AF Holdings LLC – The Spin-Off Cases – 2:12-cv-02144 (AZ) Harris Update – 13 Mar 13

DLIRYD2With all that has been going on, my efforts have been side-tracked a bit.  Not to worry, I not going anywhere soon.  As far as the Harris case goes, there have been a couple of developments.

First, Plaintiff has motioned the court for a default judgement and sanctions against Mr.  Harris for non-compliance with the courts mandate to meet and confer with Plaintiff.  I will follow-up on this development in an upcoming post.  Bottom line: Even if you really dislike the Plaintiff/Troll, you may have to deal with them and not anger the judge.  Take the high road and don’t let the Troll play you.  Initial article on the AZ Eight

Second, Troll Goodhue/AF Holdings LLC/Prenda appears to be trying something new with the courts.  On 14 Feb 13, Troll Goodhue filed a Motion for the Authorizing Issuance of Subpoenas.   Motion_ISP_Subpoena_02144(AZ)   Funny thing about the motion is it was signed by Troll Goodhue on 4 Jan 13, but didn’t make it into the docket until 14 Feb 13.  It appears troll Goodhue/Prenda had this ready since 4 Jan 13, but had to hold off for some reason.  You should also note that the court signed the subpoena on 5 Feb 13 (details below).  So the court approved the subpoena on 5 Feb 13, but the Troll motion for it didn’t make it onto PACER until 14 Feb 13Yes I know PACER is not the best, but this is still odd. 

Now the motion for the subpoena mentions that they are trying to identify Mr. Harris’s co-conspirators.

The limited discovery would consist of the issuance of subpoenas on relevant Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) seeking the Defendant’s co-conspirators’ names, current (and permanent) addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and Media Access Control addresses.

But in true Prenda fashion, no details are provided as to the specific public IP addresses they are seeking subscriber information from.  Troll Goodhue goes on to tell the court they need this information to prosecute Mr. Harris.  They further state as the infringement is “ongoing and continuous,” they require immediate relief to prevent further harm.  Troll Goodhue then tells the court that without this information, they will not be able to commence the law suit.  My god! What a load of crap!  The Harris case (and the seven other AZ Does cases) originally came from DC case # 1:11-cv-01274, AF Holdings LLC, v.  Does 1-1140), that was closed in February 2012.  With that many Does in a case, even an idiot Troll would have been able to find some supporting evidence.

I have checked PACER, but failed to find anything to show that the subpoena was authorized by the court.  That is until comments to this site started to show up.

On 5 Feb 13, the court authorized the subpoena and Troll Goodhue/Prenda served it on the ISP.   HarrisSubp_PartDeux_01244(AZ)   The subpoena lists out 71 Arizona public IP addresses with a date range of 1 Oct 12 – 1 Feb 13 (4 months).  Another “interesting” aspect of the public IP addresses listed is they are ALL assigned to Cox Communications, Inc.     

WOD1This seriously looks like Troll Goodhue/Prenda are taking advantage of the court here to claim that for a perfect 4 month period, 71 Arizona public IP addresses (ONLY from Cox Communications???) were co-conspirators with Mr. Harris.  So I guess ONLY people from Arizona (and Cox), were infringing from Mr. Harris’ public IP address.  NOBODY from any of the other 49 States (or other ISPs in AZ) decided to infringe at that time I guess.   

Plus take a look at the motion and actual subpoena.  There is no details concerning the movie in question or Mr. Harris’ public IP address during 1 Oct 12 – 1 Feb 13 period.  As the Harris case only has a claim for the movie “Sexual Obsession,” I will go with that for the time being.  The big problem is with “What was Mr. Harris’ public IP address during the 4-month period?”  How does troll Goodhue/Prenda know it is the same IP address as when they recorded it on 3 Jun 11 (Original DCD case # 1:11-cv-01274)?   As there appears to be some vital information missing from PACER, I getting a sneaking suspicion it was left out on purpose.  This is not a good sign.  The court should have been asking some very simple questions to at least show there was prima facie evidence to support a subpoena.  Something a little more detailed than what Troll Goodhue told the court – “Trust Me.”

Even if is was Mr. Harris’ public IP address that is showing up as a BitTorrent client (Oct 12 – Feb 13), Plaintiff needs to show the direct link back to him.  As far as the docket shows, the only linkage is from the ISP data that was reported to Prenda in 2011.  Again, I cannot believe the court would miss such an obvious detail.

