Case Actions Before OSC Hearing on 21 Jun 13 – AF Holdings LLC v. Harris – 2:12-cv-02144 (AZ)

20 Jun 2013 Update #2 – Attorney Paul Ticen, representing some of the 71 Arizona Cox Communications customers in this case, just filed a response to Goodhue’s motion for continuance.   Doc_82_Response_02144(AZ)   Mr. Ticen basically supported Goodhue’s claim of a medical condition and did not have an issue with the delay.  Taking the high road when dealing with a bully is often hard, but can have benefits.  Now if the judge grants it, Goodhue had better be able to provide good answers to all the questions the judge laid out.  Goodhue – Pull a Prenda stunt after another delay and I bet the judge is going to “Wright” on your a$$.


20 Jun 2013 Update – Well true to Prenda style, Goodhue has made a last-minute motion for a continuance of the OSC hearing set for tomorrow (21 Jun 13).   Doc_81_Motion_02144(AZ)   I will say for not being “Lucid,” Goodhue was able to write the motion clearly and submit it in ECF with no problem.  I really hope Judge Snow calls BS on this latest stunt.


What can I say but Wow.  Yesterday, 19 Jun 13, was an interesting day for those of you following the Prenda Law cases.  Concerning AF Holdings LLC v. Harris, 2:12-cv-02144 (AZ), we had a couple of developments.

Docket Entry # 75 (Text Only) – “IT IS ORDERED denying 45 the Motion for Order to Show Cause. Ordered by Judge G. Murray Snow.(ADG)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/18/2013)

This was Goodhue asking the court to make me (DieTrollDie 🙂  ) show cause as to why I shouldn’t be sanctioned for filing my declaration (Torpedo – ECF 45)  in this case.  The court had previously stricken (ECF # 69) my declaration and I said I accepted the court’s decision.  I am grateful the court allowed it at first.

Document # 76 – Order.   Doc_76_Order_02144(AZ)   In this order, Judge Snow denied Plaintiff’s request to issue subpoenas for identifying information on the 71 Arizona Cox Commutations subscribers.  These are the people Plaintiff claims are co-conspirators with Mr. Harris.  Judge Snow denied the subpoena (without prejudice) because of Plaintiff/Goodhue ‘s apparent delaying motions in appearing at the Order to Show Cause (OSC) hearing.  The OSC hearing scheduled for 21 Jun 13, is going to be a tough one for Prenda Law/Goodhue.  The judge has a very specific list of questions he wants answers to or Prenda Law AND Goodhue will face sanctions.   Hard Questions Posting

On May 17, 2013, the Court set the original OSC hearing in this matter on May 31, 2013. (Doc. 51.) On May 21, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue, based on the personal request of Mr. Goodhue. (Doc. 52.) The next day, the Court granted the motion and set the OSC for June 7, 2013. (Doc. 55.) On June 5, after Plaintiff’s counsel had been aware of the pending hearing for some time, the Court received a telephone call from the office of a local lawyer indicating that he had been requested to enter an appearance at the hearing, but had a conflict that prevented him from doing so. He informally inquired on whether the Court would continue the hearing in order to allow another attorney to enter an appearance on Monday. In light of the fact that the Court had previously granted AF Holdings one continuance, AF Holdings had been aware of the new pending OSC date, and AF Holdings already had Arizona counsel in the action, the Court did not reschedule the hearing. The next day, the Court’s judicial assistant received notice from Mr. Goodhue in the afternoon that he missed his scheduled flight from Denver to attend the OSC hearing the next day due to a medical emergency. He informed the Court that he would not be attending the hearing the next day. Mr. Goodhue thereafter filed a motion to continue, supplemented by a medical record reflecting a visit to Swedish Medical Center apparently signed by a physician’s assistant who consulted with Plaintiff’s counsel. (Doc. 64.) It is in this context that the Court requested the medical records from Mr. Goodhue that supported his version of events in failing to appear before the Court.

Now Goodhue did file under seal the medical reason (along with one document) for missing the hearing.  The judge thought the explanation and supporting documents were lacking.

…the Court requires Mr. Goodhue to continue to supplement Doc. 74 by providing under seal copies of the tests he received at Swedish Medical Center Emergency Room on June 6 as well as the medical records and tests and records of office visits from his own physician as well as specialty physicians with whom he consulted as a result of the condition on or after June 6.

Goodhue did file two supplemental documents (under seal – ECF #77) on 18 Jun 13, so we will see what Judge Snow thinks of them.

If the Judge believes Goodhue’s story (doubtful IMO), he could refile a motion for a ISP subpoena, but only after he has also had the pleasure of answering all of court’s questions – and ends up not being sanctioned.  I bet Goodhue is dreading having to be the only Prenda representative to attend the OSC hearing.  I really doubt he will be able to answer many of the court’s questions with anything more than has been provided.  As this wasn’t enough for the court the first time, I cannot see Prenda faring well.  If it goes really bad for Goodhue, I could see him pulling a Brett Gibbs and jumping ship.  Duffy, Steele, and Paul Hansmeier know this and it would be another serious blow to them.  I bet Goodhue regrets accepting this case and wonders why he believed the claims that it would be easy money.

Mr. Goodhue, I understand there is an attorney-client privilege between Plaintiff and yourself, but I don’t believe you should have to fall on your sword for Prenda.  If you end up being the only person representing/supporting Prenda at the OSC hearing on 21 Jun 13, you will know how you are being used and will be discarded in due course.

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.

5 Responses to Case Actions Before OSC Hearing on 21 Jun 13 – AF Holdings LLC v. Harris – 2:12-cv-02144 (AZ)

  1. Dr. Steele I presume?

  2. WDS says:

    Is it possible that Mr. Goodhue is confused by the difference between the Swedish Medical Center, and the Swedish Massage Center, and between Physician’s Assistant and Massage Therapist.

  3. that anonymous coward says:

    Maybe they will send Nazzrine (sp) to save the day and fight off them evil Anonymous Gays!

    errr…wait… yep I’m still here…

  4. WDS says:

    Re: the 20 June update: I wonder if Goodhue filed all the medical documentation that Judge Snow requested. With his first filing he had not.

  5. STGEORGE says:

    So if I got a notice from cox that they were going to turn over my subscriber info april 1, does this mean that the 3 IP Does have successfully quashed that subpoena for everyone on that list? Does this mean if Troll Goodhue re-files the subpoena, that cox would re-notify us and we’d have an opportunity to file a quash against THAT subpoena as well?

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