Guardaley | X-Art
Copyright trolls: “We don’t care if you did it or not, we just want your money!”
What happened since Fantalis filed his excellent First Amended Answer and Counterclaims? I’ll try to briefly cover the main events. If my emotional comments seem overboard, refer to the court filings, and I hope your skepticism will vanish 🙂
- On 8/8 Kotzker filed a motion to dismiss Fantalis’s amended counterclaim. This motion contained many assertions that were not supported by case law. Raul called it “a panicked troll bitch response.”
- On 8/13 Marc Randazza crashed the party with one of his amicus curiae briefs prepared on behalf of the First Amendment Lawyers Association (FALA). This brief’s single topic was the claim that pornography belongs to the company of “useful arts,” and deserves copyright protection. My opinion on this issue was precisely expressed by a blog commenter:
Randazza and the other copyright trolls brought this on themselves by abusing the court system with their predatory litigation practices. While I am definitely not one for censorship or limiting the ability of people to create works, even adult ones, I cannot help but be amused that the court system that the trolls and their adult film clients abused so egregiously of late could now potentially destroy them all if pornography is ruled to be uncopyrightable. That’s what they get for being greedy short sighted douchebags.
- On 8/22 Fantalis opposed Randazza’s motion to file the amicus curiae brief, painting FALA as not a disinterested party, but essentially an adult business astroturf. The conclusion was that the brief’s biased opinion is neither welcome nor appropriate. Judge later allowed this brief to be filed.
- On 8/24 Kotzker filed a motion for protective order (that was later granted), which included some outrageous statements:
Plaintiff has good cause for a protective order because if this information is provided to the public, Plaintiff, its employees and affiliates will be subject to annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Plaintiff is aware of anti-copyright blogs and websites that follow cases by Plaintiff and disseminate defense strategies and other information. Often these blogs and websites encourage individuals to harass Plaintiff, its employees and affiliates in order to discourage Plaintiff from filing suits against individuals that have infringed its copyrights. Several of Plaintiff’s counsel have received death threats and other harassing letters and emails. Plaintiff has a legitimate fear that if the information of its employees and affiliates is provided and disseminated to the public, Plaintiff, its employees and affiliates will be susceptible to similar threats and experience annoyance, embarrassment and harassment.
Dietrolldie made a post debunking these cowardly lies. I only want to add one thought: as we learned about the impending bellwether trial in Pennsylvania, our blogs’ community became rather excited (just read the recent comments) about the prospect of a fair trial that could take place as early as in April 2013. That alone tells volumes more than trolls’ unsubstantiated accusations: would you expect such an excitement from a community of near criminals, as Mr. Kotzker and other pornotrolls try to portray us?
- On 8/29 Fantalis filed his Second Amended Answer and Counterclaim. Although this document was later stricken, I highly recommend reading it: it is more refined than the previous one and has many new damning exhibits, including a Berlin Court’s injunction that finds Guardley’s IP harvesting methods erroneous. We were aware of this document for a long time, but it was not translated from German. Now we have an English version, and I advise movants to refer to it in any opposition to trolls’ claims regarding the accuracy of their forensic “experts,” especially in Malibu Media cases: Lipscomb’s outfit employs IPP International, which is merely a Guardaley’s facade.
- On 8/31 the pot called the kettle back and filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions. The content of this motion is a pure definition of irony: Kotzker claims that Fantalis’s counterclaims are frivolous. However, the motion does not present any facts that would support this claim, which makes this motion frivolous itself. I’m not sure that Kotzker understands this irony: by this time it became clear that our little troll is scared. His subsequent actions suggest that the fear of discovery overcomes the fear of being disciplined. Kotzker tries everything to stall the process, which is not a surprise: trolls excelled in taking off but did not care to learn how to land: in other words, despite filing hundreds of cases across the country, they did not even think about preparing to litigate.
- On 9/5 Fantalis replied to plaintiff’s motion for protective order, thoroughly debunking all the phony claims that Kotzker had made on 8/24. I want to thank Jeff for defending our community from baseless attacks:
The “anti-copyright” blogs, to which Plaintiff refers, are by no means against copyright as a matter of law. What they are dedicated to is to the education and support of John Does who have been sued or otherwise approached by a company like Plaintiff. They are anti-mass-for-profit-infringement-litigation blogs.
- 9/22 Kotzker’s reply to response to motion for leave to amend is worth reading too.
