal Knowledge (FRE court a newer Prenda law tactic | §602); Improper Opinion is to dress copyright (FRE §701); Speculation infringement claims up in state | (FRE §602); law and “computer fraud” Argumentative; Assumes clothing, in order to file suit in | Facts Not In Evidence; state courts. Improper Characterization of Evidence.
70. Declaration of Morgan __| 70. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 10-11 § 24, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: Such was the case in | Foundation and/or Lightspeed Media Corporation | Personal Knowledge (FRE v. John Doe, Circuit Court of — | §602); Improper Opinion St. Clair County, IL, No.11L | (FRE §701); Speculation 683. (FRE §602);
Argumentative; Assumes
Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization
of Evidence. 71. Declaration of Morgan | 71. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 10-11 4 24, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
oe,
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 41 of 97 Page ID #:1234
Oo Oo NY DB A Fe WY YN
eee oOo KF
13
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
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
§602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization
of Evidence.
Personal Knowledge (FRE |
Copyright Act.
72. Declaration of Morgan 72. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 10-11 24, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: In addition to Foundation and/or
seeking ISP information for Personal Knowledge (FRE
this single defendant, Prenda §602); Speculation (FRE
also sought to subpoena a list | §602); Argumentative;
of 6,600 IP addresses for Assumes Facts Not In
supposed “co-conspirators,” Evidence; Improper
located all over the country, Characterization of
who had supposedly assisted Evidence.
the lead defendant in his
“password hacking” and
computer fraud.
73. Declaration of Morgan | 73. Irrelevant (FRE | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 10-11 24, as Overruled
§§401, 402); Lacks
40
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 42 of 97 Page ID #:1235
—
o Se NID OH HBP W bh
10
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on
Objection: follows: Mr. Nason was not | Foundation and/or given the required notice by his | Personal Knowledge (FRE ISP, so he was not able to §602); Hearsay (FRE object to the subpoena seeking | §§801(c), 802); Improper his information. Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. 74. Declaration of Morgan | 74. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 10-11 4 24, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: Although some ISPs | Foundation and/or later objected to these Personal Knowledge (FRE subpoenas, resulting in the §602); Hearsay (FRE Illinois Supreme Court §§801(c), 802); Improper stepping in to issue a Opinion (FRE §701); “supervisory order” curtailing | Speculation (FRE §602); the IP address discovery Argumentative; Assumes issuing out of St. Clair County, | Facts Not In Evidence; Mr. Nason’s ISP simply Improper Characterization handed Mr. Nason’s info over | of Evidence. before any of that played out. 75. Declaration of Morgan (75. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E, Pietz, pg. 10-11 | 24, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
2 ee
4]
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 43 of 97 Page ID #:1236
Oo CO NY WB WN FSB WW LO
eet wo NYO | &
14
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection: |
Ruling on Objection:
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.
| 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 | 76. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E, Pietz, pg. 10-11 4 24, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: When Mr. Gibbs was | Foundation and/or pressed at the first hearing in Personal Knowledge (FRE the matter to explain how, §602); Hearsay (FRE based on the prior admissions | §§801(c), 802); Improper noted above, he could justify Opinion (FRE §701); having named and served Mr. | Speculation (FRE §602); Nason in a public complaint, Argumentative; Assumes Mr. Gibbs responded that Facts Not In Evidence; Prenda had determined that Mr. | Improper Characterization Nason “lived alone.” of Evidence. 77. Declaration of Morgan | 77. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 10-11 § 24, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
follows: After I had a chance
Foundation and/or
42
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 44 of 97 Page ID #:1237
Oo Oo NY DB AW S& W HHO
NO pO wo NO NO KR KR RRO wm ee CO YN BN OA Se WN K CO OO OH N Dn FP WY NY KF &S
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
to confer with my client, I
learned this was untrue; Mr, Nason has been married for several years, and lives with
his wife.
Personal Knowledge (FRE |
§602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization
follows: After Mr. Nason had his first demurrer sustained, and all the state law claims
dismissed with prejudice, on
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation
of Evidence.
78. Declaration of Morgan | 78. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 10-11 §] 24, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: No other justification | Foundation and/or for naming and serving Mr. Personal Knowledge (FRE Nason was presented (other §602); Improper Opinion than that he paid the Internet (FRE §701); Speculation bill, and “lived alone,” which | (FRE §602); was untrue). Argumentative; Assumes
Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization
of Evidence. 79. Declaration of Morgan 79. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 10-11 § 24, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
43
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 45 of 97 Page ID #:1238
—
Oo Oo NY DBD A F&F W NWN
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
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
follows:
example of Prenda’s bad faith
with respect to naming and
serving an ISP subscriber that I
The second concrete
and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion
of Evidence. 80. Declaration of Morgan | 80. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 10-11 § 24, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: Exhibit G - A true Foundation and/or and correct copy of the Personal Knowledge (RE Declaration of Jesse Nason is | §602); Hearsay (FRE attached hereto as Exhibit G. | §§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 81. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 11 § 25, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled
heh
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 46 of 97 Page ID #:1239
Oo Oo IN DB OH FSF YW LH
pew fom om Oo - ©
13
follows: Prior to the earlier case being dismissed by Judge Koh on March 27, 2012 (1 I- cv-336, ECF No. 45) for failure
to serve, however, an ISP
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701);
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection: am aware of occurred in AF’ (FRE §701); Speculation Holdings LLC v. John Doe et | (FRE §602); al, N.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-2049, | Argumentative; Assumes ECF No. 45, 1/7/l 3 in a case Facts Not In Evidence; pending before Judge Improper Characterization Hamilton. of Evidence.
