Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 77 Filed 03/11/13 Pagei1of3 Page ID #:2055

1 | BENJAMIN J. FOX (CA SBN 193374 GIANCARLO UREY (CA SBN 267069) 2 | MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 555 West Fifth Street 3 | Los Angeles, California 90013-1024 Telephone: 213.892.5200 4 | Facsimile: 213.892.5454 BFox @mofo.com 5 | GUrey@mofo.com 6 | Attorneys for Non-P : VERIZON ONLINE LLC 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | INGENUITY LLC, No. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW (JCx) 12 Plaintiff, And Related Case Nos.: 2:12-cv-6636-ODW (JCx 13 Vv. 2:12-cv-6669-ODW (JCx 2:12-cv-6662-ODW (JCx 14 | JOHN DOE, 2:12-cv-6668-ODW (JCx 15 Defendant. DECLARATION OF

SEAN MORIARTY FROM VERIZON ONLINE, LLC RE: SUBPOENAS

AF HOLDINGS LITIGATION

Date: March 11, 2013 Time: 1:30 p.m. Court: Hon. Otis D. Wright

1203320

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 77 Filed 03/11/13 Page 2o0f3 Page ID #:2056

Oo Oo nN N A BP WO NY —

jh fem = = =«d CS)

I, Sean Moriarity, state and declare:

1. Tama Manager of IP Legal Compliance for Verizon Online LLC and have served in that capacity since 2008. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and if called upon to do so, I could testify competently to them.

2. My job responsibilities include assisting Verizon in responding to third-party subpoenas issued in civil litigation. During the last two years, a significant portion of my time has been devoted to responding to subpoenas issued by plaintiffs who allege to be owners of sexually explicit films and are seeking the personal identifying information for Verizon’s Internet subscribers based on a list of IP Addresses. Other Verizon employees (including in-house counsel and other staff) also have been required to expend significant time and effort in responding to these types of subpoenas and the legal and privacy issues that they raise.

b). On or about September 6, 2012, Verizon received subpoenas from plaintiff AF Holdings in AF Holdings v. John Doe, C.D. Cal. Case No. 12-cv-6669 and AF Holdings v. John Doe, C.D. Cal. Case No. 12-cv-6636. True and correct copies of these subpoenas are attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

Verizon processed these subpoenas in the ordinary course.

4. Based on Verizon’s records, it does not appear that Verizon received from AF Holdings or its counsel a copy of the Court’s Order Vacating Prior Early Discovery Order and Order to Show Cause dated October 19, 2012, nor does it appear that Verizon received other form of notice that the subpoenas attached as Exhibits A and B had been withdrawn or were invalid. If Verizon had received such notice, we would not have processed these subpoenas for AF Holdings.

5. [have reviewed a declaration filed by Brett Gibbs in this litigation, dated February 19, 2013, in which Mr. Gibbs states:

Following receipt of the October 19,2012 Orders, I caused the Court’s October 19, 2012 Orders to be served on the registered agents for service of process of Verizon Online

1203320

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 77 Filed 03/11/13 Page 3of3 Page ID #:2057

1D co ~) NA UNA BP WO NO =

LLC to ensure that Verizon Online LLC had notice not to

respond to the subpoenas that had already been served. (Gibbs Decl. dated Feb. 19, 2013, at { 21 [Dkt. 50].) Again, based on Verizon’s records, this statement appears to be wrong.

6. Verizon released the information responsive to AF Holdings’ subpoenas in the cases identified above (case nos. 12-cv-6669 and 12-cv-6636) by fax to the Prenda law firm on November 7, 2012. If Verizon had received notice of the Court’s Order dated October 19, 2012, we would not have released these

records to Plaintiff.

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 11, 2013 in Arlington, Virginia.

1203320