RSS
Verizon Steps In On Prenda Case; Says Brett Gibbs Never Informed Them Of Judge's Order Killing Subpoenas
from the oops dept
As the minutes tick off until the Prenda hearing today, yet another bit of news has dropped in relation to the case. Verizon has stepped in and filed a declaration stating that contrary to Brett Gibbs' own claims to the court, it does not appear Gibbs informed Verizon not to follow through and identify the people in the subpoena that had originally been sent.
To understand what happened here, the key aspect to many Prenda cases is getting the identity of people associated with IP addresses, often by getting a court to grant discovery, after which Prenda's lawyers send subpoenas to ISPs with a list of IP addresses. As has happened a few times, courts readily grant the request for expedited discovery (which is rarely denied in normal court cases), but upon learning of Prenda's overall practices, they then pull back that permission and (usually) order the lawyers to immediately inform the ISPs that the order has been withdrawn and not to comply with the subpoena. Here, the same thing happened, and Prenda's Brett Gibbs told the court that he informed ISPs that the order had been withdrawn.
Just a little while ago, however, Verizon stepped in to the case, with a declaration saying they never received any notice of the withdrawal, and had, instead, complied with the subpoena, believing it was valid.
To understand what happened here, the key aspect to many Prenda cases is getting the identity of people associated with IP addresses, often by getting a court to grant discovery, after which Prenda's lawyers send subpoenas to ISPs with a list of IP addresses. As has happened a few times, courts readily grant the request for expedited discovery (which is rarely denied in normal court cases), but upon learning of Prenda's overall practices, they then pull back that permission and (usually) order the lawyers to immediately inform the ISPs that the order has been withdrawn and not to comply with the subpoena. Here, the same thing happened, and Prenda's Brett Gibbs told the court that he informed ISPs that the order had been withdrawn.
Just a little while ago, however, Verizon stepped in to the case, with a declaration saying they never received any notice of the withdrawal, and had, instead, complied with the subpoena, believing it was valid.
On or about September 6, 2012, Verizon received subpoenas from plaintiff AF Holdings in AF Holdings v. John Doe, C.D. Cal. Case No. 12-cv-6669 and AF Holdings v. John Doe, C.D. Cal. Case No. 12--cv--6636. ...Verizon processed these subpoenas in the ordinary course.Having Verizon come out and more or less directly state that Gibbs lied to the court isn't going to go over well when it appears that Judge Wright is already not happy with Gibbs or his buddies at Prenda...
Based on Verizon's records, it does not appear that Verizon received from AF Holdings or its counsel a copy of the Court's Order Vacating Prior Early Discovery Order and Order to Show Cause dated October 19, 2012, nor does it appear that Verizon received other form of notice that the subpoenas attached as Exhibits A and had been withdrawn or were invalid. If Verizon had received such notice, we would not have processed these subpoenas for AF Holdings.
I have reviewed a declaration filed by Brett Gibbs in this litigation, dated February 19, 2013, in which Mr. Gibbs states:Following receipt of the October 19,2012 Orders, I caused the Court's October 19, 2012 Orders to be served on the registered agents for service of process of Verizon Online ensure that Verizon Online LLC had notice not to respond to the subpoenas that had already been served.(Gibbs Decl. dated Feb. 19, 2013...) Again, based on Verizon's records, this statement appears to be wrong.
Verizon released the information responsive to AF Holdings' subpoenas in the cases identified above (case nos. 12-cv-6669 and 12-cv-6636) by fax to the Prenda law firm on November 7, 2012. If Verizon had received notice of the Court's Order dated October 19, 2012, we would not have released these records to Plaintiff.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Can't. Look. Away.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Implosion
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Implosion
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Implosion
FTFY, though, the manner of implosion depends on the type of Supernova, as Type IA supernovae actually start when the white dwarf tries to start back up with carbon-oxygen fusion producing more energy than the star can handle, causing a very large explosion as a result, but no initial implosion. The only way a white dwarf supernova could involve an implosion is if it merged with a star, which would cause a standard Type II Supernova.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Implosion
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Caused to be Served
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caused to be Served
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Caused to be Served
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Caused to be Served
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Caused to be Served
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Caused to be Served
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Caused to be Served
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caused to be Served
Of course this begs the question, when already in hot water with a judge, would he not confirm that the notice had in fact been sent before putting it in a declaration some 4 months later.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Caused to be Served
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Caused to be Served
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caused to be Served
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caused to be Served
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caused to be Served
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caused to be Served
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
N.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Mofo law
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mofo law
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Having a couple of joints on you will land you in a lot of trouble quickly and yet Prenda is still skating after having thumbed its nose at the court many, many times.
This seems lopsided. I know...this is civil court, so maybe we need some reform. Because right now it seems a little too civil.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It ain't 1:30 yet...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
These guys are special. Outright, absolutely, waaaay out there in the legal twilight zone.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Somebody compile all Mike's posts into a book!
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Prenda Law! A staple in the "At The Bench" series. Mike sez (short version): "Wow. Wow. Wow. ... The story is gripping."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130303/23353022182/prenda-law-sues-critics-defamation .shtml
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Somebody compile all Mike's posts into a book!
Nigel
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Somebody compile all Mike's posts into a book!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Somebody compile all Mike's posts into a book!
So I think you must secretly want to watch bugs mate...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Somebody compile all Mike's posts into a book!
sorry, could not resist.... I think I got the species right though.
Nigel
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Somebody compile all Mike's posts into a book!
The resulting work could then be used by the DOJ as an enhanced interrogation technique for jaywalkers.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Somebody compile all Mike's posts into a book!
The difference between crocodile tears and, at least, feigning complicity.
Singing Amazing Grace would not really help as John Newton, the author 1748, continued his slave trading for six years after he wrote the lyrics.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Somebody compile all Mike's posts into a book!
Or better yet, on interrogating people who do things that might eventually be found illegal. You've heard of investigating precrime ... OOTB is into obeying the prelaw.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Somebody compile all Mike's posts into a book!
You're just mad that this time your copyright heroes are under the magnifying glass. Keep squirming, you spineless little shitstain.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Somebody compile all Mike's posts into a book!
He only means that in theory. In practice, he is unfamiliar with the law and makes up stuff about it at every opportunity.
His idea of a law is a bully saying "give me your lunch money or you will be punished."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Somebody compile all Mike's posts into a book!
Then go away, boy.
You irk me.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
emails in the court docs
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
5 minutes and counting
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 5 minutes and counting
. . . oh the waiting . . .
. . .
. . .
. . . remember limerick I wrote in 2011 . . .
A problem I had to unfurl
My stomach it started to curl
A bad referenced array
I found to my dismay
I’m just glad it’s not written in C++
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
5 minutes and counting
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 5 minutes and counting
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 5 minutes and counting
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 5 minutes and counting
Get the full effect
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Am I the only one...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
https://twitter.com/goodreverend/status/311235414176460803
https://twitter.com/goodrev erend/status/311235699326210048
https://twitter.com/goodreverend/status/311235947838713856
https:/ /twitter.com/goodreverend/status/311236270263238660
https://twitter.com/goodreverend/status/3112365 75092674561
https://twitter.com/goodreverend/status/311236758878699521
The Real Alan Cooper showed up, Steele, Duffy, others available by phone... they will be flying blind having missed all of the testimony that went before they were called.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
As I told one whining troll, if your rights include you suing dead grandmothers for $150,000 per alleged claim, you don't deserve those rights.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment