UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI-DADE DIVISION

SCANZ TECHNOLOGIES, INC., fka 

EQUITYFEED CORPORATION, A 

Canadian 

(Quebec) Corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JEWMON ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Florida 

limited liability corporation; TIMOTHY 

SYKES, an individual; ZACHARY 

WESTPHAL, an individual; TIMOTHY 

BOHEN, an individual; MILLIONAIRE 

PUBLISHING, LLC, a Florida limited 

liability corporation; MILLIONAIRE 

PUBLISHING, LLC, a Colorado limited 

liability corporation; MILLIONAIRE 

MEDIA, LLC, a Florida limited liability 

corporation; and STOCKSTOTRADE.COM 

INC., a Delaware corporation,

 

 Defendants.

 Case No. 20-cv-22957-RNS

PLAINITFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITIONS TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

Declaration of Stephan Touizer and Exhibits 1 through 9 filed concurrently herewith

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 1 of 12
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBITS TO BE JUDICIALLY NOTICED................................... 1

ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITIES................................................................... 2

II. Legal Standard.................................................................................................................. 2

III. ..... The Court May Take Judicial Notice Of The Existence of the Bohen Videos in 2014 

And Words That Undisputedly Appear On The Screen................................................... 3

IV. The Court May Take Judicial Notice of Records From The Wayback Machine............. 5

V. The Court May Take Judicial Notice of Corporate Filings.............................................. 5

VI. The Relevance of the Proffered Exhibits ......................................................................... 6

A. The Four Youtube Videos ............................................................................................ 6

B. The Website Records Obtained Via The Wayback Machine ....................................... 7

C. Corporate Records........................................................................................................ 8

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................... 9

Certificate of Service .................................................................................................................... 10

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 2 of 12
1

Plaintiff Scanz Technologies, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Scanz”) hereby respectfully requests that 

the Court take judicial notice of Exhibits 1, and 5 through 9 in support of Plaintiff’s Oppositions 

to Motions to Dismiss filed concurrently herewith.

I. DESCRIPTION OF EXHIBITS TO BE JUDICIALLY NOTICED

Exhibit Description

1-A Video posted on Youtube.com on August 06, 2014 under Youtube account name 

“Timothy Bohen.” See, Declaration of Stephan Touizer filed herewith (“Touizer 

Decl.,”) at ¶ 4.

Hyperlink to Ex. 1-A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwa4XDTP0HU

1-B Video posted on Youtube.com on May 13, 2014 under Youtube account name 

“Timothy Bohen.” See, Touizer Decl., at ¶ 4.

Hyperlink to Ex. 1-B

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz-Tvao1YpU

1-C Video posted on Youtube.com on May 29, 2014 under Youtube account name 

“Timothy Bohen.” See, Touizer Decl., at ¶ 4.

Hyperlink to Ex. 1-C

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjQbrmrzDFU

1-D

Video posted on Youtube.com on March 17, 2014 under Youtube account name 

“Timothy Bohen.” See, Touizer Decl., at ¶ 4.

Hyperlink to Ex. 1-D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNuh-dLXoQ8

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 3 of 12
2

5 A true and correct copy of the landing page of the website of Defendant 

StocksToTrade.com, Inc. in 2014, which was obtained by Mr. Touizer from the 

Wayback Machine (www.waybackmachine.com) on October 17, 2020, at 

https://web.archive.org/web/20141217000744/http://stockstotrade.com. See

Touizer Decl., at ¶ 8a.

6 Composite of (i) a true and correct copy of the Articles of Organization of 

JewMon Enterprises, LLC, dated June 28, 2012, obtained at

http://search.sunbiz.org/ and (ii) a true and correct copy of the Articles of 

Amendment requesting a name change from JewMon Enterprises, LLC to 

Millionaire Publishing, LLC, dated October 23, 2017, obtained at 

http://search.sunbiz.org/. See Touizer Decl., at ¶ 9.

7 A true and correct copy of the Annual Report of Millionaire Publishing, LLC,

dated March 16, 2020, obtained at http://search.sunbiz.org/. See Touizer Decl., at 

¶ 10.

8 A true and correct copy of the Annual Report of Millionaire Media, LLC, dated

August 17, 2020, obtained at http://search.sunbiz.org/. See Touizer Decl., at ¶ 

11.