'82. Declaration of Morgan | 82. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 11 § 25, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: Prenda learned the Foundation and/or ISP subscriber’s identity in that | Personal Knowledge (FRE case from AF Holdings v. Does | §602); Hearsay (FRE 1-135, N.D. Cal. Case No. 5:1 | §§801(c), 802); Improper l-cv-0336-LHK, which was the | Opinion (FRE §701); same case where Judge Koh Speculation (FRE §602); ordered Mr. Gibbs to file the Argumentative; Assumes now infamous status report. Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization
of Evidence. 83. Declaration of Morgan | 83. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 11 § 25, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
45
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 47 of 97 Page ID #:1240
1
No
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
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.
Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization
of Evidence.
84. Declaration of Morgan | 84. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 11-12 § 26, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled follows: I am informed and and/or Personal
believe that on April 24, 2012, | Knowledge (FRE §602);
Prenda filed a complaint Hearsay (FRE §§801(c),
asserting claims for copying 802); Speculation (FRE
infringement and contributory | §602); Assumes Facts Not
copyright infringement against | In Evidence; Improper
an unidentified Doe defendant, | Characterization of
and another cause of action for | Evidence.
negligence against Josh
Hatfield (the 12-cv-2049
action).
85. Declaration of Morgan | 85. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 11-12 § 26, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
follows: The initial complaint in the 12-cv-2049 action did
not assert claims for copyright
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE $602); Hearsay (FRE
46
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 48 of 97 Page ID #:1241
pa,
Co Oo NIN DH OH HR WY LY
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection:
infringement against Hatfield. | §§801(c), 802);
Speculation (FRE §602);
Assumes Facts Not In
Evidence; Improper
Characterization of
Evidence. 86. Declaration of Morgan | 86. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 11-12 { 26, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: Instead, the gravamen | Foundation and/or of the negligence claim against | Personal Knowledge (F'RE Hatfield was that he failed to §602); Hearsay (FRE secure his Internet network. §§801(c), 802);
Speculation (FRE §602);
Assumes Facts Not In
Evidence; Improper
Characterization of
Evidence. 87. Declaration of Morgan |87. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 11-12 § 26, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
follows: After Hatfield moved to dismiss the negligence claim, Prenda filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) asserting copyright
infringement against the Doe,
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602);
Assumes Facts Not In
47
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 49 of 97 Page ID #:1242
Nn
ij
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection: “and a claim of negligence Evidence; Improper against Hatfield, based on Characterization of alleged third party’s use of Evidence. 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 Holdings LLC v. John Doe et al., N.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-2049, ECF No. 45, 1/7/13, p. 3. | 88. Declaration of ear 88. Irrelevant (FRE | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 11-12 § 26, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: The FAC also Foundation and/or explained in a footnote on page | Personal Knowledge (FRE 1 that “at this stage of the §602); Hearsay (FRE litigation, [p]laintiff does not §§801(c), 802); know if [defendant Doe is the | Speculation (FRE §602); same individual as Josh Assumes Facts Not In Hatfield.” FAC at 1, nl. Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. 89. Declaration of Morgan | 89, Irrelevant (FRE Sustained
48
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 50 of 97 Page ID #:1243
—
So Oo SYD DR nm FP W
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
E. Pietz, pg. 11-12 ] 26, as
follows: Hatfield then moved
to dismiss the negligence claim, and the Court granted
the motion, with prejudice.
90.
Declaration of Morgan
§§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. Irrelevant (FRE
Overruled
Sustained
E. Pietz, pg. 11-12 4 26, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: The Court also Foundation and/or pointed out that the case was Personal Knowledge (FRE well past the 120-day Rule §602); Hearsay (FRE 4(m) service of process §§801(c), 802); deadline, and ordered the Speculation (FRE §602); plaintiff to file a proof of Assumes Facts Not In service by October 4, 2012. Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. 91. Declaration of Morgan | 91. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 11-12 § 26, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
follows: The plaintiff did not
do so.
Foundation and/or
hier Knowledge (FRE
49
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 51 o0f97 Page ID #:1244
—
Oo COC HN DH WO F&F W WN
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
§602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper
Characterization of
Evidence. 92. Declaration of Morgan | 92. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 11-12 § 26, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: Instead, it filed a Foundation and/or motion on September 28, 2012, | Personal Knowledge (FRE seeking leave to amend the §602); Hearsay (FRE complaint again, to now allege | §§801(c), 802); that Hatfield was the Doe Speculation (FRE §602); defendant. Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. 93. Declaration of Morgan | 93. Irrelevant (PRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 11-12 § 26, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
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
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602);
50
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 52 of 97 Page ID #:1245
pon,
oOo CO IN Dn Oe Fe WD NH
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
subscriber Hatfield actually was the Doe defendant being sued for copyright 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 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,” |
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
a1
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 53 of 97 Page ID #:1246
Seal
Oo Oo NY DH On FB W WN
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection: 94. Declaration of Morgan _| 94. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 11-12 § 26, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled
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
and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not
In Evidence; Improper
Defendant.” Characterization of Evidence. 95. Declaration of Morgan | 95. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 13 § 28, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: I am informed and Foundation and/or believe that as in the Nason Personal Knowledge (FRE case, the “investigation” $602); Hearsay (FRE plaintiff claims to have §§801(c), 802); Improper conducted in the Hatfield case | Opinion (FRE §701); was (a) woefully insufficient as | Argumentative; Assumes to methodology, and (b) Facts Not In Evidence; resulted in wildly incorrect Improper Characterization “facts.” of Evidence. 96. Declaration of Morgan | 96. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E, Pietz, pg. 13 { 28, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled
follows: Judge Hamilton’s
and/or Personal
order denying the motion for Knowledge (FRE §602);
By
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 54 of 97 Page ID #:1247
CoC Oo NY DH HH Fe W HN
NO wo hb KH WH NHN NY NN NO | KF SY | KF FEF KF EF SE oOo nN DO UN BR WO NYO KH COD OO Oe nN DH FP W NY | OO
Material Objected to:
| Grounds for Objection: |
Ruling on Objection:
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
Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization
of Evidence.
|
insufficient.
