12-cv-08333 pietz response exhibits only - doc117

7/28/2019 12-Cv-08333 Pietz Response Exhibits Only - Doc117

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/12-cv-08333-pietz-response-exhibits-only-doc117 1/70

EXHIBIT KK

EXHIBIT KK

Exhibits to Pietz Dec'l. (April 16, 2013) - 1

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 117-2 Filed 04/16/13 of 70 Page ID#:2718



Porn Piracy Lawyer John Steele Says He Shouldn't

Be SanctionedBy Rhett Pardon, XBIZ.com

Wed, Apr 10 2013 11:00am PDT

Tweet Recommend

LOS ANGELES — Chicago attorney John Steele, who through his law firm has sued thousands for downloading

porn through file-sharing networks and now sees himself at center of accusations over attorney misconduct, says

he shouldn't be sanctioned by a federal judge in Los Angeles.

Steele told XBIZ on Wednesday that while he can't discuss details of his 5th Amendment invocation to the court

two weeks ago, he and his law firm, Prenda Law, have done no wrong.

"Obviously I disagree with some of the bizarre claims of criminal conduct thrown around by people without any

proof," Steele said. "I can say that I never even heard of the case in front of Judge [Otis] Wright until two months

ago, and have never appeared in a California case in my life."

Prenda Law and numerous affiliated attorneys nationwide have filed thousands of porn file-sharing suits during

the past few years, with some describing the enterprise as mass copyright trolling.

But the practice of scooping up thousands upon thousands of John Doe defendants for porn piracy litigation may

be coming to an end as U.S. District Judge Otis Wright weighs his next step against Steele and Prenda Law.

Prenda Law isn't the only law firm to sue defendants fingered by Internet service provider's under threat of

subpoena, but it may be the most notorious. Steele, according to a Los Angeles Times article published today,

has bragged about the huge value of porn-piracy litigation and told Forbes that he has collected as much as $15

million settling such suits.

Today, a San Francisco law firm filed court papers on Steele's behalf, responding to Wright's order to show cause

why sanctions should not be levied.

The plaintiffs, Wright said, bet that "because of embarrassment, many Does will send back a nuisance-value

check to the plaintiff. The cost to the plaintiff: a single filing fee, a bit of discovery, and stamps. The rewards:

potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars."

Prenda's method of operation, according to testimony, was typical of copyright trolls: Obtain IP addresses, send

out letters accusing defendants of piracy while mentioning a $150,000 statutory penalties and then offering lower

figures, sometimes in the low thousands, to make them go away.

Last week, the court invited Steele to testify in response to an order to show cause over a case involving plaintiff

Ingenuity 13 LLC.

But when Steele showed up, he relied on his Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled testimony, and later

Porn Piracy Lawyer John Steele Says He Shouldn't Be Sanction... http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=16

of 3 4/12/13 10:05





said that the court indicated it would draw reasonable inferences against him.

"However, the reasonable inferences the court may draw against Steele are limited, based on the lack of

evidence against Steele before this court," Steele attorneys said in a response to the court. "Moreover, because

of the criminal nature of these proceedings, where the court has raised and clearly made up its mind against

Steele on questions of fraud and has threatened incarceration, Steele’s invocation of the 5th Amendment may

not be used to formulate presumptions against him."

Morgan Pietz, a Manhattan Beach, Calif., attorney who represents several defendants in the Prenda lawsuits toldthe Times that "it's unprecedented for a plaintiff's lawyer to invoke the 5th when asked to explain the conduct of

his litigation."

According to Pietz, Prenda Law's strategy began to unravel in Wright's court after he submitted evidence that two

production companies the firm supposedly represented as clients, Ingenuity 13 and AF Holdings, were shell

companies Prenda lawyers set up on the West Indies island of Nevis.

Pietz noted to the court that the Prenda attorneys therefore concealed their direct interest in lawsuits they

ostensibly brought on clients' behalf, which violates court rules.

Wright hasn't said what he'll do about Steele or Prenda Law, but his options could include asking federal

prosecutors to probe the firm, referring lawyers to various state bars for discipline, even disbarment, and

imposing monetary sanctions.

At a hearing last week, Wright delivered a warning to Steele on what might be next: "This court's focus has now

shifted dramatically from the area of protecting intellectual property rights to attorney misconduct. If you say

answering these kinds of questions would incriminate him, I'm inclined to take you at your word."

Steele on Wednesday admitted that the court proceedings are "unusual" and that he's hoping Wright, or a higher

court, will see it his way.

