EXHIBIT C

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 1 of 90 PageID #:56
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

HARD DRIVE PRODUCTS, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

DOES 1-54, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 1:12-cv-01532 

Honorable Edmond E. Chang. 

Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox

DEFENDANT 75.5.75.57’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED TO AT&T

INTERNET SERVICES 

Defendant identified as Internet Protocol Number 75.5.75.57 (January 7, 2012), through 

his counsel Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd., moves this Court to quash the subpoena duces tecum 

served upon AT&T Internet Services, without prejudice as to the filing of any subsequent 

motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, and states as follows: 

FACTS

The following facts are set out in the attached declaration (Exhibit 1) of Defendant 

75.5.75.57 (January 7, 2012): 

1. In a letter dated May 3, 2012, Defendant received a letter from AT&T stating that 

an Internet Protocol number assigned to him on January 7, 2012 at 06:22:34 UTC (12:22 am 

Central Time), 75.5.75.57 was named as a Defendant in the above-captioned case. 

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 2 of 90 PageID #:57 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:62
2 

2. The May 3, 2012 letter further stated that Plaintiff was seeking Defendant’s 

personal information, including telephone number and email address, pursuant to a subpoena 

issued on April 20, 2012 (letter attached as Declaration Exhibit A with recipient’s name and 

address redacted). 

 3. Defendant understands that the Complaint in this action relates to the 

downloading and file sharing of the adult video “Amateur Allure – Lola Foxx.”

 4. Defendant is 73 years old and doesn’t download any movies on his computer. 

 5. Defendant has an internet connection in his home that includes a wireless router. 

 6. Defendant found out during the last week of December, 2011, that his router was 

not secured with a password, and that anyone within range of his router could access the internet 

through his router. 

 7. Defendant purchased a new wireless router on January 31, 2012 and has since 

secured his router with a password. 

 8. Defendant does not visit any internet web sites that have adult videos and 

Defendant has never downloaded any adult video. 

 9. The only people that have access to any computer of Defendant that uses 

Defendant’s wireless router are Defendant, his wife and his great grandson who is only 4 years 

old and only watches Thomas the Train videos on Defendant’s computer when Defendant is with 

him. 

 9. Defendant does not know who might have been in range of his wireless router on 

January 12, 2012 at 12:22 am that might have downloaded any movies and he did not authorize 

anyone else to access the internet through his router. 

 10. Defendant is not awake, and certainly is not on the computer at 12:22 in the 

morning. 

 11. Based on his schedule, Defendant knows that he was not on his computer at 12:22 

am on Saturday, January 7, 2012. 

 12. Defendant shuts off his computer overnight. 

 13. Defendant’s wife does not go onto the internet. 

 14. Defendant and his wife are a Christian family and don’t believe in websites that 

would carry adult videos as described in the Complaint in this action. 

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 3 of 90 PageID #:58 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:63
3 

 15. Defendant was not involved in the downloading or file sharing of the adult video 

described in the Complaint in this action and should not be named as a Defendant in this action. 

 16. Involving Defendant further in this lawsuit will be detrimental to his finances and 

his health. 

 17. The acts alleged in the Complaint go against Defendant’s religion.

 18. Defendant has an expectation of privacy and expects that AT&T maintain his 

identity and his personal information, such as telephone number and email address private and 

confidential. 

 The following facts are set out in the attached declaration (Exhibit 2) of Kevin W. 

Guynn, counsel for Defendant: 

 19. Kevin Guynn, counsel for this Defendant, sent an email to Paul Duffy, an attorney 

at Prenda Law who has appeared for Plaintiff in this case, on May 14, 2012 (Declaration 

Exhibit B). 

 20. In the email, Defendant offered to have a court appointed computer expert 

analyze Defendant’s computers to confirm whether the allegedly downloaded videos were 

present on Defendant’s computers.

 21. Defendant proposed that if the expert determined that the videos were not present, 

that Plaintiff pay the cost of the expert, and dismiss the action as to Defendant, but that if the 

expert determined that the videos were present, then Defendant would pay the cost of the expert. 

 22. On May 15, 2012, Mark Lutz, who identified himself as an attorney with Prenda 

Law, telephoned Kevin Guynn, and declined the proposal made by Defendant. 

 23. Mr. Lutz stated that it was too early in the case for Plaintiff to know whether 

someone else’s computer might have been involved in the downloading of the video, and thus 

could not agree to dismissal of the Defendant. 

 24. Mr. Lutz stated that Defendant could be dismissed from each case that his IP 

address was identified in by the payment of $3400 for each lawsuit. 

 25. Mr. Lutz further stated that this Court would be denying Defendant’s Motion to 

Quash the subpoena and that once that happened, the required payment for settlement would go 

up. 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 4 of 90 PageID #:59 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:64
4 

STANDING

Defendant has standing to challenge the subpoena issued by the Plaintiff to AT&T 

Internet Services in that AT&T has notified Defendant that he is about to be identified to 

Plaintiff as a result of the subpoena, his personal and private information, well beyond even his 

identifying information, is to be disclosed to Plaintiff and that Defendant’s modem was assigned

the Internet Protocol number 75.5.75.57 on January 7, 2012, one of the Defendants listed in 

Exhibit A to the Complaint. By providing Defendant with the attached notice, AT&T has 

effectively transferred to Defendant the right and obligation to object to the subpoena since 

AT&T has indicated it will not provide any objection on Defendant’s behalf.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a party has standing to move to quash 

a subpoena addressed to another if the subpoena infringes upon the movant’s legitimate interests.

“The defendant urges that the prosecution had no standing or authority to move to quash the 

subpoena. We disagree. A party has standing to move to quash a subpoena addressed to another 

if the subpoena infringes upon the movant's legitimate interests. In re Grand Jury, 619 F.2d 

1022, 1027 (3rd Cir. 1980). The prosecution's standing rested upon its interest in preventing 

undue lengthening of the trial, undue harassment of its witness, and prejudicial over-emphasis on 

Gasbarri's credibility.” 

U.S. v. Raineri, 670 F.2d 702, 712 (7th cir. 1982) 

In the present case, the Defendant has legitimate interests which would be infringed upon 

if the subpoena is not quashed as to him, namely, his first amendment right to privacy, his 

personal privacy, his being identified and publically associated with conduct that is repugnant to 

him and against his religious values, and for which he had no involvement, and for which 

Plaintiff cannot assert with any certainty that he did have any involvement. See also footnote 3, 

infra. 

In a similar case, VPR Internationale v. Does 1017, C.D. IL, 2:11-cv-02068-HAB-DGB, 

in which the plaintiff was represented by John Steele of Steele Hansmeier PLLC, a lawyer and 

law firm that appear to be closely associated with Prenda Law and the current Plaintiff1

, It was 

 

1

 In an Order dated April 29, 2011, Judge Baker identified other plaintiffs represented by Mr. 

Steele, including the present Plaintiff, Hard Drive Productions, Inc. (Document 15, page 2). 

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 5 of 90 PageID #:60 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:65
5 

reported by Judge Baker, in an Order (Exhibit 3) denying certification for interlocutory review, 

that “VPR argues that, if served with a subpoena, the ISPs are required by law to notify each 

targeted subscriber and the Does may then move the court to quash the subpoenas.” Thus, the 

lawyer who represents this Plaintiff in other cases has told a Federal Judge that “Does may move 

the court to quash the subpoenas.” For this Plaintiff to come in to this Court and argue otherwise 

would constitute a serious misrepresentation to one of the Courts. 

ARGUMENT

 This lawsuit is one of hundreds that have been filed by the Prenda Law Inc. and its 

predecessor/associated firm, Steele, Hansmeier PLLC and /or Steele Law Firm2

, with whom they 

share a suite in Chicago. In these cases, dozens to thousands of Doe defendants are joined in a 

single action, the Plaintiff files a motion for expedited discovery, obtains court authorization to 

serve subpoenas on ISPs who then notify their customers that unless the customer files a motion 

in court to quash the subpoena, the ISP will release confidential indentifying information to the 

Plaintiff’s attorneys. The Plaintiff’s attorneys then use this information to coerce the identified 

persons to “settle” the litigation by paying several thousands of dollars, before being publically 

named as downloading pornographic materials. See description by Judge Holderman in Pacific 

Century International, Ltd. v. John Does 1-37 (and others), 12 C 1057 (N.D. IL Docket #23 at 

page 6, March 30, 2012)(Exhibit 4). 