"97. Declaration of Morgan | 97. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 13 § 28, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: Exhibit H - Judge Foundation and/or Hamilton’s order denying the | Personal Knowledge (PRE motion for leave to amend the | §602); Hearsay (FRE complaint, a true and correct §§801(c), 802); Improper copy of which is attached Opinion (FRE §701); hereto as Exhibit H explains Speculation (FRE $602); all of the ways “Plaintiffs Argumentative; Assumes Further Investigation of Facts Not In Evidence;
Defendant” which appears to Improper Characterization
have mainly consisted ofa bit | of Evidence.
of light google searching, was
insufficient.
98. Declaration of Morgan | 98. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained
oe)
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 55 o0f97 Page ID #:1248
Co Oo NIN DH OH Fe WD NYO
eet No -— ©
13
Material Objected to:
| Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
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.
99. E. Pietz, pg. 13 § 28, as follows: Exhibit I - A true and
Declaration of Morgan
correct copy of Mr. Hatfield’s declaration swearing to this is
attached as Exhibit I.
| §§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.
] Overruled
99. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (PRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization
of Evidence; Improper
| Authentication of
awe
Sustained
Overruled
54
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 56 of 97 Page ID #:1249
oc CO NIN DB AH BP WY NHN
— i)
1]
Material Objected to:
ip Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
Document (FRE §901).
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
101. E. Pietz, pg. 13-14 ¥ 29, as
Declaration of Morgan
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; forgery; identity theft,
100. Declaration of Morgan : 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;
actually belong to Mr. Hatfield. | of Evidence.
Myspace pages that did not Improper Characterization
Sustained
Overruled
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 Evidence.
Sustained
Overruled
55
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 57 of 97 Page ID #:1250
Oo Oo NY HD Wn Fe WD HO —
— cc)
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
as well as improper fee splitting, and concealment of the identity of the real parties in interest in these cases,
among other very troubling
follows: Exhibit J - (1) a letter
Mr. Cooper’s attorney filed on
Foundation and/or
Personal Knowledge (FRE
issues. 102. Declaration of Morgan 102. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 13-14 ] 29, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: My knowledge of the | Foundation and/or Alan Cooper issues is based Personal Knowledge (FRE primarily on two sources: (i) a | §602); Hearsay (FRE letter Mr. Cooper’s attorney §§801(c), 802); Improper filed on his behalf in two AF Opinion (FRE §701); Holdings cases pending in Speculation (FRE §602); Minnesota, a true and correct Argumentative; Assumes copy of which is attached Facts Not In Evidence; hereto as Exhibit J: and (ii) a | Improper Characterization sworn affidavit executed by of Evidence. Mr. Cooper himself, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit K. /103. Declaration of Morgan | 103. Irrelevant (PRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 13-14 § 29, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
56
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 58 of 97 Page ID #:1251
oOo Oo YN WB A Se WD] HNO
_ a)
Material Objected to: | Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
his behalf in two AF Holdings cases pending in Minnesota, a
true and correct copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit J:
Document (FRE §901). 104. Declaration of Morgan 104. Irrelevant (FRE
§602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper
Authentication of
| Sustained
E. Pietz, pg. 13-14 § 29, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: Exhibit K - (ii) a Foundation and/or sworn affidavit executed by Personal Knowledge (FRE Mr. Cooper himself, a true and | §602); Hearsay (FRE correct copy of which is §§801(c), 802); attached hereto as Exhibit K. | Speculation (FRE §602);
Argumentative; Assumes
Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization
of Evidence; Improper
Authentication of
Document (FRE §901). 105. Declaration of Morgan 105. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 14 § 30, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
follows: Specifically, I am
Foundation and/or
a7
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 59 of 97 Page ID #:1252
Co fF IN DBO WH BP W WYN
rr Wo NO — &
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
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.
| 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).
follows: I am informed and
Foundation and/or
/106. Declaration of Morgan | 106. Irrelevant (FRE | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 14 431, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: I am informed and Foundation and/or believe that Mr. Steele bragged | Personal Knowledge (FRE to his caretaker Alan Cooper §602); Hearsay (FRE about a copyright scheme §§801(c), 802);
Exhibit J, p 1., and, according | Speculation (FRE §602);
to Mr. Cooper “Steele had told | Argumentative; Assumes
me on at least one occasion Facts Not In Evidence;
that if anyone asked about Improper Characterization
companies that I should call of Evidence.
him.” Appendix 2, 48.
107. Declaration of Morgan | 107. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 14 § 32, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
58
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 60 of 97 Page ID #:1253
—
Oo Oe YN DN HA Ee W LH
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
believe that after this Minnesota Mr. Cooper became suspicious, and searched online, he found out that Prenda Law had been using the name “Alan Cooper” as the supposed principal of AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13, in various federal court filings, including copyright assignment forms, and verifications filed on behalf of Ingenuity 13, all of which were purportedly executed by “Alan Cooper” on behalf of these entities. Exhibit J. (Exhibit E thereto, page 8 of 8).
Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization
of Evidence.
/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
108. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602);
Argumentative; Assumes
Sustained
Overruled
59
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 61 o0f97 Page ID #:1254
0 Oe NI HD nH F&F W NH
on —_ ©
12
Material Objected to:
| Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
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 Minnesota is not being misappropriated. Exhibit J
J. |
Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization
of Evidence.
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
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.