" I am very confident that once the facts are reviewed by Judge Wright, or the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals if

necessary, this latest effort funded by the Electronic Frontier Foundation to stop anti-piracy litigation will fail," he

told XBIZ.

View Document

Tweet Recommend

« Back to List

More Adult Industry News »

About / Contact

XBIZ.com | The leading source for adult industry news

XBIZ WORLD | Adult industry magazine for the digital media market

XBIZ PREMIERE | Adult industry magazine for the retail market

XBIZ RESEARCH | Adult industry market research organization

Copyright © 2013 Adnet Media. All Rights Reserved. XBIZ is a trademark of Adnet Media.


of 3 4/12/13 10:05





Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.


of 3 4/12/13 10:05





EXHIBIT LL

EXHIBIT LL





EXHIBIT MM

EXHIBIT MM





ORIGINALAffidavit of Blair Chintella

I, Blair Chintella, do solemnly affirm under the penalties of perjury that the informationcontained in this document or statement is the truth:

1

My name is Blair Chintella and I currently reside in the State of Georgia.

2.

I am an attorney who is licensed to practice law in the State of Georgia.

3

I have had multiple clients over the last few years who were accused of copyright

infringement, and I have communicated with John Steele and/or Paul Duffy and/or and MarkLutz regarding these clients.

First Conversation with Female Answering the Phone

4.

On March 7, 2013, at approximately 3:32 PM, I received a voice mail message fromsomeone who identified themselves as Tommy Labriola ("Tommy") stating that he was returninga phone call on behalf of an "attorney Steven Goodhue,"1 and that he (Tommy) could be reachedat "800-380-0840."

5.

Prior to receiving this phone call, I had never heard of a person named Steven Goodhueor a person named Tommy Labriola.

6.

On March 7, 2013 at approximately 3:35 PM, I called 1-800-380-0840 and a femalevoice answered the phone saying: "Law office, how may I help you?"

7.

I told her that I was returning a phone call from Tommy who said that he was calling onbehalf Steven Goodhue. In response she said, "We have Mr. John Steele in the office or Mark

Lutz, so let me see if maybe they might know what it's in reference to."

Initially, I thought that the message said "Goodview" rather than Goodhue.




http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/12-cv-08333-pietz-response-exhibits-only-doc117 23/70Exhibits to Pietz Dec'l. (April 16, 2013) - 23




EXHIBIT NN

EXHIBIT NN





IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AF HOLDINGS, LLC, : Civil Action No.

Plaintiff, : v.

:RAJESH PATEL, COMPLAINT

:Defendant.

: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

:

Plaintiff AF Holdings, LLC (“Plaintiff”), through its undersigned counsel, hereby files

this Complaint requesting damages and injunctive relief, and alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. Plaintiff files this action for copyright infringement under the United States

Copyright Act and related civil conspiracy, contributory infringement and negligence claims

under the common law to combat the willful and intentional infringement of its creative works.

Defendant Rajesh Patel (“Defendant”) knowingly and illegally reproduced and distributed

Plaintiff’s copyrighted Video by acting in concert with others via the BitTorrent file sharing

protocol and, upon information and belief, continues to do the same. In using BitTorrent,

Defendant’s infringement actions furthered the efforts of numerous others in infringing on

Plaintiff’s copyrighted works. The result: exponential viral infringement. Plaintiff seeks a

permanent injunction, statutory or actual damages, award of costs and attorney’s fees, and other

relief to curb this behavior.

THE PARTIES

2. Plaintiff AF Holdings, LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing

under the laws of the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis. Plaintiff is a holder of rights to various

Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 1 of 15



2:12-CV-00262



copyrighted works, and is the exclusive holder of the relevant rights with respect to the

copyrighted creative work at issue in this Complaint.

3. The copyrighted work at issue in this complaint is one of Plaintiff’s adult

entertainment videos, “ Popular Demand” (the “Video”).

4. Defendant is an individual who, on information and belief, is over the age of 18,

resides in this District, and was the account holder of Internet Protocol (“IP”) address

75.89.36.80 at the time of the alleged infringing activity. An IP address is a number assigned to

devices, such as computers, that are connected to the Internet. In the course of monitoring

Internet- based infringement of its copyrighted content, Plaintiff’s agents observed unlawful

reproduction and distribution occurring over IP address 75.89.36.80 via the BitTorrent file

transfer protocol.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the copyright infringement claim

under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq., (the Copyright Act), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (actions arising under the

laws of the United States), and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (actions arising under an Act of Congress

relating to copyrights). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the civil conspiracy,

contributory infringement and negligence claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because they are so

related to Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim, which is within this Court’s original

jurisdiction, that the claims form part of the same case and controversy under Article III of the

United States Constitution.

