Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1of119 Page ID #:2453
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 ] STRICT OF CALIFORN ESTERN 3 HONORABLE OTI D. WRIGHT 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PRESIDING . 6 Ingenuity 13 LLC, 7 PLAINTIFF, 8 Vs. NO. CV 12-8333 ODW
9 John Doe, et al.,
DEFENDANT,
10
11
12
13 ER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEI
14 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
15 MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2013
16
17
18
19 KATIE E. THIBODEAUX, CSR 9858 U.S. Official Court Reporter
20 312 North Spring Street, #436 Los Angeles, California 90012
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 20f119 Page ID #:2454
1 EARANCES OF COUNSE
3 FOR RESPONDENT GIBBS:
4 WAXLER CARNER BRODSKY LLP BY: ANDREW J. WAXLER
5 —-and- BARRY BRODSKY 1960 E. Grand Avenue
6 Suite 1210
El Segundo, CA 90245
9 FOR DEFENDANT:
10 THE PIETZ LAW FIRM
BY: MORGAN E. PIETZ
11 3770 Highland Avenue
Suite 206
12 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
13 -and-
14 NICHOLAS RANALLO LAW OFFICES BY: NICHOLAS R. RANALLO
15 371 Dogwood Way
Boulder Creek, CA 95006
18 SPECIALLY APPEARING:
19 KLINEDINST LAW OFFICES BY: HEATHER ROSING
20 501 W. Broadway Suite 600
21 San Diego, CA 92101
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 3o0f119 Page ID #:2155
3 WITNESS NAME
4 Alan Cooper
Direct Examination by the Court
5 Direct Examination by Mr. Pietz Cross—-Examination by Mr. Brodsky
6 Bart Huffman 7 Direct Examination by Mr. Pietz 8 Benjamin Fox Direct Examination by Mr. Pietz 9 Jessie Nason 10 Direct Examination by Mr. 11 Brad Gibbs Direct Examination by Mr. Waxler 12 Cross-Examination by Mr. Pietz 13 14 D's IN EVID. 15 37 37 16 44 17 50 18 1 67 1 68 19 ] 73 1 1 107 20 al 1 108 1 110 21 22 23 24 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 4of119 Page ID #:2456
LOS ANGELE DAY, MARCH 11, 2013
THE CLERK: Calling Item No. 4, CV 12-8333-ODW,
CV 12-6662, ODW, CV 12-6668, Ingenuity 13 LLC versus John
Doe, additionally, CV 12-6636 ODW, CV 12-6669, AF
Holdings LLC versus John Doe. Counsel, please state your appearances.
MR. WAXLER: Andrew Waxler, your Honor, and Barry
Brodsky for Mr. Gibbs who is present in the courtroom. Thank you.
THE COURT: Good afternoon, counsel.
MR. PIETZ: Good afternoon, your Honor. Morgan
Pietz, P-I-E-T-Z, for the putative John Doe defendant in
12-CV-8333.
MR. RANALLO: Nicholas Ranallo, co-counsel for the same Doe.
THE COURT: All right. Gentlemen, thank you.
All right. We are here in response to an OSC
set by this court as to why sanctions should not be
imposed for various violations including Rule 11 and
Local Rule 83-3.
I have received from Mr. Waxler on behalf of
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page5of119 Page ID #:24157
1 Mr. Gibbs his response, supplemental response, a number
2 of documents. Spent the weekend reading a depo which was
3 perhaps the most informative thing I have read in this
4 litigation so far primarily because of what you didn't
5 want revealed. So, in any event, I have extended an
6 offer to all of the principles concerned to offer them an 7 opportunity to explain.
8 It is my understanding that they have declined
9 that invitation. Therefore -- 10 MS. ROSING: Your Honor?
11 COURT: And you are?
12 . ROSING: If I may approach.
13 COURT: Please.
14 MS. ROSING: My name is Heather Rosing, and I
15 filed an ex parte application with this court. 16 THE COURT: When? 17 MS. ROSING: Friday?
18 COURT: When?
LY MS. ROSING: It was filed I believe at 3:54 p.m.?
20 THE COURT: Guaranteed for the court to actually
21 see it; right? Was it electronically filed?
22 MS. ROSING: The local rule says we're not 23 allowed —-
24 THE COURT: Answer my question. Was it
25 electronically filed?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 6 of119 Page ID #:4158
1 MS. ROSING: No. Because we are not allowed to,
2 your Honor. 3 THE COURT: Okay. So what you did is you took it 4 downstairs to the intake window?
5) MS. ROSING: Yes, your Honor?
6 THE COURT: Late Friday afternoon addressing a
7 matter that is set for hearing on Monday morning?
8 MS. ROSING: My clients received notice of this on 9 Thursday, your Honor. We received notice on Thursday? 10 THE COURT: I am just asking you a question. You 11 can answer it "yes" or "no". 12 MS. ROSING: I'm sorry. Could you repeat the 13 question.
14 THE COURT: What is -- why are you here?
15 MS. ROSING: Again, my name is Heather Rosing with
16 the Klinedinst PC law firm. I am specially appearing for
17 four of those people that received this notice on
18 Thursday, Angela Van Den Hemel, a paralegal at Prenda
19 law —-
20 THE COURT: Is this the long way of saying they 21 are not going to be here?
22 MS. ROSING: I'm sorry. I was just telling you
23 who I represent, your Honor?
24 THE COURT: Are they here?
25 MS. ROSING: No, your Honor.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 7 of 119 Page ID #:2459
1 THE COURT: Have a seat.
2 MS. ROSING: May I just finish?
3 THE COURT: Have a seat.
4 Bottom line is the court is going to end up
5 drawing its own inferences from the information it
6 actually has. An opportunity to be heard is all that is
7 required. If you don't wish to exercise that, fine.
8 There was so much obstruction during the
9 course of this deposition that it is obvious that someone
10 has an awful lot to hide. This has actually raised far
11 more questions of fraud than the court originally had,
12 but we will get to that later.
13 Initially, I have got a number of questions
14 regarding some of the filings that have been made with AS) the court.
16 I guess, Mr. Waxler, I guess you will be the
17 e that is addressing some of these things. One of my
18 estions is this. Why is it that in every single one of
LY ese cases there is a form attached to the complaint
20 that asks for whether or not there are any related cases.
21 I have got a partial list of all of these cases that have
22 been filed in the Central District. None of them have 23 indicated that there are any related cases.
24 Could you tell me why?
25 MR. WAXLER: Well, your Honor, the downloads are
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 8 of119 Page ID #:4160
done by separate infringers, and the plaintiffs, yes,
obviously, were a lot the same, and I believe that the
decision had been made that it didn't require the related
case filings to be made.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WAXLER: Perhaps that was in error, your Honor, aS we sit here today.
THE COURT: Let me ask a question then. Let's
just say on one date, that date being July 2nd of 2012,
four lawsuits were filed by AF Holdings LLC versus John
Doe all seeking a remedy for the infringement of the same movie Popular Demand. Now, can you tell me how on earth these aren't
related?
MR. WAXLER: Well, they are obviously related in the sense that —-
THE COURT: That is what I thought, too. And that is what this entire list is. Okay. They are all related, but that box was always checked no. And then we
are going to get to something separate in a minute, and
that is the issue of who has an interest, a financial
interest in the outcome of these cases. We will look at
this shortly.
There is the issue of the court having vacated
and quashed the subpoenas that were served on various
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 9of119 Page ID #:2161
1 ISP's, and, then, of course, I have gotten other 2 responses to the OSC saying, well, we didn't know that
3 that meant we couldn't do other forms of discovery. And,
4 by the way, we sent out a copy of the court's order to
5 the various ISP's letting them know that the court had
6 withdrawn those orders and surely that is not the conduct 7 of someone who was trying to disobey the court's order. 8 And I had to agree. Sounded reasonable. 9 Have you all seen the declaration of Sean 10 Moriarty from Verizon? 11 MR. WAXLER: Your Honor, we saw it this morning, 12 13 THE COURT: Okay. Good. 14 And what say you because he responds directly 15 to Mr. Gibbs' assertion that the ISP's were given notice 16 not to respond to the subpoenas. He says this didn't 17 happen, that they didn't receive notice. 18 MR. WAXLER: May I respond to that, your Honor? Lg THE COURT: Sure. 20 MR. WAXLER: Mr. Gibbs -- Prenda Law is one of 21 the, is one of the e-mail addresses that received a copy
22. of your October 19th, 2012 order. As does Mr. Gibbs. 23 Mr. Gibbs had a conversation with Mr. Hansmeier and told 24 him that he thought that this order should be served on
25 the ISP's. Mr. Hansmeier advised Mr. Gibbs that that
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 10o0f119 Page ID #2162
1 would be done. Mr. Hansmeier later advised Mr. Gibbs
2 that his request had been taken care of.
3 Now, if you read page, Paragraph 4 at Line 18
4 and 19 of the declaration, all it says is based on the
5 Verizon records, it does not appear that Verizon received 6 from AF Holdings or its counsel a copy of the order. It
7 does not say they did not. And Verizon, like these other
8 ISP's, has a history of, as I understand it, eliminating
9 its records from their systems soon after, like within 30
10 days. CT Corporation receives the subpoenas. That was
11 who was supposed to be served, and they have a history of
12 not keeping them in their records for very long. 13 THE COURT: So they eliminate their documents
14 pretty much the way Mr. Gibbs eliminates the original
15 signed application from Alan Cooper?
16 MR. WAXLER: Mr. Gibbs never had the original
17 Signed verification from Mr. Cooper. Mr. Gibbs was told
18 by Prenda Law that they had it. So Mr. Gibbs was never
19 in possession of that document, and Mr. Gibbs did not 20 lose that document, your Honor.
21 THE COURT: One other thing you didn't really make
22 clear, was it only that document or was the entire file 23 lost? 24 MR. WAXLER: I don't know the answer to that.
25 THE COURT: Okay. So here is the deal. So what
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 11o0f119 Page ID #2163
1 we have got, we have got CT Systems destroying the order
2 and the cover letter or transmittal of that order to
3 Verizon; right? But they have got everything else. They
4 have got all the other letters and the subpoena and all
5 that sort of thing. So the only thing they have gotten
6 rid of it just the order quashing the subpoena; right?
7 MR. WAXLER: No, your Honor. CT Corporation is
8 the agent for service of process. 9 THE COURT: I know who they are. 10 MR. WAXLER: CT Corporation may have received
11 that, and I am just saying their history is they don't
12 keep records for very long of having received subpoenas
13 or service of those. The other documents which are
14 attached to this declaration I believe since it was
LS given to me about an hour, actually 15 minutes ago out
16 there; I saw part of it online -—- are documents that were
17 exchanged between Verizon directly and others. So they
18 weren't going through CT Corporation. So that is the
19 difference, your Honor.
20 THE COURT: You are saying, then, that the notice 21 to Verizon that that subpoena had been quashed by the
22 court went to CT and not to Verizon?
23 MR. WAXLER: That is their agent for service of
24 process. That is who they served. That is who
25 Mr. Gibbs, when he talked to Mr. Hansmeier, said please
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 12 o0f119 Page ID #2164
1. serve this order on them, and that is what Mr. Gibbs
2 understands was done.
3 THE COURT: Okay. Was the order served in the
4 same way that the subpoena was served?
5 MR. WAXLER: That would be our understanding.
6 mean, it was served on CT Corporation. That is how the 7 subpoena was served on CT Corporation.
8 THE COURT: So the subpoena and all the various
9 letters, et cetera, that emanated from Prenda Law to
10 Verizon were served on CT Systems; right?
11 MR. WAXLER: No. As I understand it, your Honor,
12 the e-mails that may appear here were exchanged between 13 Verizon directly, once they got the subpoena, and members 14 of Prenda Law. The only thing that would have gone
15 through CT Corporation was the service of the original
16 subpoena and a copy of the order.
17 THE COURT: All right. I am only going by the
18 declaration of Mr. Moriarty. This is under tab, Exhibit
19 A. The letter, Prenda Law, see that, September 5th? It 20 says via hand delivery.
21 MR. WAXLER: I see that.
22 THE COURT: All right. Enclosed please find a 23 subpoena and attachment. So I am assuming that the
24 subpoena was also hand delivered. It doesn't say to
25 whom. Is this to CT?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 13 0f119 Page ID #2165
i. MR. WAXLER: That is our understanding, your
2
3 THE COURT: So what we have is a situation or at 4 least you are guessing, you are guessing that everything 5 seeking information from Verizon arrived intact, but the 6 order withdrawing or quashing that subpoena somehow got
7 misplaced.
8 MR. WAXLER: There is no evidence before this
9 court that Verizon did not receive that subpoena, that
10 order from this court. I can tell you that Mr. Gibbs'
11 intent was that that order be served so that they did
12 receive it. And it was always his understanding until he
13 saw the declarations in the filings by Mr. Pietz that
14 some of the ISP's did not receive a copy of that order.
15 THE COURT: It is also my understanding that I
16 guess a paralegal in the employ of one of these law firms
17 began following up with these Internet service providers
18 inquiring as to why certain information had not been
LY provided pursuant to those subpoenas. 20 MR. WAXLER: And Mr. Gibbs read that for the first
21 time when the declarations were submitted in connection
22 with this OSC and was very surprised by it because he 23 understood, as he does today, that the order by this 24 court was served on CT Corporation and then would have
25 been transmitted to Verizon.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 14 0f119 Page ID #2166
1 THE COURT: Okay. All right. There is a number
2 of things, Mr. Waxler, which you state in your papers
3 that I wanted to ask you about. In more than one place,
4 you indicate that Ingenuity 13 LLC and AF Holdings, et
5 cetera, have assets which consist of without limitation 6 their intellectual property rights in some of these
7 films. What other assets?
8 MR. WAXLER: AF Holdings and Ingenuity -- AF
9 Holdings, at least, received the assignment. So they
10 have those property rights, and the companies would have
ihe
11 obviously the right to, or rather the settlement funds
12 that were paid on some of these matters would have been
13 property of those companies.
14 But as I understand it from Mr. Hansmeier's
15 deposition which I, too, read over the weekend, that the
16 trust accounts of some of the lawyers were holding those
17 settlement funds. Whether those settlement funds ever
18 made it to AF Holdings or Ingenuity 13, all I can do,
19 your Honor, is rely on what Mr. Hansmeier says because we
20 have no independent knowledge of it and nor does 21 Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Gibbs did not receive those funds. Those 22. funds were sent to Prenda Law.
23 THE COURT: So you are telling me what you know is
24 what you gleaned from this this weekend pretty much as
25 the court did; right?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 15o0f119 Page ID #2167
1 MR. WAXLER: Well, I mean, Mr. Gibbs may have more
2 knowledge than specifically what Mr. Hansmeier said.