Sustained
Overruled
60
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 62 of 97 Page ID
CoCo Oo NHN DN OHO Se WD LY
—_ i)
11
#:1255
Material Objected to:
|
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
ie
110. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 15 935, 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
§§401
| 110. Irrelevant (FRE
, 402); Lacks
Foundation and/or
Personal Knowledge (FRE
§602);
(FRE (FRE
Improper Opinion §701); Speculation §602);
Argumentative; Assumes
Facts Not In Evidence;
Prenda’s AF Holdings cases: Improper Characterization Image of Image of “AtdrEvidence. Authenticated Cooper”
Signature of Signature Used
Minnesota Alan | on Copyright
Cooper from His | Assignmen
Lease with John | Filed in CD. Cal.
Steele.’ 12-cv-S709 (Low-number Case)?
| Sustained
Overruled
61
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 63 of 97 Page ID #:1256
Oo OO YN DO WO FR WD HNO =
<= =)
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection: 111. Declaration of Morgan | 111. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 15 7 35,.as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: Footnote 2 - The Foundation and/or signature pictured here is from | Personal Knowledge (FRE the lease agreement between §602); Hearsay (FRE Mr. Steele and Mr. Cooper that | §§801(c), 802); was attached to the affidavit of | Speculation (FRE §602); Alan Cooper, which is attached | Assumes Facts Not In hereto as Exhibit K. Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. 112. Declaration of Morgan 112. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained
E. Pietz, pg. 15 935, as §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or signature pictured here was Personal Knowledge (FRE found on the last page of §602); Hearsay (FRE Exhibit B to the complaint in §§801(c), 802);
AF Holdings, LLC v. John Doe | Speculation (FRE §602); et al., C.D. Cal. No. 12-cv- Assumes Facts Not In
5709, at ECF No. 1, p. 18. Evidence; Improper
follows: Footnote 3 - This
Characterization of
Evidence.
Overruled
62
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 64 of 97 Page ID #:1257
Oo Oo NY DB WH BP W NH =
— i)
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
113. Declaration of Morgan 113. Irrelevant (PRE | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 15-16 { 36, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: I am informed and Foundation and/or
believe that another example of | Personal Knowledge (FRE
this mysterious Alan Cooper §602); Hearsay (FRE
supposedly signing federal §§801(c), 802);
court documents, this time a Speculation (FRE §602);
verification to a Rule 27 Argumentative; Assumes
petition filed under penalty of | Facts Not In Evidence;
perjury, occurred in /n the Improper Characterization
Matter of a Petition by of Evidence.
Ingenuity 13, LLC, E.D. Cal.
Case No. 1 1-mc-0084-JAM-
DAD, ECF No. 1, p. 8 of 8,
10/28/11.
114. Declaration of Morgan (114. Irrelevant (FRE ] Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 15-16 { 36, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
follows: Exhibit L - A true and correct copy of the petition Mr. Gibbs filed on behalf of Ingenuity 13 in this matter is
attached hereto as Exhibit L.
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE $602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation (FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In
Evidence; Improper
Characterization of
63
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 65 of 97 Page ID #:1258
jaa,
oOo Oo NY DO UO Fe. W NY
10
Material Objected to:
+
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
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: (i) 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; (iil) instead, Mr. Gibbs himself swears that “TI, Brett L. Gibbs, Esq., hereby confirm per Eastern District of California Local Rule 131(f) that counsel for Plaintiff has a signed original notarized version of the above Verified
Petition.”
115. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (PRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization
of Evidence.
Sustained
Overruled
64
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 66 of 97 Page ID #:1259
—y
oO Oo SI Do We ee WD KN
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: ] Ruling on Objection: 116. Declaration of Morgan | 116. Irrelevant (FRE | Sustained Ek, Pieiz, pe. 16 137, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
follows: Since at least November, Prenda has been dodging all questions asked by Minnesota Alan Cooper’s attorney, and by me, about whether there is another person with the name Alan Cooper who was the true principal of
AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13.
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization
1 le E. Pietz, pg. 16 § 37, as
Declaration of Morgan
follows: Prenda refuses to say.
of Evidence.
117. Irrelevant (FRE | Sustained §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled Foundation and/or
Personal Knowledge (FRE
§602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization
of Evidence.
118. E. Pietz, pg. 16 § 37, as follows: Exhibit M - A true
Declaration of Morgan
118. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks
Foundation and/or
Sustained
Overruled
65
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 67 of 97 Page ID #:1260
—
CoO Ce NX DH HD F&F W NV
Material Objected to: i
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
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.
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 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.
119. 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.
Sustained
Overruled
66
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 68 of 97 Page ID #:1261
_—
Oo ON Dn WH Fe W WN
10
.