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction because, upon information and belief,

Defendant either resides in or committed copyright infringement in the State of Georgia.

7. Venue is properly founded in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1391(b) and 1400(a) because Defendant resides in this District, may be found in this District,






or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims in this action occurred within this

District.

BACKGROUND

8. BitTorrent is a modern file sharing method (“protocol”) used for distributing data

via the Internet.

9. Traditional file transfer protocols involve a central server, which distributes data

directly to individual users. This method is prone to collapse when large numbers of users

request data from the central server, in which case the server can become overburdened and the

rate of data transmission can slow considerably or cease altogether. In addition, the reliability of

access to the data stored on a server is largely dependent on the server’s ability to continue

functioning for prolonged periods of time under high resource demands.

10. Standard P2P protocols involve a one-to-one transfer of whole files between a

single uploader and single downloader. Although standard P2P protocols solve some of the

issues associated with traditional file transfer protocols, these protocols still suffer from such

issues as scalability. For example, when a popular file is released (e.g. an illegal copy of the

latest blockbuster movie) the initial source of the file performs a one-to-one whole file transfer to

a third party, who then performs similar transfers. The one-to-one whole file transfer method can

significantly delay the spread of a file across the world because the initial spread is so limited.

11. In contrast, the BitTorrent protocol is a decentralized method of distributing data.

Instead of relying on a central server to distribute data directly to individual users, the BitTorrent

protocol allows individual users to distribute data among themselves. Further, the BitTorrent

protocol involves breaking a single large file into many small pieces, which can be transferred

much more quickly than a single large file and in turn redistributed much more quickly than a

single large file. Moreover, each peer can download missing pieces of the file from multiple






sources — often simultaneously — which causes transfers to be fast and reliable. After

downloading a piece, a peer automatically becomes a source for the piece. This distribution

method contrasts sharply with a one-to-one whole file transfer method.

12. In BitTorrent vernacular, individual downloaders/distributors of a particular file

are called peers. The group of peers involved in downloading/distributing a particular file is

called a swarm. A server which stores a list of peers in a swarm is called a tracker. A computer

program that implements the BitTorrent protocol is called a BitTorrent client. Each swarm is

unique to a particular file.

13.

The BitTorrent protocol operates as follows. First, a user locates a small “torrent”

file. This file contains information about the files to be shared and about the tracker, the

computer that coordinates the file distribution. Second, the user loads the torrent file into a

BitTorrent client, which automatically attempts to connect to the tracker listed in the torrent file.

Third, the tracker responds with a list of peers and the BitTorrent client connects to those peers

to begin downloading data from and distributing data to the other peers in the swarm. When the

download is complete, the BitTorrent client continues distributing data to other peers in the

swarm until the user manually disconnects from the swarm or the BitTorrent client otherwise

does the same.

14. The degree of anonymity provided by the BitTorrent protocol is extremely low.

Because the protocol is based on peers connecting to one another, a peer must broadcast

identifying information (i.e. an IP address) before it can receive data. Nevertheless, the actual

names of peers in a swarm are unknown, as the users are allowed to download and distribute

under the cover of their IP addresses.






15. The BitTorrent protocol is an extremely popular method for transferring data. The

size of swarms for popular files can reach into the tens of thousands of unique peers. A swarm

will commonly have peers from many, if not every, state in the United States and several

countries around the world. And every peer in the swarm participates in distributing the file to

dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of other peers.

16. The BitTorrent protocol is also an extremely popular method for unlawfully

copying, reproducing, and distributing files in violation of the copyright laws of the United

States. A broad range of copyrighted albums, audiovisual files, photographs, software, and other

forms of media are available for illegal reproduction and distribution via the BitTorrent protocol.

17. Efforts at combating BitTorrent-based copyright infringement have been stymied

by BitTorrent’s decentralized nature. Because there are no central servers to enjoin from

unlawfully distributing copyrighted content, there is no primary target on which to focus anti-

piracy efforts. Indeed, the same decentralization that makes the BitTorrent protocol an extremely

robust and efficient means of transferring enormous quantities of data also acts to insulate it from

anti-piracy measures. This lawsuit is Plaintiff’s only practical means of combating BitTorrent-

based infringement of the Video.

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

18. Plaintiff is the exclusive rights holder with respect to BitTorrent-based

reproduction and distribution of the Video.

