UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,

Plaintiff, Case No. 15-10274

Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED

IP ADDRESS 24.11.220.117,

Defendant.

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE 

FOR AN EXPEDITED HEARING TO RELEASE THE 

DEFENDANT’S IDENTITY, WITH INCORPORATED BRIEF

“Defendant John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.11.220.117”, through 

her attorneys, files her response to Plaintiff’s Notice For An Expedited Hearing To 

Release The Defendant’s Identity (R. 18). In support of Defendant’s response 

motion, Defendant provides her incorporated brief, as follows:

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 1 of 60 Pg ID 95
i

STATEMENT OF ISSUE PRESENTED

Should the Court reveal Defendant’s identity where Defendant has retained 

counsel and she is willing to engage in the exchange of pretrial disclosures and 

discovery subject to the entry of a protective order prohibiting disclosure of his 

identity in the public record?

Defendant answers: No

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 2 of 60 Pg ID 96
ii

STATEMENT OF MOST CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

In support of her Response, Defendant primarily relies upon Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(c).

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 3 of 60 Pg ID 97
SUMMARY

Plaintiff is a pornographer and serial litigant that has built a profitable 

business scheme extracting quick settlements by suing unidentified individuals, 

such as Defendant, based on lurid and unsubstantiated accusations involving 

pornography. As part of its systematic shaming litigation strategy, Plaintiff 

Pornographer attached to its complaint a gratuitous list of 37 pornographic movies

and their titles, including “Cum In Get Wet, “Awe Inspiring Orgy,” and “Exposed 

And Aroused.” [R. 1-1 at 1]. Now, Plaintiff Pornographer gratuitously seeks a 

court order to reveal the identity of Defendant: a 50-year-old married woman.

1

 

Defendant disagrees that Plaintiff Pornographer requires a court order 

revealing Defendant’s identity.

2

 Further, Plaintiff Pornographer has no real interest 

in prosecuting its claims; it has neither requested a Rule 26(f) conference nor asked 

Defendant to sign a waiver for service of the Summons and Complaint.

3

 Rather

 

1 Defendant notes that Plaintiff provides virtually no explanation for its instant 

notice for expedited hearing, including a total failure to cite court rules or caselaw 

supporting its alleged need to reveal Defendant’s identity.

2 When asked why Plaintiff Pornographer is demanding Defendant’s real name, 

Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant’s counsel that he will need to depose 

Defendant’s neighbors regarding this suit—and reveal her name to her neighbors. 

3 Defendant has repeatedly offered to sign a waiver. Why won’t Plaintiff simply 

offer a waiver? Atleast one other district court has recognized that Plaintiff 

Pornographer lacks the resources to even prosecute its claims: “According to a 

PACER search, Malibu Media has filed over a thousand cases thus far in 2013.

The Court doubts that Malibu Media has the resources to fully litigate even a 

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 4 of 60 Pg ID 98
2

than prove its case, Plaintiff Pornographer seeks to put Defendant between the 

horns of a dilemma: face public association with defamatory claims involving 

graphic pornography, or incur significant attorney fees fighting against a well-oiled 

litigation machine that, since 2012, has filed over 3,500 federal lawsuits against 

thousands of John Does. 4 Indeed, Plaintiff Pornographer has filed two hundred 

and sixty cases (260) against John Does—in this Court alone. Exhibit 3.

The authenticity of Plaintiff Pornographer’s alleged need for Defendant’s 

identity is further belied by the fact that Defendant’s counsel has repeatedly 

offered to provide Defendant’s name and address to Plaintiff Pornographer’s 

counsel pursuant to a protective order. Rather than stipulate to a straight-forward

protective order, Plaintiff Pornographer first forced Defendant to incur expenses to 

file a motion for protective order [R. 11]—which was later resolved by a stipulated 

order providing “that beyond being known by or as Defendant’s IP address of 

24.11.220.117, Defendant’s identity shall not be disclosed or revealed in these 

proceedings and shall remain protected and anonymous until further order of the 

 

fraction of this amount of cases.” According to the federal district court, the sheer 

number of lawsuits filed by Plaintiff Pornographer corroborates the belief that suits 

are “being filed to coerce quick and early settlements.” Malibu Media, LLC v Doe, 

No. 13-C-536, 2013 WL 6579338, at *4 (ED Wis December 12, 2013). Case 

attached as Exhibit 1. 