9 A true and correct copy of the Annual Report of Millionaire Media I, LLC, dated 

June 20, 2020, obtained at http://search.sunbiz.org/. See Touizer Decl., at ¶ 12.

ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITIES

II. Legal Standard

A court may take judicial notice of appropriate adjudicative facts at any stage in a proceeding.

Dippin' Dots, Inc. v. Frosty Bites Distribution, LLC, 369 F.3d 1197, 1204 (11th Cir. 2004). Federal 

Rule of Evidence 201(b) provides:

A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in 

that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the 

trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to 

sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 4 of 12
3

A court may take judicial notice of “[a]djudicative facts are facts that are relevant to a 

determination of the claims presented in a case” such as “facts that are ‘generally known within 

the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.’ Such judicially-noticed facts are of breathtaking 

variety.” 369 F.3d at 1204 (citing Fed.R.Evid. 201(b), and collecting cases). A court can take 

judicial notice that certain facts exists, such as “notices and articles[,] ... but not the truth of 

the matters asserted therein.” Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Devine, 233 F. Supp. 3d 

1297, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2017). A court “must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court 

is supplied with the necessary information.” Lodge v. Kondaur Capital Corp., 750 F.3d 1263, 1273 

(11th Cir. 2014) (citing Fed.R.Evid. 201(c)).

III. The Court May Take Judicial Notice Of The Existence of the Bohen Videos in 

2014 And Words That Undisputedly Appear On The Screen

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the fact that the four 

videos accessible via the hyperlinks provided in Exhibit 1 attached to the Touizer Declaration were 

posted in 2014 under user name Timothy Bohen, as well as the fact that the word “EquityFeed”

was displayed on the screen.1 Mr. Touizer has also made eleven different snapshots of specific 

points in time within these videos for the Court's convenience, and they are attached to his 

declaration as Exhibit 2. 

This Court’s authority to take judicial notice of the limited information as requested, and 

which is not subject to reasonable dispute, is supported both by the authorities cited in the 

Defendants’ own Joint Request for Judicial Notice, DE422 (thereby making their request as to the 

1 Should either the Court require, or any of the Defendants request, that Plaintiff serve and 

lodge with the Court true and correct copies of the video files on a disc or thumb drive, Plaintiff 

will seek an order pursuant to Section 2M of the Civil Filing Requirements of the Southern District 

of Florida, as revised on August 28, 2019, for leave to lodge the files with the Court. See also, 

Touizer Decl., at ¶ 4.

2 “DE,” as used herein, refers to docket entries in the above-captioned action.

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 5 of 12
4

truth of the matters allegedly asserted in the proffered tweets improper), as well as in Scanz’ 

Objections thereto, which are filed concurrently herewith, and the authorities cited herein. 

Specifically, it is well-settled that a court may take judicial notice of what was reflected 

“on a certain website on a certain date.” Barron v. Snyder's-Lance, Inc., No. 13-62496-CIV, 2015 

WL 11182066, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2015) (Lenard, J.) (citing, Datel Holdings Ltd. v. Microsoft 

Corp., 712 F. Supp. 2d 974, 985 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (taking judicial notice of a screen shot from a 

video game insofar as it reflected “what was in the public domain at the time”); Von Saher v. 

Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Courts may 

take judicial notice of publications introduced to ‘indicate what was in the public realm at the 

time, not whether the contents of those articles were in fact true.’”); Hargon v. Homeward 

Residential, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-3425-CC-AJB, 2013 WL 12200654, at *3 (N.D. Ga. July 26, 2013)

(same) (citing Alliance Premier Growth Fund v. Alliance Capital Mgmt., 435 F.3d 396, 401 n.15 

(3d Cir. 2006)).

In Tyson v. Sch. Bd. of Levy Cty., Fla., No. 1:17CV255-MW/GRJ, 2018 WL 10517171, at 

*1 n.1 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2018), for example, the court acknowledged the existence of a video 

posted on Youtube. Courts have taken “judicial notice of the fact that, as of this date, [the court]

can access the videos on YouTube by following the links provided in Plaintiff's Request.” Shapiro 

v. Hasbro, Inc., No. CV1502964BROAJWX, 2016 WL 9176559, at *4 n.10 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 

2016); cf., Creative Dream Prods., LLC v. Houston, No. CV 14-7714 SS, 2015 WL 12731915, at 

*1 n.3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015) (taking “judicial notice of a download from YouTube of 

the video at issue in this litigation, which Defendants delivered on DVD to the Court and counsel,” 

because it was “integral to Plaintiff's Complaint”).

