Arizona Court Skeptical Of 'Medical Excuse' From Prenda Lawyers

from the another-day,-another-excuse dept

Prenda’s new favorite lawyer, Steven Goodhue, apparently sought to either delay or get out of another hearing in a Prenda case in Arizona by pleading “medical emergency.” A skeptical court, helmed by Judge G. Murray Snow, followed this up by asking for proof:

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.

Goodhue apparently filed some of the medical records, as requested under seal, but the judge notes that they don’t actually answer all of his questions and some appear to contradict Goodhue’s statements:

Further, in conjunction with the Doc. 74, which the Court authorizes to be filed under seal, the Court notes that the contents of the document are at best partially responsive to the Court’s request. Mr. Goodhue has provided one medical record with Doc. 74 that appears to be inconsistent with the version of events he sets forth in Doc. 74. Further, Mr. Goodhue’s version of events would have generated additional documents that he has yet to provide. Mr. Goodhue is required to continue to supplement the record with all the medical records and documentation indicated in Doc. 71.

Judge Snow hints pretty strongly that he simply doesn’t believe Goodhue, and suggests that he’s stalling, which would be par for the course in a variety of Prenda-related cases.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: prenda, prenda law

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Arizona Court Skeptical Of 'Medical Excuse' From Prenda Lawyers”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
out_of_the_blue says:

Put your Prenda time into developing views on copyright.

It’s obvious that you relish these follies sheerly because of their copyright trolling, but don’t kid yourself that whatever happens to this bunch of lawyers has any import for the everyday good of copyright. You just desperately want to claim a victory in the area, and this is close as you get.

Take a loopy tour of! You always end up same place!
ZOMG! Yet another item on Prenda Law! A staple in the soporific “At The Bench” series. Mike sez (short version): “Wow. Wow. Wow. … The story is gripping.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Put your Prenda time into developing views on copyright.


whatever happens to this bunch of lawyers has any import for the everyday good of copyright

Those lawyers are irrelevant to copyright as a whole that is true, but the “everyday good of copyright” will be dictated by pirates not law, not governments and not you.

You have to admire the resilience of pirates, in the face of absurd odds, they continue to thrive despite every measure against them and that is why they are the ones who will decide the faith of copyright, they have proven in the course of 20 years that they will be there no matter what you do to them, openly or hidden they will be there.

Amazing how certain things cannot be “fixed” by laws.

Telco Guy says:

Re: Put your Prenda time into developing views on copyright.

Wow, you and a couple of those other trolls put such an incredible amount of time, energy and mania into these posts- only to be ridiculed, dismissed and marginalized by a community that will only ever hold you in the most utter contempt. #tiltingatwindmills

Pragmatic says:

Re: Re: Put your Prenda time into developing views on copyright.

What do you expect from a woman who is the online equivalent of the neighborhood crazy cat lady?

Cathy is the crazy copyright lady.

Hilariously, she, as much as the other trolls, has failed to tell us what her interest in copyright is.

“Everyday good,” my ass.

Anon E. Mous (profile) says:

Prenda sure seems to like to leave the contract lawyers it hires off of Craiglst in peril, not that Goodhue doesn’t deserve what he gets here for hooking up with Prenda and Steele.

Once again Prenda is about to throw another lawyer under the bus much like it did with Gibbs. While I am of the opinion that Goodhue is up a creek without a paddle due to his tactics (no doubt ordered by John “my poor ego” Steele) in trying to delay in having to answer Judge Snow’s questions.

Obviously Judge Snow has picked up the scent of John Steele in this case and matched it’s stench to the case that Judge Wright had before him where Prenda had a major fail due to their stupidity and ego in trying to get settlement cash from people.

Besides Goodhue’s failure to answer Judge Snow properly with the documents he asked concerning Goodhue’s medical episode on the day he was to appear and answer some questions about Prenda shows that Goodhue’s attempt is to not be in the situation that Gibbs found himself in in front of Judge Wright.

Judge Snow in his order stated that Goodhue must provide answers to the following question about the case which are:

◾Identify the persons who signed the names ?Raymond Rogers? and ?Alan Cooper.?

◾Identify All personnel who hold any interest in Plaintiff (AF Holdings).

◾If the signatures (Rogers and Cooper) on the copyright assignment by are not valid, why Plaintiff AND Counsel (Goodhue) should not be sanctioned.