4

See Exhibit 2, 5/15/2014 Article, New Yorker, “The Biggest Filer of Copyright 

Lawsuits? This Erotica Website.

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 5 of 60 Pg ID 99
3

Court.” [R. 14]. Three weeks after entry of this order, Plaintiff Pornographer filed 

its notice to reveal Plaintiff’s identity—despite the parties resolving this issue [R. 

14] and Defendant offering to provide Defendant’s identity to Plaintiff 

Pornographer under a protective order. 

After receiving notice of the expedited hearing, Defendant’s counsel again 

reached out to Plaintiff Pornographer’s counsel, and again offered to provide 

Defendant’s name and address to opposing counsel pursuant to a protective order. 

Plaintiff Pornographer agreed and asked Defendant’s counsel to draft a stipulation. 

Defendant’s counsel obliged this request—only to have Plaintiff Pornographer go 

incommunicado when asked to approve the proposed stipulated protective order. 

Pornographer Plaintiff’s counsel has therefore forced Defendant to incur thousands 

of dollars in costs to resolve a very straight-forward protective order that Plaintiff 

Pornographer claims it does not object to. [R. 12 at 6]. The significant 

correspondence between counsel is attached as Exhibit 4.

The federal courts are well aware of Plaintiff Pornographer’s chicanery and 

abusive litigation tactics. See, e.g., Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1–5, 2012 WL

2001968 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (stating that the court “shares the growing concern 

about unscrupulous tactics used by certain plaintiffs, particularly in the adult films 

industry, to shake down the owners of specific IP addresses from which 

copyrighted adult films were allegedly downloaded”); Malibu Media, LLC v. John 

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 6 of 60 Pg ID 100
4

Does 1–10, 2012 WL 5382304 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (remarking that “the federal courts 

are not cogs in a plaintiff's copyright-enforcement business model. The Court will 

not idly watch what is essentially an extortion scheme, for a case that plaintiff has 

no intention of bringing to trial”); Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1–13, 2012 WL 

2800123, *2, fn. 10 (E.D.Cal.2012) (noting “some growing concern among district 

courts about these sorts of expedited discovery matters”); Malibu Media, LLC v 

Doe, No. 13-C-536, 2013 WL 6579338, at *4 (ED Wis December 12, 2013)

(noting that Plaintiff Pornographer’s “cases are already infected with the potential 

for abuse” and “should not be allowed to abuse the legal system in this manner 

without being called to account for it”).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(C)(1) provides an appropriate mechanism for protecting 

Defendant from Plaintiff Pornographer’s abusive tactics—including filing its 

instant notice for expedited hearing—which serve only to embarrass and harass 

Defendant, and impose undue expenses. Defendant requests the Court to deny 

Plaintiff’s request to reveal Defendant’s identity, with prejudice, pursuant to its 

power under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(C)(1), and award Defendant her attorney fees 

incurred in having to respond to Plaintiff Pornographer’s unnecessary and 

unreasonable notice for expedited hearing.

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 7 of 60 Pg ID 101
5

PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 22, 2015, Malibu Media filed a lawsuit against “John Doe 

subscriber assigned IP address 24.11.220.117” alleging copyright infringement. 

[R. 1, 1/22/15 Complaint]. On February 5, 2015, the Court entered an Order 

Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpoena Prior to Rule 

26(f) Conference. [R. 5, 2/05/15 Order]. Plaintiff then issued a subpoena to 

Defendant’s internet provider, Comcast, which sent correspondence to Defendant 

directing that it would produce his or her identification to Plaintiff if an objection 

to the subpoena was not filed by March 3, 2015. Although Plaintiff has alleged 

that pornographic infringement is somehow connected with IP address 

24.11.220.117, there is no evidence establishing that Defendant has in any way 

engaged in such conduct. 