3 THE COURT: Oh. Mr. Hansmeier has no knowledge of
4 anything. So I just want to know if you got what the
5 court got which is the only entities which apparently
6 make any claim whatsoever to these settlement funds are
7 the law firms. There appears to be no effort whatsoever
8 of transmitting any of these funds to the so-called 9 clients, Ingenuity 13 and AF Holdings, who don't file
10 income taxes anywhere because as Mr. Hansmeier says they
11 have no income. 12 Is that what you got? That is what I got.
13 MR. WAXLER: I thought that Mr. Hansmeier said
14 they didn't file income taxes because they were not
15 required in where they were domiciled, but you may be 16 right and I may be wrong.
17 THE COURT: No. He quite clearly said they have
18 filed income taxes anywhere.
19 MR. WAXLER: I understand that. I just thought it
20 was a different reason for not filing them.
21 THE COURT: Well, probably because they don't do 22 anything, do they?
23 MR. WAXLER: Well, they in hearing from Mr -—- in
24 reading from what Mr. Hansmeier says, they obviously own
25 valid copyrights, and those entities retain law firms
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 16 of 119 Page ID #2168
1 like Prenda Law, apparently, to file actions such as the 2 ones that are at issue today.
3 THE COURT: They retain firms? Seriously?
4 You can hardly keep a straight face, can you? 5 MR. WAXLER: No, your Honor. 6 THE COURT: These entities were basically created
7 by these lawyers; right? They have no business. They
8 have no employees. They have no function really. They
9 are not even really a shell, are they? 10 MR. WAXLER: I don't know, your Honor.
11 THE COURT: The law firms are basicall
12 prosecuting these actions on their own behal
13 | they? 14 MR. WAXLER: Mr. Gibbs never had any client
15 contact with those clients. Mr. Gibbs received
16 information from Mr. Hansmeier and Mr. Steele, and
17 individuals advised Mr. Gibbs that they had talked
18 clients.
19 THE COURT: Hansmeier and Steele, are
20 individuals to whom you refer in your papers
21 senior partners in the law firm.
22 MR. WAXLER: Yes, they are.
23 THE COURT: I have another question. Does
24 Mr. Gibbs have an indemnity or hold harmless agreement
25 from these senior partners? Or is he out there on his
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 17 of 119 Page ID #2169
from these partners that I am aware of.
MR. WAXLER:
THE COURT: Okay. All right.
MR. WAXLER: He was an of counsel, W -- 1099
independent contractor for Prenda Law.
He has no hold harmless agreement
y
THE COURT: All right. Now, the court is coming
to the conclusion, and this is why it has been wonderful
to have someone here to disabuse me of the notion that
all of
the lawyers, that all of the settlement funds inure
fF these lawsuits are being prosecut
ted on behalf of
solely to the benefit of the lawyers because not dime
one has been transmitted to AF Holdings or to Ingenuity
iehA
Now, if there is information to rebut that, I
would love to hear it. But, otherwise, that is what I am
stuck with.
So now I am wondering why is it that no
disclosure has been made in this court and probably in
none of the
federal courts that the lawyers have a
pecuniary interest in the outcome of these cases?
Mr.
se
en
MR. WAXLER:
ttlement
I don't believe that that is what
Gibbs understands the case to be. The fact tha
t the
funds were not transmitted as of yet to
held in trust for those entities. Mr. Gibbs has no
those
tities doesn't mean those settlement funds aren't being
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 18 of 119 Page ID #2170
information whatsoever, your Honor, to understand
anything different than what I just described.
MR. BRODSKY: Your Honor, may I interject one
COURT: Sure. Your name again? BRODSKY: Barry Brodsky.
COURT: All right. Go ahead, sir.
MR. BRODSKY: My understanding and it is only from
reading the same deposition transcript was that those funds remained in the trust accounts of the various law
firms that were representing the companies to defray
future expenses.
THE COURT: And what were those expenses other
filing fees?
MR. BRODSKY: I would assume they would be filing
fees, investigative fees, you know, basically that. THE COURT: To —- oKay.
MR. BRODSKY: But that is just my reading of the
deposition.
THE COURT: Okay. And after that is done, then
MR. BRODSKY: Apparently -- well, we don't know where that trail ends, whether that trail has ended. But we do know this. We know that none of those funds
reached Mr. Gibbs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 19 of 119 Page ID #2171
1 THE COURT: And we also know none of those funds
2 reached Ingenuity 13 and AF Holdings.
3 MR. BRODSKY: Apparently, from Mr. Hansmeier's
4 testimony, that is correct.
5 THE COURT: Who was the corporate designee, the
6 30(b) (6) designee for AF Holdings; right?
7 MR. BRODSKY: Yes.
8 THE COURT: And none of those funds ever reached
9 AF Holdings.
10 MR. BRODSKY: According to him, that's correct.
11 THE COURT: All these lawsuits settled on behalf 12 of AF Holdings; right? But they reside in the law firm's
13 trust account.
14 MR. BRODSKY: Some obviously were settled, yes.
15 THE COURT: You know what was really interesting,
16 a lawsuit handled by law firm A, the settlement funds
1} then are transmitted to law firm B's trust account, law
18 firm B being controlled by Mr. Steele. I don't know.
19 just find these things curious. 20 All right. Any other light to be shed on some
21 of the court's concerns with respect to this foolishness
22 here because by the way, is there a Mr. Cooper here?
23 MR. PIETZ: Your Honor, Mr. Cooper is in
24 attendance today, and I believe prepared to confirm that
25 these documents are founded on forgeries.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 20 of 119 Page ID #2172
THE COURT: Is there an Alan Cooper in the
courtroom? Don't be shy. Come forward, sir.
(The witness was sworn.)
THE CLERK: Thank you. Have a seat.
THE COURT: By the way, while we are on the
subject, is there a Mark Lutz in the courtroom as well?
Is either Hansmeier in the courtroom?
MS. ROSING: Your Honor, I am the attorney
specially appearing for them and if I could finish my
request?
THE COURT: I just want to know if they are here.
MS. ROSING: They are not physically here, your
THE COURT: Thank you. Good.
MR. PIETZ: Your Honor, my understanding was that
Ms. Rosing was representing one of the Hansmeiers. Is
that different, or are you also representing Peter
Hansmeier? MS. ROSING: I did not have an opportunity to say,
but I do not represent Peter Hansmeier.
THE COURT: I didn't think you would be. The
technician? I didn't think you would be.
MR. WAXLER: Your Honor, while those individual
are not present, my understanding is they are availabl
by phone.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 21 0f119 Page ID #2173
THE COURT: Is that right. Okay. I may take them
up on that. Maybe. Anyway.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY THE COURT: Mr. Cooper, your name is Alan Cooper? Yes, sir. And where do you reside, sir?
sle, Minnesota.
sle, Minnesota. Do you have any connection -—- let
me just ask you specifically, do you have any connection
with Mr. Gibbs? No, sir.
Ever met Mr. Gibbs bet!
about Paul Hansmeier, any connection with him?
meet him bet
about John Steele?
What was your connection with Mr. Steele?
I was a caretaker for a piece of property that he had in Northern Minnesota.
Q And when was this?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 22 of 119 Page ID #2174
A
I think from 2006 till last August.
You worked for him from 2006 until August of 2012?
No, I did not work for him. I was a caretaker for
his piece of property. He had two houses. I lived in
one and then took care of everything else there.
Okay. And he paid you? No. Who paid you?
There was no pay. It was I lived in the one house,
took care of everything on the property for free.
Or in exchange for a place to live? Yes.
All right. So you didn't have to pay for your
housing; correct?
A
Q
Correct.
So in exchange for housing on the property, you
took care of his property?
Yes. And this was a deal you negotiated with Mr. Steele? Yes.
All right.
It is in a lease agreement that we have.
All right. I guess you have been advised. Matter
of fact, I have seen a letter written by an attorney who
apparently is acting on your behalf where you have become
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 23 of 119 Page ID #2175
concerned that your name is being used as a corporate
representative of some West Indian entities that you know
nothing about; is that true?
A Yes. That's correct.
Q I want you to explain. I want you to elaborate. What is it that you have heard?
A That my name is being signed and forged and used
for whatever these offices or myself personally scams
that they have going on.
Q Did you ever have a discussion with Mr. Steele
about these concerns of yours?
A He had, on one of his trips up to the cabin, all he
had said was if anybody contacts you about any of my law firm or anything that has to do with me, don't answer and call me.
Q Had he ever given you any advance notice that he was contemplating embarking on -- let me back up. Do you
know what his legal specialty was, say, back in 2006?
What kind of law was he practicing?
A When I had first met him, he was still in law school.
Q In law school. All right. And, then, what area of
practice did he go into if you know?
A He had originally said divorce, family law.
Q Family : 1 right. Did he ever indicate to
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 24 of 119 Page ID #2176
1 you that he was contemplating embarking on a different
2 specialty in the law?
3 A Yes.
4 Q And best as you can recall, what was this new
5 specialty?
6 A Internet porn buyers. I don't know exactly how to 7 word it for you.
8 Oh. Internet porn piracy sounds pretty good. All 9 10 Do you recall anything he said about that? 11 far as? 12 Q Anything about this new venture, this new method of 13 practicing law. 14 A I tried not to talk to him very much, but what he 15 had -- what he had said on one of his trips was his goal
16 was $10,000 a day, to have a mailing of these letters. 17 Q What letters?
18 A To people that illegally downloaded on the
19 Internet. 20 Did he explain what these letters would say and who
21 letters would be sent to?
22 I am not very Internet savvy myself, so it would be
ef og
DOr
23 whoever downloaded something that they weren't paying
24 or illegal. I don't know exactly how this works. That
25 he would just send out a letter stating that if they
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 250f 119 Page ID #2177
1 didn't send a check for a certain amount, that he would
2 make it public to these people's family and friends what 3 they were looking at.
4 Q I see. Okay. Is that all you can remember him
5 saying about this new venture?
6 A At this time. Yes.
7 Q 11 right. Now, let's put this in context. He
8 basically told you that if you started getting any
9 inquiry, that you were to, what, call him or direct the
10 callers to him?
11 A To contact personally, personally contact him.
12 Q Okay. Now, back up. f you received any calls or
13 inquiries regarding what?
14 A He said anything that seemed out of place. 15 Q And you took that to mean what?
16 A I took that to mean the very next day I went and
17 talked to my father-in-law which is a retired sheriff and
18 talked to him, and he said until anybody contacts you, he
19 goes we have nothing to go to the court system with.
20 And did that change?
21 I never heard anything from anybody.
22 All right. So no one ever contacted you?
23 No.
24 And so what is it that made you go off and hire
25 . Paul Godfread?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 26 of 119 Page ID #2178
A I had received a text asking if this was my
Signature on a particular document, and I said no. And
that is when I was given a number to call an attorney to make sure that this didn't come back towards me. Q All right. I am going to assume that that copy of
that document is probably in court; right?
MR. PIETZ: Referring now to the copyright assignment agreement, your Honor?
THE COURT: Right.
MR. PIETZ: Correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me turn this over to you,
Go ahead.
MR. PIETZ: Okay. Thank you, your Honor.
f it please the court, I have some documents
which I can show on the monitor including to Mr. Cooper.
I just want to make sure we have both the copyright assignments.
MR. PIETZ: Are the monitors arrayed so that the court can see them?
THE COURT: Yes. The court has its own. We got
that before the sequester.
MR. PIETZ: All right.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PIETZ:
Q Mr. Cooper, my name is attorney Morgan Pietz.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 27 of 119 Page ID #2179
Thank you for coming here today.
Did anyone ever ask you to become a corporate
representative of AF Holdings LLC? A No.
Q Did anybody ever ask you to become a corporate
representative of Ingenuity 13 LLC? A No.
QO Mr. Cooper, now, I would like to show you some
documents, and Mr. Ranallo I believe just passed out
copies of the first. So what we have here is a
complaint.
It is one of the consolidated cases presently
before the court. For the record, it is Civil Action No.
212 CV 6636, an action filed here in the Central District
of California.
Mr. Cooper, have you ever seen this complaint before? A No.
Q I am going to skip now to the last page of this
complaint or actually it is not quite the last page. It
is the last page of the main document, or, sorry, it is
actually Exhibit B to the complaint. Here is the first
page of Exhibit B, now, Mr. Cooper.
It says copyright assignment agreement
top, and then I will note for the record that the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 28 of 119 Page ID #2180
i. copyright at issue is Popular Demand which it states in
2 the first paragraph. Moving down to the second page of 3 the agreement, Mr. Cooper, you will note that there is a 4 Signature on the right where it says Alan Cooper.
5 Is that your signature, sir?
6 No. That is not.
7 You are quite sure about that?
8 Yes. I use a middle initial.
9 Mr. Cooper, I would like to show you a similar
10 document which has appeared in a different case. What we
11 have here is a copyright assignment agreement. This is
12 for a different AF Holdings copyright styled Sexual
13 Obsession which it lists in the first paragraph. For the
14 record, this is Northern District of California No. 12 CV 15 2048.
16 Mr. Cooper, I am going to turn now to the
17 second page of this copyright assignment agreement, or I
18 guess it would be the third page. There is a signature
LY there on the right that says Alan Cooper.
20 Is that your signature, sir?
21 A No, it is not.
22 Q Did anybody ever ask you to become a corporate 23 representative or otherwise involved with a company 24 called AF Films LLC?
25 A No.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 29 of 119 Page ID #2181
And you are quite sure that is not your signature? Very sure it is not mine.
QO Mr. Cooper, I would like to show you now another
document, and I will note for the record that this is a
verified petition to perpetuate testimony filed in the
Eastern District of California, 12 CV 8333, have you ever
seen this document before, Mr. Cooper, prior to within
the last couple of days? A No.
MR. WAXLER: Your Honor, I would like to object to that question.
THE COURT: Object to the question as to whether
or not he has seen the document?
MR. WAXLER: Well, this inquiry is beyond the
scope of the OSC. The OSC is about four cases that was
filed in the Central District of California. Now, we
have heard about a Northern District case and Eastern District case that he is being questioned about which we did not address in our papers, and it is not what this OSC is about.
THE COURT: Well, it has become about it. It has
become about fraudulent filings in federal court.
MR. PIETZ: IT would add, your Honor, tha
goes to a pattern and practice.
Q Mr. Cooper, looking now at the verified petition, I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 30 of 119 Page ID #2182
am going to skip to the last page. You will note tha
is signed by Mr. Gibbs. On this page which reads at
top notarized verification, there is a slash S,
type-printed signature that says Alan Cooper, and it says
Alan Cooper, Manager of Ingenuity 13 LLC. Did you ever sign a notarized verification for document? No, I did not.