◾Plaintiff will identify all other suits it has filed in any worldwide jurisdiction involving the participants in the same BitTorrent swarm that is the focus of this lawsuit.

◾How many defendants and/or users has Plaintiff settled in those other suits, including the D.D.C. case, based on the same BitTorrent swarm, and what were the nature and amounts of those settlements?

◾For previously issued subpoenas for the same BitTorrent swarm, How many users on that list of IP addresses has Plaintiff previously sued as a Doe Defendant or otherwise? With how many of those users, if any, has Plaintiff engaged in settlement discussions in relation to this lawsuit, and what are the nature and amounts of those settlements?

◾Plaintiff is ordered to identify the two assignment agreements it claims (Doc. 56 at 7.) Alan Cooper took part in during 2011, as well as the circumstances surrounding Alan Cooper?s signature on those assignments. Plaintiff was further ordered to disclose if either of the two assignment agreements was the one attached to the Complaint in this case.

◾Plaintiff will disclose what authority Alan Cooper has or had as a corporate representative of AF Holdings and the financial interest that he has or had, if any, in AF Holdings and/or its dealings. They are also ordered to provide any documents that demonstrate any interest held in AF Holdings by Alan Cooper prior to the date of his execution of the assignment at issue here.

◾Plaintiff will identify the representative(s) at AF Holdings from whom Plaintiff?s counsel is receiving direction as to this litigation and the nature of their involvement.

Now why does this seem familiar? Oh wait…. maybe Judge Snow wants to know that answers to these questions after reading Judge Wright’s order in the California case.

Obviously Judge Snow smells the odour protruding from this filing by Prenda, and he seems the similarities in the case before him and one before Judge Wright with Prenda.

The real question is what will Goodhue do? You know damn well he is not going to get away with trying to withdrawl from the case, nor will he get away with trying to dismiss the case (like Gibbs/Prenda tried to do before Judge Wright)

And we all know Duffy isn’t going to want to answer any questions and neither will Hansemier, especially fater he fumbled his way through that deposition with Pietz & Ranallo.

I wonder how long it will take Duffy to try and see if he can appear to try and save the day. The Problem with that is that Duffy isn’t licenced in AZ, and he took the fifth in Judge Wright’s court room, so I doubt he is going to want to go on the record.

Prenda once again is backed into a corner due to Steele’s over inflated ego in thinking that Prenda could still squeeze some settlement money out of the remaining AF Holdings cases.

It will be very interesting to see what Goodhue tries to do to get himself out of this predicament, lord knows that Prenda and the gang are not going to come out of the hole to save him.

I would say there is a good chance we may see some sanctions come about and another award for costs against Prenda. Stay tuned folks this should be good.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

And to think people were always so ready to bash Mr. Harris for his “interesting” filings.
Oh the court will frown on this or that, always missing the bigger picture of many of the lawyers in these cases are being much more disrespectful to the courts.

A Doe has to be extra careful to not anger a Judge but when you can show repeated fraud committed by lawyers you often see a slight tongue lashing and nothing else. If a Doe had faked a signature you’d expect all sorts of holy hell from the bench… but a troll got a tiny smack on the nose and the ability to refile the case in the future.

The legal system is failing the public, copyright trolls are just making it painfully obvious how broken the system has gotten.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Bizzaro legal system

Something just occurred to me, inspired by your comment here.

It seems that, currently at least, the ‘justice’ system is treating lawyers and non-lawyers dead opposite of how they should be treated.

Lawyers are expected to know the law backwards and forwards and what is and is not acceptable, so you’d the the judicial system would hold them to quite the high standard, going after them harshly for screw-ups and abusing the system like the trolls pull regularly, and yet they don’t, instead treating them as though they had no idea what they were doing, and therefor deserved the benefit of the doubt, and multiple chances to ‘get it right’.

Conversely, it would be insane to expect non-lawyers to know all the little bits and rules of current law, given how much there is to learn and know, so you’d expect the system would be more lenient on them for any mistakes they make(whether accidental or intentional) in their actions, and yet they are held to exacting standards, far higher than those a lawyer has to deal with.

Defendant lies on the stand? He just committed perjury and is sentence accordingly.

Lawyer lies when presenting his case? He ‘misremembered the facts’, or ‘was mistaken when he was presenting evidence’, or something similarly mild.