19. The Video is currently registered in the United States Copyright Office

(Copyright No. PA0001754383). (See Exhibit A to Complaint.) On December 20, 2011, Plaintiff

received the rights to this Video pursuant to an assignment agreement, a true and correct copy of

which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. (See Exhibit B to Complaint.)






20. The torrent file used to access the copyrighted material was named in a manner

that would have provided an ordinary individual with notice that the Video was protected by the

copyright laws of the United States.

21. Plaintiff employs proprietary peer-to-peer network forensic software to perform

exhaustive real time monitoring of the BitTorrent-based swarm involved in distributing the

Video. This software is effective in capturing data about the activity of peers in a swarm and

their infringing conduct.

22. Defendant, using IP address 75.89.36.80, without Plaintiff’s authorization or

license, intentionally downloaded a torrent file particular to Plaintiff’s Video, purposefully

loaded that torrent file into his BitTorrent client, entered a BitTorrent swarm particular to

Plaintiff’s Video, and reproduced and distributed the Video to numerous third parties.

23. Plaintiff’s investigators detected Defendant’s illegal download on

December 4, 2011 at 21:39:23 UTC. However, this is a simply a snapshot observation of when

the IP address was observed in the BitTorrent swarm; the conduct itself took place before and

after this date and time.

24. Defendant was part of a group of BitTorrent users or peers in a single swarm — a

process generally described above — whose computers were collectively interconnected for the

sharing of a particular unique file. The particular file a BitTorrent swarm is associated with has a

unique file “hash”—i.e. a unique file identifier generated by an algorithm (hereinafter “Hash

Tag.”)— and common to all of the participants in the swarm.

COUNT I – COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT – REPRODUCTION

(17 U.S.C. § 106(1))

25. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in

the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth fully herein.






26. Plaintiff is the copyright owner of the Video.

27. Defendant, without authorization, unlawfully obtained a copy of the Video.

28. Normally, Plaintiff offers the Video for purchase. Defendant, however, did not

purchase the Video and/or obtain the Video legally.

29. Defendant used IP address 75.89.36.80 to access the Video on the Internet, and

download the unique file containing the Video onto a hard drive through the unique swarm

associated with the unique Hash Tag using the BitTorrent protocol.

30. Defendant’s actions constituted copyright infringement of Plaintiff’s Video.

31.

Defendant knew or had constructive knowledge that his acts constituted copyright

infringement of Plaintiff’s Video.

32. Defendant’s conduct was willful within the meaning of the Copyright Act:

intentional, and with indifference to the Plaintiff’s rights.

33. Defendant’s conduct infringed upon Plaintiff’s exclusive rights of reproduction of

the Video that are protected under the Copyright Act.

34. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s conduct, including, but not limited to,

economic and reputation losses. Plaintiff continues to be damaged by such conduct, and has no

adequate remedy at law to compensate the Plaintiff for all of the possible damages stemming

from Defendant’s conduct.

35. As Defendant’s infringement was intentional and willful, the Plaintiff is entitled

to an award of actual damages and/or statutory damages (pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)) at its

own election, exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees (pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505), injunctive relief

(pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 502, 503) and the costs of the suit.

///






COUNT II – COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT – DISTRIBUTION

(17 U.S.C. § 106(3))


the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.

37. Plaintiff holds the exclusive rights under the Copyright Act to distribute the

Video.

38. Defendant has used, and continues to use, the BitTorrent file transfer protocol to

unlawfully distribute the Video to other individuals over the Internet by publishing the Video to

hundreds of thousands of BitTorrent users from a computer owned or controlled by Defendant,

which, in essence, served as a distribution server for the Video. In doing so, Defendant violated

Plaintiff’s exclusive rights to distribute the Video.

39. Defendant was not given any permission to conduct such reproduction, and

Plaintiff never consented to such.

40. Defendant’s actions constitute infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrights and

exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.

41. Defendant knew or had constructive knowledge that his acts constituted copyright

infringement of Plaintiff’s Video.

42. Defendant’s conduct was willful within the meaning of the Copyright Act:

intentional, and with indifference to the Plaintiff’s rights.

43. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s conduct, including but not limited to

economic and reputation losses. Plaintiff continues to be damaged by such conduct, and has no

adequate remedy at law to compensate the Plaintiff for all of the possible damages stemming

fr om the Defendant’s conduct.






44. As Defendant’s infringement was intentional and willful, the Plaintiff is entitled

to an award of actual damages and/or statutory damages (pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)) at its

own election, exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees (pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505), injunctive relief

(pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 502, 503) and the costs of the suit.

