Second Update – 16 May 13 – AZ Case (2:13-mc-00030) – PRENDA SUBPOENA QUASHED

On 16 May 13, Judge Susan Bolton, issued the following order.   Doc19_00030(AZ)

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant-Movant’s Motion to Quash the Subpoena to Wild West Domains Seeking Identity Information. (Doc. 1)  

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED quashing the subpoena issued by Plaintiff on February 27, 2013 to Wild West Domains.

DieTrollDie 🙂

Confine yourself to observing and you always miss the point of your own life. The object can be stated this way: Live the best life you can. Life is a game whose rules you learn if you leap into it and play it to the hilt. Otherwise, you are caught off balance, continually surprised by the shifting play. Non-players often whine and complain that luck always passes them by. They refuse to see that they can create some of their own luck.


On 15 May 13, the following documents were filed in Arizona case 2:13-mc-00030, (Prenda Law Incorporated v. Godfread et al).   Doc16_00030(AZ)   Doc17_00030(AZ)   Doc18_00030(AZ)   This case was opened in AZ to quash the subpoena for subscriber information for the domain “” (Wild West Domains).   Archive Docket


PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff-Respondent Prenda Law, Inc. has failed to serve or file the required answering memorandum in response to Defendant-Movant John Doe, a.k.a “Die Troll Die” (“DTD”)’s Motion to Quash the Subpoena to Wild West Domains Seeking Identity Information (Dkt. No. 1). Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7-2(i), this failure to file an opposition constitutes Prenda Law’s consent to the requested order (Dkt. No. 1-2). Therefore, for the reasons stated in DTD’s previous filing (Dkt. No. 1), as well as the reasons set forth below, DTD respectfully asks this Court to grant the Motion to Quash.




Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Defendant-Movant John Doe a/k/a “Die Troll Die” (DTD) respectfully request that the Court take judicial notice of the attached Order Issuing Sanctions (the “Order” attached hereto as Exhibit A), issued by Judge Otis D. Wright II of the District Court for the Central District of California on May 6, 2013 in the case of Ingenuity 13 LLC v. John Doe, No. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW(JCx). This request is made in connection with DTD’s Notice of Non-Opposition to Motion to Quash Subpoena; Request for Ruling, filed concurrently.

 Judge Otis Wright, 6 May 13, Order

Reminder – On 7 May 13, Judge Bolton issued an order directing Prenda Law to file a corporate statement (required by FRCP 7.1 & 7.1.1) by 21 May 13.   CorpDiscl_Order_00030(AZ)    The order also directed Plaintiff to do the following.

In addition to the information required by F.R.Civ.P. 7.1 and LRCiv. 7.1.1, the Disclosure Statement shall also contain a list of each member of each LLC.Failure to file the Corporate Disclosure Statement and a list of the members of the LLCs shall result in sanctions being imposed.

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 dietrolldie and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Second Update – 16 May 13 – AZ Case (2:13-mc-00030) – PRENDA SUBPOENA QUASHED

  1. Anon E. Mous says:

    Duffy and Prenda and by extension Steele once again with their bravado of bullying have now painted themselves into a corner and are looking at sanctions… now in my estimation this seems like the 4th casewhere they are in deep trouble

    . In my opinion I don’t think they ever planned to follow thru with these lawsuits against FCT & DTD and the commentators. I believe that this was more a way to try and quiet the critics and to make sure that there cases that are scattered through out the country have as little details leaked out as much as possible.

    I also think they do not want or have the stomach want to go up against the EFF in this case, as they would have got a pounding ( Remember the EFF did very well in some of the Righthaven cases and where is Righthaven now…I know Randazza was a big success in there as well )

    In m yopinion I think that Prenda will try and get rid of this case as quick as possible before this gets any worse for them, I doubt they want another court slapping them with sanctions and I highly doubt they are going to want to have to reveal anything to do with the various LLC and who they are associated with.

    Should be good for a laugh though, keep up the good fight!

  2. OngChotwI says:

    There were a couple cases where the judge required them to show the makeup of the Totally Seperate Company they’re supposedly suing for, prove that they were suing over copyrighted material, and prove that they had the rights to sue over the copyrighted material. And they haven’t been heard from again in those courts, from what I’m seeing. (Please correct me if I’m wrong..)

  3. kyzer says:

    Awesome. The smackdowns just keep coming. Looking forward to Monday and whether they are going to pay the sanctions Wright ordered.

  4. that anonymous coward says:

    Gee Wally this looks bad for Mr. Troll. /Beaver

    Something sad has occurred to me, years from now when this is all just a sad memory…
    All of the targets of these lawsuits could be in the same room… and not know it.
    Although I’d like to think the day Pretenda gets taken away to jail there will be some random people in the gallery with smiles wider than anyone elses…
    Well that and don’t think I could let Steele go away without calling him pookie to his face.
    I think the look of shock and horror on his face would so be worth it…

  5. kyzer says:

    What effect does the squashed subpoena have on the Corporate Disclosure Statement that is supposed to be filed on the 21st?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      It depends on what the judge wants to do – my opinion. If the judge wants to hold them to this, she can – just like what Judge Wright did. OR it can just fade away. 😦

      DTD 🙂

      • kyzer says:

        Thanks DTD. I’m trying to keep track of everything that’s going on. 😉

        Notice any errors or omissions in the upcoming dates?

        May 20th – $81,319.72 attorney’s fees and costs due to Judge Wrights ruling.

        May 21st – In Prenda Law Incorporated v. Godfread et al, they are ordered to file a Corporate Disclosure Statement including a list of each member of each LLC. Failure to file shall result in sanctions being imposed.

        May 24th – AF Holdings LLC v. Harris – IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause within seven (7) days of the date of this Order why this Court should not dismiss this case. To the extent that Plaintiff asserts a right in the continuation of this case, Plaintiff is ordered to identify: (1) the persons who signed Exhibit B in the names of Raymond Rogers and Alan Cooper; (2) all persons who hold any interest in Plaintiff; and (3) if Exhibit B to the Complaint is in fact not signed by Alan Cooper and/or Raymond Rogers why Plaintiff and/or counsel should not be sanctioned pursuant to the Court’s inherent power and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for filing a fraudulent document with this Court. In the interim, this action is stayed until further Order of this Court.

        June 6th – LW Systems v. Hubbard – Hearing on multiple Internet Service Providers Motion to Quash/Protective order.

        June 27th – LW Systems v. Hubbard – Hearing on Does Motions to Quash


        AF Holdings LLC v. Joe Navasca (Honorable Edward M. Chen) – Awaiting reaction to the filing that none of the Prenda gang can come up with any documentation whatsoever pertaining to the elusive “Salt Marsh”.

        Sunlust Pictures v. TUAN NGUYEN – Issue of sanctions and attorney fees.

  6. James says:

    I may have missed it somewhere, but … in the WrightPhotonTorpedo, wasn’t Pietz requested to file a report?

    From the Judge:
    For the sake of completeness, the Court requests Pietz to assist by filing a report, within 14 days, containing contact information for: (1) every bar (state and federal) where these attorneys are admitted to practice; and (2) every judge before whom these attorneys have pending cases.

    I’d sure like to see that list!

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