Defendant is evasive on questions posed to him by the prosecution/judge? Considered to be ‘in contempt of court’, and punished accordingly.

Lawyer is evasive regarding questions posed to him by opposition/judge? Maybe gets, at most, a chewing out by the judge for dodging the questions, but unlikely to suffer more beyond that.

Basically the people who should know the law are treated as though they don’t, while those that don’t know the law are treated as though they should… it’s no wonder the system is such a mess these days.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Bizzaro legal system

You stated it much more eloquently than I have in the past.

Judge Snow ‘put up’ with many of Mr. Harris’s filings that were less than kind and was displeased with some. But I think he has started to understand that that learned lawyer standing in the courtroom before him (or hiding in another state behind a “medical emergency”) is everything Mr. Harris has claimed from day one. That this case is an abomination with so many flaws and “issues” with candor and truth.

One can only hope that Judge Snow beats them senseless and then sees fit to award Mr. Harris compensation for all of the misery they inflicted upon him and then some. Goodhue needs to be referred to the bar at a minimum, someone needs to finally make an example of the CL lawyers who are willing to sign their name to cases they know nothing about for an “easy” payday.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Oh, that is just beautiful, the Prenda gang has got to be having Judge Wright flashbacks with questions like those being presented.

Hopefully they’ll react the same way this time around too, nothing starts the circus act that is ‘Prenda in a court-room desperately trying to get out alive and without saying a word’ quite like trying to get a judge dismissed for having the audacity of asking question.

Anon E. Mous (profile) says:

I noticed a few things in Judge Snow’s order in the questions he put to Goodhue about Prenda.

This is the first one that I took notice of:

◾Identify the persons who signed the names ?Raymond Rogers? and ?Alan Cooper.?

Uh oh! I wonder who Steele knows with the name Raymond Rogers? Maybe it is the guy who unclogs John’s toilet… or it could be some guy John met when he was holding up that stripper pole in the picture below:

I suppose it could be some guy who mowed John’s lawn one time, or someone who walked his dog, I am sure this will come out in time when the poor soul finds out he is some how an officer of some entity he has no knowledge of.

The next question I noticed was this:

◾Identify All personnel who hold any interest in Plaintiff (AF Holdings).

We all know how well that went last time, I think they will take the potomac two step and take the fifth.

Next interesting question:

◾If the signatures (Rogers and Cooper) on the copyright assignment by are not valid, why Plaintiff AND Counsel (Goodhue) should not be sanctioned.

We all know what the standard answer will be, they tried it in a few cases ” just cause we forged a signature of someone who doesn’t exsist -er- the signature does not matter is what I meant to type ~wink wink~.

This question will cause a headache:

◾Plaintiff will identify all other suits it has filed in any worldwide jurisdiction involving the participants in the same BitTorrent swarm that is the focus of this lawsuit.

Considering the Prenda gang has filed lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions hoping one would not get thrown out, this may be a problem. If Memory serves me right they filed this suit in a DC court first before it was tossed. Ought to be interesting when Judge Snow finds out they were Court room shopping to find a Judge who didn’t know the stench of a Prenda case.

This question I find very very interesting:

◾How many defendants and/or users has Plaintiff settled in those other suits, including the D.D.C. case, based on the same BitTorrent swarm, and what were the nature and amounts of those settlements?

Prenda and especially Steele and Duffy will be loathe to answer that one. There is now way they are going to want to reveal how much they raked in. If you think about it this will be a double edged sword.

If Prenda tells the court we made xxx numbers of dollars and Judge Snow makes them back it up with documentation, that spells trouble for Prenda.

This information could be filed under seal, but I doubt Prenda will even agree to that. Why you may ask, because that information could be used against them especially where they are pleading poverty in not having the money to put up a bond or pay any penalties imposed on them.

Also you have the issue with the IRS, I doubt they are going to want to give the IRS nay help in building a case against them for Tax Evasion.

This question is a pure gem:

◾Plaintiff will identify the representative(s) at AF Holdings from whom Plaintiff?s counsel is receiving direction as to this litigation and the nature of their involvement.

There isn’t much chance they are going to want to reveal anyone except Gibbs or Duffy being the main actors. Now if you recall in the Florida case of Sunlust vs. Nguyen, the Prenda gang didn’t even want to admit they were involved!