So what about this post’s title? The answer is in 9/21 response to trolls’ motion for Rule 11 sanctions. While the document itself is a no less important and must-read than Fantalis’s previous filings, the most incriminatory piece is the exhibit, having seen which even very skeptical person will shake his head in disbelief. Four people — three attorneys and a 66 y.o. defendant — each filed a sworn affidavit that tells essentially the same story: how they approached plaintiff, voluntarily offering their hardware for forensic examination to prove innocence, and (surprise?) the troll said “no.” Or, translated to plain English, “We don’t care if you did it or not, we just want your money”:
So here we are. While this battle rages on, the trolls acquire new headaches every day. So far these headaches are:
- A class action lawsuit against five pornographers, including Malibu Media;
- Yesterday 33 Malibu cases in the Central District of California were reduced to a single Doe each;
- Fast-track bellwether lawsuit in Pennsylvania;
- Another defendant in Colorado fights back;
- A defendant in Maryland (with a help of attorney Eric Menhart) comes up with a different set of counterclaims, explicitly accusing trolls of running a honeypot.
I’m sure I have missed a few. Moreover, it is clear that this list is destined to grow, as it is clear that trolls’ house of cards is shaking and will soon fall apart.
Do not feed the trolls. Do not settle. In order to win, you must fight back.
- On 10/5 Plaintiff filed his further support for Rule 11 sanctions. He called this blog “anti-copyright” once again on page 21 (the irony continues: no fact supporting this claim can be presented) and whined that Fantalis should be stopped because… others can use his excellent reasoning in defending themselves! Unbelievable. Yet I’m grateful to the trolls for drawing the judges’ attention to this humble blog one more time. I hope that Judge Hegarty follows the links in the filings and will click on the footnote 12.
Needless to say, the subject of this post was not addressed at all: seemingly it is not a big deal do extort obviously innocent people.
- On 10/11 Fantalis, tired of plaintiff’s games, filed a motion to compel to produce requested documents. Must read.
- On 10/12 Fantalis filed an objection to an earlier magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation that advised to entry a default judgement against another defendant on this case, Bruce Dunn. As a commenter below noted, “it has much more to do with how a judgment against Bruce Dunn would prejudice his own case rather that out of charity. Fantalis is absolutely correct, that judgment against Dunn would be paradoxical if (read: when) Fantalis prevails at trial.”
- On 10/18 Judge Hegarty granted Fantalis’ motion for time extension to file second amended answer and counterclaim, motion for leave to file second amended answer and counterclaim, denied Kotzker’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions, and denied as moot Fantalis’ second amended answer and counterclaim.
- Malibu Media v. Fantalis et al: update. Second Amended Answer; discovery sabotage; hearing on the Motion to Compel. All further updates will be posted there.
58 responses to ‘Copyright trolls: “We don’t care if you did it or not, we just want your money!”’
This would be a great time for Sorry Maury to drop by and tell us how justified this behavior is.
Unlike most of the other trolls Sorry Morry knows when he’s beaten, but I wouldn’t put it past him to go to the toilet and put out another dump that he calls an apologist excuse in defence of the above behaviour.
Still, it’s hilarious to see how he’s getting his comeuppance. He called all counterclaims complete wastes of time – and in response, the plaintiffs he so dearly supports are crapping out ad hominems to push their arguments. Wow, Morry, you decided to team up with a minority record label and support copyright trolls for this?
Some amusement is coming soon. Stay intrigued.
Haven’t seen that phrase in a while. On that note, if there’s anything new or interesting to update or report on Adam Sekora and his case, would you be willing to do so in the Lightspeed thread? I hope he and his team are doing well!
SJD is obviously teasing, and history has shown that’s all we’re going to get until the time is ripe.
I’m teasing regarding this case, not Sekora’s. I did not hear from Arizona for a while, will try to contact them for updates and report back.
there is a motion hearing for the world timbers case in AZ on the 2nd of nove i think. i really wish i could read the troll response and the motion to dismiss from world timbers.
also in the sekora case there was a second afidavid of service, don’t know who that was for unless it was a deposition subpoena.
“Unless Defendant is sanctioned – Plaintiff, other defendants and this Court will needlessly endure more pointless work. And, without a sanction, many straight forward copyright infringement claims will be needlessly complicated.”
