NOTICE OF LODGING BRETT L. GIBBS' [PROPOSED! ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MORGAN E....

7/29/2019 NOTICE OF LODGING BRETT L. GIBBS' [PROPOSED! ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MORGAN E.

1/97

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

A N D R E W J. W A X L E R , S B N 113682W O N M . P A R K , S B N 194333W A X L E R C A R N E R 4 B R O D S K Y L L P1960 East Grand Avenue, Suite 1210E l Segundo, California 90245Telephone: (310)416-1300Facsimile: (310)416-1310e-mail: awax1er@ wcb-law.come-mail: [email protected] Appearing for RespondentB R E T T L . G I B B S

U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R TC E N T R A L D I S T R I C T OF C A L I F O R N I A

I N G E N U I T Y 13 L L C ,Plaintiff,

vs.J O H N D O E ,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx)[Consolidated with Case Nos.:2:12-cv-6636; 2:12-cv-6669; 2:12-cv-6662;2:12-cv-6668][Assigned to Judge Otis D. Wright, II ]B R E T T L. GIBBS' [PROPOSED]O R D E R RE OBJECTIONS TO T HED E C L A R A T I O N OF M O R G A N E.P I E T Z , S U P P L E M E N T A LD E C L A R A T I O N OF M O R G A N E.P I E T Z AN D D E C L A R A T I O N S OFB A R T H U F F M A N AND C A M I L L ED. K E R R AND EXHIBITST H E R E T O[ F i l e d Concurrently with Notice ofLodging]Date: March 11,2013Time: 1:30 p.m.Dept.: 11[Complaint F i l e d : September 27, 2012]

T r i a l date: None set

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 1 of 97 Page ID #:1194


2/97

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

T O A L L PARTIES AND T H E I R A T T O R N E Y S OF R E C O R D H E R E I N :Respondent Brett L . Gibbs submits the following proposed order re objections

to the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz, Supplemental Declaration of Morgan E. Pietzand Declarations of Bart Huffman and Camille D. K e r r and exhibits theretosubmitted in response to the Court's February 7, 2013 Order to Show Cause.

UNTIMELINESS OBJECTIONSMaterial Objected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on

Obiection:1. Supplemental Declarationo f Morgan E. Pietz and allexhibits thereto

1. Untimely fded inviolation of Court'sFebruary 7, 2013 Order

SustainedOverruled

2. Declaration of BartHuffman and exhibit thereto


SustainedOverruled

3. Declaration of Camille D.K e r r and all exhibits thereto


SustainedOverruled

OBJECTIONS T O D E C L A R A T I O N OF M O R G A N E. P I E T ZMaterial Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on

Obiection:1. Declaration of MorganE . Pietz, pg. 2 14,as follows:M y clients in the Prenda cases,including this case, eachreceived letters from their ISPsinforming them that Prenda

1. Irrelevant ( F # 4 0 1 ,402); Lacks Foundationand/or PersonalKnowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;Assumes Facts Not InEvidence; Improper

SustainedOverruled

1



3/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 was attempting to subpoena Characterization of4 their identity as part of a Evidence.5 lawsuit.6 2. Declaration of Morgan 2. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained7 E . Pietz, pg. 2 14,as follows: 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled8 Generally, my clients are the and/or Personal9 people who happen to pay the Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;

10 Internet b i l l for their Argumentative; Assumes11 household, not necessarily the Facts Not In Evidence;12 people who actually committed Improper Characterization13 the alleged infringement or o f Evidence.14 other wrongful conduct.15 3. Declaration of Morgan 3. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained16 E . Pietz, pg. 2 14,as follows: 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled17 However, Prenda constructs its and/or Personal18 lawsuits so as to make it Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;19 unclear what exactly is the Improper Opinion (FRE 20 status of my clients. 701); Speculation (FRE21 6 0 2 ) ; Argumentative;22 Assumes Facts Not In23 Evidence; Improper24 Characterization of25 Evidence.26 4. Declaration of Morgan 4. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained27 E . Pietz, pg. 2 f 4, as follows: 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled28

2



4/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 The complaint does not exactly and/or Personal4 come out and say that the ISP Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;5 subscriber equals the John Doe Improper Opinion (FRE 6 defendant. 701); Speculation (FRE7 6 0 2 ) ; Argumentative;8 Assumes Facts Not In9 Evidence; Improper

10 Characterization of11 Evidence.12 5. Declaration of Morgan 5. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained13 E . Pietz, pg. 2 14,as fol lows: 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled14 However, the requests for early and/or Personal15 discovery, seeking leave to Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;16 issue ISP subpoenas, generally Improper Opinion (FRE17 tend to conflate ISP subscriber 7 0 1 ; Speculation (FRE18 with Doe defendant. 6 0 2 ) ; Argumentative;19 Assumes Facts Not In20 Evidence; Improper21 Characterization of22 Evidence.23 6. Declaration of Morgan 6. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained24 E . Pietz, pg. 2 -3 f 5, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled25 follows: I am informed and and/or Personal26 believe that Chicago law Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;27 partners John Steele (formerly Hearsay (FRE 8 0 1 ( c ) ,28

3



5/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 a divorce attorney) and Paul 802); Speculation (FRE4 Hansemeier, of what was then 6 0 2 ) ; Assumes Facts Not5 called Steele Hansemeier, In Evidence; Improper6 P L L C , began fding copyright Characterization of7 infringement cases on behalf of Evidence.8 pornographers on or around9 September 2, 2010. See, Hard

10 Drive Prod's., Inc. v. Does 1-11 100, N . D . 111. No. l:10-cv-12 0506, EC F No, 1,9/2/10.13 7. Declaration of Morgan 7. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained14 E . Pietz, pg. 2 -3 % 5, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled15 follows: Steele Hansemeier's and/or Personal16 efforts in this regard started to Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;17 arouse public attention starting Hearsay (FRE 801(c),18 at least as early as November 802); Improper Opinion19 15, 2010, which is the date of a (FRE 7 0 1 ) ; Speculation20 Chicago Tribune article talking (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;21 about M r . Steele's "fight Argumentative; Assumes22 against porn piracy": Facts Not In Evidence;23 http://articles.chicagotribune.co Improper Characterization24 m/2010-11-15/news/ct-met- o f Evidence.25 porn-attorney- 2010111526 1 face-lawsuit-anti-piracy-27 campaign-copyright-violators28

4



6/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 8. Declaration of Morgan 8. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained4 E . Pietz, pg. 3 16,as fol lows: 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled5 I am informed and believe that and/or Personal6 since the early days of Steele Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;7 Hansemeier, in addition to M r. Hearsay (FRE 801(c),8 Steele, both Paul Hansemeier, 802); Speculation (FRE9 an attorney, and Paul's brother 6 0 2 ) ; Argumentative;

10 Peter Hansemeier, who is Assumes Facts Not In11 purportedly knowledgeable Evidence; Improper12 about computers, have played Characterization of13 an active role in the copyright Evidence.14 litigation cases fded by this15 f i r m .16 9. Declaration of Morgan 9. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained17 E . Pietz, pg. 3 16,as fol lows: 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled18 T y p i c a l l y , Peter Hansemeier and/or Personal19 would sign declarations in Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;20 Steele Hansemeier (and later, Hearsay (FRE $01 (c),21 Prenda Law, Inc.) copyright 802); Improper Opinion22 cases, averring that he had (FRE 7 0 1 ) ; Speculation23 logged IP addresses that were (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;24 allegedly used to download Argumentative; Assumes25 pornography i l l e g a l l y using the Facts Not In Evidence;26 BitTorrent f i l e sharing Improper Characterization27 protocol. o f Evidence.28

5



7/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 10. Declaration of Morgan 10. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained4 E . Pietz, pg. 317, as follows: 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled5 It did not take long for courts and/or Personal6 to begin expressing skepticism Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;7 about Prenda's BitTorrent Improper Opinion (FRE8 lawsuits. 7 0 1 ) ; Speculation (FRE9 6 0 2 ) ; Argumentative;

10 Assumes Facts Not In11 Evidence; Improper12 Characterization of13 Evidence.14 11. Declaration of Morgan 11. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained15 E . Pietz, pg. 317, as follows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled16 In early 2011, Judge M i l t o n Foundation and/or17 Shadur o f the Northern District Personal Knowledge (FRE18 o f I l l i n o i s , who sits in Chicago, 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE19 where Steele Hansemeier was 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper20 originally based, dismissed one Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;21 o f the firm's early cases, Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;22 wherein Mr. Steele had sought Argumentative; Assumes23 to subpoena ISP subscriber Facts Not In Evidence;24 information from all over the Improper Characterization25 Country. See CP Productions, o f Evidence.26 Inc. v. Does 1-300, No. 10-cv-27 6255 (N.D. 111. March 2, 2011)28