 Courts are becoming increasingly dismayed by these suits, with critical decisions being 

rendered in many jurisdictions, in addition to the foregoing decision of Judges Holderman and 

Baker, such as In re: Bittorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement Cases, 2:12-cv-01147-JS-

 

2

 Prenda Law Inc. lists its address as 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, IL, 60601, Steele 

Hansmeier PLLC lists its address as 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 4700, Chicago, IL 60601, Steel 

Law Firm lists its address as 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, IL 60601. Paul Duffy has 

filed an appearance in this case listing an email address of paduffy@wefightprivacy.com and 

John L. Steele (of Steele Hanmeier) has filed an appearance in a similar case, listing his email 

address as jlsteele@wefightpiracy.com. The Illinois ARDC records list his address as 161 N. 

Clark Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, IL 60601 

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 6 of 90 PageID #:61 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:66
6 

GRB (E.D.N.Y Docket #4, May 1, 2012)(Exhibit 5)

3

 and AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-135, 

5:11-cv-03336-LHK (N.D. CA Docket 42, February 23, 2012)(Exhibit 6). 

 The Courts are recognizing that these lawsuits are part of an overall pattern or business 

plan of extorting “settlement” money from identified Does, and there is no intent to actually 

move forward with the litigation after the “Does” have been identified. In the AF Holdings case 

in California, upon Order of the Court for information, the Prenda Law firm stated that of the 

several thousand Does that had been identified in the 118 cases it had filed, not a single Doe had 

ever been served with the Complaint and Summons (see Exhibit 6, answer to question 9). 

 The Plaintiff here has cast a wide net in an attempt to identify the owners of various 

internet connection devices, such as modems and routers that were allegedly associated with the 

transfer of portions of an adult video. Although the Complaint Exhibit A identifies IP Address 

75.5.75.57 (January 7, 2012 – 06:22:34) as participating in the transfer, the person who AT&T 

has notified as owning a router being the assignee of that IP Address at that time, has provided a 

declaration that establishes that neither he, nor any authorized user of that computer equipment, 

was involved in the complained of activity. 

 Instead, it is declared that the computer equipment assigned that IP Address on January 7, 

2012, was unsecured by a password, and anyone within range of his wireless roiuter would have 

had access to the internet through his computer equipment.4

 Since Plaintiff cannot establish that the assignee of IP Address 75.5.75.57 (January 7, 

2012 – 06:22:34) was the person that actually was involved in the activity complained of in the 

Complaint, the subpoena seeking to have AT&T reveal the identity of the assignee of that IP 

Address should be quashed. 

 The Magistrate in In re: Bittorrent stated that the likelihood that the payer of the bill sent 

by ISPs was the actual downloader/infringer in these cases is not high, and therefore the danger 

in allowing Plaintiff’s to engage in this wide net type of discovery, especially to discover private 

information beyond that required to identify potential defendants and serve them with a 

Summons and Complaint is high (see Exhibit 5 pages 6-8). In that case, the Court severely 

 

3

 The Court in In re: Bittorrent specifically recognized that the individual Does identified by their 

IP addresses would have the right to challenge the propriety of the subpoena being issued (see 

decision at page 24, paragraph (3)). 

4 The factual defenses raised by the Defendant in this case are very similar to several of the 

defenses raised in In re: Bittorrent, Exhibit 5 at page 5.

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 7 of 90 PageID #:62 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:67
7 

limited the type of information that the Plaintiff was entitled to seek from the ISP (as well as 

limiting the subpoena to only a single Defendant per case). 

 As Doe 75.5.75.57 has stated in the attached declaration, he regards his personal 

information, including telephone number and email address private, and disclosure of this 

information to Plaintiff’s attorneys should not be permitted. Further, Plaintiff’s attorneys have 

no need for this information, since they now know that this Defendant is represented by counsel 

and therefore under the ethical rules in the State of Illinois, they are prohibited from directly 

contacting this Defendant, other than to serve the Complaint and Summons. 

 The Courts in their decisions have been identifying other substantive issues with these 

types of cases, such as improper joinder of defendants, see In re: Bittorrent, Exhibit 5 at pages 

18-21, but it is premature for Defendant to be asserting any Motion under Rule 12 until it has 

actually been served with the Summons and Complaint. Defendant will leave it to the Court to 

determine whether any action is desired by the Court sua sponte at this time. 

 To have the recipient of the AT&T letter in this case identified to Plaintiff will only 

subject the recipient to further harassment by the Plaintiff, even though the recipient was not 

involved in the complained of activity. Further, the very nature of the complained of activity is 

repugnant to the recipient of the AT&T letter and he should not be involved further with this 

Complaint or this Action. 