In other words…
“Show these assholes what happens when they argue that they didn’t do it…how dare they mount a defense against a civil claim”
Greetings your Honor.
I do hope you will enjoy your stay here with us. Please don’t be put off by all of the posts you will find here. You see these trolls have sued around 300,000 people and a small group of people try very hard to make them aware of the problems in these cases and that they have rights too.
I propose that on any URL linked to by a troll or defendant we put a nice note right at the top: “Welcome Judges! …” And briefly explain the purpose of this site in a clear concise statement. This notion that we are anti copyright is absurd. Some of us including myself actually hold copyrights to various works.
I see a new doc on RFC… Doc 86 motion to compel, filed on the 11th. I can’t get on pacer since I’m overseas wig spotty internet, but I’m guessing Kotzker did not provide discovery on 9/30 as the judge ordered (3 times), and Fantalis is filing this motion to compel Kotzker to get on with the show.
Can anyone get on pacer and confirm?
It’s really beyond me It’s at this point how Kotzker thinks he can paint Fantalis as the one delaying this case from proceeding. Just unbelievable.
I was recapped (and not by me, but by TAD). Will update the post soon.
A Recap advice: Recapped documents appear slow on the archive.org, but in most cases docket page is updated much faster (replace last 3 URl sections, like 86.0.pdf with docket.html to see the docket page). So if there is a new document listed on the docket page, but there is no link, try to construct URL manually, i.e. change, say, …40.0.pdf to …86.0.pdf — it works often.
I’ve had that problem several times. One time it took a couple hours to even hit the archive but most of the time the docket will update but no link will be there so I’ll just go to the root of the folder and find the document. In this case, the root would be…
Just look for document 86.0 (0 means the motion/filing, 86.1, 86.2, etc would be exhibits).
Fantalis is totally going to collect his cool million if Kotzker keeps this up. Avoiding discovery is a very nasty way of avoiding the proceedings of justice that I can’t imagine the court will like.
I gotta set up a PayPal account for donations for all the recapping because my quarterly PACER bill was almost $250. All those long ass documents. (DE 85) is 148 pages, thank God that PACER has a ceiling of 30 pages but still at $0.10/page, ugh that shit adds up.
Here’s the motion…
Click to access gov.uscourts.cod.132446.86.0.pdf
This one is LONG as hell. I can’t copy and paste anything outta it since it’s scanned apparently and no OCR was applied (I’m running it through Acrobat X’s OCR but that usually doesn’t work too well). The motion asks for sanctions for failure to produce in a timely manner, contains Kotzker’s first answer to request for production (you’ll get a laugh at that one), and is just downright LONG.
In Plaintiff’s first answer to discovery, Kotzker basically states that damn near every document/stored communication is irrelevant…documents containing: responsibilities of the MM President, officers’ duties and periods of employment, minutes from corporate meetings, shareholder vote info, tax returns, insurance policies, copies of cease and desist letters sent by MM to Does, DMCA takedowns sent to ISPs (that’s hard because none were sent), and finally my two favorites, the retainer agreement and any other documents showing a contractual relationship between Kotzker and Lipscomb (not relevant my ass) and all documents and stored communication pertaining to plaintiff’s relationship with counsel (Kotzker) (again, irrelevant my ass). Much much more.
I and everyone here are grateful to your contributions (both time, and, as it appears now, money). I will be more than happy to list a donation link on the front page.
I was joking about the PayPal account but I really am gonna cut down on the recapping. I really didn’t give a shit about the money when I was pulling docs then I got the email and my eyes about shot outta my head. However, I’d say like $50-75 was for work. I had to pull a ton of lawsuits for a client (frivolous bullshit but needed the shit for compliance audit before the OCC comes in and nitpicks) and ran up my bill so I’m just gonna itemize that by page and get reimbursed.
Well, this joke has its merits. So far I received 1 bitcoin in donations (I mine ~10 a month 🙂 I believe it it would be PayPal, people would donate much more. Needless to say, I loathe an idea of making money on other people’s misery, yet I see nothing wrong in compensating explicit monetary expenses at least.
I’m reluctant to connect FCT to my actual financial institutions. Even the ad revenue sharing program that WordPress.com offers (50-50) would bring ~$200 monthly (given today’s traffic, which grows every week) — more than adequate not to think twice before each Pacer request.
If anyone has any ideas, let me know.