6



8/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 (Shadur, Sen. J.) (minute order)4 ("This Court's February 24,5 2011 memorandum opinion6 and order has already sounded7 the death k n e l l for this action,8 which has abused the9 litigation system in more than

10 one way. But because the11 aggrieved Doe defendants12 continue to come out of the13 woodwork with motions to14 quash, indicating an15 unawareness of this Court's16 dismissal of this action,17 [counsel John Steele] is18 ordered to appear in court on19 March 9, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.20 Counsel w i l l be expected to21 discuss what steps should be22 taken to apprise all o f the23 targeted "Doe" defendants that24 they w i l l not be subject to any25 further trouble or expense as a26 result of this ill-fated (as w e l l27 as ill -considered) lawsuit.")28

7



9/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 (emphasis added); see also Boy4 Racer, Inc. v. Does 1-22, No.5 11 C 2984, S l i p Op. ( N . D . 111.6 M a y 9, 2011) (Shadur, Sen. J.)7 (noting that the Court "rejected8 attorney Steele's effort to shoot9 first and identify his targets

10 later," and making clear that11 suits against a "passel of12 'Does'" would not get13 anywhere in that Court).14 12. Declaration of Morgan 12. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained15 E . Pietz, pg. 4 % 8, as follows: 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled16 Undeterred, Steele Hansemeier and/or Personal17 actually expanded. Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;18 Improper Opinion (FRE19 7 0 1 ) ; Speculation ( F # 20 6 0 2 ) ; Argumentative;21 Assumes Facts Not In22 Evidence; Improper23 Characterization of24 Evidence.25 13. Declaration of Morgan 13. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained26 E . Pietz, pg. 418, as follows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled27 I am informed and believe that Foundation and/or28

8



10/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 starting in March, 2011, Steele Personal Knowledge (FRE4 Hansemeier, through attorney 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE5 Brett L . Gibbs in C a l i f o r n i a , 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper6 began f i l i n g cases outside of Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;7 I l l i n o i s . Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;8 Argumentative; Assumes9 Facts Not In Evidence;

10 Improper Characterization11 o f Evidence.12 14. Declaration of Morgan 14. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained13 E . Pietz, pg. 4 f 8, as fol lows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled14 M r , Gibbs, under the banner of Foundation and/or15 Steele Hansemeier, P L L C , Personal Knowledge (FRE16 f i l e d a slew of actions in the 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE17 Northern District of California 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper18 on behalf of various Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;19 pornographers. See, e.g., Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;20 MCGIP, LLCv. Does 1-18, Argumentative; Assumes21 N . D . Cal. Case No. 12-cv- Facts Not In Evidence;22 1495, EC F No . 1,3/28/11. Improper Characterization23 o f Evidence.24 15. Declaration of Morgan 15. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained25 E . Pietz, pg. 4 f 8, as fol lows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled26 Steele Hansemeier, through Foundation and/or27 other attorneys, also began Personal Knowledge (FRE28

9

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 64-1 Filed 03/05/13 Page 10 of 97 Page ID#:1203


11/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 f i l i n g actions in other states 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE4 around the country, including 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper5 the Southern District of Opinion (FRE 701);6 Florida, among other places. Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;7 Argumentative; Assumes8 Facts Not In Evidence;9 Improper Characterization

10 o f Evidence.11 16. Declaration of Morgan 16. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained12 E . Pietz, pg. 4 19,as follows: 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled13 Since the early days of Steele and/or Personal14 Hansemeier, the individuals Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;15 noted above have maintained Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;16 the same website, located at Assumes Facts Not In17 wefightpiracy.com. Evidence; Improper18 Characterization of19 Evidence.20 17. Declaration of Morgan 17. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained21 E . Pietz, pg. 4 19,as follows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled22 Exhibit A - True and correct Foundation and/or23 copies of several iterations of Personal Knowledge (FRE24 the wefightpiracy.com website, 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE25 showing how it has changed 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);26 over time, as downloaded by Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;27 me from web.archive.org, as Improper Characterization28

10



12/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 w e l l as a screenshot from the o f Evidence; Improper4 site as it appeared l i v e on Authentication of5 January 14, 2013, are attached Document (FRE 9 0 1 ) .6 hereto as Exhibit A.7 18. Declaration of Morgan 18. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained8 E . Pietz, pg. 4 110,as follows: 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled9 I am informed and believe that and/or Personal

10 in November of 2011, Steele Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;11 Hansemeier, P L L C gave way Hearsay (FRE 801(c),12 to "Prenda Law, Inc.," an 802); Speculation (FRE13 entity organized under the laws 6 0 2 ) ; Assumes Facts Not14 o f the State of I l l i n o i s . In Evidence; Improper15 Characterization of16 Evidence.17 19. Declaration of Morgan 19. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained18 E . Pietz, pg. 4 110,as follows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled19 Curiously, "Prenda Law, Inc." Foundation and/or20 appears to have been organized Personal Knowledge (FRE21 as a regular corporation, not a 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE22 professional corporation. 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);23 Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;24 Assumes Facts Not In25 Evidence; Improper26 Characterization of27 Evidence.28

11



13/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 20. Declaration of Morgan 20. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained4 E . Pietz, pg. 4110, as follows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overmled5 Exhibit B - A tme and correct Foundation and/or6 copy of the entity detail for Personal Knowledge (FRE7 Prenda L a w , Inc. on the Illinois 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE8 Secretary of State website as of 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);9 January 9, 2013 is attached Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;

10 hereto as Exhibit B. Assumes Facts Not In11 Evidence; Improper12 Characterization of13 Evidence; Improper14 Authentication of15 Document (FRE 9 0 1 ) .16 21. Declaration of Morgan 21. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained17 E . Pietz, pg. 4-5 111, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overmled18 follows: I am informed and Foundation and/or19 believe that after the switch Personal Knowledge (FRE20 from Steele Hansemeier, P L L C 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE21 to Prenda L a w , Inc., the f i r m 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper22 continued to f i l e cases on Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;23 behalf of the same group of Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;24 clients, most, i f not al l of Argumentative; Assumes25 whom, produce pornography Facts Not In Evidence;26 and/or hold some k i n d of Improper Characterization27 copyright rights to o f Evidence; Improper28

12



14/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 pornography. authentication of4 document (FRE 9 0 1 ) .5 22. Declaration of Morgan 22. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained6 E . Pietz, pg. 4-5 111, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled7 follows: These clients of Foundation and/or8 Prenda included: Personal Knowledge (FRE9 A F Holdings, L L C ; 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE

10 Arte de Oaxaca, L L C ; 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);11 Boy Racer, Inc.; Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;12 Bubble Gum Assumes Facts Not In13 Productions, L L C ; Evidence; Improper14 C P Productions, Inc.; Characterization of15 First Time Videos, Evidence.16 L L C ;17 Future B l u e , Inc.;18 Guava, L L C ;19 Hard Drive20 Productions, Inc.;21 Ingenuity 13, L L C ;22 Lightspeed M e di a23 Corporation;24 M C G I P , L L C ;25 Millenniuem T G A ,26 Inc.;27 Openmind Solutions,28

13



15/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 Inc.;4 Pacific Century5 International L td.;6 Pink Lotus7 Entertainment L L C ;8 Sunlust Pictures, L L C ;9 V P R Internationale;

10 23. Declaration of Morgan 23. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained11 E . Pietz, pg. 4-5 f 11, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled12 follows: Between September Foundation and/or13 2, 2010 and February 24, 2012, Personal Knowledge (FRE14 Prenda f i l e d over 118 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE15 copyright infringement actions 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);16 in various federal courts Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;17 around the country, against Assumes Facts Not In18 more than 15,000 John Doe Evidence; Improper19 Defendants, on behalf of some Characterization of20 o f the above entities. Evidence.21 24. Declaration of Morgan 24. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained22 E . Pietz, pg. 5-6 112, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled23 follows: I am informed and and/or Personal24 believe that after the switch Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;25 from Steele Hansemeier, L L C Hearsay (FRE 8 0 1 ( c ) ,26 to Prenda L a w , Inc., attorney 802); Speculation (FRE27 Paul D u f f y became the new 6 0 2 ) ; Assumes Facts Not28