 In an effort to resolve this matter, as well as a related case pending before Judge Dow, 

that this same Defendant is involved in, Defendant’s counsel sent an email to an attorney at 

Plaintiff’s counsel Prenda Law who filed an appearance in the companion case. Defendant 

offered to make his computers available to a Court appointed computer expert to confirm that the 

alleged downloaded movie was not on Defendant’s hard drive. 

Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Mark Lutz, called Defendant’s counsel on March 15, 2012, and 

declined Plaintiff’s offer. Mr. Lutz stated that Plaintiff could not agree with the proposal in that 

it could be that someone other than Defendant might have performed the downloading. In other 

words, Mr. Lutz would not agree to dismiss this Defendant because someone other than this 

Defendant might be the real infringer! 

 Mr. Lutz did state that this Defendant could be dismissed from the action by payment of 

$3400 for each action in which his assigned IP address was listed. He stated that after the actual 

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 8 of 90 PageID #:63 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:68
8 

identity was revealed (since he was sure that this Court would deny the Motion to Quash) the 

price for settlement would increase. 

 The Magistrate in In re Bittorrent found such refusal to investigate the innocence of an 

ISP subscriber quite problematical (Exhibit 5 at pages 8-11). 

Judge Baker has similar questions himself: “Could expedited discovery be used to wrest 

quick settlements, even from people who have done nothing wrong? The embarrassment of 

public exposure might be too great, the legal system too dauting and expensive, for some to ask 

whether VPR has competent evidence to prove its case.” Exhibit 3 at page 3. 

 Thus, Prenda law has confirmed that the Plaintiff’s sole interest in filing this litigation is 

to extort a settlement payment from this Defendant, regardless of his guilt or innocence. The 

power of the court through the subpoena process should not be abused in such a manner. 

 In view of the above, Defendant submits that this Court should quash the subpoena to 

AT&T with respect to IP address 75.5.75.57. 

Dated this 19th day of March, 2012. 

Greer, Burns & Crain Ltd. 

Attorneys for Defendant, Internet Protocol Number 

75.5.75.57 (January 7, 2012), 

_____/s/ Kevin W. Guynn_____________

Kevin W. Guynn 

Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. 

300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

312.360.0080 

312.360.9315 (facsimile) 

 kguynn@gbclaw.net 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 9 of 90 PageID #:64 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:69
9 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on the 19th day of March, 2012, I will electronically file the 

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court, using the CM/ECF system. I will also serve a copy of the 

foregoing Notice and Motion on AT&T Internet Services via their fax number 919-319-8154, as 

per their Notice letter. 

 

Greer, Burns & Crain Ltd. 

Attorneys for Defendant, Internet Protocol Number 

75.5.75.57 (January 7, 2012) 

_____/s/ Kevin W. Guynn_____________

Kevin W. Guynn 

Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. 

300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

312.360.0080 

312.360.9315 (facsimile) 

 kguynn@gbclaw.net 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 10 of 90 PageID #:65 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:70
EXHIBIT 1 

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 11 of 90 PageID #:66 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-1 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:71
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS, INC. 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

DOES 1-54, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 1:12-cv-01532 

Honorable Edmond E. Chang 

Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox

DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT 75.5.75.57 (January 7, 2012)

Defendant, Internet Protocol Number 75.5.75.57 (January 7, 2012), states as follows: 

1. I received a letter dated May 3, 2012 from AT&T stating that the assignee of an 

Internet Protocol number assigned to my router on January 7, 2012 at 06:22:34 UTC (12:22 am 

Central Time), 75.5.75.57 was named as a defendant in the above-captioned case. 

2. The May 3, 2012 letter further stated that Plaintiff was seeking my personal 

information pursuant to a subpoena issued on April 20, 2012 (letter attached as Exhibit A with 

my name and address redacted). 

 3. I understand that the Complaint in this action relates to the downloading and file 

sharing of the adult video “Amateur Allure – Lola Foxx.”

 4. I am 73 years old and don’t download any movies on my computer.

 5. I have an internet connection in my home that includes a wireless router. 

 6. I found out during the last week of December, 2011, that my wireless router were 

not secured with a password, and that anyone within range of my router could access the internet 

through my router. 

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 12 of 90 PageID #:67 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-1 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:72
2 

 7. On January 31, 2012 I purchased a new wireless router which I have since 

secured with a password. 

 8. I do not visit any internet web sites that have adult videos and I have never 

downloaded any adult video and the idea of such videos is repugnant to me and my religion. 