Defendant’s counsel attempted to contact multiple times regarding entry of 

an appropriate protective order, received no response, and was forced to file a 

motion to quash the subpoena, or, in the alternative, for entry of a protective order 

[R. 8]. Only then did Plaintiff Pornographer’s counsel contact Defendant’s 

counsel and agree to a stipulation. The court entered the stipulated order on May 

14, 2015 [R. 14].

Three weeks later, Plaintiff filed the instant notice for expedited hearing 

without contacting Defendant’s counsel [R. 18].

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 8 of 60 Pg ID 102
6

ARGUMENT

A. The Court should enter a protective order preventing the pre-trial 

disclosure of John Doe’s identity.

Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he court 

may, for good cause, issue an order to protect any party or person from annoyance, 

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including an order 

forbidding disclosure of information and “forbidding inquiry into certain matters, 

or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters.” . . .” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A), (D); Graves v Bowles, 419 Fed Appx 640, 645 (6th Cir. 2011).

Plaintiff has not, and cannot, demonstrate why it needs to know Defendant’s 

name, which indicates that Plaintiff is seeking the information to annoy, harass, 

and embarrass Defendant. The complaint is, by the very nature of its allegations, 

prurient and offensive, and Plaintiff Pornographer went out of its way to attach an 

unnecessary appendix to its complaint, which lists the lurid sexual titles of various 

pornographic movies that it claims Defendant downloaded. This strategy, of 

course, unnecessarily exposes Defendant to explicit association with humiliating 

activities that, even if true, are of a highly private and sensitive nature.5

 

5

There is no evidence in this case to establish that Defendant herself was in any 

way involved in the downloading of the pornographic videos identified in the 

Complaint.

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 9 of 60 Pg ID 103
7

The conventional tool in dealing with such challenges is entry of a protective 

order. Accordingly, Defendant repeatedly offered to enter into a protective order 

to resolve this dispute. Plaintiff has not cooperated in good faith, Exhibit 4, and 

Defendant has now incurred significant expenses working to stipulate to a 

protective order that would allow Defendant to provide Plaintiff Pornographer with 

her name, while ensuring that Plaintiff Pornographer does not reveal her name. 

Instead of quickly resolving this issue by entering into a protective order, Plaintiff 

Pornographer filed this notice of expedited hearing and refused to timely enter a 

protective order that would have accomplished the stated6goals of both parties.

Plaintiff Pornographer’s litigation tactics in this case, the nature of the 

allegations, and Plaintiff’s failure to explain why it needs Defendant’s identity 

demonstrate that Defendant is entitled to an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 

B. The Court should sanction Plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 11(b)(1) 

for filing the notice for expedited hearing for the improper purpose of 

harassing and increasing the cost of the litigation.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1) provides that an attorney or party, “by presenting to 

the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper . . . certifies to the best of the 

person’s knowledge, information, and belief . . . it is not being presented for any 

 

6 Defendant maintains that Plaintiff Pornographer is not sincerely interested in 

obtaining Defendant’s identity for any reason other than to publicly associate her 

with pornographic materials and coerce settlement.

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 10 of 60 Pg ID 104
8

improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly

increase the cost of litigation.”

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff Pornographer has filed so many abusive 

lawsuits that multiple federal courts have already recognized Plaintiff 

Pornographer’s particular breed of abusive litigation tactics. For a small sample, 

see Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1–5, 2012 WL 2001968 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), 

supra; Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1–10, 2012 WL 5382304 (C.D. Cal. 

2012), supra; Malibu Media, LLC v. Does 1–13, 2012 WL 2800123, *2, fn. 10 

(E.D.Cal.2012), supra; Malibu Media, LLC v Doe, No. 13-C-536, 2013 WL 

6579338, at *4 (ED Wis December 12, 2013), supra.