14



16/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 nominal head of Prenda Law. In Evidence; Improper4 Characterization of5 Evidence.6 25. Declaration of Morgan 25. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained7 E . Pietz, pg. 5-6 f 12, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled8 follows: John Steele and Brett Foundation and/or9 Gibbs continued to fde Personal Knowledge (FRE

10 pleadings and communicate 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE11 with opposing counsel on 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);12 behalf of Prenda, but typically Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;13 referred to themselves as "of Assumes Facts Not In14 counsel." Evidence; Improper15 Characterization of16 Evidence.17 26. Declaration of Morgan 26. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained18 E . Pietz, pg. 5-6 112, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled19 follows: Prenda also fded Foundation and/or20 many cases through " l o c a l Personal Knowledge (FRE21 counsel" in various 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE22 jurisdictions, where Prenda 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper23 L a w was not technically on the Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;24 pleadings, but was actually Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;25 steering the litigation. See, Argumentative; Assumes26 e.g., Sunlust Pictures, Inc. v. Facts Not In Evidence;27 Tuan Nguyen, M . D . F l . Case Improper Characterization28

15



17/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 N o . 8 : 12 - C V - 1 6 8 5- T - 35 M A P . o f Evidence.4 27. Declaration of Morgan 27. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained5 E . Pietz, pg. 5-6 f 12, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled6 follows: Exhibit C - A true Foundation and/or7 and correct copy of a complaint Personal Knowledge (FRE8 fded by l o c a l counsel Matthew 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE9 Jenkins of Nebraska, fded for 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);

10 Prenda on behalf o f Lightspeed Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;11 M e di a Corporation is attached Assumes Facts Not In12 hereto as Exhibit C. Evidence; Improper13 Characterization of14 Evidence; Improper15 Authentication of16 Document (FRE 9 0 1 ) .17 28. Declaration of Morgan 28. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained18 E . Pietz, pg. 5-6 f 12, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled19 follows: This document shows Foundation and/or20 how the email address used by Personal Knowledge (FRE21 l o c a l counsel on the leadings 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE22 was Brett Gibbs' email 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);23 address, Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;24 blgibbs(a)wefightpiracy.com. Argumentative; Assumes25 Facts Not In Evidence;26 Improper Characterization27 o f Evidence.28

16



18/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 29. Declaration of Morgan 29. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained4 E . Pietz, pg. 5-6112, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled5 follows: I do not believe this is Foundation and/or6 an isolated incident, of l o c a l Personal Knowledge (FRE7 counsel f rom Prenda using Mr. 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE8 Gibbs' email address on 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper9 pleadings. Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;

10 Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;11 Argumentative; Assumes12 Facts Not In Evidence;13 Improper Characterization14 o f Evidence.15 30. Declaration of Morgan 30. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained16 E . Pietz, pg. 6 113,as follows: 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled17 I am informed and believe that and/or Personal18 as of A p r i l 12, 2012, John Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;19 Steele was s t i l l identifying Hearsay (FRE 801(c),20 himself as "of counsel" to 802); Speculation (FRE21 Prenda Law, Inc. 6 0 2 ) ; Argumentative;22 Assumes Facts Not In23 Evidence; Improper24 Characterization of25 Evidence.26 31. Declaration of Morgan 31. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained27 E . Pietz, pg. 6 f 13, as follows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled28

17



19/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 Exhibit D - Attached hereto as Foundation and/or4 Exhibit D is a true and correct Personal Knowledge (FRE5 copy of a pro hac vice 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE6 application Mr. Steele fded in 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);7 an important mutli-Doe case Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;8 pending in Washington, D. C . Argumentative; Assumes9 AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1- Facts Not In Evidence;

10 1058, D . D . C . No. 12-cv-0048- Improper Characterization11 B A H , EC F No. 32, 4/20/12. o f Evidence; Improper12 Authentication of13 Document (FRE 9 0 1 ) .14 32. Declaration of Morgan 32. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained15 E . Pietz, pg. 6 113,as follows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled16 In the application, Mr . Steele Foundation and/or17 recites that he is "of counsel Personal Knowledge (FRE18 with the law f i r m of Prenda 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE19 L a w , Inc." 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);20 Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;21 Argumentative; Assumes22 Facts Not In Evidence;23 Improper Characterization24 o f Evidence.25 33. Declaration of Morgan 33. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained26 E . Pietz, pg. 6114, as follows: 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled27 I am informed and believe that and/or Personal28

18



20/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 where courts have allowed Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;4 Prenda to util ize the subpoena Hearsay (FRE 8 0 1 ( c ) ,5 power to obtain subscriber 802); Improper Opinion6 information from ISPs, over (FRE 701); Speculation7 ISP and subscriber objections, (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;8 the result has been a stream of Argumentative; Assumes9 unrelenting, debt collector style Facts Not In Evidence;

10 harassment, all designed to Improper Characterization11 pressure these ISP subscribers o f Evidence.12 to quickly settle their cases.13 34. Declaration of Morgan 34. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained14 E . Pietz, pg. 6114, as follows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled15 Prenda sends out misleading Foundation and/or16 demand letters. Personal Knowledge (FRE17 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE18 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper19 Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;20 Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;21 Argumentative; Assumes22 Facts Not In Evidence;23 Improper Characterization24 o f Evidence.25 35. Declaration of Morgan 35. Irrelevant (F RE* Sustained26 E . Pietz, pg. 6 f 14, as follows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled27 Exhibit E - A true and correct Foundation and/or28

19



21/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 copy of such a letter is attached Personal Knowledge (FRE4 hereto as Exhibit E. 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE5 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper6 Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;7 Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;8 Argumentative; Assumes9 Facts Not In Evidence;

10 Improper Characterization11 o f Evidence; Improper12 Authentication of13 Document (FRE 9 0 1 ) .14 36. Declaration of Morgan 36. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained15 E . Pietz, pg. 6115,as follows: 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled16 In particular, note how the and/or Personal17 letter, on page 1, identifies Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;18 " Y o u r IP address you were Hearsay (FRE 8 0 1 ( c ) ,19 assigned during your illegal 802); Improper Opinion20 activity." Id. p . l (emphasis (FRE 7 0 1 ) ; Speculation21 added). (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;22 Argumentative; Assumes23 Facts Not In Evidence;24 Improper Characterization25 o f Evidence.26 37. Declaration of Morgan 37. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained27 E . Pietz, pg. 6 % 15, as follows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled28

20



22/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 Thus the letters sent to ISP Foundation and/or4 subscribers tend to conflate the Personal Knowledge (FRE5 IS P subscriber with the actual 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE6 infringer. 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper7 Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;8 Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;9 Argumentative; Assumes

10 Facts Not In Evidence;11 Improper Characterization12 o f Evidence.13 38. Declaration of Morgan 38. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained14 E . Pietz, pg. 6115, as fol lows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled15 Another scare tactic are the Foundation and/or16 citations to cases awarding Personal Knowledge (FRE17 astronomical statutory 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE18 damages, without explaining 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper19 the importance of willfulness Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;20 into the calculation of such Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;21 damages. Id. p. 2. Argumentative; Assumes22 Facts Not In Evidence;23 Improper Characterization24 o f Evidence.25 39. Declaration of Morgan 39 . Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained26 E . Pietz, pg. 6-7116, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled27 follows: I am informed and and/or Personal28

21



23/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 believe that once Prenda has Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;4 obtained a subscriber's Hearsay (FRE 801(c),5 information, in addition to 802); Improper Opinion6 sending out demand letters, it (FRE 701); Speculation7 also begins calling that person (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;8 incessantly, with threats that i f Argumentative; Assumes9 they do not settle, they w i l l be Facts Not In Evidence;

10 "named" in a federal lawsuit Improper Characterization11 accusing them of i l l e g a l l y o f Evidence.12 downloading pornography.13 40. Declaration of Morgan 40. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained14 E . Pietz, pg. 6-7116, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled15 follows: I have never received Foundation and/or16 one of these phone calls Personal Knowledge (FRE17 personally, but multiple 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE18 potential and actual clients of 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper19 mine have told me much the Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;20 same story in this regard: Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;21 sometimes as many as three Argumentative; Assumes22 phone calls a day, sometimes Facts Not In Evidence;23 non for a month, but then they Improper Characterization24 would start back up again, o f Evidence.25 according to no discernible26 pattern.27 41. Declaration of Morgan 41. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained28