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 6 of 12
5

Furthermore, taking judicial notice of the name of the account under which the videos were

publicized, the dates of the postings, and the fact that the word “EquityFeed” appears on the 

screen—information which is publicly available, not subject to reasonable dispute, and can be 

accessed by following the hyperlinks provided—would be fully consistent, e.g., with Judge 

Lenard’s narrow approach in assessing what was reflected “on a certain website on a certain date.” 

Barron, 2015 WL 11182066, at *4.

IV. The Court May Take Judicial Notice of Records From The Wayback Machine

Courts frequently take judicial notice of information obtained via the Wayback Machine. See, 

e.g., Pohl v. MH Sub I, LLC, 332 F.R.D. 713, 716 (N.D. Fla. 2019) (“follow[ing] the lead of the 

overwhelming number of courts that have decided the issue and takes judicial notice of the 

contents of WayBack Machine evidence because they ‘can be accurately and readily determined 

from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned’”) (collecting cases); Tobinick v. 

Novella, No. 9:14-CV-80781, 2015 WL 1526196, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 2, 2015) (taking judicial 

notice of Internet Archive's history of publication); Lee v. Michel Habashy, MD, P.A., No. 

609CV671ORL28GJK, 2010 WL 11626756, at *2 n.1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2010) (conducting 

“cursor[]’ search of the Wayback Machine”).

V. The Court May Take Judicial Notice of Corporate Filings

Courts routinely take judicial notice of corporate records on file with the Secretary of State. 

See, e.g., In re British Am. Ins. Co. Ltd., No. 09-31881-EPK, 2014 WL 891651, at *7 (Bankr. S.D. 

Fla. Mar. 6, 2014) (taking judicial notice of corporate records and noting that “such records 

indicat[ing] a connection between [the two defendants] is a statement of fact otherwise subject to 

objection under the Federal Rules of Evidence.”); Aliane v. Chase Auto Fin. Corp., No. 8:19-CV660-T-60SPF, 2020 WL 3259750, at *3 n.5 (M.D. Fla. May 29, 2020), report and 

recommendation adopted, No. 8:19-CV-660-T-60SPF, 2020 WL 3259072 (M.D. Fla. June 16, 

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 7 of 12
6

2020) (taking “judicial notice of record searches on the Florida Department of State's website, as 

it is the verified website of a public agency”); Learning Connections, Inc. v. Kaufman, Englett & 

Lynd, PLLC, No. 6:11-cv-368-Orl-19GJK, 2012 WL 13103015, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2012) 

(“official documents from the Secretary of State possess the ‘requisite level of reliability’ required 

for a court to take judicial notice.”); Demeter v. Little Gasparilla Island Fire & Rescue, Inc., No. 

2:16-cv-264-FtM-38CM, 2017 WL 662006, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2017) 

(taking judicial notice of the defendant’s “Sunbiz” profile from the Florida Department of State’s 

website because such website was a verified website of a public agency); ACG S. Ins. Agency, LLC 

v. Safeco Ins. Co., No. 8:19-CV-528-T-36AAS, 2019 WL 8273657, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 16, 

2019) (“District courts within this Circuit have taken judicial notice of online corporate records at 

the motion to dismiss stage”) (collecting cases).

VI. The Relevance of the Proffered Exhibits

A. The Four Youtube Videos

As more fully set forth in Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by Defendant 

Timothy Bohen,at section IV, the four 2014 Youtube postings by Bohen, Exhibit 1, refute several 

statements Bohen made in his sworn Declaration to this Court in support of his Motion to Dismiss, 

DE39-1, DE39. Bohen maintains, under oath, that he “never knowingly used in any capacity ... 

any product or software owned or developed by the Plaintiff,” “was not involved with any of the 

defendants prior to April 2016 ... [and] did not and could not have agreed to” participate in the 

alleged conspiracy, and, “[t]o the extent that [he] may have unknowingly used a ‘misappropriated’ 

product or software belonging to the Plaintiff ..., [he] was unaware at the time of the product or 

software’s provenance, that it belonged to the Plaintiff.” DE39-1, at ¶¶ 14-15. 