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection: 120. Declaration of Morgan | 120. Irrelevant (PRE Sustained E, Pietz, pg. 16-17 ¥ 39, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: I am informed and Foundation and/or believe that at almost the exact | Personal Knowledge (FRE same time the Alan Cooper §602); Hearsay (FRE allegations were coming to §§801(c), 802); Improper light, another incident occurred | Opinion (FRE §701); at a Florida hearing in a Prenda | Speculation (FRE $602); case, involving a separate fraud | Argumentative; Assumes on the court. In Sunlust Facts Not In Evidence; Pictures, Inc. v. Tuan Nguyen, | Improper Characterization M.D. FI. Case No. 8:12-CV- of Evidence. 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. 121. Declaration of Morgan 121. Irrelevant (FRE | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 16-17 4 39, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
follows: Exhibit N - A true and correct copy of the
complete hearing transcript is
Foundation and/or
Personal Knowledge (FRE
§602); Hearsay (FRE
67
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 69 of 97 Page ID #:1262
—y
So ee YN Dn WH SF WY KH
10
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection: attached hereto as Exhibit N. | §§801(c), 802); Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE §901). 122. Declaration of Morgan +i Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 16-17 4 39, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: According to the Foundation and/or transcript, Prenda’s purported | Personal Knowledge (FRE “sole principal” Paul Duffy, §602); Hearsay (FRE belatedly notified the Court §§801(c), 802); Improper that he could not attend due to | Opinion (FRE §701); a health issue. Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. 123. Declaration of Morgan | 123. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 16-17 § 39, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
follows: After two prior local counsel sought to withdraw from the matter, Prenda placed an advertisement in a local
newspaper and obtained a new,
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE $602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701);
68
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 70 of 97 Page ID #:1263
0 Oe YN DB WH FP WY LPO
eet oOo KS ©
sp
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection:
third local counsel (hired by eens (FRE §602); plaintiff's counsel here Brett Argumentative; Assumes Gibbs) who, after filing a Facts Not In Evidence; notice of appearance and Improper Characterization conferring with defense of Evidence. counsel, almost immediately sought to withdraw. 124. Declaration of Morgan | 124. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 17 § 40, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: Iam informed and Foundation and/or believe that Sunlust also did Personal Knowledge (FRE not send a principal to the $602); Hearsay (FRE Florida hearing; rather, itsent | §§801(c), 802); Improper John Steele’s former paralegal, | Opinion (FRE §701); a man named Mark Lutz, as the | Speculation (FRE §602); plaintiffs “corporate Argumentative; Assumes representative” for hire. Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization
of Evidence. 125. Declaration of Morgan | 125. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 17 § 40, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
follows: However, upon questioning Mr. Lutz, Judge Scriven quickly determined
that Mr. Lutz had no authority
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper
1 _t
69
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 71 0f 97 Page ID #:1264
Oo CO NY WB WH BP W HNO
NO bo NO NO KR NO NO RO RO om mmm mm me tl eo YN DB A FSF WD NY KF DOD OO DN DH NH F&F W YO KF CO
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
to bind the company, and that
he did not know who owned or
managed it.
Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization
of Evidence. 126. Declaration of Morgan | 126. Irrelevant (FRE | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 17 4 40, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: Accordingly, despite | Foundation and/or a Court order requiring them to | Personal Knowledge (FRE do so, neither Prenda Law nor | §602); Hearsay (FRE its client Sunlust Pictures sent | §§801(c), 802); Improper a principal to the hearing. Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. 127. Declaration of Morgan 127. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 17 § 40, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
follows: Note in particular
page 20 of the transcript where
Judge Scriven orders the
purported “corporate
representative” for the plaintiff,
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701);
70
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 72 of 97 Page ID #:1265
Wn
Material Objected to:
| Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
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 § 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
Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization
of Evidence.
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.
Sustained
Overruled
vi
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 73 of 97 Page ID #:1266
Oo ON DB WO &e WD NO
—_— —- ©
Material Objected to:
ey
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
asked him for answers to some of her questions about Sunlust Pictures, which Mr. Steele provided. Exhibit N. p. 18:12- 24.
129. Declaration of Morgan 129. Irrelevant (FRE §
E. Pietz, pg. 17-18 § 41, as follows: The combination of: (1) the facts averred by Mr. Cooper of 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 Ud.;
Exhibit L); and (iv) the facts
revealed in the Florida hearing
§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.
Sustained
Overruled
72
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 74 of 97 Page ID #:1267
—_
Oo Oo NI Dn On fe W NV
10
Material Objected to:
| Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
transcript in Prenda’s Sunlust case (Exhibit N), made me
extremely suspicious.
/ 130. Declaration of Morgan 130. Irrelevant (FRE
follows: Specifically, it appears that there is a pattern where, when pressed, Prenda has fraudulently held out close/former associates of John Steele as purported representative for the purported
client in these cases.
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization
of Evidence.
| Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 17-18 4 41, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: Taken together, these | Foundation and/or facts suggest a pattern of Personal Knowledge (FRE deception with respect to who | §602); Improper Opinion is really behind these lawsuits. | (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE 8602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. 1131. Declaration of Morgan 131. Irrelevant (PRE | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 17-18 4 41, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
73
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 75 of97 Page ID #:1268
—
0 Oe NY DA Se WD WY
10
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.
Characterization of
Evidence.
Material Objected to: | Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection: 132. Declaration of Morgan | 132. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 18 § 42, as §§401, 402); Improper Overruled follows: Based on these Characterization of suspicions, I sought leave of Evidence. 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 133. Irrelevant (FRE | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 18 § 42, as §§401, 402); Improper Overruled
74
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 76 of 97 Page ID #:1269
—_
0 Oe NY DB UH F&F W N
Material Objected to: | Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection: 134. Declaration of Morgan 134. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 18 | 42, as §§401, 402); Improper Overruled follows: As of today, Prenda | Characterization of has not yet responded. Evidence. 135. Declaration of Morgan 135. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 18 § 43, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: Like a snake shedding | Foundation and/or its skin, and for reasons that are | Personal Knowledge (FRE not hard to imagine given the | §602); Hearsay (FRE Florida hearing transcript §§801(c), 802); Improper (Exhibit N), among other Opinion (FRE §701); reasons, it appears that Prenda_ | Speculation (FRE §602); has recently decided to try and | Argumentative; Assumes rebrand itself (again) and is Facts Not In Evidence; now moving away from the Improper Characterization name Prenda Law, Inc. of Evidence. 136. Declaration of Morgan 136. Irrelevant (PRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 18 § 43, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
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
Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602);
Argumentative; Assumes
ie
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 77 of 97 Page ID #:1270
—
CoCo Oo Yt Dn OW Fe WD NY
Material Objected to: | Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
Law. Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. 137. Declaration of Morgan 137. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 18 § 44, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled follows: Further, as of January | Foundation and/or 9, 2013, the Prenda law, Inc. Personal Knowledge (FRE entity registered in Illinois is §602); Hearsay (FRE listed as “not in good standing” | §§801(c), 802); Improper with the Illinois Secretary of Opinion (FRE §701); State. Exhibit B. Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. 138. Declaration of Morgan 138. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 18 § 45, as §§401, 402); Lacks Overruled
follows: However, there isan | Foundation and/or
active listing in Illinois foran | Personal Knowledge (FRE
“Anti-Piracy Law Group §602); Hearsay (FRE LLC,” formed on November 8, | §§801(c), 802); 2012. Speculation (FRE §602);
Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization
76
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 78 of 97 Page ID #:1271
oy
0 Ce NY DH F&F W N
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
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 O.
| 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).
| Sustained
Overruled
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.