22



24/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 E . Pietz, pg. 7117, as follows: 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled4 S i m i l a r l y , I am informed and and/or Personal5 believe, because several Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;6 potential and actual clients Hearsay (FRE 801(c),7 have told me so, that the phone 802); Improper Opinion8 calls included so-called "robo- (FRE 701); Speculation9 calls," where it was a machine (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;

10 doing the dialing. See: Argumentative; Assumes11 http://dietrolldie.com/2012/06/ Facts Not In Evidence;12 16/prenda-robo-calls- Improper Characterization13 stupidity-gone-automatic/ o f Evidence; Improper14 Authentication of15 Document (FRE 9 0 1 ) .16 42. Declaration of Morgan 42. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained17 E . Pietz, pg. 7 % 18, as follows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled18 I am informed and believe that Foundation and/or19 most of the people working in Personal Knowledge (FRE20 the Prenda c a l l centers are not 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE21 attorneys. 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper22 Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;23 Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;24 Argumentative; Assumes25 Facts Not In Evidence;26 Improper Characterization27 o f Evidence.28

23



25/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 43. Declaration of Morgan 43. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained4 E . Pietz, pg. 7118, as follows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled5 Rather, they are similar to Foundation and/or6 professional telemarketers or Personal Knowledge (FRE7 debt collectors, who often work 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE8 from specific guidelines, and 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper9 are possibly paid on Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;

10 commission. Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;11 Argumentative; Assumes12 Facts Not In Evidence;13 Improper Characterization14 o f Evidence.15 44. Declaration of Morgan 44. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained16 E . Pietz, pg. 7118, as follows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled17 The common theme in these Foundation and/or18 harassing communications is Personal Knowledge (FRE19 pressure to "settle." 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE20 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper21 Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;22 Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;23 Argumentative; Assumes24 Facts Not In Evidence;25 Improper Characterization26 o f Evidence.27 45. Declaration of Morgan | 45. Irrelevant ( F R F Sustained28

24



26/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 E . Pietz, pg. 7-8119, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled4 follows: I am informed and Foundation and/or5 believe that in February 2012, Personal Knowledge (FRE6 Prenda Law was forced to 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE7 make a damaging admission by 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper8 Judge L u c y Koh of the Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ; S9 Northern District of C a l i f o r n i a . Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;

10 Argumentative; Assumes11 Facts Not In Evidence;12 Improper Characterization13 o f Evidence.14 46. Declaration of Morgan 46. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained15 E . Pietz, pg. 7-8 % 19, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled16 follows: After i n i t i a l l y Foundation and/or17 allowing subpoenas but then Personal Knowledge (FRE18 becoming suspicious of 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE19 Prenda's attempt to obtain an 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper20 extension of the Rule 4(m) Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;21 service of process deadline, Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;22 Judge Koh ordered M r . Brett Argumentative; Assumes23 Gibbs to file a "list of the Facts Not In Evidence;24 BitTorrent copyright Improper Characterization25 infringement cases involving o f Evidence.26 multiple joined John Doe27 Defendants filed [by] Plaintiffs28

25



27/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 counsel's law f i r m or4 predecessor f i r m in federal5 court.6 47. Declaration of Morgan 47. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained7 E . Pietz, pg. 7-8 f 19, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled8 f o l l o w s : Identify the case by Foundation and/or9 name, case number, court, and Personal Knowledge (FRE

10 f i l i n g date. 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE11 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper12 O p i n i o n (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;13 Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;14 Argumentative; Assumes15 Facts Not In Evidence;16 Improper Characterization17 o f Evidence.18 48. Declaration of Morgan 48. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained19 E . Pietz, pg. 7-8119, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled20 f o l l o w s : For each case, Foundation and/or21 indicate how many Doe Personal Knowledge (FRE22 defendants were actually 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE23 served." AF Holdings v. Does 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper24 1-135, N . D . Cal . Case No. O p i n i o n (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;25 5:11 - c v - 0 3 3 6 - L H K , EC F No. Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;26 4 2 , 2/23/12. Argumentative; Assumes27 Facts Not In Evidence;28

26



28/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 Improper Characterization4 o f Evidence.5 49. Declaration of Morgan 49. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained6 E . Pietz, pg. 7-81 19, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled7 follows: Judge Koh asked just Foundation and/or8 the right question. Personal Knowledge (FRE9 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE

10 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper11 Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;12 Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;13 Argumentative; Assumes14 Facts Not In Evidence;15 Improper Characterization16 o f Evidence.17 50. Declaration of Morgan 50. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained18 E . Pietz, pg. 7-81 19, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled19 follows: The next day, Mr. Foundation and/or20 Gibbs fded a status report with Personal Knowledge (FRE21 an Exhibit disclosing that over 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE22 the year and a half prior, 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);23 Prenda Law f/k/a Steele Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;24 Hansemeier, had fded 118 Argumentative; Assumes25 multiple-defendant cases, Facts Not In Evidence;26 against a staggering 15,878 Improper Characterization27 Doe defendants, but they had o f Evidence.28

27



29/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 served zero (0) John Does in4 any of these cases. Id, at EC F5 N o , 43-1,2/24/12. pp. 4-6.6 51. Declaration of Morgan 51. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained7 E . Pietz, pg. 7-8 119, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled8 follows: Exhibit F - A true Foundation and/or9 and correct copy of this Exhibit Personal Knowledge (FRE

10 A to the status report, which 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE11 lists Prenda' cases, is attached 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);12 hereto as Exhibit F. Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;13 Argumentative; Assumes14 Facts Not In Evidence;15 Improper Characterization16 o f Evidence; Improper17 Authentication of18 Document (FRE 9 0 1 ) .19 52. Declaration of Morgan 52. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained20 E . Pietz, pg. 7-8 f 19, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled21 follows: Specifically, the Foundation and/or22 status report stated, as to the Personal Knowledge (FRE23 list of the 118 cases, "Although 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE24 our records indicate that we 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper25 have f i l e d suits against Characterization of26 individual copyright Evidence.27 infringement defendants, our28

28



30/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 records indicate that no4 defendants have been served in5 any of the below-listed cases."6 53. Declaration of Morgan 53. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained7 E . Pietz, pg. 8 % 20, as follows: 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled8 I am informed and believe that and/or Personal9 once word of this admission by Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;

10 Prenda got out (defense Hearsay ( F R F 8 0 1 ( c ) ,11 attorneys began including the 802); Improper Opinion12 status report as an exhibit to ( F R E 7 0 1 ) ; Speculation13 motions to quash in other (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;14 cases) Prenda rightly Argumentative; Assumes15 recognized that in order to have Facts Not In Evidence;16 any credibility with both the Improper Characterization17 courts and the people it was o f Evidence.18 threatening with suit, it was19 going to have to start naming20 and serving some people.21 54. Declaration of Morgan 54. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained22 E . Pietz, pg. 8120,as follows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled23 So, from a list of what I Foundation and/or24 suspect must be several Personal Knowledge (FRE25 thousand ISP subscribers who 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE26 it has identified in prior court 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper27 actions where the courts Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;28

29



31/97

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

Material Obiected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling onObiection:

allowed the ISP subpoenas, Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;Prenda started naming and Argumentative; Assumesserving some individual Facts Not In Evidence;defendants, a few at a time. Improper Characterization

o f Evidence.55. Declaration of Morgan 55. Irrelevant (FRE SustainedE . Pietz, pg. 8 % 20, as fol lows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks OverruledOnce it did start serving Foundation and/orpeople, Prenda used the Personal Knowledge (FREopportunity to create a section 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FREon its website where it could 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improperpublicly shame the defendants Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;it went after individually, with Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;searchable links to their names, Argumentative; Assumesand to the case documents, as a Facts Not In Evidence;warning to the many John Improper CharacterizationDoe's its "settlement o f Evidence.negotiators" were s t i l l activelypursuing.56. Declaration of Morgan 56. Irrelevant (FRE SustainedE . Pietz, pg. 8 % 20, as fol lows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks OverruledA s of January 11, 2013, this Foundation and/orsection of Prenda's website Personal Knowledge (FRElists 140 cases against 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FREindividual, named defendants 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper

30



32/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 (although many of these suits Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;4 have already been dismissed, Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;5 usually without prejudice, at Argumentative; Assumes6 the first hint of litigation Facts Not In Evidence;7 difficulty). Improper Characterization8 o f Evidence.9 57. Declaration of Morgan 57. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained

10 E . Pietz, pg. 8120,as follows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled11 Each o f these listings identifies Foundation and/or12 the plaintiff by name. Personal Knowledge (FRE13 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE14 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper15 Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;16 Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;17 Argumentative; Assumes18 Facts Not In Evidence;19 Improper Characterization20 o f Evidence.21 58. Declaration of Morgan 58. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained22 E . Pietz, pg. 8120, as follows: 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled23 The page also separately lists Foundation and/or24 208 lawsuits Prenda has filed Personal Knowledge (FRE25 against John Does, which are 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE26 described as "Recent Cases 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper27 Against Soon-to-be-Identified Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;28

31



33/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 Individuals." See Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;4 http://wefightpiracy.com/suits- Argumentative; Assumes5 against-individuals.php, as of Facts Not In Evidence;6 January 11,2013. Improper Characterization7 o f Evidence.8 59. Declaration of Morgan 59. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained9 E . Pietz, pg. 8-9 f 21, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled

10 follows: I am informed and Foundation and/or11 believe that on multiple Personal Knowledge (FRE12 occasions, in half-hearted 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE13 attempts to request an 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper14 extension of the Rule 4(m) Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;15 deadline, but explain why no Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;16 service has yet been effected in Argumentative; Assumes17 his case, M r . Gibbs has Facts Not In Evidence;18 explained that the lack of Improper Characterization19 service should be excused o f Evidence; Improper20 because he cannot, consistent Authentication of21 with Rule 11(b)(3), form the Document (FRE 9 0 1 ) .22 "reasonable basis" necessary to23 support a factual allegation that24 an ISP subscriber is the actual25 infringer without some k i n d of26 further discovery beyond the27 mere fact that a person happens28

32



34/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 to pay the Internet b i l l . Hard4 Drive Prod's, v. Doe, N . D .5 C a l . Case N o . 22-1566, EC F6 N o . 29, 11/11/11 (status report7 f i l e d by Brett Gibbs); see also8 Boy Racer, Inc. v. Does 1-52,9 2011 W L 7402999 ( N . D . Cal,

10 2011) ( M r . Gibbs admitted that11 the ISP subpoenas "were not12 sufficient to ' f u l l y identify'13 'each P2P network user14 suspected of violating the15 plaintiffs copyright'"); Hard16 Drive Productions v. Doe, No .17 4:1 l-cv-05634-PJH, E C F No.18 9, pp. 9-10, 1/6/12 (plaintiffs19 ex parte application for further20 discovery, seeking leave to21 depose an ISP subscriber) (M r.22 Gibbs represented to the Court23 that " P l a i n t i f f must conduct24 additional limited ex parte25 discovery [beyond the26 subpoenas which had already27 been issued] to determine who28

33



35/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 should be named as the4 defendant in this case.").5 60. Declaration of Morgan 60. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained6 E . Pietz, pg. 8-9 121, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled7 follows: Footnote 1 - Foundation and/or8 Generally, a case that is Personal Knowledge (FRE9 nominally s t i l l pending against 6 0 2 ) ; Improper Opinion

10 someone is more effective as (FRE 7 0 1 ) ; Speculation11 settlement leverage than is a (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;12 case that has been f u l l y Argumentative; Assumes13 terminated. Facts Not In Evidence;14 Improper Characterization15 o f Evidence.16 61. Declaration of Morgan 61. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained17 E . Pietz, pg. 8-9 121, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled18 follows: Thus, Prenda Foundation and/or19 generally tries to keep its cases Personal Knowledge (FRE20 alive, on l i f e support, for as 6 0 2 ) ; Improper Opinion21 long as possible, but while (FRE 701); Speculation22 doing as little actual litigating (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;23 as possible. Argumentative; Assumes24 Facts Not In Evidence;25 Improper Characterization26 o f Evidence.27 62. Declaration of Morgan 62. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained28

34



36/97

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling onObiection:

E . Pietz, pg. 9-10122, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruledfollows: Further, I am and/or Personalinformed and believe that Mr. Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;Gibbs has been specifically Hearsay (FRE 8 0 1 ( c ) ,warned by Judge Seeborg of 802); Improper Opinionthe Northern District of (FRE 701); SpeculationCalifornia that, based on his (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;admission that the ISP address Argumentative; Assumesalone is not enough to justify Facts Not In Evidence;naming and serving someone Improper Characterizationwith a pornography complaint, o f Evidence.threatening to actually nameand serve an ISP subscriber isinappropriate.63. Declaration of Morgan 63. Irrelevant (FRE SustainedE . Pietz, pg. 9-10122, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruledfollows: Specifically, Foundation and/or

" G i v e n plaintiffs' Personal Knowledge (FREadmission that it lacks 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FREknowledge as to whether 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); ImproperWang [an ISP Characterization ofsubscriber] is responsible Evidence; Improperfor the alleged Authentication ofinfringement, naming Document (FRE 9 0 1 ) .her as a defendant at

35



37/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 this juncture would4 present a serious Rule5 11 issue. As such, the6 argument has the7 appearance of an8 improper threat." Hard9 Drive Productions, Inc.

10 v. John Doe, No. 4:11-11 cv-05630 (Order12 Granting Leave to Issue13 Deposition14 Subpoena)(N.D. Cal ,15 January 18, 2012)(ECF16 N o , 10 at 2) (emphasis17 added).18 64. Declaration of Morgan 64. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained19 E . Pietz, pg. 9-10122, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled20 follows: In short, M r . Gibbs Foundation and/or21 has both admitted, and been Personal Knowledge (FRE22 specifically warned by a 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE23 federal Judge, that something 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper24 more is required, beyond the Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;25 mere fact that someone Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;26 happens to pay the Internet b i l l , Argumentative; Assumes27 in order to justify naming and Facts Not In Evidence;28

36



38/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 serving that person with a Improper Characterization4 complaint in a case l i k e this. o f Evidence.5 65. Declaration of Morgan 65. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained6 E . Pietz, pg. 10123, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled7 f o l l o w s : Despite the above and/or Personal8 admissions and specific Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;9 warning from Judge Seeborg Improper Opinion (FRE

10 on Rule 11,1 am personally 7 0 1 ) ; Speculation (FRE11 aware of at least two occasions 6 0 2 ) ; Argumentative;12 where M r . Gibbs of Prenda law Assumes Facts Not In13 has actually done precisely the Evidence; Improper14 opposite, and gone ahead and Characterization of15 named and served someone (or Evidence.16 tried to do so) based on the fact17 that they were the account18 b i l l i n g contact identified by the19 I S P .20 66. Declaration of Morgan 66. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained21 E . Pietz, pg. 10123, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled22 f o l l o w s : In both instances, Foundation and/or23 Prenda has tried to defend itself Personal Knowledge (FRE24 by saying that it did perform 6 0 2 ) ; Improper Opinion25 some k i n d of online Internet (FRE 7 0 1 ) ; Speculation26 investigation. (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;27 Argumentative; Assumes28

37



39/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 Facts Not In Evidence;4 Improper Characterization5 o f Evidence.6 67. Declaration of Morgan 67. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained7 E . Pietz, pg. 10 % 23, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled8 follows: But in both Foundation and/or9 instances, the investigation was Personal Knowledge (FRE

10 a farce and the "facts" 6 0 2 ) ; Improper Opinion11 supposedly yielded by the (FRE 701); Speculation12 investigation were so w i l d l y (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;13 incorrect that one has to Argumentative; Assumes14 wonder whether Prenda was Facts Not In Evidence;15 not really just making these Improper Characterization16 "facts" up. o f Evidence.17 68. Declaration of Morgan 68. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained18 E . Pietz, pg. 10-1 I f 24, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled19 follows: The first example of and/or Personal20 Prenda's bad faith in naming Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;21 and serving an ISP subscriber Improper Opinion (FRE22 that I am aware of concerns my 7 0 1 ) ; Speculation (FRE23 client Jesse Nason. 6 0 2 ) ; Argumentative;24 Assumes Facts Not In25 Evidence; Improper26 Characterization of27 Evidence.28

38



40/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 69. Declaration of Morgan 69. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained4 E . Pietz, pg. 10-1H 24, as 401,402); Lacks Overruled5 follows: Facing a "stiffening Foundation and/or6 judicial headwind" in federal Personal Knowledge (FRE7 court a newer Prenda law tactic 602); Improper Opinion8 is to dress copyright (FRE 701); Speculation9 infringement claims up in state (FRE 6 02 ) ;

