19 Jul 12 Update
Here is a recent Prenda Robo call in which they mention they will be sending out “Informal Discovery” documents. Audio file Please note that with all these call (Robo or Lutz-idiot), they need you to call and talk to them. If you don’t, they have nothing.
Here is a message from Mark Lutz in which he mentions the “time sensitive” documents they will be sending out. Lutz_Audio
Well got back from a little vacation and wanted to get a copy of this wonderful Prenda “Informal” Discovery letter out to the masses. SJD will also likely post something on this subject. At the bottom of this post is a little information on Informal Discovery.
Request For Informal Discovery
I will take you through the letter and cover some of the main points of why this is such a piece of garbage typical of this firm. Here is the letter that was received on 13 Jul 12. Req_Informal_Discovery
- No date on the letter. A simple mistake from the simple minds at Prenda? I don’t think so. This format is very similar to another Prenda document sent to Seth Abrahams stating that the “Open WiFi” defense would not work. It was probably a mistake that Troll Perea put his name at the bottom of the letter.
- For this particular document, the case referenced was 1:11-cv-23036, AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-162. Complaint_23036(FL) The case was open 23 Aug 11, in the Southern District of Florida. The case was voluntarily dismissed by Prenda on 1 Mar 12. Dismiss_All_23036(FL) Docket Note: The entry I see on this archive is the judge telling Plaintiff that one Doe gave some sort of answer, but that is probably doesn’t meet the definition of a filed answer. OneDoe_23036(FL)
- Please note that the tile of this document is, “Letter of Request for Informal Discovery.” It is a request for information just packaged up with many big words, technical terms, and worthless fluff to hopefully get a Doe to contact them.
- The first paragraph starts off the lies. “We have commenced our discovery efforts in relation to the above-titled matter and your cooperation is required.” The above titled matter is a case in which they have voluntarily dismissed all Does. There is no active case on this matter. Yes I know the statute of limitation is still open, but this just shows you how twisted these people are. I also really got a laugh out of the last part that states “your cooperation is required.” Is this a request or a demand? The letter goes on to try to threaten the Doe that if they don’t cooperate, they will move forward with formal discovery. Yeah sure, right after they open a new case, name & serve the ISP subscriber – what a joke. How many times has Lutz and company told a Doe that line? The even sadder joke is this line –
… and any bad faith attempts to cooperate will be addressed formally.
- The next section is “Definition.” It goes on for two pages and is nothing more than big words and hot air meant to confuse the uneducated in these matters.
- “Instructions Regarding the Discovery Process” section tries to make it seem that this information discover has the same full weight as if this was formally mandated by the court. It doesn’t.
- The “Discovery of Evidence” section details the three categories of evidence they want: (1) Deposition (talking to the Doe), (2) Electronically Stored Information (ESI), & (3) Survey of the Network (essentially access to computers and networks). Prenda has NO intention of actually doing this. This is meant to purely intimidate the Doe and get them to give in.
Here is a little Gem from page 4 (Depositions section).
The main purpose of the deposition is to determine and ascertain the identity of the infringer in this action.
So you mean to tell me that Prenda doesn’t know who the “actual” infringer is?
Specifically, we would like to depose you to determine whether it was your client or a third-party who, via your client’s Internet account, committed infringement.
Another way to put it, “we don’t really want to be counter sued by you, so please tell me who the infringer was.”
- The “Miscellaneous” section goes on to state this letter doesn’t limit their scope of discovery and that the Doe needs to make a written response to them (Don’t). I love this typo on page 6 –
Your written response to this letter is requested 08/08/2012 days from date of letter or at your discretion, whichever is sooner.
How many days from the date of the letter (Letter isn’t dated)? Or at your discretion? I thought you wanted it by 8 Aug 12?
- Troll Perea goes on to tell the Doe that they have a continuing obligation “to take reasonable steps in preserving all documents, tangible things, and ESI potentially relevant to any issue in this matter as discussed below.” If you want an obligation from someone in a legal matter, you open a case and not simply act like there is a case open and the Doe is compelled to respond.
- The last bit of the letter is an attachment concerning the preservation of evidence (spoliation) – a warning. This is 5 pages of a warning not to do anything to damage or destroy possible evidence and what that possibly is. It is a kitchen sink list of possible evidence. Please impress me some more Prenda. It is just more waste that will end up in the landfill after being used to pick up dog crap off the street.
“Be Nice And Remember To Prenda Scoop That Dog Poop.”
Here is a little background information on “Informal Discovery” (http://www.clausen-hassan.com/law/discovery/). As John Steele ran a family law firm, this is fitting. I’m not sure how often “informal” discovery is used in other legal proceedings, but I did see some mention of it for a DUI case. I would assume it could be used in any legal proceeding. But if there is no open case (named defendant or Doe #), I don’t see how they can really call this a true Informal Discovery. It sounds like fishing expedition for information from Does. Bottom line: It is informal and you don’t have to do anything. If they truly want to come after you (They Don’t!), they can open a new case, name you, serve you with a summons, and go forward with the true discovery aspect of the trial. The only reason Prenda is trying the “Informal Discovery” threat route is that is cheap and no case is actually required. They are bound to get someone to respond to the letter and possibly incriminate themselves or state who they think might have been the actual infringer.
- Informal Discovery The second method of collecting information is “informal discovery” whereby the parties exchange financial information or other pertinent relevant information through oral request or simple correspondence. For example, tax returns, pension statements, or 401(k) plan statements can be provided via regular mail. The advantage of this process is that it is inexpensive compared to “formal discovery.” The disadvantage of such a process may be that if a party wants to hide information, they could attempt to do so by not providing this information. Therefore, whether or not to conduct formal or informal discovery is a very important decision and involves careful analysis on the part of both the client and the lawyer. Even if informal discovery is conducted, it is a good idea to obtain a “Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities” so that in the event that something is later discovered, this document can be used to show the Court that the asset, debt or income was not included in the Divorce Decree.
Just more love from the bright minds at Prenda. If you get one of these letter, just add it to you folder of related documents. Just remember the Richard Pryor Response (RPR) and laugh at these fools.