Did you ever give anyone permission to sign your
for you on this document? No.
MR. PIETZ: Mr. Ran, would you pass out Exhibit
53. I will note for the record that I am moving now to
what has been previously filed with this court as Exhibit
S which is the declaration of Nicholas Ranallo in
opposition to a motion to shorten time filed in the
Northern District of California. And I am going to move
now to an exhibit to this motion. It is actually the second to last page in that
filing, Exhibit S, and what we are looking at is a
business entity detail for an entity called VPR, Inc.
from the Minnesota Secretary of State website. Q Mr. Cooper, you will note there that under officers, it says Alan Cooper and it lists an address of
4532 East Villa Teresa Drive, Phoenix, Arizona, 85032.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 31 o0f119 Page ID #2183
1 Mr. Cooper, have you ever been to Arizona? 2 No, I haven't.
3 So that is not your residence, is it?
4 No.
5 Do you have any knowledge of that address
6 whatsoever?
7 A No, I do not.
8 Did anybody ever ask you to be the president of 9 10 11 Q Did anybody ask you to be any other role in 12 connection with that company? 13 A No. 14 Q Mr. Cooper, I am going to move now to what has been
15 previously identified in the record as Exhibit T. What
16 we have here is a notissues.com registration.
17 Mr. Cooper, did you ever register an Internet
18 domain name called notissues.com or perhaps it is
19 pronounced notissues.com?
20 A No, I did not.
21 Q I am going to zoom in now. Mr. Cooper, I will note 22 that on the second page it says registrant Alan Cooper, 23 and it lists that same Phoenix address that we mentioned 24 a moment ago. Am I correct in presuming that there where
25 it says administrative contact, and it lists the e-mail
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 32 of 119 Page ID #2184
address, johnsteele@gmail.com. Am I correct in assuming
that johnsteele@gmail.com is not your e-mail address, Mr. Cooper?
A No, it is not.
Q Mr. Cooper, after you hired attorney Paul Godfread,
and he let the other side know that he was going to be representing you in actions in Minnesota, did you hear from John Steele?
A Yes. He called me twice and left two voicemails and sent me two texts.
Q So this was after Mr. Godfread let Prenda know that
he was your attorney; isn't that correct? A Q How many times in a row did Mr. Steele call you
when that happened?
A I think five or six times right in a row.
QO And that was, more or less, to your understanding,
was that more or less immediately after your attorney
Paul Godfread let the other side know that he was going
to be representing you?
Yes. It was right after Paul let him know.
Within a matter of minutes, would you say, sir?
Yes.
Have you heard from Mr. Steele recently,
Cooper?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 33 of 119 Page ID #2185
A He had left two other voicemails on my phone and
two other texts within the last couple of weeks, I think it was.
Q And, more recently than that, have you heard from him again?
A Yes. Yeah. There was a two week spell between them that he had called me twice.
Q And, Mr. Cooper -- pardon me, I didn't mean to
interrupt you. Go ahead, sir.
A He left four voicemails altogether and four text
messages.
Q And, Mr. Cooper, my understanding is that you
brought copies of these voicemails to potentially play
for the court; is that correct, sir?
f the court will indulge me a moment, I will play
those into the microphone for the record. THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PIETZ: If it is okay with the court, I would
like to ask Mr. Stoltz to assist me with this. He is the
brains of the operation on the technology here.
Apologize, your Honor. We are starting from the beginning. (Audio recording played.)
BY MR. PIETZ: Mr. Cooper, have you spoken with John
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 34 of 119 Page ID #2186
1 Steele enough times to recognize his voice?
2 A Oh, yeah. That is his voice. That is him.
3 Q So that was Mr. Steele on those recordings that we 4 just heard a moment ago?
5
6 The three lawsuits that Mr. Steele was referring
7 to, do you think he means the three defamation cases
8 recently filed against you and your attorney, Paul
9 Godfread by John Steele, Paul Duffy and Prenda Law in
10 Florida, the Northern District of Illinois and the
11 Central District of
Tllinois? Do you think that is what
12 he was talking about?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Mr. Cooper, I, for my part, don't have anything
15 further. Perhaps the court does, but, before I step
16 down, I would like to thank you for coming here today? 17 THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.
18 MR. BRODSKY: Very briefly, your Honor. Thank 19
20
21 CROSS—-EXAMINATION
22 BY MR. BRODSKY: 23 Q Mr. Cooper, you have never met Mr. Gibbs; is that 24 correct?
25 A Yes.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 35o0f 119 Page ID #2187
QO And you have never spoken to him as well; is that correct? A No, I have not. Q And you have exchanged no correspondence with him whatsoever; is that correct? A That is correct. Q Do you know a gentleman by the name of Grant Berry, B-E-R-R-Y? A Yes, I do.
Who is Mr. Berry?
He is the one that introduced me to John when I was
selling my house.
Q And what type of relationship if any do you have
with Mr. Berry?
He was the realtor for -- he was a realtor that I
for selling my house.
And did you ever tell or ask Mr. Steele in Berry's presence how is my porn company doing? I have not.
sure about that?
BRODSKY: Thank you, your Honor. Nothing further. THE COURT: All right. Same questions that he
asked with respect to -- what about Mr. Paul Duffy, do
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 36 of 119 Page ID #2188
1 you know him? 2 THE WITNESS: No, I do not.
3 THE COURT: Ever heard of him?
4 THE WITNESS: Through these things that are going | on, yes. 6 THE COURT: All right.
7 THE WITNESS: That way only.
8 THE COURT: All right. Anyone else? 9 MR. PIETZ: Your Honor, just very briefly, as a
10 technical matter, I would like to ask that the documents
11 I went through with Mr. Cooper be admitted into evidence.
12 That was the copyright assignment with Popu
13 Demand. I would ask that that be admitted into eviden
14 as Exhibit 1. The copyright assignment agreement for
15 sexual obsession, I would ask that that be admitted as
16 Exhibit 2. The verified petition in the Eastern District
17 of California matter previously identified in this action
18 as Exhibit L, I would ask that it be admitted now as
19 trial Exhibit 3. The declaration from Mr. Ranallo which
20 has the printout for VPR, Inc. previously filed here as
21 Exhibit S, I would ask that be admitted as trial Exhibit
22 4. And the notissues.com registration previously
23 identified here as Exhibit T, I would ask be admitted as
24 trial Exhibit 5.
25 THE COURT: Any objection?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 37 of 119 Page ID #2189
MR. BRODSKY: Yes, your Honor. As to Exhibits 3, 4 and 5, we would object on the ground of relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained. All right. Everything
else comes in. What about the audio? Is there a
transcript of the audio? MR. PIETZ: Your Honor, we can prepare it.
COURT: Would you. Thank you.
MR. PIETZ: We would be happy to, and we will lodge it with the court, your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Okay. That will be received as well. All right. Anything, gentlemen? Nothing. You may step down, sir. Appreciate coming.
MR. PIETZ: Your Honor, at this time, I think it
might be helpful for me to suggest a few other things
that I am prepared to discuss today for the court. We
have heard from Mr. Cooper. What I might propose now is turning to
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Gibbs has noted in his declaration or
attempted to characterize himself as merely a, quote,
independent contract attorney for Prenda Law. I am
prepared to present evidence today showing that, in fact,
Mr. Gibbs is really what amounts to a de facto chief
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 38 of 119 Page ID #2190
1 operating officer of Prenda Law. And I have a number of
2 documents and exhibits I am prepared to go through with 3 Mr. Gibbs on that account.
4 In addition, I am prepared to show through
5 cross-examination of Mr. Gibbs that his investigation in
6 these cases was objectively unreasonable. Although I was
7 not able to contact Mr. Larguire(phonetic) or Mr. Denton,
8 a former client of mine in a previous case who was
9 previously named by Mr. Gibbs as a result of what I view
10 as a shoddy online investigation is here to testify that
11 the main fact that Mr. Gibbs relied upon in that case 12 turned out to be completely incorrect.
13 Fourth, your Honor or I should said say third,
14 there are representatives here today from both AT&T and
15 Verizon who can conform that the court's discovery orders
16 were unambiguously violated in this case.
17 Fifth, and, finally, your Honor, if the court
18 is inclined to hear it, I am prepared to explain my
19 understanding of how Prenda is organized and present
20 evidence showing that the court does indeed have personal
21 jurisdiction over Mr. Steele, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Paul
22 Hansmeier and Ms. Angela Van Den Hemel. 23 THE COURT: Let's begin with the ISP's.
24 MR. PIETZ: Very well, I would ask now that
25 : Ffman come forward. Is he here?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 39 of 119 Page ID #2191
(The witness was sworn.)
THE CLERK: Please have a seat.
Please state your full and true name for the record, and spell your last name? THE WITNESS: My name is Bart Huffman,
H-U-F-F-M-A-N.
THE COURT: One second. THE CLERK: Counsel, I think we are going to first
have our 2:30 matter. I think it will be a little
shorter. So I am going to call the next matter and then
we will have you guys come back.
(Recess from 2:30 to 2:31 p.m.)
THE COURT: Okay. Sorry for the interruption.
Let's go back on the record in the AF Holdings, Ingenuity
13 LLC. All right. Go ahead, counsel.
MR. PIETZ: Thank you, your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. PIETZ:
Mr. Huffman, what is your job, sir?
I am an attorney.
With what firm?
Lock Lorde.
And do you represent AT&T in that capacity, sir?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 40 of 119 Page ID #2192
A Yes, I do.
Q And how long have you been —- how long have you
been representing AT&T, sir?
A I have been representing AT&T for about six or
seven years, I suppose.
Q And do you have personal familiarity with matters before AT&T that involve the Prenda law firm? A do.
Q So on a day-to-day basis over the past few years,
have you handled Prenda matters for AT&T?
A A number of them.
Q Very well. You prepared a declaration which I submitted with the court in this matter; isn't that correct, sir?
A That is correct.
Q And that declaration was based on an investigation
performed by your client, AT&T; is that correct?
A Well, that declaration recounts a series of events
where Angela Van Den Hemel who has contacted us ona
regular basis to follow-up on subpoenas contacted us with respect to the subpoenas in the case that was consolidated with others in this proceeding. And as we
looked into it, we discovered that the case had been
stayed as far as discovery goes.
QO So you are familiar, then, with this court's
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 41 0f119 Page ID #2193
1 October 19th, 2013 discovery order vacating the subpoenas
2 in the AF Holdings cases now before this court?
3 A Yes.
4 QO And as far as AT&T is aware, did Prenda in fact
5 stop seeking subpoena returns on the cases consolida
6 before this court after October 19th, 2013?
7 MR. WAXLER: Calls for speculation.
8 THE WITNESS: I am not aware that they did. AT&T
9 did not, to my knowledge, receive any notice of the order
10 and furthermore Ms. Van Den Hemel, I think I am saying
11 her name right, contacted us seeking to follow-up and
12 obtain information presumably with respect to the
13 subpoenas in that case. And we received, I should add,
14 we received, I and my firm receive the information pretty
15 much directly as it comes in from CT Corporation so with
16 respect to these type of subpoenas. 17 Q BY MR. PIETZ: So with respect to these type of
18 subpoenas, then, the receipt or non receipt by AT&T would
19 come into your office; is that correct?
20 A Typically, it would.
21 MR. WAXLER: Calls for speculation.
22 THE COURT: Hang on. What is your objection?
23 MR. WAXLER: Calls for speculation, your Honor. 24 This witness is being asked to say whether
25 AT&T received something, and I think that is speculative
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 42 of 119 Page ID #2194
for him to be able to testify as to whether AT&T might
have received it or not.
THE COURT: I understood it to be how mail is
handled in his office, but let's walk through it again.
MR. PIETZ: Very well.
Q So did your office receive a copy of the
October 19th, 2013 order vacating the subpoenas in this case?
A Not independently. When we looked on Pacer as
we -- we routinely do with respect to production requests
and the like, we found the order.
Q So your office was not served by Prenda or anybody
affiliated with Prenda with this court's October 19th discovery order?
A That is correct.
Q And did you investigate with your client, AT&T, as to whether or not AT&T received a copy of the court's
October 19th order?
A I did not specifically ask them that, no.
Q And were you contacted only the once by Angela
Van Den Hemel regarding the court's October 19th order in
this action?
A No. She contacted my paralegal twice and my
paralegal would routinely refer those type of inquiries
to me.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 43 of 119 Page ID #2195
Q So she actually asked twice for subpoena returns to
be made after the October 19th discovery order?
A That's correct. And when I looked at the Pacer
records and saw the order, I then responded to
Ms. Van Den Hemel saying that the discovery had been
stayed and we of course would not be producing discovery in the case at that time.
MR. PIETZ: I would ask that the declaration of
Bart Huffman be admitted as evidence in this hearing.
think we are on Exhibit 6. THE COURT: Okay.
THE WITNESS: And would you also want to have the
declaration of my paralegal admitted as well]
MR. PIETZ: Yes. I would ask as well that that be admitted as Exhibit 7. It is the next filing on the docket.
THE WITNESS: Camille Kerr.
@) BY MR. PIETZ:Could you spell her name for the
record.
A Certainly. C-A-M-I-L-L-E, K-E-R-R.
THE COURT: All right. Any objection, gentlemen?
MR. BRODSKY: Is she going to be testifying, your
THE COURT: I have no idea.
MR. BRODSKY: Object on the ground of hearsay.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 44 0f119 Page ID #2196
THE COURT: Is she here?
Q BY MR. PIETZ: Mr. Huffman, is Ms. Kerr here today?
Bo
A Ms. Kerr is not here today. I can testify though
that I oversaw and reviewed all of the items stated in
her declaration, and they are part of our regularly kept records and they are consistent with our files, were
overseen by me at every single step and reviewed and they
are, in fact, true and correct.
Q So you are personally familiar with the facts in
Kerr's declaration? I am, and I reviewed it in detail. THE COURT: What is the substance or the subject matter?
THE WITNESS: Ms. Kerr submitted a separate
declaration simply because she was the addressee on the
e-mails from Ms. Van Den Hemel. THE COURT: All right. And her declaration
attests to?
THE WITNESS: Her declaration attests to the truth
and authenticity of the e-mails that I attached thereto.
THE COURT: That is all?
THE WITNESS: That is all.
THE COURT: All right. I will permit it.
Gentlemen?
MR. BRODSKY: No questions, your Honor.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 45 o0f119 Page ID #2197
THE COURT: All right. Sir, you may step down. Thank you.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: I do have one question.
Ms. Van Den Hemel, when you advised her that you had
learned from Pacer of the court's order quashing those subpoenas, did she sound surprised?
THE WITNESS: She never responded at all.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MR. PIETZ: Your Honor, also in attendance today
is an attorney for Verizon, Mr. Benjamin Fox. If it
please the court, I would suggest we offer him. THE COURT: Yes. Please.