Sustained
Overruled
77
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 79 of 97 Page ID #:1272
Co Oo YN DBO UA fP WY YP
— me)
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
141. E. Pietz, pg. 18-19 4 47, as
Declaration of Morgan
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. 1I- 800-380-0840).” Exhibit A.
141. 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.
i‘ . Sustained
Overruled
142. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. 19 { 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 nothing more than a continuation of Steele
Hansemeier, PLLC.
142. Irrelevant (PRE §§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
Sustained
Overruled
78
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 80 of 97 Page ID
i
a oOo CO
13
#:1273
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection:
of Evidence.
OBJECTIONS TO SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MORGAN E.
Oo Oo YN DH AH F&F W WN
PIETZ Material Objected to: | Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection 1. Declaration of Morgan | 1. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 2 ¥ 4, as follows: | 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled However, Prenda constructs | and/or Personal Knowledge is lawsuits so as to make it (FRE §602); Improper unclear what exactly is the Opinion (FRE §701); status of my clients. Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence. 2 Declaration of Morgan | 2. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 2 § 4, as follows: | 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled
The complaint does not exactly come out and say that the ISP subscriber equals the John Doe defendant.
and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper Opinion (FRE §701); Speculation (FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization
79
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 81 0f97 Page ID #:1274
oT Oo me NY DO NH HR WD YY
—
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection of Evidence. 5; Declaration of Morgan | 3. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 2 ¥ 4, as follows: | 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled However, the requests for and/or Personal Knowledge early discovery, seeking (FRE §602); Improper leave to issue ISP subpoenas, | Opinion (FRE §701); generally tend to conflate ISP | Speculation (FRE $602); subscriber with Doe Argumentative; Assumes defendant. Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence.
'4. Declaration of Morgan | 4. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, ~ | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 3 § 7, as follows: | 402); Hearsay (FRE Overruled Exhibit P - Attached as §§801(c), 802); Speculation Exhibit P hereto is a true and | (FRE §602); Argumentative; correct copy of an email Assumes Facts Not In chain I received wherein Mr. | Evidence; Improper Gibbs noticed me that Mr. Characterization of Duffy would be substituting | Evidence; Improper in to this case as counsel of | Authentication of Document record, and an email where (FRE §901).
Mr. Duffy attempted to meet and confer with on 12-cv- 8333. Be Declaration of Morgan | 5. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, ' Sustained
80
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 82 of 97 Page ID #:1275
—
0 fe NY DBD nH & WN WN
Material Objected to: | Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection E. Pietz, pg. 3 § 8, as follows: | 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled Exhibit Q - Attached as and/or Personal Knowledge Exhibit Q hereto is a true and | (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE correct copy of Cooper’s §§801(c), 802); Speculation complaint for identify theft, | (FRE §602); Argumentative; etc. Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE §901).
6. Declaration of Morgan | 6. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 3 § 9, as follows: | 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled Exhibit R - Attached as and/or Personal Knowledge Exhibit R hereto is a true and | (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE correct copy of documents §§801(c), 802); Speculation identifying “Salt March” as | (FRE $602); Argumentative; the “owner” of AF Holdings. | Assumes Facts Not In
Evidence; Improper
Characterization of
Evidence; Improper
Authentication of Document
(FRE §901). vs Declaration of Morgan | 7. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 3 { 10, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled
81
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 83 of 97 Page ID #:1276
0 Oo YN DB Wn F&F WD LY
wb NO NH NHN NHN NY NN NY NO FY Ff FF FF Ff FF SS PE hLhLUlUr oOo TD NO OA F&® WOW NYO KF OO ON Dn UH FF WY FF S&S
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection follows: Exhibit S - Attached | and/or Personal Knowledge as Exhibit § hereto isatrue | (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE and correct copy of a §§801(c), 802); Speculation declaration attorney Nicholas | (FRE §602); Argumentative; Ranallo prepared regarding | Assumes Facts Not In Anthony Saltmarsh. Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE §901). 8. Declaration of Morgan | 8. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 3 | 11, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled follows: Exhibit T - and/or Personal Knowledge Attached as Exhibit T hereto | (FRE §602); Hearsay (PRE is a true and correct copy of a | §§801(c), 802); Speculation website registration (FRE §602); Argumentative, document showing “Alan Assumes Facts Not In Cooper” at an address in Evidence; Improper Phoenix linked to, John Characterization of Steele, his sister and Anthony | Evidence; Improper Slatmarsh. Authentication of Document (FRE §901). 2, Declaration of Morgan | 9. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 3 § 12, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled
follows: Exhibit U -
and/or Personal Knowledge
82
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 84 of 97 Page ID #:1277
fee
oo AeA YN Dn A —& YW WN
10
i"
follows: Exhibit W - Attached as Exhibit W hereto
is a true and correct copy of
and/or Personal Knowledge
(FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE
| 998010), 802); Speculation
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection Attached as Exhibit U hereto | (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE is a true and correct copy of | §§801(c), 802); the petition in the St. Clair Argumentative; Assumes County Guava, LLC case, Facts Not In Evidence; which appears to be verified | Improper Characterization by “Alan Moay” or “Alan of Evidence; Improper Mony”. Authentication of Document (FRE §901).
