IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

AF HOLDINGS LLC, )

) Case No.: 1:12-cv-04234

Plaintiff, )

) Judge: Hon. Gary Feinerman

v. )

) Magistrate Judge: Hon. Jeffrey T. Gilbert

KENNETH PAYNE, )

)

Defendant. )

)

)

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 26(a)(1) INITIAL STATUS REPORT

Pursuant to this Court’s October 31, 2012 Docket Entry (ECF No. 16), Plaintiff’s counsel 

respectfully submits this Initial Status Report, which Plaintiff’s counsel prepared because

Plaintiff’s counsel has been unable to obtain the required information from the Defendant.

A. Nature of the Case.

1. Attorneys of Record. Plaintiff’s attorney of record and lead trial counsel is 

Paul Duffy. No attorney has appeared for the Defendant in this case. 

2. Basis of Federal Jurisdiction. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction 

over Plaintiff’s claims for copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 

101, et. seq., and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

3. Nature of the claim(s) any counterclaim(s). Plaintiff AF Holdings, Inc.

alleges that Defendant violated its exclusive rights in the copyrighted 

creative works at the heart of this action via computer-based peer-to-peer 

file transfer networks. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used 

the BitTorrent file transfer protocol to reproduce and distribute the 

copyrighted creative works from and up to thousands of third parties. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04234 Document #: 17 Filed: 11/06/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:103
-2-

Plaintiff seeks in excess of $100,000 in damages. There are presently no 

counterclaims.

4. Whether the Defendant will answer the complaint or, alternatively, 

whether the Defendant will otherwise plead to the complaint. The 

Defendant filed his answer on October 17, 2012 (ECF No. 15.) 

5. Principal legal and factual issues. Whether, as Plaintiff alleges, Defendant 

knowingly and illegally reproduced and distributed Plaintiff’s copyrighted 

video by acting, in concert with others via the BitTorrent file sharing 

protocol, and thereby engaged in copyright infringement under the United 

States Copyright Act and related contributory infringement and negligence 

claims under applicable common law. 

6. Which Defendants have been served with process, which Defendants have 

not been served, and the status of efforts to effect service on the unserved 

Defendants. Plaintiff has served the sole Defendant in this case with 

process.

B. Proceedings to Date.

1. Summary of all substantive rulings (including discovery rulings) to date. 

The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave To Take Discovery Prior 

To Rule 26(f) Conference on June 8, 2012. (ECF No. 8.) On October 30, 

2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit its initial status report by 

November 6, 2012. (ECF No. 16.) 

2. Description of all pending motions, including date of filing and briefing 

schedule. None. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04234 Document #: 17 Filed: 11/06/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:104
-3-

C. Discovery and Case Plan.

1. Summary of discovery, formal and informal, that has already occurred.

Pursuant to the Court’s substantive motions. Pursuant to the Court’s June 

8, 2012 Order, Plaintiff served a subpoena upon the Internet Service 

Provider for the Internet Protocol number referenced in the initial 

Complaint in this matter. 

2. Whether discovery will encompass electronically stored information, and 

the parties’ plan to ensure that such discovery proceeds appropriately. 

Plaintiff anticipates such discovery, and will inform Defendant of his 

obligation to preserve such information, and will promptly submit written 

discovery for such information to Defendant. 

3. Proposed scheduling order. 

a. Deadline for Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, or why Rule 26(a)(1) are 

not appropriate. Plaintiff proposes that the parties make Rule 

26(a)(1) disclosures on or before December 17, 2012. 

b. Deadline for issuing written discovery requests. January 8, 2013. 

c. Deadline for completing fact discovery. February 8, 2013. 

d. Whether discovery should proceed in phases. No.

e. Whether expert discovery is contemplated and, if so, deadlines for 

Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures and expert depositions. Plaintiff 

contemplates the possibility for expert discovery, and proposes a 

Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure and expert depositions of March 8, 2013 

and March 29, 2013. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04234 Document #: 17 Filed: 11/06/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:105
-4-

f. Deadline for amending the pleadings and bringing in other parties. 

April 12, 2013.

g. Deadline for filing dispositive motions. May 10, 2013.

4. Whether there has been a jury demand. Yes. 

5. Estimated length of trial. Three days.

D. Settlement. 

1. Describe settlement discussions to date and whether those discussions 

remain ongoing. Plaintiff’s representatives have attempted to discuss 

settlement in writing and by telephone with Defendant. The discussions 

are not presently ongoing. 

2. Whether the parties request a settlement conference. Plaintiff does request 

a settlement conference. 

E. Magistrate Judge.

1. Whether the parties consent to proceed before a magistrate judge for all 

purposes. Plaintiff consents to proceed before a magistrate judge.

2. Any particular matters that already have been referred to the magistrate

judge, and the status of those proceedings. None.

Case: 1:12-cv-04234 Document #: 17 Filed: 11/06/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:106
-5-

Respectfully submitted,

AF Holdings, LLC 

DATED: November 6, 2012

By: /s/ Paul Duffy

Paul Duffy (Bar No. 6210496) 

Prenda Law Inc. 

161 N. Clark St., Suite 3200

Chicago, IL 60601

Telephone: (312) 880-9160

Facsimile: (312) 893-5677

E-mail: paduffy@wefightpiracy.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case: 1:12-cv-04234 Document #: 17 Filed: 11/06/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:107