(The witness was sworn.)
THE CLERK: Please have a seat. And please state
full and true name for the record and spell your name.
THE WITNESS: Benjamin Fox, F-O-X.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PIETZ:
QO Mr. Fox, what is your occupation, sir?
A I am a partner at Morrison and Foerster here in Los
Angeles. I ama lawyer.
Q And do you represent Verizon in that capacity?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 46 of 119 Page ID #2198
1
2 Q And how long have you represented Verizon in that 3 capacity?
4 A I can't tell you the date. I know that the first 5 matter was the Eastern District of California Rule 27
6 proceeding filed by Ingenuity 13, and that is the case
7 that you had a copyright assignment for that you showed
8 earlier this afternoon.
9 Q So you appeared on behalf of Verizon in that Rule
10 27 petition action in the Eastern District of California;
11 is that correct? 12 A Correct.
13 Q And I believe that was in 2011. Since then, have
14 you had occasion to deal with litigation matters
is involving the Prenda law firm? 16 A 17 Q So you have handled those issues for Verizon on a
18 day-to-day basis in the past two years?
LY A Yes. Many of them. 20 Q Very well. You prepared and submitted, filed, I
20 should say, a declaration with the court earlier today;
22 isn't that correct, sir?
23 A I prepared for Verizon and obtained a signature 24 from Mr. Sean Moriarty who is a Verizon representative in
25 Arlington, Virginia. Yes.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 47 of 119 Page ID #2199
Q So you are familiar with the facts that were
averred in the declaration filed with the court today?
A Yes, I am.
Q And did you investigate whether the facts are
correct prior to filing the document here today? A I did. Q And can you explain to me the substance of the
declaration with respect to whether or not Verizon
received a copy of the court's October 19th discovery order?
A Sure. Verizon has been the recipient of I think
literally hundreds of subpoenas from the Prenda firm, and
Verizon is a party in a DC Circuit appeal where AF
Holdings was the plaintiff based on one of the copyright
assignments that bears the name of Mr. Cooper. Verizon
is very focused on what has been happening in these cases
and has been paying close attention to it.
So if Verizon had received the October 19
order from this court, Verizon would have known that, and
I would have received it as well. My e-mail doesn't have
any record of it. I have searched. I know that Verizon
has now searched. Is there some theoretical possibility that maybe it was sent to someone at Verizon and not
forwarded to the correct people? Possible. But having
not seen anything from Mr. Gibbs that suggests it was
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 48 of 119 Page ID #2200
sent, you know, my conclusion is that it was not sent to
Verizon.
Q So, then, in terms of the usual channels, the
custom and practice, the way subpoenas would normally
come in from Verizon, did you check all of these means of
receiving subpoena information?
A I checked.
MR. WAXLER: Calls for speculation, your Honor. MR. PIETZ: Let me rephrase.
THE COURT: What is your objection?
MR. WAXLER: Calls for speculation. He is asking this witness to speculate about what Verizon's policies are in receiving subpoenas.
THE COURT: I thought you were talking about
Morrison and Foerster's policy.
MR. PIETZ: That's right. I will rephrase and make it more clear, your Honor. Let me rephrase. Q So did you personally check Morrison and
Foerster's, the way that Morrison and Foerster would
normally receive information about a subpoena? Did you check and make sure that no notice was received of the October 19th discovery order?
A Yes. I made a reasonable search, and I looked wherever that I thought was appropriate to look.
Q And you communicated with your client that you --
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 49 of 119 Page ID #2201
1 well, let me back up.
2 The gentleman who executed the declaration
3 that was filed with the court today, what was his name, 4 again, sir? 5 A Sean Moriarty.
6 Q And is that somebody you normally communicate with
7 these type of matters.
8 A
9 Q And you spoke with Mr. Moriarty, and can you
10 explain, did you have him investigate, from Verizon's 11 end, whether notice was received?
12 A The Verizon team investigated. Yes.
13 Including Mr. Moriarty?
14
15 6) Very well. And so, then, to the best of your
16 knowledge, based on both his investigation and a review 17 of Morrison and Foerster's own records, Verizon did not 18 receive a copy of the October 19th discovery order; isn't 19 that correct? 20 MR. WAXLER: Your Honor, it is basically taking 21 hearsay. Calls for speculation. He is asking the 22 witness what Verizon did. Verizon has given a 23 declaration that says it does not appear. 24 THE COURT: Overruled. 25 THE WITNESS: Correct.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 50o0f119 Page ID #2202
1 Q BY MR. PIETZ: I would ask, then, that the
2 declaration submitted by Mr. Moriarty with the court
3 earlier today be admitted into evidence as Exhibit 7. 4 Sorry. Pardon. Exhibit 8.
5 THE COURT: It will be admitted.
6 All right. Mr. Brodsky, do you wish to
7 inquire?
8 MR. BRODSKY: I do not, your Honor. I have no 9 questions. 10 THE COURT: Sir, you may step down. 11 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
12 THE COURT: All right. Now, I would also like to
13 from your former client?
14 MR. PIETZ: Very well. Mr. Nason, are you in 15 attendance today?
16 (The witness was sworn.)
17 MR. WAXLER: Your Honor, I would object to this
18 fF questioning please.
LY THE COURT: He hasn't asked any questions yet. 20 MR. WAXLER: I know that, but this witness has no
21 relevant testimony to this subject matter. He is not a
22 party to any of the four cases at issue in this OSC.
BY xg
23 is not even a federal court case that he was a defendan
24 in, your Honor. He has no relevant testimony that he
25 could state in connection with this OSC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 51o0f119 Page ID #2203
THE COURT: Maybe yes. Maybe no. If we are
a
talking about a pattern and practice, and from what I
have seen, this is a cookie-cutter litigation. Sometimes
the only thing that I see changed on the complaints are
the ISP's addresses and the name of the film, but, in all
other respects, they seem to be all the same even the
declaration from the technical expert as to what he did
in order to identify the infringer. It is the same
document. So I hear your point. If I don't find it to
be relevant, I will discard it.
MR. WAXLER: Your Honor, just for the record,
Mr. Gibbs' declaration does go through exactly the
different things that he did in order to determine
whether in the two cases that you cited in the OSC
whether he was able to locate the infringer and who that was. And there is nothing cookie cutter about that effort that he put in his declaration.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
Go ahead.
THE CLERK: Please state your full and true name for the record and spell your last name.
THE WITNESS: Jessie Nason. That is N like Nancy, A-S-O-N.
THE COURT: Go ahead, counsel.
Is that one S or two?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 52 of 119 Page ID #2204
1 THE WITNESS: One S.
2 THE COURT: All right.
3 THE WITNESS: Well, two in Jessie. Sorry. 4
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. PIETZ:
7 Q Mr. Nason, have you heard the name Brent Gibbs
8 before?
9 A 10 Q And in what context, sir? 11 A He was the lawyer who brought the case against me, 12 Lightspeed Media versus my name. 13 Q And where was that -- and I represented you in that 14 did I not, sir? 15 Correct. 16 And was that in the Los Angeles Superior Court
17 in 2012?
18 Yes.
LY I will note for the record that the case is
20 Lightspeed Media Corporation versus Jessie Nason, Los 21 Angeles Superior Court No. NC057950.
22 MR. WAXLER: Your Honor, I would like to object
23 again. This case is not even a copyright case. It was a
24 case where the individual here was alleged to --
25 THE COURT: Where are you from?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 53 0f119 Page ID #2205
MR. WAXLER: I am from Los Angeles, your Honor.
THE COURT: There are no speaking objections in Los Angeles. MR. WAXLER: I'm sorry, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. What is this case about?
MR. PIETZ: Your Honor, if I might speak to that
very briefly. What we have seen from Prenda Law is a
slightly different twist in some of their cases on
copyright litigation, and what it is is essentially an
attempt to address a copyright infringement case in state
law clothing, well, state law and the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act.
So the causes of action at issue in the
Lightspeed case was a computer fraud and abuse act claim which essentially alleges that downloading and
distributing content, and the content is nebulously
specified in the complaint amounts to Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act violations. And then there were a variety of
related claims all of which were preempted by the
Copyright Act for conversion, unjust enrichment and the like. But, really, what it was, and, in fact, and I can speak to this longer although perhaps it is getting off on a tangent, in reality what happened, was at some point somebody probably hacked into a password protected
website, but, then, Prenda started logging IP addresses
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 54 0f119 Page ID #2206
and suing people in CFAA claims even though really the
gravamen of the case was the use of BitTorrent. So it is
Similar, but, in any event, the issue in Mr. Nason's case
that I think is relevant here is the same, and that
specifically what was the investigation that was
performed prior to naming Mr. Nason as the defendant in
the case, and it is fairly bread and butter.
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
Mr. Nason, are you familiar with the reason that
Gibbs stated that he had named you as a defendant? Yes.
MR. WAXLER: Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: He said stated. You did say stated; right?
MR. PIETZ: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Overruled. QO BY MR. PIETZ: So, in any event, what was that
reason, Mr. Nason.
A I believed it to be that he supposed I lived by
fF in my apartment, and so he considered me a single
Q And, Mr. Nason, is that correct? Do you live alone? A No, I do not.
QO And who do you live with, Mr. Nason?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 55 o0f119 Page ID #2207
1 My wife of nine years.
2 Q And have you lived with her for the past 3 nine years? 4 A Correct.
5 Q So, at any point, you know, save perhaps for a
6 vacation, consistently for the past nine years, you have
7 always lived with your wife; is that correct? 8 A That's correct.
9 MR. PIETZ: That is essentially all I need from
10 Mr. Nason, your Honor. I might have some questions about
1] Mr. Gibbs, or perhaps now I could show the court the
12 section of the transcript from the hearing in the Nason
13 matter where Mr. Gibbs, when pressed by the court as to
14 how it is and why it is he justified having named
15 Mr. Nason as a defendant, Mr. Gibbs specifically stated,
16 well, because we determined that he lived alone. It is
17 just incorrect. And, indeed, the court denied my motion
18 on that basis even though it turned out to be incorrect.
19 MR. BRODSKY: Your Honor, for the record, may we
20 move to strike the testimony on the ground that it is
21 irrelevant and beyond the scope of the court's OSC. 22 THE COURT: You may step down, sir. Thank you.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
24 MR. PIETZ: I am looking for the specific
25 section of the transcript.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 56 of 119 Page ID #2208
THE COURT: Don't worry about it.
MR. PIETZ: All right. I can find it afterwards.
Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let's now switch to the
jurisdictional issue.
MR. PIETZ: Oh, you know what, your Honor, I have
here the actual original copy of the transcript which perhaps I will lodge with the court and move to mark as
Exhibit 9, I believe we are on.
THE COURT: Okay. MR. PIETZ: And, Mr. Ranallo, if you can find the
pin cite, we will go ahead and add it.
May I approach to give this to the clerk, your
MR. WAXLER: We would object to the inclusion of that transcript as an exhibit.
THE COURT: I will take a look at it. We will
Where was this? Was this in Torrance? MR. PIETZ: Yes, it was, your Honor. Judge
Vicencia.
THE COURT: Small world. My old court reporter.
MR. PIETZ: I am just looking now for the diagram
which I think will assist in explaining all of this.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 57 of 119 Page ID #2209
We seem to be a bit off kilter there, don't
Interesting. Well, in any event --
MR. WAXLER: What exhibit is this?
MR. PIETZ: Yes. Marked as —-- I will tell you in just a moment. Double H, previously on the record.
In any event, perhaps less useful than I hoped
it would be, but I can at least talk the court through it.
THE What is your source? I mean, electronic
MR. This is a demonstrative exhibit, your
I know that. What are you using,
It is Trial Pad on my iPad, your
It is on your iPad?
Yes, Sir.
And you can't do anything to adjust
MR. PIETZ: We do have a color paper copy of the
document. It will take just a moment to pull it.
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. PIETZ: In any event, Mr. Ranallo, perhaps you
for that.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 58o0f119 Page ID #2210
1 MR. BRODSKY: Your Honor, may I inquire of the
2 for a moment? 3 THE COURT: Sure.
4 MR. BRODSKY: I am not quite sure what the
5 relevance of this is, the foundation for it or exactly
6 what counsel is doing. It just seems to be his own
7 statement of his investigation.
8 THE COURT: Do you know the general subject that 9 we are going to discuss now? 10 MR. BRODSKY: I believe so, your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Okay. That is what I think it is, and
12 hopefully it will help him. Now, when it gets down to
13 the source of this material and the accuracy of this
14 material, I hope I will be hearing from you gentlemen.
15 don't have the independent knowledge of this one way or
16 the other. Thank God for the adversarial process.
17 MR. WAXLER: Your Honor, so, then, should
18 Mr. Pietz be on the stand if he is going to give
19 essentially testimony about this exhibit? 20 THE COURT: I don't make a habit of placing
21 lawyers under oath, but this case may change that.
22 figure officers of the court will not knowingly make
23 misrepresentations to the court, will they. 24 MR. WAXLER: No, they won't.
25 THE COURT: Until this case.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 59 o0f119 Page ID #2211
MR. WAXLER: My client hasn't in this case.
MR. PIETZ: Your Honor, to explain what it is,
what I thought I might do is to give a very brief
overview of the organization, and, then, I thought I
would go through some specific documents about Mr. Steele
and a couple of arguments. So this is really argument,
essentially, a couple of exhibits that go to Mr. Steele's
connection to the California as well as a couple of
points about Mr. Paul Hansmeier and Mr. Duffy. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PIETZ: So, in any event, this is a chart that
aT sg
was essentially prepared. This was prepared by my office
essentially as a tool to aid in the understanding of how
Prenda Law appears to have evolved over the past few years. Essentially, it started out here with Steele
Hansmeier, and John Steele -- I know that is a little
hard to see -- John Steele, Paul Hansmeier and Brett
Gibbs. Mr. Steele and Mr. Hansmeier were the named
partners in the firm, and Mr. Gibbs was the of counsel
originally. When they first started out, circa 2011 --
THE COURT: I am going to have to stop you. How
do you know that Mr. Gibbs was of counsel with Steele and Hansmeier?
MR. PIETZ: Your Honor, I can point to the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 60 of 119 Page ID #2212
1 specific exhibit, but there are pleadings of which the
2 court can take judicial notice where he is listed on the
3 pleadings as of counsel to Steele Hansmeier.
4 THE COURT: You are aware of the fact that
5 Mr. Hansmeier doesn't know what capacity Mr. Gibbs was
6 working at his law firm?