10. Declaration of Morgan | 10. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E, Pietz, pg. 3 | 13, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled follows: Exhibit V - and/or Personal Knowledge Attached as Exhibit V hereto | (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE is atrue and correct copy of | §§801(c), 802); Speculation my reply in the St. Clair (FRE §602); Argumentative;
County Guava, LLC case. Assumes Facts Not In
Evidence; Improper
Characterization of
Evidence; Improper
Authentication of Document
(FRE §901). 11. Declaration of Morgan | 11. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 3 § 14, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled
83
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 85 of 97 Page ID #:1278
Co Oo fe NIN DO AH Se WD NO
— let oo =
13
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection the declaration about the (FRE §602); Argumentative; collusion in a Minnesota Assumes Facts Not In Guava LLC case. Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE §901). 12. Declaration of Morgan | 12. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 3 | 15, as 402); Hearsay (FRE Overruled follows: Johns Steele told §§801(c), 802); Improper me, in front of other, on Characterization of February 13, 2013 in St. Clair | Evidence. County that he is currently of counsel to Prenda Law. 13. Declaration of Morgan | 13. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 3 | 16, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled
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.
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
84
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 86 of 97 Page ID #:1279
Oo fo NY DR On F&F WY NO
<a So
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection | (FRE §901). 14. Declaration of Morgan | 14. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 3 17, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled follows: Exhibit Y - and/or Personal Knowledge Attached as Exhibit Y hereto | (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE is a true and correct copy of a | §§801(c), 802); letter Mr. Duffy sent to Judge | Argumentative; Assumes Scriven in Florida wherein he | Facts Not In Evidence; represents that he is the sole | Improper Characterization principal of Prenda Law. of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE §901). 15. Declaration of Morgan | 15. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, T Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 4 ¥ 18, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled follows: Exhibit Z - and/or Personal Knowledge Attached as Exhibit Z hereto | (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE is a true and correct copy of | §§801(c), 802); Speculation Mr. Duffy’s bio from the (FRE §602); Argumentative; wefightpiracy.com website, | Assumes Facts Not In accessed February 20, 2013. | Evidence; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE §901). 16. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained
16. Declaration of we
85
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 87 of 97 Page ID #:1280
—
oOo Oo NY DH OH fF WY WN
10
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on Objection E. Pietz, pg. 3 4 19, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled
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.”
and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (PRE §§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
17. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, Sustained
E. Pietz, pg. 4 § 20, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled follows: Exhibit BB - and/or Personal Knowledge Attached as Exhibit BB (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE hereto is a true and correct §§801(c), 802); Speculation copy of a complaint listing (FRE §602); Argumentative; wherein Paul Hansemeier’s | Assumes Facts Not In firm Alpha Law Firm, LLC __| Evidence; Improper represents Guava, LLC in Characterization of Minnesota. Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document (FRE §901). 18. Declaration of Morgan | 18. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained E. Pietz, pg. 4 § 21, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled
86
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 88 of 97 Page ID #:1281
—
Oo Oe NY DH OH Se W WN
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection
follows: Exhibit CC - Attached as Exhibit CC hereto is a true and correct copy of the LinkedIn profile for Michael Dugas listing
Prenda Law.
19, E. Pietz, pg. 4 § 22, as follows: Exhibit DD - Attached as Exhibit DD
Declaration of Morgan
hereto is a true and correct copy of an unpublished Ninth
Circuit sanctions opinion.
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. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Argumentative; Improper Characterization of Evidence; Improper Authentication of Document
(FRE §901).
Sustained
Overruled
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF BART HUFFMAN
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection
ly 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.;
1. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation
Sustained
Overruled
87
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 89 of 97 Page ID #:1282
—
Oo CO YI DB wn BP W bt
10
Material Objected to:
should be made at the offices of Prenda Law, Inc., 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 3200, Chicago IL 60601; (ii) 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.
(11) specifies that production
] Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection
(FRE §602); Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
2 Declaration of Bart 2. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, Sustained
Huffman, pg. 2 § 4, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled follows: There is no and/or Personal Knowledge
apparent reason for the (FRE §602); Improper
issuance of the Subpoena to | Opinion (FRE §701);
At&T from the Northern Speculation (FRE §602);
District of Illinois other than | Argumentative; Assumes
that Mr. Duffy specified Facts Not In Evidence;
Prenda Law’s office address | Improper Characterization of
in Chicago as the place of Evidence.
production.
3 Declaration of Bart 3. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained Huffman, pg. 2 ¥ 4, as 402); Improper Opinion Overruled
88
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 90 of 97 Page ID #:1283
—
Oo CO AN DB A F&F W WN
10
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection
follows: This practice has been criticized by federal
courts.
(FRE §701); Argumentative; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
4, Declaration of Bart Huffman, pg. 2 § 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-cv-5709 (C.D. Cal.).
4. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
Sustained
Overruled
5: Declaration of Bart Huffman, pg. 2 § 6, as follows: On or about October 19, 2012 Judge Wright entered in the 5725 Lawsuit an Order Vacating Prior Early Discovery Orders and Order to Show Cause. (5725 Lawsuit, ECF No. 9.)
awe ene
5. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
| Sustained
Overruled
89
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 91 of 97 Page ID #:1284
Oo Oe NY DB OH & W YN
pas oS
Material Objected to: aie
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection
6. Declaration of Bart
6. Irrelevant (FRE §§401,
Sustained
Huffman, pg. 2 { 6, as 402); Improper Overruled follows: In that Order, Characterization of Judge Wright ordered Evidence. Plaintiff to “cease its discovery efforts relating to or based on information obtained through [Rule 45 subpoenas allowed by a prior early discovery order].” (/d.) ce Declaration of Bart 7. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, Sustained Huffman, pg. 3 § 7, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled follows: As reflected in the | and/or Personal Knowledge Kerr Declaration, on (FRE $602); Hearsay (FRE November 1, 2012, Angela | §§801(c), 802); Improper Van Den Hemel of Prenda | Opinion (FRE §701); Law, Inc. sent an e-mail Speculation (FRE §602); message to Camille D. Kerr | Argumentative; Assumes forwarding a copy of the Facts Not In Evidence; Subpoena to AT&T (along | Improper Characterization of with proof of service) and Evidence; Improper asking for an update on the | Authentication of Document 5725 Lawsuit. (Kerr Decl. § | (FRE §901). 2 and Ex. 1.) 8. Declaration of Bart 8. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, Sustained
90
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 92 of 97 Page ID #:1285
oo ON Dn Wn Fe W HPO
a NO —& ©
13
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection
Huffman, pg. 3 47, as follows: Ms. Van Den Hemel’s e-mail message also included a copy of the same early discovery order that Judge Wright had vacated and expressly stated should not be the basis of
subsequent discovery
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
Overruled
efforts. Evidence.