The instant case’s facts separately demonstrate that Plaintiff Pornographer 

seeks to harass Defendant and drive up costs with unnecessary motions and 

“expedited” hearings regarding Defendant’s identity. Defendant maintains that 

Plaintiff Pornographer has no legitimate reason to seek the pre-trial disclosure of 

Defendant’s identity other than to harass her, embarrass her, and coerce a quickand-dirty settlement. However, given the realities of litigation, Defendant has 

repeatedly offered to resolve this dispute by providing her name and address to 

Plaintiff Pornographer—subject to an appropriate protective order. This is 

common protocol. Instead of simply agreeing to a protective order, Plaintiff took 

the following steps to harass Defendant and increase litigation costs:

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 11 of 60 Pg ID 105
9

1. Plaintiff withheld concurrence to a protective order and forced Defendant 

to file a motion for a protective order [R. 8].

2. Plaintiff, without contacting Defendant’s counsel, filed a notice for an 

expedited hearing 3 weeks after Defendant and Plaintiff stipulated “that 

beyond being known by or as Defendant’s IP address of 24.11.220.117, 

Defendant’s identity shall not be disclosed or revealed in these 

proceedings and shall remain protected and anonymous until further 

order of the Court.” [R. 14];

3. After Defendant contacted Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the instant notice 

for expedited hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel requested that Defendant’s 

counsel draft a stipulation and protective order—which Defendant’s 

counsel did, at Defendant’s cost. Exhibit 4. Plaintiff’s counsel then

refused to respond to Defendant’s counsel request to enter the drafted 

protective order. Id.

Plaintiff Pornographer could have received Defendant’s identity months ago 

had it truly wanted it. Instead, Plaintiff Pornographer has forced Defendant to file 

an unnecessary motion and draft two briefs. Plaintiff Pornographer has plainly 

taken a course of action that intentionally and unnecessarily ramps up costs and 

wastes the Court’s time. Defendant requests that the Court discourage continued 

abusive tactics by sanctioning Defendant accordingly. 

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 12 of 60 Pg ID 106
10

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant requests this Court to enter an order 

that:

A. Denies Plaintiff’s request to reveal Defendant’s identity, with 

prejudice;

B. Sanctions Plaintiff for violating Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1); and

C. Awards Plaintiff any further relief it deems just and appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

The Mike Cox Law Firm, PLLC

/s/ R.J. Cronkhite

R.J. Cronkhite (P78374)

Attorneys for Defendant

17430 Laurel Park Drive North, Suite

120E Livonia, MI 48152

(734) 591-4002

rj@mikecoxlaw.com

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 13 of 60 Pg ID 107
EXHIBIT 

1 

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 14 of 60 Pg ID 108
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, Slip Copy (2013)

 © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

2013 WL 6579338

Only the Westlaw citation

is currently available.

United States District Court,

E.D. Wisconsin.

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff,

v.

John DOE, subscriber assigned IP

address 184.58.186.212, Defendant.

Malibu Media, LLC, Plaintiff,

v.

John Doe, subscriber assigned IP

address 97.83.171.176, Defendant.

Malibu Media, LLC, Plaintiff,

v.

John Doe, subscriber assigned IP

address 174.103.170.157, Defendant.

Nos. 13–C–536, 13–C–544,

13–C–779. | Dec. 12, 2013.

Attorneys and Law Firms

Mary K. Schulz, Schulz Law PC, Geneva, IL,

for Plaintiff.

Jerome F. Buting, Buting & Williams SC,

Brookfield, WI, for Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

RUDOLPH T. RANDA, District Judge.

*1 In these and many other cases filed in

federal courts all over the country, Malibu

Media is suing individuals for illegally

downloading their copyrighted adult films.