I’m also leery about connecting anything to my financial institution. I dunno, but like I said, I really don’t care as long as I’m helping people. I can’t imagine how much it cost people to RECAP all the crap that I used to read before I got a PACER account so I’m just giving back IMO. Definitely gotta cut down on the 20+ page docs though.
And thanks to the BSA and AML, even if I went and opened a second account at another bank, I’d still have to provide an assload of personal info along with photo ID to get a bank account so it’s a moot point.
My wife tends to say WTF when she sees the PACER bill but I remind her we are still way ahead and have a responsibility. That being said, am going to pay the most recent one on the sly as it is high also 😉
Thanks Raul. Your efforts and the bills you pay in support of your actions are appreciated by many! 🙂
Hahaha…look at what Kotzker says
“143. Tobias Fieser has, or is employed by a firm that has a financial interest in any judgment in this case.
Response to Request No. 143: Plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it
seeks information that is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. IPP, Ltd.’s process is not susceptible to subjective interference.”
Oh yeah, right, it’s irrelevant and IPP’s process is not susceptible to subjective interference…BULLSHIT
“168. The technology used by IPP Ltd., has generated at least one false positive.
Response to Request No. 168: Denied.”
It is 100% accurate!!!! More BULLSHIT. I could keep going, but this just makes me angry.
The plaintiff attorney reply is deceptive. Period. Atomic clocks, developed for over a century by leading scientists and evaluated continuously for decades, are not 100% accurate. The troll supposed software has never been adequately described let alone examined or tested. Yet somehow some greedy unnamed pretend-technologist, who is a conspirator and possibly a racketeer, is somehow perfect.
Any scientist or engineer in any field could bash the troll claim to perfection as an expert witness. It’s sadly funny when a troll claim has literally hundreds of thousands of potential expert witnesses to refute the troll bull****.
Have you seen Fieser’s declaration? The fucking “Visualisation of the Process” is enough to make my head spin and I know my shit when it comes to computers. I’m trying to figure out if each of the computers is specifically tasked with initiating the download, then another to do another thing, etc. Like 20 things could go wrong, but probably WAY more and that’s just with their computer shit, not factoring in human error. For Kotzker to say that it’s 100% accurate is total bullshit especially when Meier (whose expert was also either Fieser or an IPP/Guardaley employee) admitted that the error rate is 30% (almost certainly higher). Take a look at this shit, page 6 of the PDF…
Click to access gov.uscourts.cod.131481.6.2.pdf
Love the 11 Oct 12, Motion to Compel Malibu Media to provide the Discovery information. LMAO!!!!!! http://ia601204.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.cod.132446/gov.uscourts.cod.132446.docket.html See Doc #86, SJD has the direct link above. 148 pages – long but good. Oh boy is Kotzker and Malibu Media in over their heads.
From page 15 – http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/fant1.jpg
More – http://dietrolldie.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/fant2.jpg
malibu is fuct, he is gonna break the corporate vail and come after the owner(s) dirrectly. what kindof retard sets up a company to sue people and does not have insurance. seriously they had the forsight to set up a dummy company, but didn’t think ANYONE would fight back so insurance was a waste of money??? i bet lipscum told them they wouldn’t need insurance, and when this is all over they will sue the pants off of his whole outfit.
this is a great read btw i really do think that the owner(s) of malibu are going to get rheemed hard by the end of this case, i mean one already popped up and posted some whiney complaint about this site and it’s alledged support of “truely liable” infringers. image when he actually deposes her. she will walk out crying no doubt. fantalis “do you know how bittorrent works?” owner “babbly babbly, nope.”
Here are some more hillarious tidbits from the discovery documents:
Kotzker denies the authenticity of a published conference paper hosted on a university web server:
“125. The document attached to Defendant’s First Amended Answer and Counterclaim as Exhibit C entitled “Challenges and Directions for Monitoring P2P File Sharing Networks – or Why my Printer Received a DMCA Takedown Notice” by Piatek, Kohno, and Krishnamurthy, http://dmca.cs.washington,edu/, is authentic.
Fantalis also manages to lead Kotzker through a series of logic where he contradicts himself, or at least is being intentionall disingenuous:
“15. An unsecured wireless internet network can be accessed by any device capable of wireless internet access within its range.
18. It is possible to access an unsecured wireless internet network without the knowledge of the individual who has set up the network and paid for internet service.