COUNT III – CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT



46. When users in this unique swarm all possess the same infringing work with the

same exact hash value, it is because each infringer possesses an exact digital copy, containing the

exact bits and pieces unique to that specific f ile of Plaintiff’s original copyrighted work. They

only way this happens in a BitTorrent swarm is through the sharing of these bits and pieces of

each same unique file, with the same unique hash value, between the users in the swarm. In

essence, although hundreds of users may be uploading the copyrighted work, a single user will

receive only the exact parts of a singular upload through that exact swarm, not a compilation of

available pieces from various uploads.

47. Defendant published the Hash Tag to the BitTorrent network.

48. Defendant downloaded, uploaded and distributed the Video to other BitTorrent

users through use of the hash-specified protocol in the unique swarm.

49. As each of the thousands of people who illegally downloaded the movie accessed

this illegal publication, they derived portions of their illegal replication of the file from multiple

persons, including, but not limited to, Defendant.






50. Defendant knew of the infringement, was conscious of his own infringement, and

Defendant was fully conscious that his actions resulted in multiple other persons derivatively

downloading the file containing Plaintiff’s Video.

51. The infringement by the other BitTorrent users could not have occurred without

Defendant’s participation in uploading Plaintiff’s copyrighted works. As such, Defendant’s

participation in the infringing activities of others is substantial and contributed, for profit, to the

infringing activity of thousands of other peers over the Internet across the world.

52. Defendant profited from this contributory infringement by way of being granted

access to a greater library of other infringing works, some of which belonged to Plaintiff and

some of which belonged to other copyright owners.

COUNT IV – CIVIL CONSPIRACY



54. In using the peer-to-peer BitTorrent file distribution method, Defendant engaged

in a concerted action with other unnamed individuals to reproduce and distribute Plaintiff’s

Video by exchanging pieces of the Video file in the torrent swarm.

55. Defendant and his co-conspirators downloaded a torrent file, opened it using a

BitTorrent client, and then entered a torrent swarm comprised of other individuals distributing

and reproducing Plaintiff’s Video. In participating in said conspiratorial network, Defendant

agreed with others to engage in a concerted tortious action in the network to reproduce and

distribute Plaintiff’s Video.






56. Participants in the torrent swarm have conspired to provide other individuals with

pieces of the Video in exchange for receiving other pieces of the same Video to eventually obtain

a complete copy of the file.

57. In furtherance of this civil conspiracy, Defendant committed overt tortious and

unlawful acts by using BitTorrent software to download the Video from and distribute it to

others, and were willful participants in this joint activity.

58. As a proximate result of this conspiracy, Plaintiff has been damaged, as is more

fully alleged above.

COUNT V –

NEGLIGENCE



60. In the alternative, Defendant was negligent and/or reckless in allowing a third-

party to commit the allegations of infringement, contributory infringement, and civil conspiracy

described above through his Internet connection.

61. Defendant accessed, or controlled access to, the Internet connection used in

performing the unauthorized copying and sharing of Plaintiff’s Video, proximately causing

financial harm to Plaintiff.

62. Defendant had a duty to secure his Internet connection. Defendant breached that

duty by failing to secure his Internet connection.

63. Reasonable Internet users take steps to secure their Internet access accounts

preventing the use of such accounts for an illegal purpose. Defendant’s failure to secure his

Internet access account, thereby allowing for its illegal use, constitutes a breach of the ordinary

care that a reasonable Internet account holder would do under like circumstances.






64. In the alternative, Defendant secured his connection, but knowingly permitted an

unknown third party to use his Internet connection to infringe on Plaintiff’s Video. Defendant

knew, or should have known, that this unidentif ied individual used Defendant’s Internet

connection for the aforementioned illegal activities. Defendant declined to monitor the

unidentified third- party infringer’s use of his computer Internet connection, demonstrating

further negligence.

65. In the alternative, Defendant knew of, and allowed for, the unidentified third party

infringer’s use of his Internet connection for illegal purposes and thus was complicit in the

unidentified third party’s actions.

66. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s failure to secure his Internet access

account directly allowed for the copying and sharing of Plaintiff’s Video over the BitTorrent

protocol through Defendant’s Internet connection, and interfered with Plaintiff’s exclusive rights

in the copyrighted work.

67. Upon information and belief, Defendant knew, or should have known of, the

unidentified third party’s infringing actions, and, despite this, Defendant directly, or indirectly,

allowed for the copying and sharing of Plaintiff’s Video over the BitTorrent protocol through

Defendant’s Internet connection, and interfered with Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the

copyrighted Video.

68. By virtue of his unsecured access, Defendant negligently allowed the use of his

Internet access account to perform the above-described copying and sharing of Plaintiff’s

copyrighted Video.

