Well I’m back from shore leave and I trying to get organized again and back in the fight. I kept an eye on some of the operations, but was unable to dive too deep into anything.
I think two of the main stories are the Objection by Attorney Syfert/Defendant Oppold and the continuing activity in the PA Bellwether case prior to trial.
Objection by Attorney Syfert/Defendant Oppold
What can you say except WOW! Oppold_Obj_Doc37_01493(FL) This is an old school barrage of heavy ordnance the Prenda crew was probably not expecting. As Prenda law obviously (in my opinion) settled with Syfert/defendant in the Nguyen case, they were probably hoping any additional damage to their operation and survival would be mitigated. Boy would I like to see the signature on the settlement papers showing what Plaintiff/Prenda Law agreed to pay to make it go away. I wonder if Mr. Syfert has a copy framed and hanging above his urinal. 😉 He just needs to remember to leave enough room for a framed copy of Exhibit K (DECLARATION OF DELVAN NEVILLE) to this objection. Doc_37-11_01493(FL) Funny @JohnHenryLawyer Comic It seems the Prenda crew assumed that once they settled with Nguyen, it would be over. Here is a clue Prenda fools – until you settle all debts, the onslaught will continue. That is no threat from me or other personnel. That is just my simple analysis of the mess you created and are now trying to free yourself from. As Prenda finally posted a bond in the CA case, it seems they started to pull their heads out of their backsides. It was funny to see the sanction amount continue to rise each day. Point to consider: As Prenda was able to secure the bond (ARS Article), I assume they were able to show to the bond holder that they had some collateral. That sounds like the beginning of a paper trail of where the money is coming from. If the documents securing the bond are not ‘privileged,’ I would think seeing who has the deep pockets would be interesting (and not too shocking). It also shows that the previous statements to various courts that Plaintifff/Prenda couldn’t afford a bond was most likely a lie (opinion) and reinforces the view that Plaintiff/Prenda has never had any intention of fully litigating these cases beyond collecting settlements and threatening those who attempt to defend themselves. Late addition: Attorney Pietz Opposes Prenda Bond on Six points. Doc_175_08333(CA)
With this objection, Syfert informs the court that as the defendant is the prevailing party, he should be awarded reasonable fees and costs.
The Defendant respectfully requests that he not be held in any such decision to a more stringent evidentiary standard in proving defenses to Plaintiff’s complaint than a Plaintiff would be in proving a default. Defendant had no opportunity to engage in discovery in this case. Likewise, the Plaintiff has offered no evidence other than an IP address and a date and time in this case (lacking any torrent location information). However, there is no need for the court to delve into factual or evidentiary insufficiencies of the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint. The complaint has been adjudicated on the merits and the defendant has prevailed on all counts of infringement and the count of negligence by operation of rule. Plaintiff’s complaint was adjudicated on the merits pursuant to 41(a)(1)(B) in favor of the Defendant, and therefore Defendant is also prevailing party under Buckhannon.
Syfert asks the court for a total of $45,641.20 from Plaintiff (First Time Video (FTV)). This is exactly what Paul Pitcher (Former Prenda Client – Hard Drive Productions) was afraid would happen and why he removed himself from working with Prenda Law months ago. Please see Mr. Pitcher’s comments in the BloombergBusinessweek Article. Paul, I’m sure Mr. Syfert would love to hear from you directly and I’m sure some
arraignments arrangements could be made (Thanks to Dark Moe for catching that Freudian slip). Spilling the beans on Prenda Law could be cheaper in the long run. Things can get so much uglier.
4 Jun 13 Torrentfreak Article – The Pirate Bay Helps to Expose Copyright Troll Honeypot 6 Jun 13 BloombergBusinessWeek Article – Prenda Law Update: Who Put the Porn on BitTorrent?
PA Bellwether case
*** 7 June 2013 Update ***
As of 6 Jun 13, the PA Bellwether case has turned into a simple bench trial with the remaining three defendants settling with Plaintiff. Here is the Fightcopyrighttrolls post concerning this development.
The bench trial will take place on Monday, 10 Jun 13. Take a listen to the audio file of the hearing for full details. Audio File (Hearing) All three of the defendants made settlements agreements with Plaintiff, but there will still be a formal finding of liability for all and an award of damages against John Doe #16. Keith Lipscomb will be submitting a findings of fact sheet to the court in an attempt to justify their actions and distance themselves from the Prenda Law mess. Collette is also scheduled to give testimony on Monday on how bad piracy has affected their company. That should be a joke.
Not the best news, but it could be worse. Collette/Lipscomb – Please take the “Duck Test.” Just because you are not Prend Law, does not mean you are still not a Copyright Troll (yes it is my opinion).
Since my last short post on the PA Bellwether case, much has hit the docket. Archive Docket Most of the filing is from Plaintiff (Malibu Media) concerning various bit of information they want the court to prevent from being brought up at trial. Notice I didn’t say “Copyright Troll.” That was one of Lipscomb request that essentially all negative references to their operation be expressly forbidden. I guess the fact that if it looks like, talks like, and acts like (fails to actually litigate cases) a Copyright Troll, you still shouldn’t use the most accurate descriptive term available. That might actually let the jury figure something out when they think for themselves.
One funny part was in Document 162 (Doc_162_02078(PA)), concerning the possible introduction of the Peer Media Evidence showing that BitTorrent file sharing activity continued to take place on the same public IP address associated to Doe #16, even after Doe #16 was reassigned a new public IP address by his ISP. Plaintiff claims it is especially irrelevant as it does not correspond to the alleged period of infringement in the complaint. Now wait a minute. Plaintiff believes this information is ‘irrelevant,’ but the fact that they have in other cases submitted information showing alleged BitTorrent copyright infringement activity for digital media they DO NOT own or have even verified that was in fact being infringed upon. Enhanced Surveillance Article Fightcopyrighttrolls Article (1 Jun 13)
On 3 Jun 13, the court ordered the release of Doe #16’s deposition to the court appointed expert (LOUIS CINQUANTO). On 6 Jun 13, there is a hearing in front of Judge Baylson, to address the various MOTIONS (IN LIMINE AND VOIR DIRE). Immediately following this hearing, jury selection is due to begin. Please take a read of the various filing and tell me what you think of all of it. Fightcopyrighttrolls should have a post on this matter soon – I will link to it. Based on all information I have seen so far, Plaintiff is going to have an uphill battle with Doe #16. The best they can hope for is the court appointed expert comes back and states that Doe #16 is lying and has destroyed evidence. Not a likely scenario in my opinion. I don’t have much detail on the other defendants, but unless that “smoking gun’ shows up, this isn’t likely to turn out good for Plaintiff. Once this fact is made known, I expect it to be introduced in the various Malibu Media cases around the US.