4 Oct 13 Update
On 3 Oct 13, Paul Ticen (non-party Attorney) filed a response to the previous Prenda/Goodhue motion (see below). Ticen_Resp_Doc98_02144(AZ) The response requests the court deny Plaintiff’s motion to strike OR sur-reply because of Plaintiff’s baseless claim that the non-parties have raised new evidence and arguments. Ticen refutes these claims and shows that the matters at hand are not new. This part of the response cuts to the heart of the matter.
The Non-Parties moved for attorneys’ fees because Plaintiff’s subpoena was issued in bad faith. The Non-Parties argument merely countered Plaintiff’s absurd position that the Non-Parties and others identified in the subpoena at issue were part of Mr. Harris’ swarm in June 2011.
I expect the judge to grant the motion for attorney fees, as well as making John Steele, Paul Hansmeier and Paul Duffy jointly and severally liable.
What interests me is what Mr. Harris may do. After the recent hearing fiasco in MN, as well as the default judgement against them, Mr. Harris may want to consider a request for summary judgement. I cannot see Prenda actually moving forward with any discovery, as this costs time, money, and will open up an even bigger can of worms for them. If Mr. Harris (Pro Se) make such a motion, he will not be able to get attorney fees, but it will set another judgement against them. Each such judgement/finding is another nail in the coffin for the Prenda clan. Mr. Harris, might I suggest your hire some attorney to make the motion??? Anyone have some ideas on this?
On 16 Sep 13, Prenda/Goodhue filed a motion asking the court for approval to file a motion to strike, or in the alternative, a reply (sur-reply) to attorney Paul Ticen’s motion for attorney fees (ECF # 88). Please also see Mr. Harris’ reply to Plaintiff Harris_Reply_Doc95_02144(AZ). Archive Docket
This motion has the smell of the main Prenda crew, possibly Duffy, but of course only bears the e-signature of Steven Goodhue. Prenda/Goodhue asks the court to strike Ticen’s motion for attorney fees for the six Cox Communication subscribers who fought to prevent the release of the ISP subscriber information. Prenda/Goodhue claims the reason to strike is because it introduces new evidence, new arguments, and new requests for relief that contravenes the Local Rules and Ninth Circuit precedent. If the court decides not to strike the motion, he asked the court for permission to reply to Ticen’s motion.
In his draft sur-reply, Prenda/Goodhue claims the six “non-party” Cox Communication are not entitled to attorney fees because.
They did not suffer any undue burden in responding to the ISP subpoena. He states that only the ISP could make this claim, as they are party to the subpoena. Same tired old Prenda claim. Prenda’s history has shown that once the ISP subscriber information is released, the “non-party” personnel become party to the case via the settlement demands Prenda makes via a threat of Federal litigation. Prenda/Lutz Voicemail.
Prenda/Goodhue goes on to claim that because Ticen did not attack the relevance of the information sought (ISP subscriber information) by Plaintiff, the motion should be denied.
This alone is a sufficient ground for dismissing Movant’s motion. Information sought in a subpoena need only be relevant to at least one claim — not all of them.
Further, Plaintiff never claimed that all of the IP addresses sought in its subpoena were in the swarm on June 2011. As Plaintiff noted in its response to Movant’s motion for attorneys’ fees, a given IP address/date combination is required to discover identifying information from an ISP. Yet,there is nothing about subpoenaing identifying information that cuts off an individual’s participation in a swarm. Plaintiff believes that substantially all of the individuals it identifies as participating in a swarm continue to participate in the swarm long after the date/time of Plaintiff’s first identification of their swarm participation — just as Plaintiff believes both Defendant Harris and Movant did here.
I would assume the information sought in a subpoena needs to be relevant to all the parties/ISP subscribers??? If it isn’t relevant, then the subpoena is defective and should be denied. Hey Prenda – If you want the court to grant a subpoena, you just need to show how the 71 Cox communication customers were tied to Mr. Harris’ public IP address – not just some flimsy claim – back it up stupid!
The final laughable bit in this motion is Prenda/Goodhue claiming that Ticen’s “fixation” on Paul Duffy, Paul Hansmeier, and John Steele is “frankly bizarre.” He goes on to state that Mark Lutz’s (Plaintiff’s Principle) testimony at the 19 Jul 13, show cause hearing, was consistent with other district court testimony, as well as the deposition referenced by movant. The really funny bit is this –
While the Honorable Judge Wright arrived at different findings of fact, Mr. Lutz was never allowed to testify at the show cause hearing that AF Holdings was subject to. Had Judge Wright allowed Mr. Lutz to testify, he may have arrived at different conclusions.
Deciding to take the fifth does not mean
Lutz * ** (or other Prenda fools) were “never allowed” to testify. Prenda/Goodhue does somehow omit the fact that two CA courts have determined that the Three Amigos (Duffy, Hansmeier, & Steele) are the “alter-egos” of AF Holdings/Ingenuity 13. Also lets not forget the audio recording of John Steele claiming to be Alan Cooper when dealing with the GoDaddy customer support. * Correction: Lutz did not get a chance to take the fifth – Judge Wright ended the proceedings after the main Prenda players took the fifth. Not that I think he would have testified – clumsy fool did such a great job at the 27 Nov 11, Motion Hearing, SUNLUST PICTURES, LLC., v. NGUYEN, 8:12-CV-01685. ** Note: Please see the First Amended Counterclaim for case # 1:13-cv-01569, ILND, Page 6, for what Erin Russel/Jason Sweet thinks of this aspect.
Goodhue does tell the court that if requested, he will provide (under seal) Plaintiff’s trust documents (Saltmarsh trust). I really don’t think Goodhue wrote that bit and certainly don’t believe he has actually seen the Saltmarsh trust documents. Careful Goodhue – if someone is ghost writing for you, it could come back to bite you. Under seal??? Unless there is something on the document that contradicts previous testimony, you (Prenda) have already stated who makes up the trust.
The last part is of the motion simply states that a second evidentiary hearing on the ownership is not required as Lutz answered all the questions on 19 Jul 13. IMO, Lutz’s ability to truthfully answer questions is equivalent to his ability to board a plane from Miami, FL, to San Francisco, CA, to provide testimony – It isn’t going to happen. I suspect Judge Snow will allow the sur-reply; but it isn’t going to do anything to help Prenda. In fact, it will probably hurt them. IMO none of them have the smarts to shut up, pay the sanctions/fees, and try to sink away. You can’t make this stuff up.