Okay, so Kotzker admits that devices can connect to an unsecured wireless network and that the owner would have no idea. But then…
“26. There is no way for Plaintiff to prove that Defendant was the individual who downloaded the Work(s) because some other individual besides the Defendant may have access his unsecured network.
27. There is no way for Plaintiff to assert with 100% certainty based on an IP address alone that Defendant was the individual who downloaded the Work(s) because some other individual besides the Defendant may have accessed his unsequired wireless network.
So after already admitting it’s possible someone accessed Fantalis’ network, Kotzker then says it’s impossible that it was anyone other than Fantalis who downloaded the files.
Furthermore, and even more outrageously, Kotzker claims that even though multiple people can access a network, including any number of unknown people not authorized to use the network (which he just admitted), each of which when using the network are identified by the same IP address, it’s 100% certain prior to any examination of the evidence that the subscriber was the one who downloaded the work. Completely mental gymnastics going on there.
For the record, this is completely opposite to the position Marvin Cable was forced to take before Judge Sorokin. After being pressed and backed into a corner (using the logic we’re used to, that IP address does not equal a person) Marvin Cable was forced to admit the subscriber was not always the infringer (false positive) but is the first lead to help identify the infringer. Kotzker is saying “No, there are never any false positives. The subscriber IS the infringer and is ALWAYS the infringer 100% of the time.”
To be clear, when Kotzker says there have never been false positives, and never will be any false positives, he is effectively saying that when IPP identifies a coffee shop as infringing, it is 100% of the time the owner of the coffee shop who is doing the infringing, and never a patron. I wonder why Malibu Media isn’t going after Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks. According to IPP Howard Schultz is probably doing a lot of infringing.
It’s hilarious to see what Kotzker says is irrelevant. Almost like it’s a tactic to delay…more. Names of executives, irrelevant. Contracts, retainers, etc…irrelevant. Minutes from corporate meetings, irrelevant. Stored communication between Kotzker/Lipscomb and MM (Brigham Field/Colette), irrelevant. All of these requests directly pertain to the allegations made in Fantalis’ counter-claim and Kotzker claims it’s all irrelevant or has been previously disclosed. He objects to or denies the allegation in EVERY question. Like this, it’s fucking ridiculous…
“92. Employees of this “call center” are instructed by Plaintiff (either directly or by
and through its attorneys, employees and/or agents) to contact potential defendants at their home.
Response to Request No. 92: Plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it
seeks information that is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible
information.” Seems pretty clear, just say “Affirmed” Kotzker.
“125. The document attached to Defendant’s First Amended Answer and Counterclaim
as Exhibit C entitled “Challenges and Directions for Monitoring P2P File Sharing Networks- or
-Why My Printer Received a DMCA Takedown Notice” by Piatek, Kohno, and Krishnarnurthy,
http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/, is authentic.
Response to Request No. 125: Denied.” Denied? It’s fake? I’m sure the authors would beg to differ.
“128. The document attached to Defendant’s First Amended Answer and Counterclaim
as Exhibit D, a letter from law finn Steele Hansmeier PLLC to Liuxia Wong dated July 13, 2011, is authentic.
Response to Request No. 128: Denied.” Again, it’s fake?
This one SLAYS ME…
“167. The technology used by IPP Ltd., has a false positive rate of 0%.
Response to Request No. 167: Admitted.”
“178. Plaintiffs attomey(s) has/have been threatened with, admonished, or subjected to
sanctions by a Court in connection with any similar Bittorrent copyright infringement lawsuit.
Response to Request No. 178: Plaintiff objects…” Judge Brown’s ass-ripping for ignoring his order is not relevant?
Oh I could keep going but this is just hilarious and full of lies.
It’s great having documents like this available to us now. A year ago, all the anti-troll arguments were mere theories and conjecture. Now, as more and more is released we’re being proven right on a daily basis it seems.
To his credit, Kotzker is keeping to the troll narrative, but it seems dangerous at this point to claim that false positive rates are 0%, and the technology is 100% foolproof, considering absolute no credible expert would testify to such a statement. Hell even other trolls claim that false positive rates are at least 30%! With this case heading toward trial, no matter how much Kotzker claims the technology is 100% foolproof, his assessment of the technology means nothing in a courtroom, and Fantalis will be able to find one of many experts at CU Boulder to support his position.
We know Guardley is IPP, and we know Guardley has already been sued in Germany for falsifying their results and misrepresenting the technology to clients. It’s only a matter of time before that fact is open and revealed to Judges. As soon as that connection is revealed, all data obtained by IPP is automatically suspect (as if it wasn’t already).
I gotta agree. It’s really dangerous for him to state that the technology is 100% accurate. I’m not aware of any law enforcement tool that is 100% accurate. Even if we’re talking only software but when you add humans into the equation, you have a big big problem. Have you seen the diagram of IPP’s collection process? There’s about 20 different ways the pooch could get screwed in the process, starting with the initiation of the download to the “storage” of the shared file for comparison seeing as how they use a timeserver, a central fileserver to collect the porn, and a database for all of the logs. Then there’s God knows how many servers purposed for each specific step in the process that are connected to the main file server. Check out page 6 (of the PDF), Exhibit 2.2 “Visualisation of the Process”…
Click to access gov.uscourts.cod.131481.6.2.pdf
Kotzker has a big ass problem due to his “expert” Fieser’s association with CEG, specifically Meier. Meier’s on the record admission of a 30% error rate which is obviously low-balled is a big problem for Kotzker. Tobias Fieser works in Germany, he’s apparently got some sort of degree in computer science, but that means dick. He doesn’t have any certifications as far as I can tell, nor does he even declare that he’s nothing more than a glorified garbage collector for IP addresses so he would not be able to be considered an expert witness.
Another problem Kotzker has is his fee arrangement with IPP. If it does, in fact, involve a settlement split between Kotzker, Malibu, and IPP, then he has another big ass problem since the ABA Model Rules and Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct expressly prohibit contingent compensation of a witness, especially if it’s outcome-based. It provides Fieser (or anyone else) financial incentive to incriminate as many people as possible and one could argue that it’s subornation of perjury. That is all assuming Fieser/IPP are contingently compensated with settlement money.
But instead of just saying “OK, yeah, we could be fucking up,” Kotzker doubles down and says “we never fuck up” (bullshit) and “I’m not gonna answer whether Fieser gets a chunk of each settlement check” (implicit yes in my book). His responses to questions about Guadaley are suspect as well. It’ll is gonna be really really interesting to see what Hegarty does about this.
Copyright troll lawyers for porn purveyors are making millions of dollars, but they can’t produce one authoritative unaffiliated technology expert witness. They could buy truckloads with their spare change if there was merit to their false claims. Is this clear to the courts?
Anybody got a Recap link to the latest from Fantalis?
10/13/2012 87 OBJECTION to 84 Report and Recommendations filed by Defendant Jeff Fantalis. (dkals, ) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
Nevermind, I found it: http://ia701204.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.cod.132446/gov.uscourts.cod.132446.87.0.pdf
Good Guy Fantalis argues against default judgment on another defendant–great work!
Yes, it is a nice motion, but I think it has much more to do with how a judgment against Bruce Dunn would prejudice his own case rather that out of charity. Fantalis is absolutely correct, that judgment against Dunn would be paradoxical if (read: when) Fantalis prevails at trial.
This guy Fantalis deserves a medal. I only hope the judge, who’s been a bit troll-friendly, can see who is painting the real picture here and won’t be taken in by the “war is peace” declarations of the trolls.
Hegarty can’t ignore what’s going on right in front of his face. Kotzker’s basically been giving him the middle finger from the get-go. Pro or anti-troll, who cares, a judge is not gonna like it when an attorney disobeys orders, especially when it comes to discovery.
Well, Hegarty granted Fantalis’ motion for time extension to file second amended answer and counterclaim, motion for leave to file second amended answer and counterclaim, denied Kotzker’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions, and denied as moot Fantalis’ second amended answer and counterclaim.
Click to access gov.uscourts.cod.132446.88.0.pdf
This is good news, as Fantalis’ Second Amended Answer & Counterclaim is much better than the first, and has more supporting documents including the English translation of the German documents from Baumgarten Brandt, which show that Guardley/IPP technology is notorious for false positives.
Kotzker makes this grand and bold assumption that the only claims that survive the motions are his copyright infringement claims. He probably didn’t see this coming, and now will be scrambling for a second motion to dismiss and for sanctions.
Fantalis’ Second Amended Answer and Counterclaim filed on 10/23 (123 pages, billed for 30 thank God)….
Click to access gov.uscourts.cod.132446.89.0.pdf
Pingbacks & Trackbacks