69. Had Defendant taken reasonable care in securing access to this Internet

connection, or monitoring the unidentified third- party individual’s use of his Internet connection,






such infringements as those described above would not have occurred by the use of Defendant’s

Internet access account.

70. Defendant’s negligent actions allowed numerous others to unlawfully copy and

share Plaintiff’s copyrighted Video, proximately causing financial harm to Plaintiff and

unlawfully interfering with Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Video.

JURY DEMAND

71. Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this case.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests Judgment and relief as follows:

1) Judgment against Defendant that he has: a) willfully infringed Plaintiff’s rights in

federally registered copyrights pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501; and b) otherwise injured the

business reputation and business of Plaintiff by Defendant’s acts and conduct set forth in this

Complaint;

2) Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against Defendant for actual damages or

statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504, at the election of Plaintiff, in an amount to be

ascertained at trial;

3) Order of impoundment under 17 U.S.C. §§ 503 & 509(a) impounding all

infringing copies of Plaintiff’s audiovisual works, photographs or other materials, which are in

Defendant’s possession or under his control;

4) As to Count III, that the Court order the Defendant jointly and severally liable to

Plaintiff in the full amount of the Judgment along with the damages associated with the

infringing activities of his co-conspirators;

5) As to Count IV, an order that Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff in the full amount

of Judgment on the basis of a common law claim for contributory infringement of copyright; for






an award of compensatory damages in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant in an amount

to be determined at trial;

6) On Count IV, in the alternative, an order that Defendant is jointly and severally

liable to the Plaintiff in the full amount of Judgment on the basis of Defendant’s negligence in

allowing an unidentified third party access his Internet account and, through it, violate Plaintiff’s

copyrighted works; for an award of compensatory damages in favor of the Plaintiff and against

Defendant, jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial;

7) Judgment in favor of Plaintiff against the Defendant awarding the Plaintiff

attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses (including fees and costs of expert witnesses), and other costs

of this action; and

8) Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendant, awarding Plaintiff

declaratory and injunctive or other equitable relief as may be just and warranted under the

circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

AF Holdings, LLC,

DATED: November 2, 2012

By: /s/ Jacques Nazaire

Jacques Nazaire, Esq. (Bar No. 142388)Of Counsel to Prenda Law Inc.

125 Town Park Drive, Suite 300

Kennesaw, Georgia 30144Telephone: (415) 325-5900

Email: [email protected]

Attorney for Plaintiff






DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial as provided by FRCP 38(a).

By: /s/ Jacques Nazaire

Jacques Nazaire, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff






EXHIBIT OO

EXHIBIT OO





4months,CLOSED

U.S. District CourtNorthern District of Georgia (Gainesville)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12-cv-00262-WCO

AF Holdings, LLC v. Patel

Assigned to: Judge William C. O'Kelley

Cause: 17:504 Copyright Infringement

Date Filed: 11/02/2012

Date Terminated: 03/18/2013

Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff

AF Holdings, LLC represented by Jacques Nazaire

Jacques Nazaire, Attorney at Law

Suite 300

125 Town Park Drive

Kennesaw, GA 30144

404-923-0529

Fax: 678-559-0798


ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Defendant

Rajesh Patel represented by Blair Chintella

Blair Chintella, Esq.

806 Meadowlane Drive

Douglas, GA 31533

404-579-9668


ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

11/02/2012 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed and summon(s) issued. Consent form toproceed before U.S. Magistrate and pretrial instructions provided. ( Filing fee

$350, receipt number 113E-4243602), filed by AF Holdings, LLC.

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet)(vld) Please

visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions.

Modified on 11/6/2012 (rth). (Entered: 11/05/2012)

CM/ECF-GA Northern District Court https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?1313602506

of 3 4/12/13 9:35





11/05/2012 2 Electronic Summons Issued as to Rajesh Patel. (vld) (Entered: 11/05/2012)

11/05/2012 3 AO Form 121 forwarded to Commissioner. (vld) (Entered: 11/05/2012)

11/11/2012 4 Corporate Disclosure Statement by AF Holdings, LLC by AF Holdings,

LLC.(Nazaire, Jacques) (Entered: 11/11/2012)

11/19/2012 5 Corporate Disclosure Statement by AF Holdings, LLC by AF Holdings,LLC.(Nazaire, Jacques) (Entered: 11/19/2012)

01/15/2013 6 NOTICE Of Filing Summons by AF Holdings, LLC re 2 Electronic Summons