7 MR. PIETZ: Correct, your Honor. So, in any
8 event, let me put it this way. Mr. Gibbs filed documents 9 in federal court indicating on the caption that he was of 10 counsel to Steele Hansmeier. 11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 MR. PIETZ: Now, I believe I can also speak to
13 this if the court is so inclined that Mr. Lutz was
14 holding himself out to the world as a paralegal at that LS time, working, according to Mr. Paul Hansmeier, solely
16 for Mr. Steele. At this time, most of the lawsuits with
17 a few exceptions filed by Prenda around 2011 were on
18 behalf of a porno production, pardon me, adult
LY entertainment production company that actually people
20 have heard of before. And that is this list of clients
21 here.
22 What happened is that sometime in 2012, the
23 Steele Hansmeier firm was disbanded or become Prenda,
24 sold its client book to Prenda Law. We are not entirely
25 sure exactly the nature of the transaction, but, in any
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 61 of 119 Page ID #2213
event, at that point, Paul Duffy became involved as the
nominal figurehead of the Prenda Law enterprise.
However, there are indications that Mr. Steele and
Mr. Hansmeier remain involved and Mr. Gibbs has declared
that he essentially continued on as of counsel handling
the same cases only now on behalf of Prenda Law, Inc.
rather than Steele Hansmeier LLC.
At the same time that Steele Hansmeier became
Prenda, sometime around, then, in 2012, I am not exactly
sure, Mr. Hansmeier started up his own shingle in
Minnesota, the virtual office called the Alpha Law Firm
LLC. So, essentially, Mr. Hansmeier sometimes files
pleadings in federal court that list his affiliation as
Alpha Law Firm LLC, but, by the same token, Mr. Gibbs has
identified Mr. Paul Hansmeier as being the person from whom he took direction at Prenda. And, indeed, the court may recall from the
deposition transcript read over the weekend tha
Mr. Hansmeier testified that, indeed, his clients
deposited their trust account funds into the Prenda Law Firm account rather than to the Alpha Law Firm account. THE COURT: Stop. I hate to interrupt you.
But she means more to me than this argument,
ides.
and we have had her going at light speed for an
hour-and-a-half. Right. So I am going to take a break,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 62 of 119 Page ID #2214
1 and we can all take a break. How about 10 minutes. 2 Okay.
3 MR. PIETZ: Very good. Thank you, your Honor.
4 (Recess from 2:58 to 3:09.) 5 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Pietz.
6 MR. PIETZ: Thank you. I will attempt to keep
7 this section very brief, and then we will move on to some 8 documentary evidence. This is just a summary.
9 So, aS I was saying, sometime around 2012,
10 there was a bit of a shift in the Prenda business 11 strategy. Mr. Hansmeier -- so what happened is these
12 companies, AF Holdings, LLC, Ingenuity 13 LLC and then
13 there is a couple of other companies which are the ones 14 in the CFAA cases. That is Arte de Oaxaca LLC and Guava 15 LLC. And the CFAA cases have primarily been filed in
16 state court and have indeed tried to use -- certain
17 states have presuit discovery procedures that are more
18 lenient than Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27. So it
19 is sort of a newer twist is these state court CFAA cases 20 and Arte de Oaxaca. 21 But, in any event, according to Mr. Hansmeier
22 in his deposition, these essentially shell company
23 plaintiffs are owned by a mystery trust. Mr. Hansmeier,
24 as 30(b) (6) deponent well, anyway, I won't go into
25 that. The court read it. According to Mr. Gibbs'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 63 of 119 Page ID #2215
1 special counsel, though, on the same day, February 19t
2 there is conflicting testimony essentially saying tha
3 Livewire Holdings LLC is actually the current holder of
4 AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13.
5 So, in any event, these are the parent
6 companies, some mystery trust and Livewire Holdings LLC. 7 There is documents, you know, I had this sort of set
8 aside to potentially go through with Mr. Gibbs, but I can 9 also just show the documents, show what I have. In any
10 event, there is documents showing Mr. Gibbs as in-house
11 counsel for Livewire Holdings.
12 There are various other connections between
13 Livewire Holdings and the attorneys we see over here.
14 Mr. Dugas is a local counsel who has worked at both
15 Prenda and Alpha Law which I can show through his
16 LinkedIn profiles, obviously, not central to the case.
17 Mr. Dugas' wife has been identified on LinkedIn as
18 in-house counsel for Livewire Holdings.
19 In addition, what I will talk about now is the
20 way that we see the lawyers. Mr. Hansmeier has been both
20 30BC deponent for AF and as its counsel. In any event,
22 what seemed to happen is that at some point these cases
23 filed on behalf of Ingenuity, AF Holdings, Arte de Oaxaca
24 and Guava LLC are cases where what appears to have
25 happened is the lawyers essentially took assignment of
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 64 of 119 Page ID #2216
1 the underlying intellectual property rights in these
2 mysterious shell companies. One recurring theme here is
3 the way that when we are seeing the straw men, there is 4 always a connection to John Steele. So, for example, in 5 the VPR International, we see John Steele is the
6 attorney. We see Alan Cooper listed on the corporate
7 registration. The address listed for VPR International,
8 the 4532 East Villa Teresa Drive. My understanding based
9 on documents that have been submitted with the court is
10 that is an address that comes up for John Steele's sister
St. and a gentleman named Anthony Saltmarsh, in addition, of
12 course, to being the address listed for Mr. Cooper.
13 So on various federal court filings in the
14 Northern District of California, all of which are
15 attached as exhibits to the deposition that was lodged
16 with the court which the court read over the weekend,
17 when pressed to identify the person at AF Holdings who
18 would be made available for an early neutral settlement
LY evaluation conference, there are various court filings
20 listing the owner of AF Holdings as somebody named Salt
ZA. Marsh, two words. 22 So, in any event, what seems to perhaps be the 23 case is that this Anthony Saltmarsh lived at this address
24 with John Steele's sister which was essentially used as a
25 front for various entities involved in Prenda activities.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 65o0f119 Page ID #2217
I don't want to spend too much time on just
the overview. What I thought I might do is shift inst
to taking the nonappearing folks individually. And I
thought I might start with Mr. Steele. So I have some
documents which go to that, and I will switch back now
to -- okay. There we go. So I will note that in the declaration submitted to the court by Mr. Steele on Friday, he claims that he resides in the State of Florida.
I will point out that when Mr. Steele was
under threat of sanction in the state of Florida, he
declared to the court there that he resided in the State
of Nevada and only visited the State of Florida. So lI
have here the affidavit of John Steele that he filed, and
you can see the file stamp on the top. It is Middle
District of Florida, Case No. 812 CV 1685 that was filed
on December 20th, 2012. And, in Paragraph 2, Mr. Steele swore to the court that my legal residence is Las Vegas,
Nevada, and I also spend one to two weeks a month in
Miami, Florida. So my understanding must be then that
sometime between last December and now Mr. Steele has
decided that his residence is not Nevada but rather
Florida.
In any event, and before moving on, I would
ask the court to take judicial notice of the fact that in
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 66 of 119 Page ID #2218
i. the -- that this affidavit which was filed in the public
2 record in the Middle District of Florida that Mr. Steele
3 states that he spends one to two weeks a month in Miami, 4 Florida. Mr. Ranallo can pass out copies of the
5 affidavit to everybody.
6 So, in any event, let's look at some other
7 documents about Mr. Steele. And what I ld start with,
will as]
8 I believe, is a declaration here, and
9 Mr. Ranallo again to pass this out for the cour
10 declaration of Michael B. Stone, and what this
Tt. declaration is, the declaration itself is essentially
12 just authenticating the document, but the document a
13 issue is a collection of pleadings in a Northern Dist
14 of California action in which it was a case filed on
15 behalf of a Prenda client.
16 Well, this I think was an actual company that
17 people have heard of in an earlier case, but in any
18 event, here, we see the pleading. So the declaration
19 authenticates it, and then Exhibit 1 is a copy of the
20 complaint which as we can see was filed in the United
21 States District Court for the Northern District of
22 California, and it is Civil Action No. 511 CV 3648.
23 Well, in any event, the interesting thing 24 about this complaint is who signed the subpoena that was
25 directed in this case at a John Doe defendant who resided
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 67 of 119 Page ID #2219
1] in California. And the answer, and here we see a copy of
2 the subpoena, pardon me, authenticated by Mr. Stone.
3 This is the letter that the ISP normally sends out, and,
4 here, we see a copy of the subpoena itself. And this is
5 in the same action.
6 Then, we see, there, that this subpoena which
7 again was signed by John Steele in a California action
8 requesting information of a John Doe defendant in the
9 State of California. So, essentially, I would ask that
10 this declaration of Michael Stone be admitted into
Tt. evidence as Exhibit, I believe, we are on 9.
12 Is that correct, Madam Clerk? 13 THE CLERK: 10.
14 MR. PIETZ: Pardon me. 10. I am one behind.
15 THE COURT: All right. Any objection?
16 MR. WAXLER: Your Honor, I just question the
17 relevancy of it as to Mr. Gibbs. Again, it is not one of
18 the cases that you put in your OSC.
19 THE COURT: It will be admitted.
20 MR. PIETZ: Similar document that I will move onto
21 t. What we have here is a declaration which was filed
22 on the docket in a case in the Northern District of
23 California by a man named Samuel Teitelbaum. t is
24 Northern District of California No. 311 CV 5628. And we
25 can see here that it is pending in the Northern District
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 68 of 119 Page ID #2220
1 fornia.
2 In this declaration, Mr. Teitelbaum explains
Bf xg
ornia
3 that he received a letter directed to him in Cali
4 from Prenda Law and that the letter which was mailed to
5 him in California which is there is a copy of it right
6 here. It is on Steele Hansmeier letterhead, and if we go
7 the last page, we see that the letter, mailed into the
8 te of California in a case pending in the Northern
9 istrict of California, is signed by John Steele,
10 attorney and counselor at law.
TS. So, in any event, I would ask that this be
12 admitted into evidence as Exhibit 11, and these both go
13 to showing that Mr. Steele has indeed reached into the
14 State of California in terms of his actions in BitTorrent
15 copyright litigation cases.
16 THE COURT: All right. Will be received.
17 MR. PIETZ: So what I will do now, I think that
18 the other facts that I had already pointed out about the
19 other gentlemen who are not here today, so I mean Paul
20 Hansmeier and Paul Duffy, I pointed out in my opposition
21 to the objections which was filed on Friday, but, in
22 general, I would argue the jurisdictional issue as
23 follows.
24 What we have from Mr. Gibbs is a declaration
25 saying that anything that was potentially improper in
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 69 of 119 Page ID #2221
these cases was done at the direction of his superiors at
the Prenda law firm. He identifies those people as John
Steele and Paul Hansmeier. Interestingly enough,
Mr. Duffy isn't on the list or perhaps maybe not as much.
Mr. Duffy has his California bar license in
the state of California and has substituted in in
Mr. Gibbs' place in a variety of actions in the Northern
District of California. Mr. Hansmeier, in addition to
being identified by Mr. Gibbs as essentially running a
law firm doing business in California, flew to California
apparently of his own free will to appear as the
corporate 30(b) (6) deponent of AF Holdings LLC. So we
have Mr. Hansmeier reaching into the state of California,
attending a deposition in California in a Northern
District of California case, representing essentially
that is at issue here, AF
t the same plainti Holdings LLC.
So at least with respect to Mr. Duffy who has his bar license here and Mr. Hansmeier who flew here as a
30(b) (6) deponent and has been identified, I think it is
fairly clear that probably both general and specific jurisdiction exists.
Mr. Steele has perhaps been a little more
careful about trying to keep his fingerprints off here,
but I would remind the court that Mr. Gibbs has
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 70 of 119 Page ID #2222
identified him as essentially running a law firm in
California which by the way is not qualified to do
business in California, and I checked with the state bar
and it is not registered as a law firm here. But in any event --
THE COURT: You talking about Prenda now?
MR. PIETZ: Talking about Prenda. Yes, sir.
In any event, I apologize. I don't have
documents to back that up, but I can provide them. But,
in any event, I think that with respect to Mr. Steele
when you take Mr. Gibbs' declaration and add it together with a subpoena signed by Mr. Steele. And, pardon me, I
will note one other thing about the declaration of
Michael Stone. In addition to authenticating the
documents, he also included some back and forth, some
meet and confer correspondence he had with Mr. Steele.
So, essentially, Mr. Stone noticed the fact
that Mr. Steele was not licensed in California and that
he had signed the subpoena and wrote to Mr. Gibbs saying
this subpoena is invalid. And what happened is that
Mr. Steele wrote back directly without cc'ing Mr. Gibbs
the concerns about the
and essentially shrugged o
subpoena being signed by an attorney who doesn't have a
license in California.
So, in any event, I think that with respect to
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 71 0f119 Page ID #/2223
Mr. Steele, when you add together the subpoena issued
into the state of California, a demand letter issued
under the state of California as well as Mr. Gibbs'
testimony, it is pretty clear that the court has personal jurisdiction.
I don't have a tremendous number of additional exhibits on this topic. However, I do have quite a few with respect to what I view as Mr. Gibbs' central role in the Prenda law organization.
MR. BRODSKY: Your Honor, may I make one comment?
COURT: You can make more than that. Thank
Yes. Go ahead.
MR. BRODSKY: We are not taking a position at the
present time on the jurisdictional issues that the court is deciding, but there were statements made about my
client that I believe mischaracterize the evidence that
has been put forward.
THE COURT: Okay. Listen, let me just sort
tell you the way we are going to proceed here. A
point, you will have the floor. All right. I can't
imagine you are going to raise too much in opposition to
the jurisdictional issue. Otherwise, he is in. So you
go right ahead.
Now, a number of things -- I am just going to
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 72 of 119 Page ID #/2224
give you some of my thinking. A number of things were
stated in your papers. Some of them caused me some
concern because they were inaccurate. For example, you
make the argument that certain people were identified as
infringers because there was no way, for example, that
someone else could have been piggy-backing off of their
modem because of the size of the lot, where the house is Situated on the lot, the proximity or lack of proximity
of other residences around, et cetera.
Your representation of these homes and the
neighborhoods and juxtaposition of other houses around
them was simply not accurate. Not in the least bit. And
I found that troublesome when you are asking me, then, to
accept all of your our arguments. So I just want to throw that out there to let
you know some of my thinking.
MR. WAXLER: Our turn, your Honor?
COURT: I don't care who. It is this side.
MR. WAXLER: We will call Mr. Gibbs to the stand, your Honor. THE COURT: All right.
(The witness was sworn.)
MR. PIETZ: Your Honor, before we move onto
Mr. Gibbs, may I request that we admit into evidence 1
affidavit of John Steele as Exhibit 12, the Michael St
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 73 of 119 Page ID #/2225
declaration as Exhibit 13 -- oh. Pardon me. Stone
Teitelbaum have already been admitted so just the
affidavit of John Steele. I would ask that that be
admitted as Exhibit 12. THE COURT: JI think that's right. Are we up Okay. All right.
THE CLERK: If you could state your full and
for the record and spell your last name.
THE WITNESS: Sure. Brad Gibbs, G-I-B-B-S.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WAXLER: Q Mr. Gibbs, who is your present employer? A T am not currently employed.
Q You became employed -—- I'm sorry. You became an of
counsel, 1099 independent contractor for Steele Hansmeier; correct? A
QO Was Steele Hansmeier an existing law firm at the
time that occurred?
A I believe they had been existing for a number of
months at that point.
Q What were you told your role would be at Steele
Hansmeier?
A Basically, California counsel for Steele Hansmeier
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 74 0f119 Page ID #/2226
in bringing lawsuits on behalf of their clients.
Were you paid as an employee? No. Did you share in Steele Hansmeier profits?
No.
Were you on the management of Steele Hansmeier?
No.
And who did you understand were the decision makers of Steele Hansmeier?
A John Steele and Paul Hansmeier.
Q When you were an of counsel to Steele Hansmeier, who supervised you? A John Steele and Paul Hansmeier. Q Did you have periodic meetings while at Steele Hansmeier to discuss cases? A Yes, we did. And were those weekly meetings? Yes. Sometimes they would be sending the schedule, yes, mostly weekly meetings. Who participated in those meetings?
John and Paul would call me, and they would hold a
weekly meeting.
Q And were these by phone or in person?
A These were by phone.
THE COURT: Were they ever in person.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 75 0f119 Page ID #2227
THE WITNESS: I went sometimes and met them, and
then we had meetings, yes, in person at that point, but
this was only a couple of times.
THE COURT: This is out of California?
THE WITNESS: Yes. Well, I have met with Paul
Hansmeier in California prior to this deposition, but the
other, everything was out of California.
Q BY MR. WAXLER: When -- were any cases that you filed
while at -- while of counsel to Steele Hansmeier, were
any of those cases settled?
A
And did the checks, the settlement checks come to
Q Did you have a client trust account in any account
in which you had an interest at all as a signatory?
A No. Actually, I don't even have a client trust
account. Q So the checks were sent to Steele Hansmeier's trust account?
A I don't know. I would assume they were. They
weren't sent to me. They were sent to Steele Hansmeier.
Q And how did you learn that Prenda law was going to
substitute in or take over the cases from Steele
Hansmeier?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 76 of 119 Page ID #/2228
A Basically, I heard of the name Prenda Law. They
told me that Prenda Law was now taking over the business.
Steele Hansmeier was no longer going to exist at that point. Q And who is they in that answer? A That would be John Steele and Paul Hansmeier. Q Were you on the management committee at all of Prenda Law?
No.
Were you partner at Prenda Law?
No.
What was your affiliation with Prenda Law?
The same as it was for Steele Hansmeier which would
fF counsel, California counsel essentially for Prenda
So you were compensated with a 1099?
Yes. That is correct.
And did that ever change over the course of the time which you were counsel to Prenda Law?
A In terms of what?
In terms of your relationship with that firm?
A No. I would only say that they, John and Paul, had
asked me to help the other counsel in different states,
basically, like, give them advice in doing their own
cases in different states. That was the only change
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 77 of 119 Page ID #2229
really. Other than that, I was just California counsel.
QO While of counsel to Prenda Law, did you ever
receive any settlement checks?
A Myself personally, no. Q Did you have a client trust account at Prenda Law that you somehow administered or controlled?
No.
And were you supervised at Prenda Law?
Yes, I was.
Who were you supervised by?
Paul Hansmeier and John Steele.
Were you supervised by Paul Duffy?
No.
And when you say supervised, could you just describe what you mean by that? How did they supervise
you?
A Sure. You know, they essentially were the ones
that would initiate cases. By that, I mean, they would
tell me they wanted to file certain cases in California,
for instance, and they would instruct me to go ahead and file those. And they would give me the authority to do so. I would be told what cases we are looking at and how
many cases we are talking about, and then I would file
the cases.
And they would give me general guidelines on
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 78 of 119 Page ID #/2230
what to do and sometimes the cases would be settled by
John as was pointed out earlier, and sometimes they gave
me certain parameters which I could settle the case
myself. Q Did you ever talk to anybody that you understood to
be the client, AF Holdings?
A No. The communications were solely through Paul
Hansmeier and John Steele. Q Did you ever talk to anybody who said they were affiliated with Ingenuity 13?
A Well, I mean, aside from Mark Lutz who is the CEO
of Ingenuity 13, but aside from that, no. All my communications were straight through Paul Hansmeier and John Steele.
Q Did Mr. Lutz ever give you direction on the
handling of any of these cases directly?
A No. Actually, I only found out about that
connection, I would say, after the cases in the Central
District were filed, about him being the CEO. I didn't
know that before.
Q And the cases that were filed in the Central
District were dismissed; correct? A That is correct.
Q And whose decision was it to dismiss those cases?
A Ultimately, it was John Steele and Paul Hansmeier's
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 79 of 119 Page ID #2231
decisions. We had talked about it. As counsel of record
here, I just kind of broke down like a cost benefit
analysis of those cases. And they said, basically, go
ahead and dismiss them because they said go ahead and
dismiss them.
Q When the cases were filed, did you have a
discussion with anybody about whether notice of
interested parties should be filed?
A I did. Yeah.
Q And who did you have discussions with?
A Mostly Paul Hansmeier. Yes. Mostly Paul Hansmeier
but sometimes John Steele, I guess. I don't know. It
was a while ago I guess.
Did you file those notices of interested parties?
Yes.
What did they say in connection with AF Holdings.
They said there was no other interested parties.
Do you have any personal knowledge of that statement as untrue?
A No, I did not. No. I still don't. I mean, in
terms of I know there is other things involved in terms
of the trust and stuff like that, but in terms of other
people involved, I was only taking direction from these
guys in terms of these types of filings.
Q And these guys are?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 80 of 119 Page ID #2232
These guys are Paul Hansmeier and John Steele.
Q In connection with Ingenuity 13 cases did you file
notices of interested parties? A That is correct. Yes.
Q And were you ever advised that the information --
how did you obtain the information for those notices? A Well, I just, I would ask them, you know, are there
any other people that I should be noticing on this
document that I am filing with the court.
Q Who is them in your response? A That would be Paul Hansmeier and John Steele.
Q Were you told not to do that again. Instead of
saying them, were you told by Paul Hansmeier, John St
that the information you included in those notice of
interested parties was correct?
A So they actual] ld me, I was instructed to fill
those documents out like I did.
Q There was a question raised by the court this
morning about the failure to have filed notices of
related cases. My question is did you consider filing
notices of related cases when you filed the actions in
the Central District of California?
A Yes, we did.
Q And could you please describe for the court what
we
your thought process was as a result of, in not filing
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 81 of 119 Page ID #2233
1 these notices?
2 A So we had filed -- well, I filed on behalf of
3 Steele Hansmeier, then Prenda Law, a number of cases in
4 the Northern District of California, and those were cases
5 with multiple people in them.
6 And what the court in the Northern District of
7 California concluded, almost every court, at that point,
8 after filing multiple cases was that joinder was not 9 valid and that they basically told us in no uncertain
10 terms that these cases weren't related. Therefore, that
1] informed my belief in terms of whether we wanted to
12 late these cases or not. They said these cases,
13 essentially, through their orders and through live
14 hearings, that these cases aren't related, they should be
15 brought as individual actions. So it was just a decision
16 to bring those individual actions and not relate the 17 cases based on that.
18 Q And your experience in Northern California, that
19 predated the filings of the Central District actions t
20 we are here to discuss today?
21 A Yes. I don't even know if I was admitted into 22 Central District at that point.
23 THE COURT: Let me jump in a second. You were
24 ld in the Northern District of California that when you
25 tiled a lawsuit on behalf of either AF Holdings or
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 82 of 119 Page ID #2234
1 Ingenuity 13 versus Does 1 through many, that that 2 joinder was improper; correct?
3 THE WITNESS: Some cases. Some cases it was not
4 improper. Some judges felt differently.
5 THE COURT: All right. But if it involved
6 different movies, downloads, different times, different
7 people, different places, different ISP addresses, they
8 said you need to file separate lawsuits; right?
9 THE WITNESS: Some of them were the same clients,
10 same videos. 11 THE COURT: Okay. But even then? 12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 THE COURT: Even then, you had to file separate
14 lawsuits?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes. We were pointing that
16 direction even there was a footnote in one of the courts'
17 opinions saying basically that we were trying to ge
18 around the filing fee, and that is what they thought
19 we should file individual cases from there on out.
20 THE COURT: Of course, you were, but that is not
21 where we are going here. Now, that deals with joinder in
22 one lawsuit and consolidating really separate and
23 complete causes of action, different parties in a single
24 lawsuit.
25 Now, what we are talking about here is with
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 83 of 119 Page ID #2235
respect to your notice of
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
related case.
I understand.
You do
because I can hear it now.
can hear you going it is compound, all the stuff that you
do.
Do you realize
instructions you got from
consolidation of a
lot of
Single complaint, did you
issue of related cases,
you know what that THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
LS LOK,
-—- no. Did you equate the
the court regarding improper
cases, a lot of claims into a
somehow conflate that with the
notices of related cases? And
here; right?
I understand.
You understand why we are looking for
Tel
I understand.
ll me what your understanding is as
to why the court is interested in knowing whether or not
there are related cases.
THE WITNESS:
Because if they are similar cases,
my belief is the court wants to know about those so the
court can handle it so that there are uniform decisions
essentially that are held
THE COURT:
from the same court.
Excellent. A completely different
objective -- right -- than consolidating a lot of
different lawsuits in one complaint; right? Completely
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 84 of 119 Page ID #2236
1 different. This is judicial economy.
2 THE WITNESS: I understand. Yes. I understand
3 what you are saying. In terms of that it was just the
4 decision that was made, and perhaps it was the wrong
5 decision, but, you know, the decision was made.
6 THE COURT: Okay. Don't do that. Decision that 7 was made. Who made that decision?
8 THE WITNESS: It was a discussion amongst myself,
9 Paul Hansmeier and John Steele and, probably, mostly,
10 Paul Hansmeier. I don't even know if Steele was involved Sh. in that discussion or not, and that is just what we 12 decided to do.
13 THE COURT: All right. The law firm that you were
14 working for —-- and I guess initially we are talking LS Steele Hansmeier or the other way around. 16 THE WITNESS: It was Steele Hansmeier.
17 THE COURT: Okay. Did that firm have, in its
18 fornia office, did it have a client trust account?
19 THE WITNESS: In California.
20 THE COURT: Yes. 21 THE WITNESS: Well, I was working of counsel to
22 them. So, no, I never had my own client trust account.
23 The funds were always going through the law firm. 24 THE COURT: Were you operating out of your home?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, I was originally.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 850f119 Page ID #2237
THE COURT: Did at any time you ever have a
business office even if it was a suite any place?
THE WITNESS: Not for Steele Hansmeier.
THE COURT: What about Prenda? THE WITNESS: Prenda Law, yes. They wanted me to
get an office. So I got an office, and I actually moved
twice.
THE COURT: At that time, did you have a client trust account?
THE WITNESS: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Was it your understanding that in
California that you were required to have a client trust
account?
THE WITNESS: My belief was that considering I was
working as of counsel to the Prenda Law, and Prenda Law
had the trust account, that was my understanding of how
the money was dealt with. I didn't ever they never
saw my bank account. I was paid like by Prenda Law as an
attorney, of counsel attorney, 1099. And so my
understanding was that they had a trust account. And,
therefore, you know, the people that were working with
them did not need trust accounts themselves.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. And you only handle
one kind of business; right?
THE WITNESS: What do you mean by that, your
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 86 of 119 Page ID #2238
1 Honor? I only handle one kind of business?
2 THE COURT: Yes.
3 THE WITNESS: Can you explain your question? You
4 mean in terms of just being plaintiff's lawyer?
5 THE COURT: Plaintiff's lawyer for copyright
6 infringement for the adult film industry.
7 THE WITNESS: Well, no, actually. So originally
8 when I was working for Steele Hansmeier, I was also
9 working for an arbitrator. So I had other business, but
10 it was just a 1099 worker at the same time. I was
11 helping him out with his cases, and so when Prenda law
12 came around, we basically, I said, look, you guys are
13 trying to put a lot of work on my plate essentially, and
14 I am kind of split here. And they said, well, we would
sg
or Prenda Law,
15 like to basically have you work solely
16 this is being Paul Hansmeier and John Steele. And so I
17 wrapped up my arrangement with the arbitrator, and I
For Prenda Law at that
18 became exclusive doing stu
19 point.
20 THE COURT: Listen, last January, this past
21 January, a few weeks ago, I guess you started withdrawing
22. as counsel of record. 23 THE WITNESS: That is correct, yes. 24 THE COURT: All right. And you just testified
25 that you are no longer employed by Prenda?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 87 of 119 Page ID #2239
1 THE WITNESS: That is correct. I am no longer
2 employed by Prenda or any other corporation or LLC that
3 is involved in these cases. I have moved on. I am going 4 to work again for the arbitrator and find some other work 5 essentially. You know, so that is where I am right now. 6 Actually, I was working for Livewire for two months, but 7 there was actually a couple of things that happened in 8 terms of I never even got paid for my two months there. 9 THE COURT: Two months where? 10 THE WITNESS: Two months at Livewire. 11 THE COURT: You did get paid by Prenda though; 12 13 THE WITNESS: Before that, yes. During 2012, yes. 14 THE COURT: So why did you leave? LS THE WITNESS: Well, there is multiple reasons for 16 it. Personal reasons, I am getting married soon. So I 17 wanted to focus on that, but, you know, to be honest with 18 you -- LY THE COURT: That would be good. 20 THE WITNESS: Yeah. No. I am looking forward to
21 it. And to be honest with you, these types of things
22 raising up themselves, I just didn't want to be
23 affiliated with it anymore. It wasn't worth it. I was
24 getting a lot of harassment. My family was receiving
25 e-mails and correspondence from people, my fiance, my
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 88 of 119 Page ID #2240
1 parents. I just didn't see, and I was getting a lot
2 negative exposure that, you know, I just didn't wan 3 anymore ultimately.
4 And, then, also, I didn't really get along
5 with one of the people that managed me. So I, you know, 6 I decided to go ahead and exit and told them about that, 7 and, yeah, and that is the situation essentially.
8 THE COURT: Okay.
9 Q BY MR. WAXLER: Just to complete your employment
10 picture because there was perhaps some gaps. You learned
11 sometime in late 2012 that Prenda Law was no longer going
12 to be your, I will just say the word employer but you
13 weren't going to be of counsel to Prenda Law anymore; 14 correct?
