Prenda Law Responds To Motion To Stay Subpoena – AF Holdings LLC v. Harris – 2:12-cv-02144 (AZ)

On 29 Apr 13, Copyright Troll Goodhue filed a response to Paul Ticen’s motion to stay discovery on the ISP subscriber information on 71 Arizona Cox Communication IP addresses.   PlaintResponse48_02144(AZ)   Motion To Stay    The Ticen motion was filed on behalf of six Does.  In addition, the Does’ motion seeks to quash the subpoena and grant a protective order.

The 71 public IP addresses are a spin-off from the AF Holdings LLC v. Harris – 2:12-cv-02144 case.  Initial post on the spin-off case    Archive Docket    Prenda Law is trying to say they need the subscriber information on these 71 public IP addresses, so they can go forward with their case against Mr. Harris.  As I stated previously, this is utter BS and is nothing more than using the case against Mr. Harris to send additional settlement demands to new Does – Yes it is my opinion.  Even with the death knell of Prenda/AF Holdings/Ingenuity 13, they are still trying to generate more settlements.  Here is a similar MI case where Prenda tried to do the same thing, but failed.

NS2What is truly funny to read in Plaintiff’s response is they claim the Six Does have no standing to file the motion, as they are not a party to this case.  Troll Goodhue/Prenda tells the court the subpoena for the 71 IP addresses are only relevant to the case against Mr. Harris.  Really….  Prenda wants the ISP subscriber information on 71 people and they don’t think those people have a right to object?  Does ANYONE really believe Goodhue/Prenda is not going to contact these people with threats of a lawsuit unless they send them money???

Well it is a funny read and they even  state they believe the six anonymous Does are not really part of the 71 IP addresses.  They ‘believe’ they are just people who oppose copyright infringement and are trying to disrupt Plaintiff’s efforts.  OK, six people who are not part of the 71 IP addresses want to give a law firm money to file this motion (heavy sarcasm).  OR that the ‘evil’ EFF is doing this for free and has recruited non-parties to assist (more sarcasm).  It is truly sad.

There is no evidence in the record that would suggest that Movants are the subjects of Plaintiff’s subpoenas or that they have any legal interest at stake in this case. Plaintiff strongly suspects that Movants are simply individuals who oppose copyright enforcement cases generally, rather than persons with an identifiable legal interest in this proceeding. After all, Movants are represented by panel counsel for a notorious anti-copyright organization—the Electronic Frontier Foundation. (See https://www.eff.org/issues/file-sharing/subpoena-defense) (Aaron Kelly and Paul Ticen are counsel at Kelly Warner, P.L.L.C.) (See http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/).

They even have a reference to me and my torpedo/declaration (ECF NO. 41.):)

In the case at bar several anonymous individuals are seeking to upset Plaintiff’s case against the Defendant by staying discovery, quashing subpoenas and seeking protective orders. This is not the first attempt by anonymous individuals to attack Plaintiff’s case. (See ECF No. 41.) It will certainly not be the last.

The response contains so much crap (my opinion) that it is hard not to laugh at times.  Please take a read and tell me what you think of it.  This is the last of the Arizona Eight cases and Prenda is milking it for all it is worth.  They have already asked for a default judgement, but seem to be holding out until the ISP subscriber information is released by Cox Communications.  As we have already had a default judgement on one of the other Arizona Eight (Szarek Default), I wish the judge would just kill this case.  More shenanigans to come on this case from Troll Goodhue/Prenda – just wait.

DieTrollDie :)

About DieTrollDie

I'm one of the many 'John Does' (200,000+ & growing in the US) who Copyright Trolls have threatened with a civil law suit unless they are paid off. What is a Copyright Troll? Check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation link - http://www.eff.org/issues/copyright-trolls
This entry was posted in Paul Duffy, Prenda Law Inc. and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Prenda Law Responds To Motion To Stay Subpoena – AF Holdings LLC v. Harris – 2:12-cv-02144 (AZ)

  1. that anonymous coward says:

    wow. just wow. the kool-aid must be tasty

  2. indoemitable says:

    Sounds like someone’s tried to slap someone else on the left cheek, and now they’re outraged that said someone else isn’t willing to let them slap the right cheek too.

    Get a clue, jackasses. Most people aren’t Jesus.

  3. Pingback: Fall-Out from Prenda Law Sacntions (Judge Wright) Starts in AZ – AF Holdings LLC v. Harris – 2:12-cv-02144 (AZ) | DieTrollDie

  4. Pingback: Mr. Harris (Pro Se Doe) Rejoins the Fight – AF Holdings LLC v. Harris – 2:12-cv-02144 (AZ) | DieTrollDie

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s