Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 73 Filed 03/07/13 Page1of8 Page ID #:1995

i

ANDREW J. WAXLER, SBN 113682
BARRY Z. BRODSKY, SBN 93565
WON M. PARK, SBN 194333
WAXLER @#CARNER@ BRODSKY LLP
1960 East Grand Avenue, Suite 1210

El Segundo, California 90245

Facsimile: (310
e-mail: awaxler@wcb-law.com
e-mail: rodsky(@weceb-law.com
wpark@wcb-law.com

Specially Appearing for Respondent
BRE y GIBBS ~ .

\O CO ~ ON wn os ww tN
oO
=
fa)
tnt
—

sap a
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

i CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Ld

INGENUITY 13 LLC, Case No. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx)
12

Plaintiff, [Assigned to Judge Otis D. Wright, IT ]
13
VS. BRETT L. GIBBS’ OBJECTIONS

14 TO THE REPLY DECLARATION

JOHN DOE, OF MORGAN E. PIETZ AND
BS EXHIBITS THERETO AND THE

Defendant. TRANSCRIPT OF THE
16] SC DEPOSITION OF AF HOLDINGS,
LLC TAKEN ON FEBRUARY 19,
17 2013
18 [OSC Filed: August 1, 2012]
19
Trial date: None set

20
21 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
22 Respondent Brett L. Gibbs submits the following objections to the Reply

23 | Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz and Exhibits thereto and the Deposition Transcript
24 | of the deposition of AF Holdings LLC taken on February 19, 2013 submitted in
25 | response to the Court’s February 7, 2013 Order to Show Cause. Mr. Gibbs asserts

26 | the following objections:

pe,

Oo CO I DH WN &F& W LO

10

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 73 Filed 03/07/13 Page 2of8 Page ID #:1996

OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF MORGAN E. PIETZ

Material Objected to:

Grounds for Objection:

[
| 1. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.

2 4 2, as follows: I represent ISP
subscribers who have been targeted by
Ingenuity 13, LLC, through its counsel
Prenda Law, Inc. f/k/a Hansemeier PLLC
(“Prenda’”) in copyright infringement
cases Ingenuity 13 filed in both the
Central District of California, and the

Northern District of California.

1. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper
Opinion (FRE § 701); Speculation
(FRE §602); Argumentative;
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization of

Evidence.

pa Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
242, as follows: I also represent other
clients in other cases brought by Prenda
on behalf of other entities, sometimes

along with local counsel, in other courts.

244, as follows: My clients in the Prenda
cases, including this case, each received
letters from their ISPs informing them that
Prenda was attempting to subpoena their

identity as part of a lawsuit.

2. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402).

(3. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg. | 3. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);

Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Assumes
Facts Not In Evidence; Improper

Characterization of Evidence.

4, Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
244, as follows: Generally, my clients
are people who happen to pay the Internet
bill for their household, not necessarily the

people who actually committed the

4, Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602);
Argumentative; Assumes Facts Not

In Evidence; Improper

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 73 Filed 03/07/13 Page 3of8 Page ID #:1997

Oo CO Ss) DB WD Fe WD HN we

—
a)

1]

Material Objected to:

alleged infringement or other wrongful

conduct.

Grounds for Objection:

Characterization of Evidence.

5, Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
2 4 4, as follows: However, Prenda
constructs its lawsuits so as to make it
unclear what exactly is the status of my

clients.

| 5. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);

Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper
Opinion (FRE § 701); Speculation
(FRE §602); Argumentative;
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization of

Evidence.

6. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
2 4 4, as follows: The complaint does not
exactly come out and say that the ISP

subscriber equals the John Doe defendant.

| 6. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);

Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper
Opinion (FRE § 701); Speculation
(FRE §602); Argumentative;
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization of

Evidence.

Vi Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
2 4 4, as follows: However the requests

for early discovery seeking leave to issue
ISP subpoenas, generally tend to conflate

ISP subscriber with Doe defendant.

7. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Improper
Opinion (FRE §§701; Speculation
(FRE §602); Argumentative;
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization of

Evidence.

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 73 Filed 03/07/13 Page 4of8 Page ID #:1998

pee

So Oo NI DN HH Fe YH LO

10

Material Objected to:

8. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
3 { 6, as follows: Exhibit EE - Attached
as Exhibit EE hereto is a true and correct
copy of the [Amended] “Motion for
Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel”
filed by Mr. Gibbs in AF Holdings, LLC v.
Andrew Magsumnol, N.D. Cal. No. 3:12-
cv-4221-SC ECF No. 22, 1/30/13.

Grounds for Objection:

9, Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
3 § 6, as follows: On page 2, Mr. Gibbs
lists himself as “In-House Counsel, AF

Holdings LLC”.

10. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
3 4 6, as follows: The prior day, January
29, 2013, Mr. Gibbs had filed a different
version of the same motion (id. at ECF

No. 21).

8. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay
(FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation
(FRE §602); Improper
Characterization of Evidence;
Improper Authentication of

Document (FRE §901).

9. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay
(FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation
(FRE §602); Argumentative;
Improper Characterization of
Evidence.

10. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay
(FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation
(FRE §602); Argumentative;
Improper Characterization of
Evidence; Improper Authentication

of Document (FRE §901).

11. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
3 { 6, as follows: The only apparent

difference between the two substitution

11. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);

Lacks Foundation and/or Personal

Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 73 Filed 03/07/13 Page5of8 Page ID #:1999

So CO NS DN NH FE YD] PY Ke

a
—_— ©}

: : ae ae
aterial Objected to:

Material Objected to

Grounds for Objection:

motions was the addition of the line where
Mr. Gibbs signed for AF Holdings, as in

house counsel, in the amended motion.

(FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation
(FRE §602); Argumentative;
Improper Characterization of

Evidence.

12. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
3 4 7, as follows: Exhibit FF - Attached
as Exhibit FF hereto is a true and correct
copy of the pleadings that Prenda’s local
counsel in St. Clair County, Illinois, Kevin
Hoerner, filed in on or around February
13, 2013, in Guava, LLC v. Comcast
Cable Communication, LLC, Circuit Court
of St. Clair County Illinois, No. 12-MR-
417.
13.

Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
3 § 7, as follows: This pleading states on
page 5 that the name of the person who
supposedly verified the petition in that

action is “Alan Mony.”

| 12. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);

Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay
(FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation
(FRE §602); Improper
Characterization of Evidence;
Improper Authentication of

Document (FRE §901).

13. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay
(FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation
(FRE §602); Improper

Characterization of Evidence.

14.
3 ¥ 7, as follows: On February 14, 2013,

Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.

among other questions, I asked Prenda’s
lawyers to confirm the spelling of the
purported client who had signed the

verification, and Mr. Hoerner responded

14. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Hearsay (FRE §§801(c), 802);
Argumentative; Improper

Characterization of Evidence.

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 73 Filed 03/07/13 Page 6of8 Page ID #:2000

Material Objected to:

Grounds for Objection:

that day (this was the entire response);
“The issues have already been briefed.

See you in court.”

15. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
3 4 8, as follows: Exhibit GG - Attached
as Exhibit GG hereto is a true and correct
copy of the amended verification filed by
Prenda on February 21, 2013 in Guava St.
Clair County action, purportedly executed
by someone spelling their name “Alan

Mooney.”

15. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay
(FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation
(FRE §602); Argumentative;
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization of
Evidence; Improper Authentication

of Document (FRE §901).

16. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
3 49, as follows: Exhibit HH - Attached
as Exhibit HH hereto is a true and correct
copy of an explanatory organization
diagram I am prepared for Prenda, etc. I
am prepared to explain this document at
the hearing and can provide documentary

support for the connections.

‘116. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);

Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay
(FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation
(FRE §602); Argumentative;
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization of
Evidence; Improper Authentication

of Document (FRE §901).

17. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz,
pgs. 3-4 § 10, as follows: Attached as
Exhibit II is a true and correct copy of two
Google Earth maps that I prepared. The

first map shows the Wagar residence

117. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);

Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay
(FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation
(FRE §602); Assumes Facts Not In

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 73 Filed 03/07/13 Page 7 of8 Page ID #:2001

Material Objected to:

Grounds for Objection:

located at 1411 Paseo Jacardanda, Santa
Maria, California 93458. (ECF No. 50 §
29). The second map shows the Denton
residence located 635 S. Vanderwell

Avenue, West Covina, California 91790.

| Evidence; Improper

Characterization of Evidence;
Improper Authentication of

Document (FRE §901).

18. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz,
pgs. 3-4 § 10, as follows: In order to
illustrate the range of a WiFi network,
both maps show three circles around the
residence, each with different radii: a 100
ft. circle (green), a 300 ft. circle (yellow),
and a 500 ft. circle (red).

19. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.

4411, as follows: Exhibit JJ - Attached
as Exhibit JJ hereto is a true and correct
copy of the manual, chapter 4, for a
wireless router owned by a client of mine

in a prior, unrelated case.

18. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay
(FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation
(FRE §602); Argumentative;
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
Improper Characterization of

Evidence.

“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;
Improper Authentication of

Document (FRE §901).

20. Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, pg.
4 411, as follows: The router at issue
there was about ten years old, and

specified a range of between 300-500 ft.,

20. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);

Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay
(FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 73 Filed 03/07/13 Page 8of8 Page ID #:2002

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection:
2 ||| per page 4-2. This is simply anexample | (FRE §602); Argumentative;
3 || of the kind of signal range available ona | Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
4 || not-state-of-the-art router. Improper Characterization of
5 Evidence; Improper Authentication
6 of Document (FRE §901).
- —
8} OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF AF HOLDINGS LLC
9 TAKEN ON FEBRUARY 19, 2013
10 |/ Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection:
11 ]/ 1. Deposition Transcript of the Deposition | 1. Irrelevant (FRE §§401, 402);
12 || of AF Holdings LLC’s designated witness | Lacks Foundation and/or Personal
13 || taken on February 19, 2013 and lodged Knowledge (FRE §602); Hearsay
14 | with the Court on March 7 and 8, 2013. (FRE §§801(c), 802); Speculation
15 (FRE §602); Argumentative;
16 Assumes Facts Not In Evidence;
17 Improper Characterization of
18 Evidence; Improper Authentication
19 of Document (FRE §901).
20
21
22 | Dated: March 7, 2013 WAXLER @¢CARNER @BRODSKY LLP
23
: » WM fer
25 ANDREW J. WAXLER
2% WON M. PARK
Specially Appearing for Respondent
Zi BRETT L. GIBBS
28
8