10 law and "computer fraud" Argumentative; Assumes11 clothing, in order to fde suit in Facts Not In Evidence;12 state courts. Improper Characterization13 o f Evidence.14 70. Declaration of Morgan 70. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained15 E . Pietz, pg. 10-1H 24, as 401,402); Lacks Overruled16 follows: Such was the case in Foundation and/or17 Lightspeed Media Corporation Personal Knowledge (FRE18 v. John Doe, C i r c u i t Court of 602); Improper Opinion19 St. C l a i r County, IL, No. 11 L (FRE 701); Speculation20 683. (FRE 6 02 ) ;21 Argumentative; Assumes22 Facts Not In Evidence;23 Improper Characterization24 o f Evidence.25 71. Declaration of Morgan 71. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained26 E . Pietz, pg. 10-11124, as 401,402); Lacks Overruled27 follows: In that original Foundation and/or28

39



41/97

Material Objected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling onObiection:

Lightspeed case, Prenda, onbehalf of Lightspeed, fded suitagainst a single John Doe,alleging claims for violationso f the federal Computer Fraudand Abuse A c t (18 U . S . C . 1030 etseq.) ( " C F A A " ) as w e l las several state law claims thatwere al l pre-empted by theCopyright Act .

Personal Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ; Improper Opinion(FRE 7 0 1 ) ; Speculation(FRE 6 0 2 ) ;Argumentative; AssumesFacts Not In Evidence;Improper Characterizationo f Evidence.

72. Declaration of MorganE . Pietz, pg. 10-11 124, asfollows: In addition toseeking ISP information forthis single defendant, Prendaalso sought to subpoena a listo f 6,600 IP addresses forsupposed "co-conspirators,"located al l over the country,who had supposedly assistedthe lead defendant in his"password hacking" andcomputer fraud.

72. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; LacksFoundation and/orPersonal Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ; Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ; Argumentative;Assumes Facts Not InEvidence; ImproperCharacterization ofEvidence.

SustainedOverruled

73. Declaration of MorganE . Pietz, pg. 10-11 % 24, as

73. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks

SustainedOverruled

40



42/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 follows: Mr. Nason was not Foundation and/or4 given the required notice by his Personal Knowledge (FRE5 I S P , so he was not able to 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE6 object to the subpoena seeking 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper7 his information. Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;8 Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;9 Argumentative; Assumes

10 Facts Not In Evidence;11 Improper Characterization12 o f Evidence.13 74. Declaration of Morgan 74. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained14 E . Pietz, pg. 10-11124, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled15 follows: Although some ISPs Foundation and/or16 later objected to these Personal Knowledge (FRE17 subpoenas, resulting in the 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE18 Illinois Supreme Court 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper19 stepping in to issue a Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;20 "supervisory order" curtailing Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;21 the IP address discovery Argumentative; Assumes22 issuing out of St. C l a i r County, Facts Not In Evidence;23 M r . Nason's ISP simply Improper Characterization24 handed Mr. Nason's info over o f Evidence.25 before any of that played out.26 75. Declaration of Morgan 75. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained27 E . Pietz, pg. 10-11 f 24, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled28

41



43/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 follows: A few months after Foundation and/or4 his information was released Personal Knowledge (FRE5 by his ISP, a process sever 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE6 showed up on Mr. Nason's 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper7 doorstep, and he was served in Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;8 Lightpseed Media Corporation Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;9 v. Nason, Los Angeles Argumentative; Assumes

10 Superior Court No. NC057950. Facts Not In Evidence;11 Improper Characterization12 o f Evidence.13 76. Declaration of Morgan 76. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained14 E . Pietz, pg. 10-1H 24, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled15 follows: When Mr. Gibbs was Foundation and/or16 pressed at the first hearing in Personal Knowledge (FRE17 the matter to explain how, 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE18 based on the prior admissions 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper19 noted above, he could justify Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;20 having named and served Mr. Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;21 Nason in a public complaint, Argumentative; Assumes22 M r . Gibbs responded that Facts Not In Evidence;23 Prenda had determined that Mr. Improper Characterization24 Nason " l i v e d alone." o f Evidence.25 77. Declaration of Morgan 77. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained26 E . Pietz, pg. 10-11% 24, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled27 follows: After I had a chance Foundation and/or28

42



44/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 to confer with my client, I Personal Knowledge (FRE4 learned this was untrue; Mr, 6 0 2 ) ; Improper Opinion5 Nason has been married for (FRE 7 0 1 ) ; Speculation6 several years, and lives with (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;7 his wife. Argumentative; Assumes8 Facts Not In Evidence;9 Improper Characterization

10 o f Evidence.11 78. Declaration of Morgan 78. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained12 E . Pietz, pg. 10-11f 24, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled13 follows: No other justification Foundation and/or14 for naming and serving Mr. Personal Knowledge (FRE15 Nason was presented (other 6 0 2 ) ; Improper Opinion16 than that he paid the Internet (FRE 701); Speculation17 b i l l , and " l i v e d alone," which (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;18 was untrue). Argumentative; Assumes19 Facts Not In Evidence;20 Improper Characterization21 o f Evidence.22 79. Declaration of Morgan 79. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained23 E . Pietz, pg. 10-11 f24, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled24 follows: After Mr . Nason had Foundation and/or25 his first demurrer sustained, Personal Knowledge (FRE26 and all the state law claims 6 0 2 ) ; Improper Opinion27 dismissed with prejudice, on (FRE 7 0 1 ) ; Speculation28

43



45/97


the eve of a second demurrerbeing fded, Prenda dismissedthe remaining C F A A claim(without prejudice, of course).

(FRE 6 0 2 ) ;Argumentative; AssumesFacts Not In Evidence;Improper Characterizationo f Evidence.

80. Declaration of MorganE . Pietz, pg. 10-11f 24, asfollows: Exhibit G - A trueand correct copy of theDeclaration of Jesse Nason isattached hereto as Exhibit G.

80. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; LacksFoundation and/orPersonal Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE801 (c), 802); ImproperOpinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;Argumentative; AssumesFacts Not In Evidence;Improper Characterizationo f Evidence; ImproperAuthentication ofDocument (FRE 9 0 1 ) .

SustainedOverruled

81. Declaration of MorganE . Pietz, pg. 11 % 25, asfollows: The second concreteexample of Prenda's bad faithwith respect to naming andserving an ISP subscriber that I

81. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 ,402); Lacks Foundationand/or PersonalKnowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;Hearsay (FRE 801(c),802); Improper Opinion

SustainedOverruled

44



46/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 am aware of occurred in AF (FRE 7 0 1 ) ; Speculation4 Holdings LLC v. John Doe et (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;5 al, N . D . C a l . No. 12-cv-2049, Argumentative; Assumes6 E C F No. 45,1/7/1 3 in a case Facts Not In Evidence;7 pending before Judge Improper Characterization8 Hamilton. o f Evidence.9 82. Declaration o f Morgan 82. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained

10 E . Pietz, pg. 11 If 25, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled11 follows: Prenda learned the Foundation and/or12 ISP subscriber's identity in that Personal Knowledge (FRE13 case from AF Holdings v. Does 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE14 1-135, N . D . Cal . Case No. 5:1 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper15 l - c v - 0 3 3 6 - L F i K , which was the Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;16 same case where Judge Koh Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;17 ordered M r . Gibbs to fde the Argumentative; Assumes18 now infamous status report. Facts Not In Evidence;19 Improper Characterization20 o f Evidence.21 83. Declaration of Morgan 83. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained22 E . Pietz, pg. 11 % 25, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled23 follows: Prior to the earlier Foundation and/or24 case being dismissed by Judge Personal Knowledge (FRE25 K o h on March 27,2012(1 1- 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE26 cv-336, EC F No . 45) for failure 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper27 to serve, however, an ISP Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;28

45



47/97

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728


subpoena was processedresulting in the identification ofone Josh Hatfield as the ISPb i l l i n g contact who paid for anaccount that was assigned oneo f the allegedly infringing IPaddresses at issue.

Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;Argumentative; AssumesFacts Not In Evidence;Improper Characterizationo f Evidence.