15 A That is correct.
16 Q And how were you informed of that?
17 A I was told I would say middle December or so.
18 There was a brainstorming issue about they were, John
19 Steele and Paul Hansmeier were brainstorming about 20 whether they wanted basically to start their own company,
21 I guess. And the company was Livewire, turned out to be
22 Livewire. And that Livewire would essentially buy AF
23 Holdings and Ingenuity 13 and Guava.
24 And so I was informed that as of January 1,
25 you know, Livewire extends you this offer, and basically
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 89 of 119 Page ID #2241
1 if you don't accept this offer, then, you know, we are
2 going to part ways. So the offer was to be in house
3 counsel for Livewire, and so I was hired W2 employee for
4 this company which is a holding company of copyrights.
5 Q And you understood that one of the subsidiaries of 6 that company included AF Holdings; correct?
7 at was my understanding, yeah.
8 en did you come to a different understanding?
9 . Well, during the deposition, I came to a
10 different understanding because obviously the deposition
TS. was said what was said, and I asked Paul Hansmeier about 12 that.
13 Q And what we are talking about here is
14 Mr. Hansmeier's testimony that there was a trust that
ES) owned AF -—-—
16 hat is correct.
17 nd before that testimony, you heard
18 testimony, you understood as of January 1, t Livewire
Lg would own -—-
20 Yes.
21 Livewire would own AF Holdings?
22 That is correct.
23 And that is why in at least one of the pleadings 24 you put that you are in house counsel for AF Holdings
25 because that was a company that was owned by Livewire;
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 90 of 119 Page ID #2242
i correct?
2 A I was specifically told to sign as in house counsel
3 for AF Holdings by Paul Hansmeier in that case. I was
4 actually because of Mark Lutz' position as CEO, I was
5 trying to get his signature for that document, but Paul
6 Hansmeier said, no, you are in house counsel for Livewire
7 thereby in house counsel for AF Holdings, you sign it on
8 behal of the client.
9 Q Is one of the other reasons you decided to leave
10 Livewire is because you learned that the stamp was being
11 used for your signature?
12 A Yes. Certain letters were sent out without my
13 knowledge. I never authorized them, never approved them. 14 When I questioned John about them, he was, like,
15 basically said, this is your role. This is what you have
16 to do. You have to send these letters out, and I said I
17 don't feel comfortable, these aren't even my cases,
18 essentially. And, you know, I actually e-mailed Mark
19 Lutz about that, and he said you got to talk with John 20 and Paul about this.
21 THE COURT: I'm sorry. What kind of letters are
22 we talking about? Is that the settlement letters?
23 THE WITNESS: Settlement letters. They had been
24 using -- they originally said they were going to doa
25 stamp for me for certain things, but I thought they were
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 91 of 119 Page ID #2243
1 for my cases. And, you know, later, I found out
2 stamp might have been used for cases that I never
3 participated in or seen the letters before they went 4
5 THE COURT: Let me make sure I understand now.
6 Livewire eventually became the parent of AF Holings and
7 Ingenuity 13 LLC?
8 THE WITNESS: That was my understanding. I was
9 told that, yeah. And that is why I was hired and a lot
10 of people were hired in terms of working as W2 employees
11 for Livewire. So it was the company that was a holdings 12 company that would do litigation as well as distribution. 13 That is what they told me.
14 THE COURT: And you were a W2 employee?
15 THE WITNESS: That's correct. And I still have
16 not been paid for that position.
17 QO BY MR. WAXLER: That was for a period of two months;
18 correct?
19 A That's correct. And I gave him my notice early 20 February essentially. 21 THE COURT: Where was Livewire's offices?
22 THE WITNESS: Livewire has an address of
=
23 Washington DC address, but, obviously, I don't know if
24 has an office to be honest with you. It is just a mat
25 of, kind of a cloud type office. It might be a situa
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 92 of 119 Page ID #2244
i. where -- I am just speculating right now. 2 THE COURT: You have never visited Washington DC 3 offices?
4 THE WITNESS:
No. believe it is just a PO box
5 over there.
That is just a
mailing address for them.
6 THE COURT: Did that
form letter requesting
7 payment of the settlement sums, did that letter change to 8 reflect that payment now should be sent to Livewire at
9 the Washington DC address?
10 THE WITNESS: Absolutely. It wasn't sent to me or 11 anything like that. It was sent to that mailbox, and
12 then I believe it would be sent back to somebody at some 13 point somewhere. But that is the kind of issues that I 14 started having, and along with a lot of other different 15 issues. So I just decided to -- asked them if could 16 go ahead and substitute out with Paul Duffy who had a
17 license in California. I talked to Paul Duffy about
18 that, he said sure, and then I proceeded to do that.
19 THE COURT: All right. So you substituted out.
20 Now, how long were you general counsel for Livewire?
21 THE WITNESS: Two months basically. I mean, I
22 guess you could say, I think the official documents were 23 Signed. It never actually specified that I was in house 24 counsel, but that is what I was told. The documents were 25 just general employment documents, but that was from I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 93 of 119 Page ID #2245
think January 7th on. That's when I signed the documents.
QO BY MR. WAXLER: You were not general counsel. You were in house counsel; right?
A In house counsel. Sorry.
Q You have never held the position of general
counsel, have you?
THE COURT: Did you know about any other employees
THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Was there a bookkeeper or an accountant?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you know whether well, okay.
Thank yo
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Your Honor? THE COURT: You are?
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Jason (inaudible).
represent Godfread and Cooper in some of the defamation cases.
THE COURT: You represent Godf
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Yes. THE COURT: So back in Minnesota, lawyers have
lawyers?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 94 of 119 Page ID #2246
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: I am from Massachusetts.
THE COURT: And how can I help you?
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: I had a conversation with
Mr. Gibbs probably back in October regarding AF Holdings
where he told me that he was national counsel for AF
Holdings and that any settlement negotiations were to be
made through him. And the local counsel for that case
confirmed that he was the one who told me to contact Mr. Gibbs.
THE COURT: Have you come to understand as have I
that every representation made by a lawyer associated with Prenda is not necessarily true?
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: I have known that for
three years. THE COURT: Okay. Good. So you aren't shocked, are you?
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: No.
THE COURT: Nor am I, but thank you.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: You are welcome.
Q BY MR. WAXLER: Mr. Gibbs, you know you are under
penalty of perjury testifying here today?
A That is correct.
0) Have you ever made a representation to a court in
the Central District of California or any other court
that you know is untrue?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 95 of 119 Page ID #2247
1 No.
2 THE COURT: Well, that isn't exactly accurate, is
3 it? You have caused documents to be filed with, let's
4 just be kind and say falsified signatures.
5 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I had no idea that these
6 were allegations --
7 THE COURT: That is "yes" or "no",
8 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I think it is still an
9 open question.
10 THE COURT: Oh. No. It is not an open question.
11 We have had the individual testify under oath. Those
12 were not his signatures on these documents.
13 THE WITNESS: And that is the first time I have
14 heard in terms of him saying out loud that he absolutely 15 did not sign those papers, those exact papers. He said
16 before he was not associated with the companies, but that
17 is the first time I heard him say he did not sign those
18 exact papers.
19 THE COURT: Are you saying that you have had prior
20 conversations with him where he either admitted or
21 tacitly admitted that he signed? 22 THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. I haven't had any 23 conversations with Mr. Cooper.
24 THE COURT: That was my thought. I thought that
25 you had never met the man.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 96 of 119 Page ID #2248
1 THE WITNESS: No. I never met the man. He never
2 met me, and I have never talked with him.
3 THE COURT: And you were acting on the
4 representation of John Steele that --
5 THE WITNESS: And Paul Hansmeier.
6 THE COURT: -- that they actually had the
7 Signatures, the authentic signature of the real Alan 8 Cooper?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes. I was told that. And I
10 investigated that in terms of, you know, what is going on
Ici: here when the first Alan Cooper issue arose, and I was
12 told that there was no issue, that he -- that he did sign
13 the document. And so I also did a little bit of research
14 d found out that the assignor, even if the assignor is
5 invalid, it still is a valid document. So combining
16 ose two things, I still believed -- I don't think I
17 filed a case after that. It was just a matter of kind of
18 addressing with these guys, and they were my sole
19 information for this type of thing. 20 THE COURT: Okay. You also indicated that you had
21 on file the original or notarized signature of Alan
22 Cooper, but you really don't, do you? 23 THE WITNESS: No. No. I never said I had on
24 tle. No. Prenda law or Steele Hansmeier had it
25 ile. They told me they had it on file, and tha
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 97 of 119 Page ID #2249
believe what was in the declaration. So I said, okay, you know, do we have this notarized copy, do you guys
have it over there? I don't think I ever saw it, but
they told me, yes, we have copies of this, it is here,
and you can go ahead and file that based on our representation to you.
THE COURT: Do you feel like you have been duped
by Hansmeier and Steele?
THE WITNESS: In away, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. This has been very enlightening. QO BY MR. WAXLER: Mr. Gibbs -- I just have a few more
your Honor. Mr. Gibbs, have you ever been a 30(b) (6)
witness for AF Holdings? No.
Have you ever been a 30(b) (6) witness for Ingenuity
No.
Have you ever received client funds in any of your
capacities as counsel affiliated with Steele Hansmeier or
Prenda Law?
A No.
Q The court expressed some disappointment in
manner in which you described how you determined
location of the houses that sat on the lots, and
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 98 of 119 Page ID #2250
router, the ability for the router to pick up people who were not authorized to pick up that signal. And let me ask you some questions about that.
A Sure.
Q It is your understanding that when wireless routers
are used and they determine what the distance is where
they would be able to pick up a signal, that those
determinations are made where there is an open field and
not placed in the middle of a structure?
A Yeah. I have read some reports on that and that
the projections are basically favorable to them because
there is no obstacles in the middle, there is nothing
like walls or fences or bushes or trees which have a
great effect on wireless signals.
Q Tell me how you described the Denton residence and
facts you had to support your description of the
ton residence? THE COURT: Which city? Is this Santa Maria or West Covina?
THE WITNESS: I believe it is the second one.
MR. WAXLER: I will find it, your Honor.
MR. PIETZ: Your Honor, I might suggest we look at
Exhibit II which is the picture, the geographical Google
maps picture of the two residences.
THE COURT: That is why I wanted to know. I mean,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 99 of 119 Page ID #2251
I went to Google Earth as well, and I just want to know
which one we are talking about because in West Covina,
you made some representations of fact that you cannot
possibly know to be true.
THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, based on my
personal knowledge of wireless networks, I believed they were true.
THE COURT: I am talking about of the residence
It is a gated community.
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you.
MR. WAXLER: I am happy to address that, your Honor.
Q Mr. Gibbs, the map that you have seen that was
offered by Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Pietz -- and I apologize if I am butchering your name, by the way -- MR. PIETZ: Pietz.
MR. WAXLER: Pietz.
That is not the type of map that you saw; correct? No, that is not.
Please describe the map that you looked at when you
made the representations in the filings that we have done
in this courthouse.
A It was a map that you could go down the street, it
is actually focused on the house, not on an overview like
that, but it is on, basically, there is like a street
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 100 of 119 PageQP
view on Google that allows you to, like, look around the
house essentially. Kind of. It is limited to a certain
extent though. Q What did you see when you looked at that map?
A I saw a house that I believed it was likely not
something that wifi could have broadcasted out to neighbors.
Did you see a gate?
I did see a gate.
Did you see several structures?
iis ba = Be
Did you see bushes and shrubs and trees around,
between the house structure and the street where someone
might be driving by?
A I did. Actually, the aerial view, I think, is even
covering the house if I remember correctly. So, yeah, it
is -- I mean, in terms of trees, there is a lot of trees
there.
Q And it is your understanding that the wireless
signal doesn't just fly over these trees, does it?
A No. Actually, I mean, there is just certain things
that -- I mean, I think everyone kind of knows when they
go into certain people's houses and say, hey, I want to
use the wifi connection, there are certain rooms in the
house that don't get, even in the same house that don't
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 101 0f119 PageQb
get the wifi connection. So, yes, walls, trees, these
things definitely have a dramatic effect. Sometimes,
concrete wall, for instance, sometimes it just altogether
stops something. That is my understanding of it.
Q Was your description of the residence in West
Covina when you signed your declaration and submitted
these papers and we submitted these papers on your behalf
accurate to the best of your knowledge. A Yes, it was. It was based on my personal knowledge. Yes.
Q And do you still believe it is accurate despite the
very different map that was submitted to the court?
A That is correct. I believe that map might be -- I
don't even know where the yards come, or I don't know how
that works.
Q Would the same be true for the residence in Santa
Maria?
A It was the same analysis essentially. It was just
part of the full analysis, but yeah.
Q In other words, there were walls, there were
buildings, there were shrubs, all of which would block the signal and reduce by a great extent the range of the
wireless network?
A Yes. That was my impression from them, the street
from Google.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 102 0f 119 PageQb
MR. WAXLER: May I have one moment, your Honor? THE COURT: Certainly.
Q BY MR. WAXLER: Mr. Gibbs, did you knowingly violate
the discovery orders from this court?
A No.
Q Did you cause to be served on the ISP providers the
October 19, 2012 discovery order by this court?
A Yes. I mean, at least, I thought I did. I had requested it. QO And it was your understanding that that was done?
A It was my understanding. I confirmed it
afterwards, and they said it was taken care of.
Q And the first time you learned that an ISP may not
have received a copy of that order was when?
I believe it was in the response by the ISP, AT&T
ly.
MR. WAXLER: I have nothing further, your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. But you started
getting responses from some of the Internet service
providers, didn't you?
THE WITNESS: I didn't get the responses.
THE COURT: All right. You filed a status report
with the court?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 103 of 119 PageQb
THE COURT: Right? THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: And at the time you filed that status
report, there had been no returns on those subpoenas; right?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Then about a week later -—-
THE WITNESS: Well, sorry, let me qualify my
answer. There were at that point, there was nothing in the computers that showed there was any returns on the subpoenas.
THE COURT: Okay. That changed a few days later.
THE WITNESS: It changed, I think, on the 7th.
THE COURT: And, of course, you updated tha
status report, you advised the court, then -- right
that suddenly, for whatever reason, people are now
starting to send you information on your subscribers;
right? You updated your filing, didn't you? Actually, no, you didn't.
THE WITNESS: I didn't, your Honor, but if I can
explain why.
THE COURT: Yes. THE WITNESS: Okay. So I did some investigation
on that, and what I was told, and, again, I don't handle
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 104 0f 119 PageQ
the subpoenas. These are handled out of the Chicago and
Minnesota offices. I was told that these things are
usually delivered and that either hand-delivered or
believe mailed but most likely they are just a few blocks away. Like CT Corporation is just a few blocks away, that CT Corporation would send, mail back the information.
