New Product – Prenda Pooper Scooper Papers (PPSP), AKA: Request For Informal Discovery

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

 DTD 🙂


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.”   

Informal Discovery

Here is a little background information on “Informal 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 lineIt 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. 

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 -
This entry was posted in Informal Discovery, Prenda Law Inc. and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to New Product – Prenda Pooper Scooper Papers (PPSP), AKA: Request For Informal Discovery

  1. Anonymous says:

    Check out the second paragraph:

    “If this request is rejected, a formal motion will be filed with the Court to compel action. A copy of the motion to compel, memorandum of law in support thereof, and a proposed order are attached as exhibits for your reference.”

    The copies weren’t included were they? They didn’t come with mine either. Looks like Prenda ran out of money for paper and ink after they got the requests printed.

    Very professional.

  2. no dose says:

    i still think that a response letter with the doe’s own questions should be sent back with the same boilerplate reasoning that prenda is using. especially on the lightspeed cases as there is a ton of potential discovery items you can request from them

    • My initial list of discovery back to Prenda deposition:
      1) How much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a wood chuck could chuck wood?
      2) Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers. A peck of pickled peppers Peter Piper picked. If Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers, Where’s the peck of pickled peppers Peter Piper picked?
      3) Can you can a can as a canner can can a can?
      4) If Stu chews shoes, should Stu choose the shoes he chews?
      5) Why are you guys such scumbags?

  3. Subscribe says:


  4. Raul says:

    Thanks for making a preemptive strike at this ethically questionable use of a state matrimonial settlement device in the context of a federal “lawsuit”?! My jaw is still aching from crashing to the floor after seeing this. If you are a Doe and you receive this in the mail you might want to consider filing a complaint with the Illinois ARDC as this is so misleading and predatory as be sanctionable IMHO.

    • Anonymous says:

      What kind of precedent is there for attorneys sending discovery requests when they don’t even have a lawsuit?

      • Raul says:

        None that I am aware other in trying to work out a separation/divorce agreement. Maybe a business dissolution. In either case both sides would have legal representation otherwise it would be overreaching if only one side was represented absent an executed acknowledgement and waiver.

  5. Doe403 says:

    My letter was the exact same letter but with a Prenda Law Letter head and Paul Duffy’s signature on page 7. Lol

  6. sumdoe says:

    i cannot see how it can be legal to ask for discovery on a non existent case. how is this not wire fraud?

  7. that anonymous coward says:

    A deeper question one needs to ask oneself is…
    If their case was so awesome, the evidence so overwhelming… why do they need you to give them evidence to make a case?
    Maybe because they never had a case that would survive.
    This is another dirty trick in a long list of dirty tricks, how much longer are the courts going to allow these cases and lawyers to continue before ending this spree of terror?

    • Nicely put. Will steal this though in my post about the same issue (in a couple of hours).

      • Raul says:

        TAC and DTD,
        You put it better than I ever could. Earlier today I was about to get into a legal razzle dazzle about remedies and countermeasures but was afraid of somehow legitimizing this nonsense. Thank you both for reducing it to its essence: pure, unadulterated bullshit.

      • that anonymous coward says:

        making a copy is not stealing…. isn’t that what got us in this mess in the first place? 😀
        Your just happy I managed to have a thought that wasn’t in the middle of a wall of text 🙂

    • that anonymous coward says:

      @Raul – if you have something they could file with the court for the defunct case to shine a bright light on this scam that would be very useful. A Judge hearing complaints about a dismissed case and the use of a closed case to give the air of it being ongoing really seems like it might just piss the Judge off.
      These cases are a waste of Judicial resources, and they are lying to the court, the Does, and themselves pretending they ever had a case.

      Oh and on the preservation of evidence… everytime you turn on or “wakeup” your comptuer, files are changed. To do what they want would require you to turn off the computer and wait until they got a Judge to allow an expert to examine your computer.
      Does anyone think that is really gonna happen? If you raised your hand, and don’t work for Prentenda… you had the wrong answer.

      • Anonymous says:

        Do you believe this would be a productive enterprise? I have also received this packet for a case that was dismissed months ago and did not have a copyright registration. I found the judge’s chambers email online, it would be easy enough to inform them that the plaintiff’s attorney continues to send correspondence that misrepresents a terminated case as ongoing. But what remedies does the judge have at their disposal? Are judges even able to refer an attorney for disciplinary measures after a case has concluded? It wouldn’t really cost me anything to contact them though, so I’m leaning towards giving it a shot.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        Yes, please do. Make sure you include all the court clerks as well. Just make a cover letter to explain that you beleive it is wrong and want something done about it.

        DTD 🙂

      • Raul says:

        A judge has an ethical obligation to report a lawyer’ unethical or illegal conduct whether it be to the appropriate bar disciplinary committee or to the Justice Department.