84. Declaration of MorganE . Pietz, pg. 11-12126, asfollows: I am informed andbelieve that on A p r i l 24, 2012,Prenda f i l e d a complaintasserting claims for copyinginfringement and contributorycopyright infringement againstan unidentified Doe defendant,and another cause of action fornegligence against JoshHatfield (the 12-ev-2049action).

84. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 ,402); Lacks Foundationand/or PersonalKnowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;Hearsay (FRE 801(c),802); Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ; Assumes Facts NotIn Evidence; ImproperCharacterization ofEvidence.

SustainedOverruled

85. Declaration of MorganE . Pietz, pg. 11-12126, asfollows: The i n i t i a l complaintin the 12-cv-2049 action didnot assert claims for copyright

85. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; LacksFoundation and/orPersonal Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE

SustainedOverruled

46



48/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 infringement against Hatfield. 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);4 Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;5 Assumes Facts Not In6 Evidence; Improper7 Characterization of8 Evidence.9 86. Declaration of Morgan 86. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained

10 E . Pietz, pg. Il - 1 2 f 2 6 , as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled11 follows: Instead, the gravamen Foundation and/or12 o f the negligence claim against Personal Knowledge (FRE13 Hatfield was that he failed to 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE14 secure his Internet network. 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);15 Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;16 Assumes Facts Not In17 Evidence; Improper18 Characterization of19 Evidence.20 87. Declaration of Morgan 87. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained21 E . Pietz, pg. 11-12126, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled22 follows: After Hatfield moved Foundation and/or23 to dismiss the negligence Personal Knowledge (FRE24 claim, Prenda f i l e d a first 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE25 amended complaint ( " F A C " ) 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);26 asserting copyright Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;27 infringement against the Doe, Assumes Facts Not In28

47



49/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 "and a claim of negligence Evidence; Improper4 against Hatfield, based on Characterization of5 alleged third party's use of Evidence.6 Hatfield's Internet connection7 to commit the infringement,8 and Hatfield's failure to secure9 this Internet connection and/or

10 failure to monitor the11 unidentified third party's use of12 his Internet connection." AF13 Holdings LLC v. John Doe et14 al, N . D . Cal. No. 12-cv-2049,15 E C F No. 45, 1/7/13, p. 3.16 88. Declaration of Morgan 88. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained17 E . Pietz, pg. 11-12 % 26, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled18 follows: The F A C also Foundation and/or19 explained in a footnote on page Personal Knowledge (FRE20 1 that "at this stage of the 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE21 litigation, [pjTaintiff does not 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);22 know if [defendant Doe is the Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;23 same individual as Josh Assumes Facts Not In24 Hatfield." F A C at l , n . l . Evidence; Improper25 Characterization of26 Evidence.27 89. Declaration of Morgan 89. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained28

48



50/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 E . Pietz, pg. 11-12126, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled4 follows: Hatfield then moved Foundation and/or5 to dismiss the negligence Personal Knowledge (FRE6 claim, and the Court granted 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE7 the motion, with prejudice. 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);8 Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;9 Assumes Facts Not In

10 Evidence; Improper11 Characterization of12 Evidence.13 90. Declaration of Morgan 90. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained14 E . Pietz, pg. 11-12 126, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled15 follows: The Court also Foundation and/or16 pointed out that the case was Personal Knowledge (FRE17 w e l l past the 120-day Rule 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE18 4(m) service o f process 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);19 deadline, and ordered the Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;20 plaintiff to f i l e a proof of Assumes Facts Not In21 service by October 4, 2012. Evidence; Improper22 Characterization of23 Evidence.24 91. Declaration of Morgan 91. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained25 E . Pietz, pg. 11-12126, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled26 follows: The plaintiff did not Foundation and/or27 do so. Personal Knowledge (FRE28

49



51/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE4 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);5 Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;6 Assumes Facts Not In7 Evidence; Improper8 Characterization of9 Evidence.

10 92. Declaration of Morgan 9 2 . Irrelevant (FRE Sustained11 E . Pietz, pg. 11-12 126, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled12 follows: Instead, it fded a Foundation and/or13 motion on September 28, 2012, Personal Knowledge (FRE14 seeking leave to amend the 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE15 complaint again, to now allege 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);16 that Hatfield was the Doe Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;17 defendant. Assumes Facts Not In18 Evidence; Improper19 Characterization of20 Evidence.21 93. Declaration of Morgan 9 3 . Irrelevant (FRE Sustained22 E . Pietz, pg. 11-12 126, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled23 follows: I am informed and Foundation and/or24 believe that a November 7, Personal Knowledge (FRE25 2012, hearing on plaintiffs 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE26 motion for leave to amend the 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);27 complaint to allege that the ISP Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;28

50



52/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 subscriber Hatfield actually Assumes Facts Not In4 was the Doe defendant being Evidence; Improper5 sued for copyright Characterization of6 infringement, Judge Hamilton Evidence.7 advised M r . Gibbs that,8 "he would have to9 persuade the Court that

10 he had discovered11 additional evidence,12 based on the same13 identification of a14 defendant that he had15 discovered additional16 evidence, based on the17 same identification of a18 defendant that he had19 know about for more20 than a year. The Court21 gave counsel one week22 to submit a revised23 proposed S A C that24 demonstrated diligence25 and that supported the26 alleged 'new facts'27 asserted by counsel,"28

51



53/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 94. Declaration of Morgan 94. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained4 E . Pietz, pg. 11-12 126, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled5 follows: M r. Gibbs did indeed and/or Personal6 fde a proposed revised second Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;7 amended complaint against Mr, Hearsay (FRE 801(c),8 Hatfield, which contained a 802); Speculation (FRE9 new section entitled "Plaintiffs 6 0 2 ) ; Assumes Facts Not

10 Further Investigation of In Evidence; Improper11 Defendant." Characterization of12 Evidence.13 95. Declaration of Morgan 95. Irrelevant ( F R E ' Sustained14 E . Pietz, pg. 13f 28, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled15 follows: I am informed and Foundation and/or16 believe that as in the Nason Personal Knowledge (FRE17 case, the "investigation" 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE18 plaintiff claims to have 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper19 conducted in the Hatf ield case Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;20 was (a) w oefully insufficient as Argumentative; Assumes21 to methodology, and (b) Facts Not In Evidence;22 resulted in w i l d l y incorrect Improper Characterization23 "facts." o f Evidence.24 96. Declaration of Morgan 96. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , Sustained25 E . Pietz, pg. 131 28, as 402); Lacks Foundation Overruled26 follows: Judge Hamilton's and/or Personal27 order denying the motion for Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ; .28

52



54/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 leave to amend the complaint, Hearsay ( F i ? F 8 0 1 ( c ) ,4 a true and correct copy of 802); Improper Opinion5 which is attached hereto as (FRE 7 0 1 ) ; Speculation6 Exhibit H explains all o f the (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;7 ways "Plaintiffs Further Argumentative; Assumes8 Investigation of Defendant" Facts Not In Evidence;9 which appears to have mainly Improper Characterization

10 consisted of a bit of light o f Evidence.11 google searching, was12 insufficient.13 97. Declaration of Morgan 97. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained14 E . Pietz, pg. 13 % 28, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled15 follows: Exhibit H - Judge Foundation and/or16 Hamilton's order denying the Personal Knowledge (FRE17 motion for leave to amend the 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE18 complaint, a true and correct 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper19 copy of which is attached Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;20 hereto as Exhibit H explains Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;21 a l l of the ways "Plaintiffs Argumentative; Assumes22 Further Investigation of Facts Not In Evidence;23 Defendant" which appears to Improper Characterization24 have mainly consisted of a bit o f Evidence.25 o f light google searching, was26 insufficient.27 98. Declaration of Morgan 98. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained28

53



55/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 E . Pietz, pg. 13f 28, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled4 follows: However, even more Foundation and/or5 notably, as in the Nason case, Personal Knowledge (FRE6 the "facts" Prenda came up 6 0 2 ) ; Improper Opinion7 with are w i l d l y incorrect. In (FRE 7 0 1 ) ; Speculation8 large measure, Mr. Gibbs (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;9 explained his "good faith" Argumentative; Assumes

10 belief that M r . Hatfield was the Facts Not In Evidence;11 actual infringer by pointing to Improper Characterization12 facebook and Myspace pages o f Evidence.13 that do not actually belong to14 Mr. Hatfield.15 99. Declaration of Morgan 99. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained16 E . Pietz, pg. 131 28, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled17 follows: Exhibit I - A true and Foundation and/or18 correct copy of M r . Hatfield's Personal Knowledge (FRE19 declaration swearing to this is 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE20 attached as Exhibit I. 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper21 Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;22 Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;23 Argumentative; Assumes24 Facts Not In Evidence;25 Improper Characterization26 o f Evidence; Improper27 Authentication of28

