I have been busy and just wanted to give everyone an update on the Harris case (AF Holdings LLC v. David Harris, 2:12-cv-02144). Things have not gone as well as one can hope for Mr. Harris, but the case is far from over. AF Holdings/Prenda Law still has to get past the 11 March 2013 hearing in Judge Otis Wright’s CA courtroom. Plus we have the real Alan Cooper suing John Steele in a Minnesota court. All of this is relevant to the case against Mr. Harris and local Troll Goodhue knows this as well.
So What Has Happened Since My Last Update?
On 1 Feb 13, Judge Snow denied Mr. Harris’ Motion for a Security Bond, denied Mr. Harris’ Motion to Strike the Case Management Order, denied Mr. Harris’ Motion to Stay Discovery, and finally denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Against Mr. Harris. CourtRespObj_02144(AZ) CourtOrder_02144(AZ)
The main reason the judge denied the security bond was due to local rules covering “costs” and not an award of attorney fees, which is not available to Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris objected to this order and court issued a follow-on order clarifying that he should participate in the case and deal with Troll Goodhue in a professional manner. The court said because he refused to meet and confer with Troll Goodhue as ordered, the court accepted the Case Management Order as written. CMO_02144(AZ) The judge warned Mr. Harris to further refuse to participate in a reasonable manner could result in further consequences, to include a default judgment.
As I said, not good, but it still doesn’t get to the core of the case – Plaintiff/Prenda Law has crap for evidence.
Motion For ISP Subpoena
What I found really odd was on 14 Feb 13, Plaintiff filed a Motion for authorizing a subpoena to find out who Mr. Harris’ co-conspirators are. No I haven’t been smoking any wacky weed! Motion_ISP_Subpoena_02144(AZ) Draft_Motion_ISP_02144(AZ) In the motion Troll Goodhue tells the court they need a subpoena to obtain the ISP subscriber information.
Plaintiff needs the identifying information of the Defendant’s co-conspirators to prosecute its case against the Defendant. In its Complaint, Plaintiff sought “an order that Defendant is jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff in the full amount of Judgment” for both its contributory infringement and civil conspiracy claims. (ECF No. 1 at 13.) Therefore, Plaintiff needs this information to be able to establish the Defendant’s liability and ascertain the extent of the damages caused by the infringement to which Defendant contributed and the conspiracy in which Defendant participated. Further, the infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrighted work is ongoing and continuous, necessitating immediate relief to prevent further irreparable harm to Plaintiff. Without a way to contact the Defendant’s co-conspirators, Plaintiff will continue to suffer ongoing, continuous injury due to the illegal activities.
If you remember from reading my first article on this case, Mr. Harris was initially part of DC case #1:11-cv-01274, AF Holdings LLC, v. Does 1-1140, filed on 13 Jul 12. Plaintiff/Prenda Law already obtained the ISP subscriber information from the ISPs in the DC case and thus was able to file an individual case against Mr. Harris and seven other Arizona defendants.
On 4 Feb 13, one of these AZ defendants, Walter Szarek, had a default judgment issued against him. Default_Judge_Szarek_02123(AZ) The total damages, attorneys fees, and costs against Mr. Szarek was $4995. If you divide this by 1140 defendants (jointly and severally liable from the DC case), the cost is $4.38 per defendant. As the judgment is against Mr. Szarek, it is now Mr. Szarek’s responsibility to go after the other defendants (to include Mr. Harris) – not Plaintiff/Prenda Law.
I wonder what Plaintiff/Prenda Law is up to with this motion for a subpoena? If they end up providing different IP addresses from the DC case, they have some serious explaining to do. Based on the motion, they may believe the infringement is still continuing and they have new public IP addresses they can attempt to get settlements from. If this is the case, they need to have Mr. Harris’ ISP validate the original public IP address (as of 3 Jun 11) is still tied to Mr. Harris. As far as court document show, they are basing Mr, Harris’ public IP address off the DC subpoena. As it is almost 3 months into 2013, there is a good possibility that Mr. Harris’ public IP has changed since 3 June 2011 (their initial date/time of allegation against Mr. Harris). In the Motion, no public IP addresses for Mr. Harris and the co-conspirators were listed. It is unknown what dates/times or period or infringement they are now alleging to be associated with Mr. Harris.
Nothing from Prenda Law really surprises me. I just wish more of the courts could see what they bozos are up to.
Mr. Harris – please be mindful of the court and don’t let Plaintiff/Prenda Law take advantage of your anger. They will get their own in time and we would all like to see you succeed. The result of the 11 Mar 13, CA court hearing should be interesting. I’m of the opinion that Plaintiff/Prenda Law will make some attempt to dismiss this case, especially after the Alan Cooper events start to compound.