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

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

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)

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

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