According to the Cox cover letter, the 71 people have until 31 Mar 13, to show that they are fighting the release of their personal information.  Once the information is released, you can expect Prenda Law/Troll Goodhue to send out its usual settlement letters and to start calling the Does.

Now depending on what CA Judge Otis Wright decided to do with ex-Prenda attorney Brett Gibbs (and the other members of the clown posse), the AF Holdings LLC cases could slow down.  In reality I don’t expect Prenda to stop until they are placed in a jail cell with no phones or Internet access.  Fightcopyrighttrolls article   Popehat Article   Ars Technica Article

More to come on this new Prenda move.  As this originally started from 1140 Doe case in DCD, I expect other locations may be seeing similar activity.  Be On The Lookout (BOLO) for the Prenda Spin!  If you are an AZ Doe, please post a comment or send me an email.

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 Paul Duffy, Prenda Law Inc. and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to AF Holdings LLC – The Spin-Off Cases – 2:12-cv-02144 (AZ) Harris Update – 13 Mar 13

  1. I wonder if the Pro Se defendants and those with counsel have considered alerting the courts of what has been going on with Prenda Law and AF Holdings, and asking for a Stay in those cases until the issues are sorted out.

    Furthermore, I wonder if there is any risk that these lawyers who are or were “of counsel” to Prenda: Anderson, Goddhue, Ruggiero, etc., could meet the same fate as Gibbs, if a motivated defendant were to come forward and notify the court in their district.

    • I agree. It is a smart idea to file a stay until the issues in the California court are resolved. I have been watching the dockets of a few of Prenda’s cases, and I have seen a few attorneys file motions with the court giving the judges the “heads up” that Monday happened, along with the issues relating to their cases.

      • Isaac says:

        Sources? I’d love to see some of those motions, and if you’ve already done the legwork…

  2. Sausages says:

    I think the Harris case is a lesson for a lot of the commentators on this and FCT – there was a lot of encouragement towards Mr. Harris to continue to be bellicose toward the judge and the opposing Lawyer. I did not think at that time, and obviously still don’t, that being belligerent is a good strategy. It’s a life lesson a lot of people no matter how pissed off they are at the trolls, the situation, the “system” need to learn, it is never expedient nor wise to act aggressively and recklessly in an unfamiliar forum such as in this case – the US Court System.

    Mr. Harris seems to have given up, if that is the case, that’s too bad, but given the recent allegations and circumstances surrounding AF Holdings, one would think he could easily file a request for judicial notice of the sanctions hearings, the deposition, etc yet chooses to lay down and take it. Mr. Harris should get a lawyer. If he chooses to continue to ignore the lawsuit, it will end badly for him and there is really no reason for it to.

  3. Pingback: AF Holdings fights Motion to Stay | copyrightclerk

  4. thatbalddude says:

    I think that, for the short term, at least, the spin-off cases and hangers-on who get their inspiration or marching orders from Steele, Lipscomb, and Company will pull back and wait unless they’ve already named someone. The fallout from Judge Wright’s courtroom has to be a major concern for the trolls. Once they’ve gone so far as to name someone and get them in court, they’re more or less committed and are going to go cojones to the wall to get what they can before they’re shut down. If they’re still in the extortion phase (oops, I meant “exculpatory evidence and discovery phase”) they’re probably going to sit back and re-evaluate their tactics before proceeding again. What say you, fellow Does?

  5. ThatOneGuy says:

    In regards to your closing statement, what is your email address? Either reply or email me. I need all the help I can get.

  6. DieTrollDie says:

    Looks like Prenda is trying to cut & run. Popehat posting –

    DTD 🙂

  7. Pingback: DTD Torpedo Targets AF Holdings LLC v. Harris – 2:12-cv-02144 (AZ) | DieTrollDie

  8. Pingback: Last-Minute Stipulated Dismissal of Ciccone And The Michigan 300 (AF Holdings LLC.), 4:12-cv-14442 (MI) | DieTrollDie

  9. Pingback: AZ Court Dismisses AF Holdings LLC Case Against Christopher Heggum – 2:12-cv-02130 – Failure To Serve | DieTrollDie

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

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

  12. Pingback: Holiday Update – Copyright Trolls v. Harris & Harrison | DieTrollDie

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