      • that anonymous coward says:

        @Anonymous – If your statement about there not having been a copyright registration for the “content” in question, that means they defrauded the court. You CAN NOT have a copyright case without something that is copyrighted. To have been granted the subpoenas… wait hold it… (my mind works funny so I free flow “think” on this)
        Is the case you reference Federal or a Florida state case?
        If it is Federal they did defraud the court by not having a copyright registration when they got the subpoenas to prove copyright infringement.
        If it is a State Case, one needs to look at the original complaint – if it says they are on a fishing expedition with the writ of pure discovery to see if they can make a copyright case they defrauded the court.
        Much of this hangs on which court and the wording used.
        Judges dislike being played as fools, and they can bring down the hammer on lawyers caught playing games even without a pending case before them.
        Look at the sanctions Evan Stone was hit with, one of them is he has to file the document where the court called him a lying dumbass (I paraphrase here) in every court he currently has cases pending in. This is a big scarlet letter warning other Judges he lies and cheats to get his way. Judges are much less likely to rubber stamp his requests knowing how he operates and his questionable ethics.

      • Anonymous says:

        Federal case. You almost sound surprised TAC, you must spend all your attention on Randazza because cases without copyright registration are hardly unusual for Prenda.

        It is possible to bring a case without registration in some jurisdictions, if they take the “application approach,” and allow cases to be filed as long as a copyright application is pending (and was filed in the timeframe that would allow them to qualify for statutory remedies). However, Prenda did not provide a copy of an application, a receipt or any actual evidence that an application had been filed as exhibits to their complaint. The work was eventually registered but the registration date is months after the case was filed (and the alleged infringements took place), and the Copyright Office rules say the registration date is retroactive to the date a complete application was filed, which suggests that Prenda/The Plaintiff had not actually filed an application before they filed the case.

        They also contacted me for the first time after they had voluntarily dismissed all but one IP from the case (including mine), using the standard package that pretended like they had an active case and that my IP address was connected to a John Doe defendant when that was no longer the case.

        So, basically no doubt the original complaint was fraudulent, and then they misrepresented the facts in their communications. I’m hoping someone will get the ball rolling on a class action vs. Prenda because there are a number of cases they filed without copyright registration, and all the complaints claimed applications were pending and asked for statutory damages and attorney’s fees, which are not available when the infringement took place before the registration date. I think identifying and focusing on the no-registration cases would be a cut and dry slam dunk for someone who wanted to bring a class action, it might be especially effective to go for damages for the Does who actually did settle when the claims were fraudulent.

        Once I figured out they’ll never follow through with suing anyone, and especially after I realized the work was not registered when they brought the case, I was basically content to let them be as long as they don’t try to sue me individually (which would be stupid because there was no registration, but then they made that mistake with Seth Abrahams). However, after reading about the robocalls and now these informal discovery requests I am feeling progressively less content to give them a pass and feel like doing something proactive.

      • that anonymous coward says:

        @Anonymous – My specialty has been tearing apart Randazza and some of the general idea the trolls use. They all “copy” ideas from each other. It occurred to me as I was typing my response that it could go 2 different ways and before I gave bad information I needed to clarify what we are talking about.
        You could and most likely should file a complaint with the Judge and Clerk in the original case. Attaching proof that the work in question was not copyrighted during the time, and therefore could not be pursued under the Copyright Act means they illegal obtained your information using the court to do so. They knowingly mislead the court and now are using the information obtained to harass and threaten you with a lawsuit with no merit. Even if you were “guilty”, they can win nothing. They can’t even get actual damages.
        This Judge is responsible for handing the names of people accused of nonexistent crimes to a copyright troll who is using the list at their leisure to try and scare settlements from people. The court placed you into this situation and needs to rectify it.

        You should look into if you can file a criminal suit against Pretenda, they are threatening to sue you when the law precludes them from doing so. They are disturbing your peace and harmony and most likely are targeting 100’s of other people from the same case where discovery should never have been granted as the content in question was barred from any copyright remedy by the Copyright Act.

      • that anonymous coward says:

        @Anonymous – I hope your seeing these responses…
        You should look into when the video was produced, this information is easy to get…
        There is a file of records for every porn that says on this date everyone was legal.
        Then look at the gap between production and filing.
        Was discussing this over on Fightcopyrighttrolls and someone read from the handy brochure about limitations and it was enlightening.

  8. anonymous says:

    TAC, you are correct and the “Pump n’ Dump” twins of Buffy & Duffy know it

  9. Pingback: New low of Prenda Law: trolls indiscriminately and inappropriately send out “Letter of request for informal discovery” « Fight Copyright Trolls

  10. DieTrollDie says:

    19 Jul 12 Update
    Please see the top of the main post. I have added a Prenda Robo call in which they mention they will be sending out “Informal Discovery” documents. 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.

    DTD 🙂

  11. that anonymous coward says:

    Ok here it is in black and white.
    This is the Fraga motion to dismiss against LMH (Thanks SJD), it spells out the rules about having to register or preregister before filing a case pretty well. It also demonstrates that if your not going to be accurate your screwed. This would be the 2nd case LMH will lose in court for not using the right name in the filings and helps establish that people who settled previously were defrauded as the work they allegedly “pirated” does not have a valid copyright registration so claiming they would file a copyright case against you is a lie.

  12. Pingback: What to Do About the Prenda Law “Informal Discovery” Papers? | DieTrollDie

  13. ab6775 says:

    Got a call (no voicemail left) from a Miami Beach number today, the day after the alleged “8/8/2012” deadline on the Informal Discovery request.

    Number came in from 305-987-4146. Internet search turned up nothing. Anyone else get a call from this?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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