Issued, 1 Complaint, (Nazaire, Jacques) (Entered: 01/15/2013)

01/15/2013 7 Electronic Summons Re-Issued as to Rajesh Patel. (sk) (Entered: 01/15/2013)

01/15/2013 8 NOTICE Of Filing Summons by AF Holdings, LLC re 2 Electronic Summons

Issued, 1 Complaint, (Nazaire, Jacques) (Entered: 01/15/2013)

01/16/2013 9 Electronic Summons Re-Issued as to Rajesh Patel. (sk) (Entered: 01/16/2013)

02/04/2013 10 Return of Service Executed by AF Holdings, LLC. Rajesh Patel served on2/4/2013, answer due 2/25/2013. (Nazaire, Jacques) Modified on 2/27/2013 to

correct defendant name (sk). (Entered: 02/04/2013)

02/27/2013 11 MOTION for Clerks Entry of Default with Brief In Support by AF Holdings,

LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Proof of Service)

(Nazaire, Jacques) (Entered: 02/27/2013)

02/27/2013 Clerks Entry of Default as to Rajesh Patel. (sk) (Entered: 02/27/2013)

03/01/2013 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Blair Chintella on behalf of Rajesh Patel (Chintella,

Blair) (Entered: 03/01/2013)

03/04/2013 13 MOTION to Set Aside Default with Brief In Support by Rajesh Patel.

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Alan Cooper lawsuit, # 2 Exhibit Alan Cooper

declaration, # 3 Exhibit Brett Gibbs declaration, # 4 Exhibit List of Cases, # 5

Exhibit Defendant's Declaration)(Chintella, Blair) (Entered: 03/04/2013)

03/18/2013 14 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice filed by AF Holdings, LLC

(Nazaire, Jacques) (Entered: 03/18/2013)

03/18/2013 Clerk's Entry of Dismissal APPROVING 14 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.41(a)(1)(i). (sk) (Entered: 03/18/2013)

03/18/2013 Civil Case Terminated. (sk) (Entered: 03/18/2013)03/18/2013 15 AO Form 121 forwarded to Commissioner. (sk) (Entered: 03/18/2013)

04/06/2013 16 MOTION for Sanctions with Brief In Support by Rajesh Patel. (Attachments: #

(Exhibit A, # 2Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6

Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11

Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16


of 3 4/12/13 9:35





Exhibit P)(Chintella, Blair) Modified on 4/8/2013 to remove duplicative

wording (sk). (Entered: 04/06/2013)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt04/12/2013 12:32:29

PACER Login: th9592 Client Code: Subpoena Defense

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:12-cv-00262-WCO

Billable Pages: 2 Cost: 0.20


of 3 4/12/13 9:35





EXHIBIT PP

EXHIBIT PP





Brent BerryRealtor/Auctioneer 3351 Round Lake Blvd

Anoka, MN 55303

[email protected]

Cell : 612-390-3621

Main: 763-323-8080

Other: 612-412-1313

Brent Berry › Search › 21251 220th St, Mcgrath, MN 56350 Sign In

Back To Search Next

PROPERTY ACTIONS

Save to Favorites Request Information

Calculate Mortgage Print Brochures

Explore Neighborhoods and Schools Get Map and Directions

E-mail This Listing

0 Tweet 0

Listing 1 of 4

ShareShare Like 0

LISTED BY

Brent BerryRealtor/Auctioneer

RE/MAX Results

E-mail Me

Cell: 612-390-3621

Main: 763-323-8080

old Home - 21251 220th St, Mcgrath, MN 56350 - RE/MAX ... http://www.results.net/brent.berry/Property/MN/56350/Mcgr

of 3 4/14/13 10:52





Listed by RE/MAX Results

21251 220th St

Mcgrath, MN 56350

$417,000

MLS ID: 4183515

Request Information

First Name:

Last Name:

E-mail Address:

Phone Number:

Message:

All Fields Required Send

I am interested in receiving more information about MLS ID#

4183515 located at 21251 220th St, Mcgrath, MN 56350

Property Details

MLS ID: 4183515

Style: 2-Story

Year Built: 2006

Bedrooms: 3

Bathrooms: 3 (Full: 0 3/4: 3 1/2: 0 Other: 0)

Status: Sold on 2/28/2013

Parking Type

Description:Unpaved / Gravel / Dirt 4 cars

New Construction: No

LOT INFORMATION

Acreage: 125

Lot Size: 1884x3204x2640x1320x.