It is now undisputed, however, that, in addition to the evidence submitted herewith showing 

that Bohen purchased a license to use Plaintiff’s products in 2013 and 2014, Exhibits 3 and 4 to 

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 8 of 12
7

the Touizer Declaration filed herewith, the YouTube promotional videos Bohen posted show him

publicly touting a StocksToTrade.com, Inc. product on several occasions in 2014, and that, in 

Exhibit 1-B at 03:34-03:38, a pop-up window appears on Bohen’s screen, which reveals that the 

product he is using was, in fact, owned by Plaintiff, then known as EquityFeed. Bohen proceeds 

to closing the EquityFeed pop-up window at 03:37. As further explained in the Touizer Declaration 

filed herewith, “every user would first see” a disclaimer that the technology was being powered 

and delivered by EquityFeed—a disclaimer that would have been displayed “each and every time 

[Bohen] utilized StocksToTrade’s products during 2014.” Touizer Decl., at ¶ 8 (emphasis added).

The EquityFeed pop-ups would also “randomly appear[] on the[] [user’s] screen during use of the 

StocksToTrade website.” Id.

The foregoing undisputed facts are directly at odds with Bohen’s sworn statements that he 

“could not have” been involved in any conspiracy because he “was not involved with any of the 

defendants prior to April 2016” and “never knowingly used in any capacity ... any product or 

software owned or developed by the Plaintiff.” DE39-1, at ¶¶ 14-15. (emphasis added). Courts 

have considered evidence that tends to impact a witness’ credibility or otherwise reveal a lack of 

candor with the court. See, e.g., Llanos v. State, 770 So. 2d 725, 725 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

(taking judicial notice of a fact to impeach witness’ credibility) (citing section 90.806(1), Florida 

Statutes (1999)).

B. The Website Record Obtained Via The Wayback Machine

Exhibit 5 to the Touizer Declaration constitutes a website record of Defendant 

StocksToTrade.com, Inc.’s website from 2014, which Mr. Touizer obtained via the Wayback 

Machine. See, Touzier Decl., at ¶ 8(a). This website content reflects that users of the STT website,

such as Timothy Bohen, would be well-aware of the fact that the website and technology were 

delivered and powered by EquityFeed, as the user was reminded of this fact every time he would 

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 9 of 12
8

log into his accounts. This fact is not subject to reasonable dispute, and further conflicts with 

Bohen’s sworn statements that he “never knowingly used in any capacity ... any product or 

software owned or developed by the Plaintiff,” “was not involved with any of the defendants prior 

to April 2016 ... [and] did not and could not have agreed to” participate in the alleged conspiracy, 

and, “[t]o the extent that [he] may have unknowingly used a ‘misappropriated’ product or software 

belonging to the Plaintiff ..., [he] was unaware at the time of the product or software’s provenance, 

that it belonged to the Plaintiff.” DE39-1, at ¶¶ 14-15.

C. Corporate Records

Exhibits 6 through 9 are true and correct copies of corporate filings with the Florida 

Secretary of State by JewMon Enterprises, LLC, Millionaire Publishing, LLC, and Millionaire 

Media, LLC, and Millionaire Media I, LLC, as more fully described in section I, supra. The 

exhibits are offered to establish that these entities are Florida organizations, their principals are 

Defendants Timothy Sykes and Zachary Westphal, and their primary business addresses are 

located in Florida. See also, Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by Timothy Bohen, filed 

concurrently herewith, at pp. 4-5.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 10 of 12
9

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court is respectfully requested to consider the exhibits filed 

herewith.

Dated: October 19, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,

SQUIRE LAW GROUP, P.A.

14329 Commerce Way

Miami Lakes, FL 33016

Phone: 888.788.8816

Fax: 786.577.0425

dlage@squirelawgroup.com

By: /s/Gustavo D. Lage

Gustavo D. Lage

Florida Bar No. 972551

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SCANZ TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 11 of 12
10

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on October 19, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk 

of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the Electronic 

Service List for this Case.

Dated: October 19, 2020 s/Gustavo D. Lage

Gustavo D. Lage

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 12 of 12