Yet Another Prenda Gambit Fails: Judge Agrees To Sanctions Against Paul Duffy Over Bogus Defamation Lawsuit
from the oops dept
Remember back when Prenda sued everyone for defamation? The lawsuit targeted Alan Cooper (whose name multiple courts have now said Prenda forged) and his lawyer, Paul Godfread (while insisting the lawsuit was unrelated to the lawsuits Cooper brought against them), but also went after a bunch of blog commenters for anonymous comments they claimed were defamatory. Prenda even tried to subpoena Automattic (makers of Wordpress) to get the IP address of pretty much everyone who visited either fightcopyrighttrolls.com or dietrolldie.com. That subpoena failed. As did the lawsuit. Badly.The judge has now approved Godfread and Cooper's request for sanctions against Prenda and Paul Duffy (who claims to be the sole lawyer behind Prenda, which has now been "dissolved").
U.S. District Judge John Darrah at a brief status hearing today granted the motion for sanctions that defendants Paul Godfread and Alan Cooper filed this past fall against Prenda and Paul Duffy, who served as the firm’s sole officer before it dissolved and now serves as its attorney in the matter.There's still some effort to go, as the lawyers for Godfread and Cooper, Erin Russell and Jason Sweet (whose names you may recognize for other work they've done bringing down Prenda) have to submit an itemized fee list, followed by Duffy's response, and then the follow up response from Russell/Sweet. A hearing will then be held in June, meaning there's still plenty of time. However, it looks like another lump sum will be added to Prenda's large and growing tab.
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: alan cooper, erin russell, jason sweet, paul duffy, paul godfread
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More sanctions and legal fees are nice on paper, but as long as there continues to be zero penalty for them refusing to actually, you know, pay those sanctions, it's really nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
Ah the perks of getting high court treatment...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I still think it's good that Mike does these stories though, because Prenda would like nothing more than for this to go away and all three of its principles to take up their next scam a few years down the line. It's also worth remembering that only the Federal stuff is publicly available, so their could very well be a ton of ADA suits and the like we just don't know about ongoing, they're far from dead. It seems like it's mainly Steele's name that has crossed over into mainstream, non-tech knowledge, keeping Duffy and Hansmeier up in the Google searches may just tip off someone on the other end of an ADA or Class Action Objector case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131102/23512525109/team-prendas-paul-hansmeier-now-su ing-companies-over-supposed-ada-violations.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't think they even have three principles. Their first one would likely be "grab all you can", the second "lie when you can". But those two are already subsumed under the governing "whatever you can get away with" principle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks! Been missing hooting THIS mania in particular!
ZOMG! Yet another item on Prenda Law! A staple in the soporific "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.s html
You've found the site of Internet Quipper Mike "Streisand Effect" Masnick! -- As you'll frequently be reminded!
09:49:34[k-402-7]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If Duffy has stated it officially, could they not seize Duffy's assets to pay the judgment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 24th, 2014 @ 2:21pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so much about a handbag company..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sigh...
wheels of justice... soooo slow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WTF?!?
Not having to worry about such trifles as 'professional ethics(or any other sort)' certainly helps out too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judgment-proof? Or, not . . .
So, if he does have such coverage, and if he can convince his new judgment-creditors that their only chance of being paid lies somewhere within that policy . . . well, watch for some quiet settlement agreements wherein everyone now agrees that he was ordered to pay those fees because of some act of negligence on his part that made it necessary that the Awardees retain and pay lawyers.
Which will then be presented to his insurer by the Insured Duffy, with his request that the company make good on their contract for insurance and pay the awards for him.
Which will result in screams of outrage and vows of battling to the death, etc., and frantic flightloads of insurance managerial types from their home offices out to whichever regional place it was in which Duffy bought his insurance.
And when the dust settles, his insurer will pay out an agreed-upon 73% of the policy limit (ymmv), which will go to the Awardees based upon what they've been awarded by the judges.
Or not . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judgment-proof? Or, not . . .
What Duffy did was maliciously stupid and wouldn't be covered by ANY reasonable insurance policy.
Also because of the type of case, the Duffster couldn't even go bankrupt to cancel the debts :) yay! on the hook FOR LIFE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or am I doing something wrong (that is, is there some other way to track all the articles relating to prenda that would've included this one)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]