LOCALE

County: Aitkin

School District: Mcgregor

Photo Tour

4 of 18

Neighborhood View Find Properties In Neighborhood

250 feet250 feet 50 m50 m

© 2012 Nokia© 2012 Nokia © 2013 Microsoft Corporation© 2013 Microsoft Corporation

N Road


of 3 4/14/13 10:52





Welcome | Area Properties | My Solds | My Office Locations | My Blog | Contact Me | Privacy Policy | Feedback | RE/MAX Results | OnlineOffice | Mobile Site

Property Information Last Updated: 4/14/2013 at 11:25 PM.

The IDX information is provided exclusively for consumers' personal, non-commercial use, and may not be used for any purpose other than to identify prospective

properties consumers may be interested in purchasing. All data is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed to be accurate by the MLS.

Equal Housing Opportunity

Nationwide, RE/MAX Results REALTORS® sell more homes per Associate! Our agents specialize in real estate houses for sale or purchase in Minnesota and Western

Wisconsin; including the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Start your property search at Results.net. Find homes for sale and real estate agents using our real estate

search engine.

All information deemed reliable but not guaranteed. All properties are subject to prior sale, change or withdrawal. Neither broker(s), agent(s) nor WhereToLive.com, Inc. shall be

responsible for any typographical errors, misinformation or misprints, and shall be held totally harmless.

© 1999-2013 WhereToLive.com, Inc. - Winning Real Estate Solutions

Back To Search NextListing 1 of 4


of 3 4/14/13 10:52





Brent BerryRealtor/Auctioneer 3351 Round Lake Blvd

Anoka, MN 55303

[email protected]

Cell : 612-390-3621

Main: 763-323-8080

Other: 612-412-1313

Brent Berry › Search › 21251 220th St, Mcgrath, MN 56350 Sign In

Back To Search Next

PROPERTY ACTIONS

Save to Favorites Request Information

Calculate Mortgage Print Brochures

Explore Neighborhoods and Schools Get Map and Directions

E-mail This Listing

0 Tweet 0

Listing 1 of 4

ShareShare Like 0

LISTED BY

Brent BerryRealtor/Auctioneer

RE/MAX Results

E-mail Me

Cell: 612-390-3621

Main: 763-323-8080


of 3 4/14/13 10:5





Listed by RE/MAX Results

21251 220th St

Mcgrath, MN 56350

$417,000

MLS ID: 4183515

Request Information

First Name:

Last Name:

E-mail Address:

Phone Number:

Message:

All Fields Required Send

I am interested in receiving more information about MLS ID#

4183515 located at 21251 220th St, Mcgrath, MN 56350

Property Details

MLS ID: 4183515

Style: 2-Story

Year Built: 2006

Bedrooms: 3

Bathrooms: 3 (Full: 0 3/4: 3 1/2: 0 Other: 0)

Status: Sold on 2/28/2013

Parking Type

Description:Unpaved / Gravel / Dirt 4 cars

New Construction: No

LOT INFORMATION

Acreage: 125

Lot Size: 1884x3204x2640x1320x.

LOCALE

County: Aitkin

School District: Mcgregor

Photo Tour

5 of 18

Neighborhood View Find Properties In Neighborhood

250 feet250 feet 50 m50 m

© 2012 Nokia© 2012 Nokia © 2013 Microsoft Corporation© 2013 Microsoft Corporation

N Road


of 3 4/14/13 10:5





Welcome | Area Properties | My Solds | My Office Locations | My Blog | Contact Me | Privacy Policy | Feedback | RE/MAX Results | OnlineOffice | Mobile Site

Property Information Last Updated: 4/14/2013 at 11:25 PM.

The IDX information is provided exclusively for consumers' personal, non-commercial use, and may not be used for any purpose other than to identify prospective

properties consumers may be interested in purchasing. All data is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed to be accurate by the MLS.

Equal Housing Opportunity

Nationwide, RE/MAX Results REALTORS® sell more homes per Associate! Our agents specialize in real estate houses for sale or purchase in Minnesota and Western

Wisconsin; including the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Start your property search at Results.net. Find homes for sale and real estate agents using our real estate

search engine.

All information deemed reliable but not guaranteed. All properties are subject to prior sale, change or withdrawal. Neither broker(s), agent(s) nor WhereToLive.com, Inc. shall be

responsible for any typographical errors, misinformation or misprints, and shall be held totally harmless.

© 1999-2013 WhereToLive.com, Inc. - Winning Real Estate Solutions

Back To Search NextListing 1 of 4


of 3 4/14/13 10:5





EXHIBIT QQ

EXHIBIT QQ



12-cv-08333 pietz response exhibits only - doc117

Documents