I didn't realize that that information was faxed back by Verizon. I never knew that. And I did
some investigation on it. And I, also, I talked to Paul
Duffy, and the exact date of the court's order in that case, there had been -—- he had had some eye surgery and he also had some trauma related to it.
So what he said was he wasn't picking up his
mail as frequently during that time period. So I thought
that the information had been received essentially by, through his mailbox at that point but hadn't been input
in the computer until later. So that was my
understanding. That was my understanding of what had happened. Q BY MR. WAXLER: Do you now regret not advising the
court when you learned on November 7th that Prenda Law
had received information in response to those subpoenas
and that there was information in the status report that
was not correct?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 105 o0f119 PageQb
1 Absolutely. Absolutely.
2 MR. WAXLER: Thank you, your Honor. 3 THE COURT: Mr. Pietz.
4
5 CROSS-EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. PIETZ: 7 Q Mr. Gibbs, I would ask you to refer to the binder
8 that is there with you to Exhibit EE which is the
9 substitution of counsel that was filed apparently with
we
LCOor
10 your CM/ECF account listing you as in house counsel
11 AF Holdings.
12 A Yes, I am familiar with that document.
13 Q So Mr. Gibbs, just to clarify, then, your testimony
14 that when you filed that document, that was an
15 urate representation -- correct -- that you
16 t moment in house counsel for AF Holding?
17 A When I filed that document, I believed I was. What
18 I was told afterwards and after the deposition was that
19 that merger or that acquisition hadn't happened therefore
20 it was still owned by the trust. So I, essentially,
21 had been told to go ahead and file as in house counsel,
22 for some reason, Livewire didn't own AF Holdings at
23 time.
24 So can you just pin down for me exactly when it was
25 your capacity as in house counsel for AF Holdings
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93
Filed 03/19/13 Page 106 of 119 PageQ
begun and exactly when it terminated? A Well, my understanding was that -- my understanding
when I was told that I was in house counsel for Livewire
that I was therefore in house counsel for AF Holdings and
the other companies as well, Ingenuity and Guava.
And only did I find out later when I was
exiting and I was already leaving all these cases
essentially, only then, I found out that they had not
actually acquired Livewire had not acquired AF Holdings according to Mr. Hansmeier.
Q Mr. Gibbs, have you ever authorized anyone else to use your CM/ECF password?
A I don't -- I might have. I don't know.
Who?
A An individual by the name of Carl. He worked for
me, or he worked with me, I guess you would say. He
actually worked for Prenda Law. QO How about John Steele?
A No. I don't think so. Not to my knowledge.
not saying -- in terms of authority, I did not, no.
Q How about Paul Hansmeier, did you ever authorize
him to use your CM/ECF password?
A I don't believe so. I mean, I know he had my -- he had access to my passwords at one point, so he might
have, yeah.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 107 of 119 PageQb
Q What was your business telephone number while you
worked for Prenda Law? A It was (415)325-5900.
Q And what was your business e-mail address when you
worked for Prenda Law?
A It was blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com. Q Have you ever instructed Prenda local counsel to
file pleadings using your business e-mail and business
telephone number on the pleadings even though it was their name and physical address?
A So, yes, my name is on -- my e-mail address and my number and my phone number is on certain cases in other states. I was instructed to do so like that by Paul
Hansmeier. And, essentially, the way that was explained
to me was that I would essentially forward all of the
communications to the outside counsel. Yeah. So.
MR. PIETZ: Before we move on any farther, I would
ask that Exhibit EE be admitted into evidence as Exhibit
13%
Q Mr. Gibbs, I have some copies of a few different
complaints, one that was filed by a local counsel in
Nebraska and three complaints filed by local counsel in
Florida all of which list the name of the local counsel,
a mailing address in those respective states and an
e-mail address, blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com and your 415
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 108 of 119 PageQB
telephone number, is that consistent with your
understanding of what the normal practice was at Prenda
that your business e-mail and phone would be on pleadings all around the country? MR. WAXLER: Objection. Irrelevant, your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: That was what I was instructed to do
by Prenda, yeah, was to do that because I was essentially
helping those guys out on their cases. It was their case, but, yes.
Q BY MR. PIETZ:I would ask Mr. Ranallo to pass out
No. 2 which is the declaration of Matt Catlett, an
attorney in Nebraska, and he is authenticating the
service copy of the complaint filed in Nebraska listing Mr. Gibbs. I would ask that that be admitted into
evidence as Exhibit 14.
Similarly, Mr. Ranallo, if you would be so
kind as to pass out 3, 4 and 5 which are the complaint in
Sunlust v. Nguyen, First Time Video. Here is Sunlust v.
Nguyen. That is Middle District, Florida. We also have
First Time Videos v. Paul Uphold and Openmind Solutions
v. Barry Wolfson.
MR. WAXLER: Your Honor, I would object to the
introduction of those exhibits.
THE COURT: Right. We don't need this. We have
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 109 of 119 PageQb
basically got his testimony.
MR. PIETZ: Fair enough.
THE COURT: And we have got the testimony on the reason why, but I got to tell you, that doesn't sound
reasonable to me that you would be inviting telephone
calls, litigation in Florida on a case that you know
nothing about. How do you field these calls?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. I would pass the messages
to the other attorneys. THE COURT: Back to Florida?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I would pass the messages on
to them because, essentially, it was just easy for them
at that point. I was like their secretary essentially, and that is the way that Prenda wanted to do it.
THE COURT: Why?
THE WITNESS: I don't know. I mean, they changed
the practice at some point where people were putting
their own e-mails, their own numbers, but I don't know
why that was the way it was structured originally.
And I don't know. I mean, I don't know who
had access to my e-mail either. So I don't know, like, I
have no idea if I was sent something or if someone else
read it.
Q BY MR. PIETZ: Did John Steele have access to your
e-mail?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 110 o0f119 Pagelp
He did. I don't know if he did throughout, but he
Q Would he routinely respond to e-mail inquiries at
the blgibbs@wefightpiracy.com e-mail address?
A I never knew it because he didn't CC me on them, or he didn't let me know he was doing them. But I believe he did.
Q Did Paul Hansmeier have access to that e-mail address?
A I think he had access. I have no idea whether he
used it or not.
QO How about Mr. Duff ffy, did he have access
to that e-mail account?
A I don't think so.
Q Mr. Gibbs, earlier, you testified that some things were sent out with your signature stamped on there that
didn't have your approval. I would like to refer now --
actually, before I venture any farther afield, I would
ask that the court take judicial notice of the complaints
I have just identified as Exhibits, I think, 15, 16 and
In any event, moving on, now, to what has been
previously identified in this action as Exhibit X, ask
that it be admitted now as Exhibit 18.
Essentially, I would just like to ask you a
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1110f119 Pagélb
question to cont
A Sure.
Q Is this the kind of letter you are talking about? This was a demand letter sent in the Guava, St. Clair County, Illinois case. I note that it is dated -- what is the date on it? January 30th. And it is, essentially, a, you know, a demand letter. And then I
will go to the last page there. It has a pleading in
there. So, in any event, on the last page of the letter
itself, there is a stamped signature, what appears to be
tamped signature that says Brett Gibbs. Is it your
timony that this letter was sent out without your
authorization?
A That is my testimony.
Q You had no knowledge whatsoever that this letter was being sent out? A No. Not with my name on it. don't even
remember -- no one ever told me about this before I found
out. I actually found out through an opposing counsel
that contacted me and wrote me a letter saying,
basically, you know, you have nothing on my client, and you communicate through me. So I was kind of confused, but I eventually saw the letter, and it had my stamped Signature on it.
Q Mr. Gibbs -- I will represent to the court that
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 112 0f119 Pagelb
this letter has been sent to over 300 Internet users
across the country. Have you done anything to correct
the fact that this letter went out with your signature on it without your authorization? I note that it was filed in late January.
A Yeah. I actually talked with Mark Lutz, and Mark said, I said, Mark, do not send any of these letters out
anymore that are, you know, please contact me and let me
know what is happening before you send out these letters.
And the response from Mr. Lutz was I don't control those
types of things, you have to talk with Paul and John.
Q Fair enough. Mr. Gibbs, have you ever hired local
counsel for Prenda Law? A Actually, the hiring, no, because the hiring
process was done by John Steele.
QO Are you familiar with an attorney in Florida named Matthew Wasinger?
A Yes. Yes.
QO Are you aware of the fact that Mr. Wasinger
testified under oath in federal court in Florida at the
Sunlust hearing that you hired him and that, as far as he
understood, you were a principal of Prenda law? Are you
aware of that, Mr. Gibbs?
MR. WAXLER: Objection, your Honor. It is
irrelevant. It is also hearsay.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 113 0f 119 Pagelb
MR. PIETZ: I am asking Mr. Gibbs if he is aware
THE COURT: Sustained. I have got the picture.
And I appreciate it. Thank you.
MR. PIETZ: I will move along, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. To what? Give me a blueprint.
MR. PIETZ: Fair enough, your Honor. I will
explain the broad strokes of the categories I have, and
whatever the court is interested in, we will move to
that.
In addition to a few more things about
Mr. Gibbs hiring, firing and even threatening local
counsel, I have evidence on him being delegated independent authority to settle cases which he actually
concluded. Contrary to Mr. Gibbs' assertion which is a
little confusing in light of the fact that he says I spoke to Mark Lutz, in any event, with respect to his
assertion that he never had any direct client contact, I
have a number of documents which actually show -- some of which are Mr. Gibbs' own prior words showing that, in
fact, at least according to him, he was communicating
back and forth with the client, whatever that means, and
my theory is that that may mean John Steele.
But in any event, beyond the direct client
interaction, you know, I could ask Mr. Gibbs about his
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 114 0f119 Pagélb
1 investigation in the case, about the petition, but those 2 are the broad strokes, your Honor. If the court has got 3 the picture, I don't need to necessarily get into all the 4 documents.
5 THE COURT: I do have the picture, and I know who 6 the client is. We have talked about the client, and the 7 lient has been running everything. Yeah, I know who the 8 lient is. 9 MR. PIETZ: Very good.
10 COURT: Okay. Thank you.
11 Gentlemen. Mr. Brodsky, you look bored.
12 . BRODSKY: am not bored, your Honor.
13 COURT: All right.
14 . WAXLER: We have no further questions, your
15
16 COURT: All right.
17 Unless anyone has anything else in 1
18 evidence to offer, the matter will stand submit
LY right.
20 Thank you, sir. You may step down?
21 THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.
22 THE COURT: Good luck to yo
23 All right. How about this, I will leave this
24 up to counsel, if you wish. If you would like to sum up
25 your position, you may do so at this time. It is not
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1150f119 Pagélb
necessary. I am just making that offer.
MR. WAXLER: Thank you, your Honor for giving us the opportunity to clear Mr. Gibbs' name, and what I would like to add to the declarations that he has submitted and the papers that we have submitted is that
Mr. Gibbs did not intend to disrespect this court or
disobey any orders of this court. Mr. Gibbs had no
knowledge that perhaps others may have knowingly or
unknowingly disregarded some orders of this court in
terms of the service of the knowledge of the October 17th
order.
The order itself, you know, did not require service on the ISP's, but that was what Mr. Gibbs wanted
to do. And that is the undisputed testimony here today
that that is what he wanted to do was to have those ISP's
notified of that. And he took no action whatsoever, your
Honor, to do discovery, formal discovery of those ISP's
or ask the ISP's to follow-up on the information
provided.
So Mr. Gibbs stands before you, your Honor, he
is I think we could say humbled by this experience, and I
think he is regretful that he has perhaps been put in a
position where the court at least in the original OSC
made comments suggesting that he was a culpable party
here. And he is not, your Honor. And I hope you see it
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93
Filed 03/19/13 Page 116 of 119 Pagel
that way too.
And I thank you very much for your time.
Appreciate the opportunity you have given us to clear his name.
THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.
Anything from this side? You don't have to.
MR. PIETZ: I will keep it very brief, your Honor.
I can appreciate that there may be more parties, other people who are more culpable than Mr. Gibbs with respect to what has occurred in these cases. However, I think the assertion that Mr. Gibbs is merely an independent contract attorney is simply not
credible. I would just simply leave it at this, there is
ample evidence showing that Mr. Gibbs was been involved
Since day one or at least very shortly thereafter on a
key level exercising operational control over this
litigation on a national basis.
So while I am sympathetic that perhaps to a
certain extent, maybe there are other people more
culpable, I will just leave it that certainly there is
ample evidence showing that Mr. Gibbs indeed played a key
role in all of this.
Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. I just have one quest
gentlemen. As a licensed attorney in this stat
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93
Filed 03/19/13 Page 117 0f119 Pagelb
particularly when it is only your name on the pleadings,
don't you think you have some responsibility to assure
the accuracy of those pleadings? Or is it permissible
simply to go they told me to do so or the senior partner
said it is okay, it may not have sounded right to me, but they said it was okay. Could you do that really? MR. WAXLER: Your Honor, I am going to suggest that is not what happened on a key issue. THE COURT: Okay. MR. WAXLER: On a key issue, the issue involving
Alan Cooper, there was not one shred of information that
Alan Cooper wasn't Alan Cooper until Mr. Gottfried's
letter in November of 2012 at which point Mr. Gibbs
immediately questioned whether this was accurate or not.
And the most important thing is that Mr. Gibbs filed no
further pleadings after that time which purported to rely
Mr. Cooper being the assignee of AF Holdings. And so Gibbs reacted to the notion. He investigated and he did nothing further on He was assured that Alan Cooper was Alan Cooper, but he -- he did something other than said somebody told
And on the other issues, your Honor, these were not
examples of him relying on anybody else to do things that
were improper. He was doing discovery. He was doing
investigations. They were supervising him, but he was
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 118 of 119 Pagelb wZeru
acting like a Calit
fornia lawyer doing what he thought in
his best judgment should be done as a California lawyer
in these cases. THE COURT: MR. WAXLER:
COURT:
All right.
submitted. We are
MR. WAXLER: MR. PIETZ:
(Proceedings
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
All right. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Again, the matter stands adjourned. Thank you, your Honor. Thank you, your Honor.
concluded. )
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 93 Filed 03/19/13 Page 119 o0f 119 PageID
I hereby certify that p
ursuant to Section 753, Title 28,
United States Code, the
transcript of
the steno
foregoing is a true and correct
graphically reported proceedings held
in the above-entitled matter and that the transcript page
format is in
Judicial Cont
Date: March
conformanc
Ference of
17, 2013
/s/ Katie Thibodeaux,
e with the regulations of the
the United States.
CSR No. 9858, RPR, CRR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA