Prenda's Brett Gibbs Objects To Pretty Much Everything, Including Use Of Hansmeier Deposition
from the but-of-course dept
This probably will come as little surprise given his earlier objections, but Prenda Law's Brett Gibbs has filed yet another series of "objections," filed by his recently obtained legal representation from the law firm of Waxler, Carner, Brodsky. Like the last time around, the objections follow the same pattern, basically arguing that pretty much everything Morgan Pietz has said or filed is "irrelevant" along with a rotating cast of other objections: hearsay, lacks foundation, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, speculation, etc. Some of these objections seem obviously ridiculous. For example, he objects as "hearsay" (among other things) a statement from Pietz about Gibbs filing different versions of the same motion. This is, to put it mildly, overkill.Not surprisingly, the objections include the use of the Paul Hansmeier deposition which got so much attention yesterday. The specific objections here: irrelevant, lacks foundation and/or personal knowledge, hearsay, speculation, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, improper characterization of evidence, improper authentication of document. The idea that the document is irrelevant is simply laughable.
It's somewhat surprising that Gibbs and his lawyers felt this was a productive use of their time. As was covered pretty clearly in Ken "Popehat" White's big analysis of the case, it's quite clear that Judge Otis Wright is not buying Brett Gibbs' story, at all. In fact, he's taking an incredible level of interest in the details of the case, in a manner that suggests he does not trust Gibbs at all. Given that, you would think that filing a list of objections like this not only will not have the hoped for effect, but might actually do the exact opposite. It serves to highlight just how worried Gibbs is that this evidence will be used by Judge Wright in exploring the depths of Prenda's actions. Yes, some lawyers think that you should object to everything imaginable just in case it works. But, in this case, with the Judge making it pretty damn clear that he doesn't believe Gibbs and wants to get to the bottom of what's going on with Prenda, taking such an aggressive stance to all of this evidence seems like it could be a pretty big miscalculation. It does fit with Gibbs' and Prenda's standard operating procedures, but considering how badly that's failed in this case so far, you'd think that someone would have the sense to suggest he let up on the throttle a bit.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: brett gibbs, morgan pietz, objections, paul hansmeier, prenda
Companies: prenda, prenda law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But we can play that game, from now on I'll adopt the "Prenda tactics". When I see it's the usual troll I'll reply
you have incurrend in one or more of the following: irrelevant, lacks foundation and/or personal knowledge, hearsay, speculation, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, improper characterization of evidence, improper authentication of document
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS.
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS.
If you mean, writing an article on his blog, on the website that his company owns...then yes he does put in an appearance. I can't see anything odd or sinister with that.
Were you told to make a comment and to use a minimum of 20 or so words? Cause your comment is meaningless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS.
This just in! Piratebay severs peaking at 100%!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS.
...and I'm proven wrong EVERY time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uh, no
but hi, Prenda staff!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/12500917012/riaa-doesnt-apologize-year-long-blog-cen sorship-just-stands-its-claim-that-site-broke-law.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick puts in an appearance! -- Oh, for THIS.
you have incurrend in one or more of the following: irrelevant, lacks foundation and/or personal knowledge, hearsay, speculation, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, improper characterization of evidence, improper authentication of document
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In for a penny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes sense ...
1) If we don't object, then the objection is waived
2) Objections belong to counsel, not the party/subject of motion, so it shouldn't reflect badly on Gibbs [!] (sure, the Court has to rule on every objection, but...)
3) We're doing our job (true... but which includes discretion)
4) Dude, Gibbs is already in the doghouse here. What's the worst that could happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Makes sense ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Makes sense ...
Dang that's a good point. Hahahaha too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It needs to exist before you can claim people were being mean to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can only speculate that since the evil IP addresses are not enough of a villain, Prenda is setting themselves up...
Just wait for Steel's next law firm (that he claims he doesn't work for, from a state he isn't authorized to practice law in) to come in as the Hero and save the day....
Okay too much fantasy, these guys are just crazy....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Lutz is the real scapegoat - wouldn't want to be him right now...
I hope Lutz stays safe and manages to make it to court on Monday. A body guard might not be a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look Out, Boring Nuance Coming
Filing objections to declarations and exhibits is good, careful lawyering. You risk waiving the objections if you don't make them. Sometimes you can win an issue because an opponent relies on inadmissible evidence to support a crucial point. Sometimes a judge will use objections to travel where the judge wants to go.
Filing the objections is not at all remarkable; I would have. The format is not remarkable; it's the format federal litigators use.
The part I would criticize is the scope. Some lawyers offer every remotely colorable objection to everything. I don't. The judge's eyes glaze over and you lose credibility. The better practice is carefully targeted objections to actually objectionable evidence -- objections that actually have a chance of succeeding. If you submit, say, ten key objections on limited and specific (but arguable) grounds, the judges (and clerks) will look at them. If you object to everything on every theory, your objections likely won't get read.
Also, at this point, objecting on the grounds of "relevance" reflects a heartbreaking level of optimism. Judge Wright has clearly determined that this line of inquiry is relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look Out, Boring Nuance Coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Look Out, Boring Nuance Coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Look Out, Boring Nuance Coming
h/t @CopyrightClerk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look Out, Boring Nuance Coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, the judge should make them justify a few of the more ridiculous objections, and if they can't form a coherent argument... more sanctions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is awesomesauce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look out Sir Isaac
after coming to terms with the gravity of my current legal situation I see no other course of action than to pursue you for damages caused by your dangerous and ill considered invention.
Yrs truely
Brett Gibbs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The specific objections here: irrelevant, lacks foundation and/or personal knowledge, hearsay, speculation, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, improper characterization of evidence, improper authentication of document."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]