Court Dumps Prenda's Subpoena

from the quashed dept

Fri, May 17th 2013 3:25am — Mike Masnick

You may recall that Prenda had (not surprisingly) gone crazy overboard with subpoenas in its attempt to intimidate some anti-copyright troll bloggers and their commenters. The EFF stepped in and asked a court to quash the subpoena, which the court has now done, in large part because Prenda never even bothered to respond.

As of this date, no responsive memorandum has been filed. LRCiv 7.2(i) provides in part “if the opposing party does not serve and file the required answering memorandum, ...such noncompliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” Pursuant to this rule, the Court deems Plaintiff's failure to serve and file the required answering memorandum a consent to the granting of Defendant-Movant's Motion to Quash the Subpoena to Wild West Domains Seeking Identity Information.

I guess Prenda's a bit busy. Or someone there realized this subpoena had zero chance of actually going forward. Either way, the subpoena is dead.

Gov Uscourts Azd 774937 19 0 (PDF)Gov Uscourts Azd 774937 19 0 (Text)

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: die troll die, prenda, subpoena
Companies: prenda, prenda law

21 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 3:31am

John Steel just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 4:16am

The EFF stepped in and asked a court to quash the subpoena, which the court has now done, in large part because Prenda never even bothered to respond.

Wouldn't that simply be "because" rather than "in large part because"? What other parts were there that the court considered? It's a simple procedural victory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 4:18am
  
  Re:
  Are you disputing that 100% is a large part of the whole?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 4:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    No, I'm saying that if the only reason it was quashed is because of the failure to respond, then it's strange to say that it was "in large part because" of that since that implies that there is some other part that is also the reason for it being quashed. There is no other reason it was quashed. The merits were totally irrelevant. It was quashed because, and only because, the failure to respond.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 5:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Certainly you are not that naive.
      
      More likely, the court took the first and most expedient path leaving all other considerations unmentioned because they were not needed in order to clear the issue at hand.
      
      But then go ahead and dream up more insidious conspiracies as that seems to fit you well.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 5:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL! I'm basing this on the evidence, not faith--as you clearly are. Said the court: "Pursuant to this rule, the Court deems Plaintiff's failure to serve and file the required answering memorandum a consent to the granting of Defendant-Movant's Motion to Quash the Subpoena . . . ." There was no need to consider the merits as the subpoena gets quashed on procedure alone. There is no evidence whatsoever that the court's decision turned in even the smallest part on the merits. Sorry, my faith-based friend, but you're dreaming.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 4:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Clearly, because one would never think a path of least resistance might be preferable.
        
        Evidence shows the court took the most expeditious path to move the case. Are you suggesting that Prenda would've prevailed if not for their shortsightedness?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 5:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Original AC is right. Prenda didn't file a response and got their subpoena quashed. The only takeaway?
        
        Lazy, does not a good lawyer make.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RyanNerd (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 4:26am

Prenda Fall down
go BOOM!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 4:46am
  
  Re: Prenda Fall down
  the hole
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 12:06pm
    
    Re: Re: Prenda Fall down
    the slippery slope of a pierced corporate veil
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - RubyPanther, 18 May 2013 @ 1:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Prenda Fall down
      The "corporate veil" was found to be a fraud by the Court in another case already. That is Fact. They were told by the Court that it looked that way, and asked if it was so, and they refused to disagree or provide any other theory on who the shell company is, and if the shell company even exists. So it was found as Fact that there is none, and that the claim that there was a shell company was part of a an act of moral turpitude.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spyder, 17 May 2013 @ 4:52am

And the PREDNA hit just keep rolling on, and on, and on, and....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Binky, 17 May 2013 @ 5:52am

They never replied because they sort their mail into two piles, cash & trash. They sort it by using a bright light and seeing if the mail contains their hush money,which goes into the cash pile, and if it's just a bunch of boring paper it goes into the trash pile. They make their gardener open all the packages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 17 May 2013 @ 11:00am
  
  Re:
  gardener, or caretaker?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2013 @ 6:08am

it makes me wonder then, had anyone from Prenda or whoever had turned up, would the court have granted the subpoena, even though it was a blatant load of shite designed as yet another delaying tactic? if this whole mess gets sorted out, i sincerely hope the court gives a sentence that is suitable, thinking to itself what the sentence would have been if it was an ordinary person(s) in court under as near to charges as could be and given the way the court has been lied to and been made to wait. i bet that would have been a serious fine ($100,000s) and probable jail time! if good for one, should be more than good for the other, given the profession of those involved!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 7:41pm
  
  Re:
  The case would have fallen apart before then.
  
  This subpoena request was an attempt to obtain the name of the blogger 'Die Troll Die'.
  DTD runs the blog DieTrollDie.com where Copyright Trolls get exposed.
  They also sought the name of 'Sophisticated Jane Doe', but the registrar was different and much less US based.
  This was the 3rd(?) failure in this case to unmask anonymous posters/commentators and just visitors to the 2 blogs.
  
  They contend that me calling them a half step up from Nigerian Scammers was defaming them, I think I gave them to much credit.
  
  This was about trying to discredit those people who were calling out Pretenda et al. (they've had so many names past, present, and future) as evil people out to sully the name of these fine upstanding lawyers who were protecting pornographers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sorrykb (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 9:18am

"Prenda? Prenda who? Never heard of 'em."
Anyone who responded would have thus officially identified himself as a Prenda principal, and at the moment the whole gang is doing their utmost to distance themselves (at least, in the eyes of the law) from the operation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Applegate, 17 May 2013 @ 9:43am

Isn't the most like reason for no reply...
that anything in the reply could be used against them if criminal charges come from the whole Judge Wright ruling where they took the 5th rather than answer any questions?

That's my take on it anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 10:29am

They need a song...
If you havin judge problems, I feel bad for ya son

I got 99 problems, Prenda just ain't one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 May 2013 @ 7:03pm

Hold your breath kids, its going to be raining shoes soon enough...

filing documents by misleading court workers comes to mind.
And money is due soon...
And everyones favorite RIAA shill is hopefully getting bench slapped by the appeals court after picking Prenda over the law...

So one has to wonder if Prenda et al, still think trying to silence the critics was a good plan. It seems to have backfired on them, gotten more people looking at what they were doing, and much more coverage of their dockets... there is a name for that... what is that effect again? :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]