I expect we will see some similar results, because we all know Steele is behind the scene running this troll operation. Duffy of course is the straw man but last time with Sunlust he wanted no connection with it either.

I do not see the Prenda gang wanting this to go forward, if Troll Goodhue cant answer these questions for Judge Snow, you know who will be getting called forward to answer these.

I would predict Prenda throwing a large amount of settlement cash at Mr.Harris to make this go away quietly like they did with Mr.Nguyen in the Sunlust case.

Prenda is not going to want to have Goodhue answer these and Steele wont want Duffy bumbling his way through a Q&A with Judge Snow, so predict a nice large cash settlement with Mr.Harris to come about.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Actually IIRC, and by all means correct me if I am wrong, this case is from a mass Doe suit in DC where the Judge told them to NOT USE the data they got in response to the subpoenas before they were finally quashed.

I think this is the reason Mr. Harris has been so vehement in his demand they reveal how they got his information, because it would open a much larger can of worms and set 2 Judges in 2 District upon them.

I await my external brain SJD to arrive and confirm I am remembering correctly.

Anon E. Mous (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I believe that it is from DC as well.

Hence why I think Prenda and Steele’s strategy of filing in multiple jurisdictions and hope a Judge doesn’t smell the stench coming from there cases and get’s tossed is coming back to haunt them.

I am of the belief these were tossed because they were mot in the proper jurisdiction, hence the strategy of filing in multiple jurisdictions and hoping they get a blind judge like they get in crooked old in St.Clair County to rubber stamp it.

Got to like Mr.Harris though, he may not be very tactful in his filings but he isn’t about to roll over and die. I bet Prenda wishes they would have not sent Mr Harris a settlement letter

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well DC was a fertile place for these sorts of things.
Judge Howell held that Does had no right to challenge anything about these cases until they were named.
She saw issues raised about the court not having jurisdiction and decided those were moot because the people making the claim were attempting to proceed anonymously to protect their identity.

It really was a classic example of the courts just giving lawyers a free pass, while demanding that Does hold to the strict letter of the law.

But when you take a former lobbyist who helped write some of the laws being abused today and put her on the bench one might question if she can have an impartial view of the cases.

Anon E. Mous (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Well DC Court Judge Beryl Howell having been a Lobbyist formerly for the RIAA doesn’t really surprise me that she went with her beliefs rather than the rule of law.

I really cant fathom how she can openly flout the law concerning the case before her, and rule with her personal sentiments rather than view the case before her impartially.

I agree with you that her former profession and values seem to trump her oath of judging the case by the facts and laws that govern them.

I am surprised she didn’t receiver a rebuke from The Judicial Review Panel regarding that ruling as it seems to fly in the face of what Judges are appointed to do.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Regarding the question
Plaintiff will identify all other suits it has filed in any worldwide jurisdiction involving the participants in the same BitTorrent swarm that is the focus of this lawsuit.

Why do I see an answer that could allow the court to declare them vexatious litigants. now that would be an interesting development LOL

Anon E. Mous (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Prenda would be in a panic if a ruling came forward like that. There would be a ton of lawyers who would bring that to the attention of the court in a Prenda case in an instant.

That being said I amsure that would follow them not matter how mnay times they try and move to a new name, much like the constant change of names still isn’t allowing them to excape their past, hence the use of Craiglist lawyers to sub for Steele and the odour his name has attached to it concerning these copyright trolling suits.

I think it will be most interesting to see how the Prenda gang tackles answering Judge Snow’s questions.

They could opt to try and get Judge Snow removed like they did with Judge Wright (and we all know how well that worked out) but I doubt they will use that tactic after the way it blew up on them last time.

I believe they will get sanctioned unless they cough up some settlement cash to Mr.Harris to make him go away and make this go away as quietly as possible.

Androgynous Cowherd says:


Are you the type of person that played hooky back in school?

Did you forge notes from your parents to get out of P.E.?

Did you try to weasel out of being failed for non-attendance by presenting a faked doctor’s note?

Then you are just what we are looking for at Prenda Law!

Law degree required. No experience required. Diplomas accepted from all law schools, including Thomas M. Cooley Law School, Staples, and Kinko’s.

Our Motto: “We’re Better than Charles Carreon!”

Inquire by email, or look us up in the White Pages.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...