 9. The only people that have access to any computer of mine that uses my wireless 

router are myself, my wife and my great grandson who is only 4 years old and only watches 

Thomas the Train videos on my computer when I am with him. 

 10. I do not know who might have been in range of my wireless router on January 7, 

2012 at 12:32 am that might have downloaded any movies and I did not authorize anyone else to 

access the internet through my router. 

 11. I am not awake, and certainly not on the computer at 12:32 in the morning. 

 12. Based on my habits, I know I was not on my computer at 12:32 am on Saturday, 

January 7, 2012. 

 13. I shut off my computer overnight, although my router remains on. 

 14. My wife does not go onto the internet. 

 15. We are a Christian family and don’t believe in websites that would carry adult 

videos as described in the Complaint in this action. 

 16. I was not involved in the downloading or file sharing of the adult video described 

in the Complaint in this action and should not be named as a Defendant in this action. 

 17. Involving me further in this lawsuit will be detrimental to my finances and my 

health. 

 18. I have an expectation of privacy and expect that my identity, personal information 

such as telephone number and email address, will be kept private and confidential by AT&T 

when I access the internet for lawful purposes through my wireless router. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on this 14th day of May, 2012. 

 /75.5.75.57/

 Internet Protocol Address 75.5.75.57 (January 7, 2012) 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 13 of 90 PageID #:68 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-1 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:73
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on the 15th day of May, 2012, I will electronically file the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court, using the CM/ECF system. 

 

Greer, Burns & Crain Ltd. 

Attorneys for Defendant, Internet Protocol Number 

75.5.75.57 (January 7, 2012), 

_____/s/ Kevin W. Guynn_____________

Kevin W. Guynn 

Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. 

300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

312.360.0080 

312.360.9315 (facsimile) 

 kguynn@gbclaw.net 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 14 of 90 PageID #:69 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-1 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:74
EXHIBIT 2 

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 15 of 90 PageID #:70 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-2 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:75
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS, INC. 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

DOES 1-54, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 1:12-cv-01532 

Honorable Edmond E. Chang 

Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox

DECLARATION OF KEVIN W. GUYNN

Kevin W. Guynn, counsel for Defendant, Internet Protocol Number 75.5.75.57 (January 

7, 2012), states as follows: 

 1. I sent an email to Paul Duffy, an attorney at Prenda Law who has appeared for 

Plaintiff in this case on May 14, 2012 (Declaration Exhibit B). 

 2. In the email, Defendant offered to have a court appointed computer expert 

analyze Defendant’s computers to confirm whether the allegedly downloaded videos were 

present on Defendant’s computers.

 3. Defendant proposed that if the expert determined that the videos were not present, 

that Plaintiff pay the cost of the expert, and dismiss the action as to Defendant, but that if the 

expert determined that the videos were present, then Defendant would pay the cost of the expert. 

 4. On May 15, 2012, Mark Lutz, who identified himself as an attorney with Prenda 

Law, telephoned me, and declined the proposal made by Defendant. 

 5. Mr. Lutz stated that it was too early in the case for Plaintiff to know whether 

someone else’s computer might have been involved in the downloading of the video, and thus 

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 16 of 90 PageID #:71 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-2 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:76
could not agree to dismissal of the Defendant, and therefore was not interested in checking 

Defendant’s computers.

 6. Mr. Lutz stated that Defendant could be dismissed from each case that his IP 

address was identified in by the payment of $3400 for each lawsuit. 

 7. Mr. Lutz further stated that this Court would be denying Defendant’s Motion to 

Quash the subpoena and that once that happened, the required payment for settlement would go 

up. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on this 17th day of May, 2012. 

 /Kevin W. Guynn/

 Attorney for Defendant, Internet Protocol Number 75.5.75.57 

(January 7, 2012) 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 17 of 90 PageID #:72 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-2 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:77
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on the 17th day of May, 2012, I will electronically file the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court, using the CM/ECF system. 

/Kevin W. Guynn/ 

 Greer, Burns & Crain Ltd. 

Attorneys for Defendant, Internet Protocol Number 

75.5.75.57 (January 7, 2012), 

Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 18 of 90 PageID #:73 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-2 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:78
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 19 of 90 PageID #:74 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-5 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:92
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 20 of 90 PageID #:75 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-5 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:93
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 21 of 90 PageID #:76 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-5 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:94
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 22 of 90 PageID #:77 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-5 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:95
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 23 of 90 PageID #:78 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-5 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:96
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 24 of 90 PageID #:79 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-5 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:97
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 25 of 90 PageID #:80 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-5 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:98
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 26 of 90 PageID #:81 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-5 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:99
Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-6 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:100 Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 27 of 90 PageID #:82
Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-6 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:101 Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 28 of 90 PageID #:83
Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-6 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:102 Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 29 of 90 PageID #:84
Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-6 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:103 Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 30 of 90 PageID #:85
Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-6 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:104 Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 31 of 90 PageID #:86
Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-6 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:105 Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 32 of 90 PageID #:87
Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-6 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:106 Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 33 of 90 PageID #:88
Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-6 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:107 Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 34 of 90 PageID #:89
Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-6 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:108 Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 35 of 90 PageID #:90
Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-6 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:109 Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 36 of 90 PageID #:91
Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-6 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:110 Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 37 of 90 PageID #:92
Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-6 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:111 Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 38 of 90 PageID #:93
Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-6 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:112 Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 39 of 90 PageID #:94
Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-6 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:113 Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 40 of 90 PageID #:95
Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-6 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:114 Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 41 of 90 PageID #:96
Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-6 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:115 Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 42 of 90 PageID #:97
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 43 of 90 PageID #:98 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 1 of 27 PageID #:116
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 44 of 90 PageID #:99 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 2 of 27 PageID #:117
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 45 of 90 PageID #:100 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 3 of 27 PageID #:118
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 46 of 90 PageID #:101 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 4 of 27 PageID #:119
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 47 of 90 PageID #:102 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 5 of 27 PageID #:120
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 48 of 90 PageID #:103 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 6 of 27 PageID #:121
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 49 of 90 PageID #:104 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 7 of 27 PageID #:122
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 50 of 90 PageID #:105 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 8 of 27 PageID #:123
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 51 of 90 PageID #:106 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 9 of 27 PageID #:124
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 52 of 90 PageID #:107 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 10 of 27 PageID #:125
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 53 of 90 PageID #:108 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 11 of 27 PageID #:126
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 54 of 90 PageID #:109 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 12 of 27 PageID #:127
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 55 of 90 PageID #:110 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 13 of 27 PageID #:128
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 56 of 90 PageID #:111 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 14 of 27 PageID #:129
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 57 of 90 PageID #:112 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 15 of 27 PageID #:130
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 58 of 90 PageID #:113 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 16 of 27 PageID #:131
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 59 of 90 PageID #:114 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 17 of 27 PageID #:132
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 60 of 90 PageID #:115 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 18 of 27 PageID #:133
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 61 of 90 PageID #:116 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 19 of 27 PageID #:134
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 62 of 90 PageID #:117 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 20 of 27 PageID #:135
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 63 of 90 PageID #:118 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 21 of 27 PageID #:136
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 64 of 90 PageID #:119 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 22 of 27 PageID #:137
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 65 of 90 PageID #:120 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 23 of 27 PageID #:138
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 66 of 90 PageID #:121 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 24 of 27 PageID #:139
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 67 of 90 PageID #:122 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 25 of 27 PageID #:140
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 68 of 90 PageID #:123 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 26 of 27 PageID #:141
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 69 of 90 PageID #:124 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-7 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 27 of 27 PageID #:142
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 70 of 90 PageID #:125 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-8 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:143
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 71 of 90 PageID #:126 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-8 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:144
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 72 of 90 PageID #:127 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-8 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:145
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 73 of 90 PageID #:128 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-8 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:146
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 74 of 90 PageID #:129 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-8 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:147
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 75 of 90 PageID #:130 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-8 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:148
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 76 of 90 PageID #:131 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-8 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:149
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 77 of 90 PageID #:132 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-8 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:150
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 78 of 90 PageID #:133 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-3 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:79
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 79 of 90 PageID #:134 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-3 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:80
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 80 of 90 PageID #:135 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-3 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:81
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 81 of 90 PageID #:136 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-3 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:82
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 82 of 90 PageID #:137 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-3 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:83
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 83 of 90 PageID #:138 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-3 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:84
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 84 of 90 PageID #:139 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-3 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:85
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 85 of 90 PageID #:140 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-3 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:86
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 86 of 90 PageID #:141 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-3 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:87
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 87 of 90 PageID #:142 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-4 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:88
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 88 of 90 PageID #:143 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-4 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:89
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 89 of 90 PageID #:144 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-4 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:90
Case: 1:12-cv-03516 Document #: 11-3 Filed: 06/01/12 Page 90 of 90 PageID #:145 Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 18-4 Filed: 05/17/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:91