54



56/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 Document (FRE 9 0 1 ) .4 100. Declaration of Morgan 100. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained5 E . Pietz, pg. 13128, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled6 follows: Just as Prenda's Foundation and/or7 "investigation" supposedly Personal Knowledge (FRE8 revealed that M r . Nason " l i v e d 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE9 alone," when he had been 801 (c), 802); Improper

10 married for years, the Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;11 "investigation" of M r . Hatfield Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;12 resulted in Prenda submitting Argumentative; Assumes13 to the Court facebook and Facts Not In Evidence;14 Myspace pages that did not Improper Characterization15 actually belong to M r . Hatfield. o f Evidence.16 101. Declaration of Morgan 101. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained17 E . Pietz, pg. 13-14129, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled18 follows: I am informed and Foundation and/or19 believe that starting in Personal Knowledge (FRE20 November of 2012, facts began 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE21 to come to light regarding one 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); Improper22 A l a n Cooper of Minnesota, al l Opinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;23 o f which seem to suggest that Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;24 Prenda has been engaged in Argumentative; Assumes25 systemic fraud, both on the Facts Not In Evidence;26 courts and on the copyright Improper Characterization27 office; forgery; identity theft, o f Evidence.28

55



57/97


as w e l l as improper feesplitting, and concealment ofthe identity of the real partiesin interest in these cases,among other very troublingissues.102. Declaration of MorganE . Pietz, pg. 13-14129, asfollows: M y knowledge of theA l a n Cooper issues is basedprimarily on two sources: (i) aletter M r . Cooper's attorneyfded on his behalf in two AFHoldings cases pending inMinnesota, a true and correctcopy of which is attachedhereto as Exhibit J: and (ii) asworn affidavit executed byM r . Cooper himself, a true andcorrect copy of which isattached hereto as Exhibit K.

102. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; LacksFoundation and/orPersonal Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802); ImproperOpinion (FRE 7 0 1 ) ;Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;Argumentative; AssumesFacts Not In Evidence;Improper Characterizationo f Evidence.

SustainedOverruled

103. Declaration of MorganE . Pietz, pg. 13-14129, asfollows: Exhibit J - (i) a letterM r . Cooper's attorney f i l e d on

103. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; LacksFoundation and/orPersonal Knowledge (FRE

SustainedOverruled

56



58/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 his behalf in two A F Holdings 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE4 cases pending in Minnesota, a 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);5 true and correct copy of which Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;6 is attached hereto as Exhibit J: Argumentative; Assumes7 Facts Not In Evidence;8 Improper Characterization9 o f Evidence; Improper

10 Authentication of11 Document (FRE 9 0 1 ) .12 104. Declaration of Morgan 104. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained13 E . Pietz, pg. 13-14129, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled14 follows: Exhibit K - (ii) a Foundation and/or15 sworn affidavit executed by Personal Knowledge (FRE16 M r . Cooper himself, a true and 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE17 correct copy of which is 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);18 attached hereto as Exhibit K. Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;19 Argumentative; Assumes20 Facts Not In Evidence;21 Improper Characterization22 o f Evidence; Improper23 Authentication of24 Document (FRE 9 0 1 ) .25 105. Declaration of Morgan 105. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained26 E . Pietz, pg. 14130, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled27 follows: Specifically, I am Foundation and/or28

57



59/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 informed and believe that there Personal Knowledge (FRE4 is a gentleman from Minnesota 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE5 named A l a n Cooper who 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);6 formerly worked as a caretaker Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;7 on a property owned by John Argumentative; Assumes8 Steele. Exhibit J; Exhibit K Facts Not In Evidence;9 1f4. Improper Characterization

10 o f Evidence; Improper11 Authentication of12 Document (FRE 9 0 1 ) .13 106. Declaration of Morgan 106. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained14 E . Pietz, pg. 14 % 31, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled15 follows: I am informed and Foundation and/or16 believe that Mr. Steele bragged Personal Knowledge (FRE17 to his caretaker A l a n Cooper 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE18 about a copyright scheme 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);19 Exhibit J, p 1., and, according Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;20 to Mr. Cooper "Steele had told Argumentative; Assumes21 me on at least one occasion Facts Not In Evidence;22 that i f anyone asked about Improper Characterization23 companies that I should c a l l o f Evidence.24 him." Appendix 2,1|8.25 107. Declaration of Morgan 107. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained26 E . Pietz, pg. 14% 32, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled27 follows: I am informed and Foundation and/or28

58



60/97

Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling onObiection:

believe that after thisMinnesota M r . Cooper becamesuspicious, and searchedonline, he found out thatPrenda Law had been using thename " A l a n Cooper" as thesupposed principal of A FHoldings and Ingenuity 13, invarious federal court fdings,including copyright assignmentforms, and verifications f i l e don behalf of Ingenuity 13, al lo f which were purportedlyexecuted by " A l a n Cooper" onbehalf o f these entities. ExhibitJ . (Exhibit E thereto, page 8 of8).

Personal Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;Argumentative; AssumesFacts Not In Evidence;Improper Characterizationo f Evidence.

108. Declaration of MorganE . Pietz, pg. 14133, asfollows: I am informed andbelieve that, concerned abouthis potential personal l i a b i l i t yin connection with the scoreso f Ingenuity 13 and A FHoldings copyright

108. Irrelevant (FRE 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; LacksFoundation and/orPersonal Knowledge (FRE 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;Argumentative; Assumes

SustainedOverruled

59



61/97

1 Material Obiected to: Grounds for Obiection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 infringement lawsuits pending Facts Not In Evidence;4 across the country, M r. Cooper Improper Characterization5 hired a lawyer named Paul o f Evidence.6 Godfread who asked Prenda7 L a w to confirm that there was8 another A l a n Cooper who is9 the true principal o f A F

10 Holdings and Ingenuity 13, and11 that the identity of A l a n12 Cooper of Minnesota is not13 being misappropriated. Exhibit14 J .15 109. Declaration of Morgan 109. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained16 E . Pietz, pg. 14134, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled17 follows: I am informed and Foundation and/or18 believe that immediately after Personal Knowledge (FRE19 M r . Cooper's attorney f i l e d a 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE20 notice of appearance on Mr. 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);21 Cooper's behalf in an A F Speculation (FRE 6 0 2 ) ;22 Holdings case pending in Argumentative; Assumes23 Minnesota, John Steele Facts Not In Evidence;24 attempted to c a l l M r. Cooper Improper Characterization25 multiple times, despite the fact o f Evidence.26 that M r . Cooper was27 represented bv counsel. Exhibit28

60



62/97

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728


J .110. Declaration of MorganE . Pietz, pg. 15135, asfollows: The signature used byA l a n Cooper of Minnesota onh is lease agreement with JohnSteele appears to be somewhatsimilar to the " A l a n cooper"signature used on variouscopyright assignments inPrenda's A F Holdings cases:

110. Irrelevant (FRE401,402); LacksFoundation and/orPersonal Knowledge (FRE602); Improper Opinion(FRE 701); Speculation(FRE 602);Argumentative; AssumesFacts Not In Evidence;Improper Characterization

Image ofAuthenticatedSignature ofMinnesota AlanCooper from HisLease with JohnSteele: 2

Image w / * ' V I W / L v i d e n c e .Cooper"Signature Usedon CopyrightAssignmentFiled in CD. Cal.I2-cv-S709(Low-numberCase):3

SustainedOverruled

61



63/97

1 Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection: Ruling on2 Obiection:3 111. Declaration of Morgan 111. Irrelevant (FRE Sustained4 E . Pietz, pg. 15 f 35, as 4 0 1 , 4 0 2 ) ; Lacks Overruled5 follows: Footnote 2 - The Foundation and/or6 signature pictured here is from Personal Knowledge (FRE7 the lease agreement between 6 0 2 ) ; Hearsay (FRE8 M r . Steele and M r. Cooper that 8 0 1 ( c ) , 802);9 was attached to

NOTICE OF LODGING BRETT L. GIBBS' [PROPOSED! ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MORGAN E....

Documents

Transcript of NOTICE OF LODGING BRETT L. GIBBS' [PROPOSED! ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF MORGAN E....