2, Declaration of Bart | 9. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, Sustained Huffman, pg. 3 §] 7, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled follows: Ms. Van Den and/or Personal Knowledge
Hemel e-mail message could | (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE
only have been referring to | §§801(c), 802); Improper
whether AT&T had or was | Opinion (FRE §701);
going to produce Speculation (FRE §602);
information in response to Argumentative; Assumes
the Subpoena to AT&T, Facts Not In Evidence;
because AT&T had no other | Improper Characterization of involvement in the case. Evidence.
10. Declaration of Bart 10. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained Huffman, pg. 3 4 9, as 402); Hearsay (FRE Overruled
follows: On November 8, 2012, I sent an e-mail
message to Ms. Van Den
§§801(c), 802); Improper Opinion (FRE §701);
Argumentative; Assumes
ot
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 93 of 97 Page ID #:1286
So Om DT DB Nn & WD HNO eR
ee oo nm —& W NO —|§ OO
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection
Hemel concerning the 5725 Lawsuit, in which I 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 know if you have information to
the contrary.”
Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
11. Declaration of Bart 11. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained Huffman, pg. 3 § 9, as 402); Hearsay (FRE Overruled follows: Exhibit 4- A true | §§801(c), 802); Improper and correct copy of that e- Opinion (FRE §701); mail message is attached Speculation (FRE §602); hereto as Exhibit 4. Argumentative; Assumes
Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization of
Evidence; Improper
Authentication of Document
(FRE §901). 12. Declaration of Bart 12. Irrelevant (FRE §§402); | Sustained Huffman, pg. 3 ¥ 9, as Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), Overruled
follows: I never received any response to my e-mail
message, and I never
802); Argumentative; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 94 of 97 Page ID #:1287
oy
oO Om ANI DA fF W NY
10
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection
received any further information or communication from Prenda
Law, Inc. concerning the
Subpoena to AT&T or the
5725 Lawsuit.
13. Declaration ofBart | 13. Irrelevant (FRE §§402); | Sustained Huffman, pg. 3 §j 10, as Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), Overruled
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.
802); Argumentative; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF CAMILLE D. KERR
ee . a ee ———————————
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection
zl
1. Declaration of Camille D. Kerr, pg. 1 § 2, as follows: On November 1, 2012, I received an e-mail
message from Angela Van
1. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation
| Sustained
Overruled
93
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 95 of97 Page ID #:1288
Oo CO JN DBD WO FSF WW HO
NO po bd tO PO KN DP DR Rw meet oO nN DW UN FP WY NO KF DOD O fH NT DA FP WO NYO KF OC
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
: Ruling on Objection
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”).
On 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.
(FRE §602); Assumes Facts |
Not In Evidence; Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
2. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402); Lacks Foundation and/or Personal Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802); Improper Characterization of
Evidence.
Sustained
Overruled
94
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 96 of 97 Page ID #:1289
Oo CO NY DB Wn F&F W HNO
ee oe el No = ©
13
Material Objected to:
[ Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection
B. Declaration of 3. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, Sustained Camille D. Kerr, pg. 192, | 402); Hearsay (FRE Overruled as follows: Exhibit 1-A §§801(c), 802); Improper true and correct copy of Ms. | Characterization of Van Den Hemel’s e-mail Evidence; Improper message to me (including its | Authentication of Document attachments) is attached (FRE §901). hereto as Exhibit 1. 4, Declaration of 4. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, | Sustained Camille D. Kerr, pg.2§3, | 402); Hearsay (FRE Overruled as follows: On November 6, | §§801(c), 802); Improper 2012, Angela Van Den Characterization of Hemel sent another e-mail Evidence. message to me asking about the 5725 Lawsuit and the Subpoena to AT&T. > Declaration of 5. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, ~ | Sustained Camille D. Kerr, pg.293, | 402); Hearsay (FRE Overruled as follows: Exhibit 2-A §§801(c), 802); Improper true and correct copy of that | Characterization of e-mail message is attached | Evidence; Improper hereto as Exhibit 2. Authentication of Document
(FRE §901). 6. Declaration of 6. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, Sustained Camille D. Kerr, pg.294, | 402); Hearsay (FRE Overruled
as follows: On November 8,
|
§§801(c), 802); Improper
95
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 97 of 97 Page ID #:1290
Co Oo NY Do nH SF. WY VP
es me ©
Material Objected to:
Grounds for Objection:
Ruling on Objection
96
2012, I was copied on ane- | Characterization of mail message from Bart Evidence; Improper Huffman to Ms. Van Den Authentication of Document 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.”
17. Declaration of “17. Irrelevant (FRE §§402); ~ | Sustained | Camille D. Kerr, pg.294, | Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), Overruled as follows: I have not 802); Argumentative; thereafter received any Improper Characterization of information or Evidence. communication from Prenda Law, Inc. concerning the Subpoena to AT&T or the 5725 Lawsuit.
DATED: By:
Honorable Otis D. Wright, I Judge of the United States District Court