The pattern that emerged, both here and

elsewhere, is that Malibu Media would sue

an anonymous defendant associated with an

Internet Protocol address and then attach an

exhibit to its complaint listing a large number

of downloaded titles that do not correspond to

the copyrights-in-suit. See Complaints, Exhibit

C. Some of these titles are crude, obscene, and

pornographic, much more so than the works

copyrighted by Malibu Media, a purveyor

of “sophisticated erotica.” 1 Thus, an initially

anonymous defendant, who may or may not be

guilty of infringing Malibu Media's copyrights,

would likely feel pressured to enter a quick

settlement to avoid having his or her name

associated with a particularly embarrassing

list of pornographic films. Following the lead

of Judge Crocker and Judge Conley in the

Western District of Wisconsin, the Court issued

an order directing Malibu Media to show

cause as to why it should not be sanctioned

for attaching this exhibit to its complaints.

Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 2013 WL 5276081

(E.D.Wis. Sept. 17, 2013); see also Malibu

Media LLC v. Doe, 2013 WL 4821911

(W.D.Wis. Sept. 10, 2013) (Judge Conley's

Order imposing sanctions). Just like in the

Western District cases, the Electronic Frontier

Foundation (“EFF”), a non-profit digital rights

group, filed an amicus brief in support of

sanctions. Malibu Media has responded to the

Court's order to show cause and also to the

arguments presented by EFF.

The Court is considering sanctions under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 1(b)(1),

which provides that by “presenting to the court

a pleading ... an attorney ... certifies to the

best of the person's knowledge, information,

and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable

under the circumstances” that the pleading

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 15 of 60 Pg ID 109
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, Slip Copy (2013)

 © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2

“is not being presented for any improper

purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary

delay, or needlessly increase the cost of

litigation.” Some courts have noted that

Rule 11 has an objective component and a

subjective component. Szabo Food Service,

Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1083

(7th Cir.1987). Under this line of reasoning,

the objective inquiry asks whether the pleading

was filed after reasonable investigation into

the law and the facts, and the subjective

inquiry asks whether the pleading was filed

for an improper purpose. In re Collins, 250

B.R. 645, 661 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2000) (citing

Szabo, Harlyn Sales Corp. Profit Sharing

Plan v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 9 F.3d

1263 (7th Cir.1993), and Mars Steel Corp.

v. Cont'l Bank N.A., 880 F.2d 928 (7th

Cir.1988), among other cases). At the same

time, there are “a few Seventh Circuit cases

that place an ‘objective’ label on the test

to determine whether a paper was interposed

for an improper purpose.” Id. (citing Pacific

Dunlop Holdings, Inc. v. Barosh, 22 F.3d 113,

118 (7th Cir.1994); Deere & Co. v. Deutsche

Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft, 855 F.2d 385,

393 (7th Cir.1988)).

*2 It strikes the Court as counterintuitive to

use an objective standard under Rule 11(b)

(1), since “the test of whether a paper was

interposed for an improper purpose focuses

on the reasons or motives for the filing.” In

re Collins at 662. However, what the case

law seems to suggest is that the circumstances

surrounding an objectionable filing can be used

to evaluate whether the filing was motivated

by an improper purpose. See, e.g., Nat'l Ass'n

of Gov't Emp., Inc. v. Nat'l Fed'n of Fed.

Emp., 844 F.2d 216, 224 (5th Cir.1988) (“A

court must focus on objectively ascertainable

circumstances that support an inference that

a filing harassed the defendant or caused

unnecessary delay”); Sussman v. Bank of

Israel, 56 F.3d 450, 458 (2d Cir.1995) (the

court “is not to delve into the attorney's

subjective intent” in filing the paper, but

rather should assess objective factors such as

“whether the papers or proceedings caused

delay that was unnecessary, whether they

caused increase in the cost of litigation that was

needless, or whether they lacked any apparent

legitimate purpose”). In other words, a court

must “focus on the objectively ascertainable

circumstances and not on the subjective intent

of the filing party.” Bullard v. Chrysler Corp.,

925 F.Supp. 1180, 1190 (E.D.Tex.1996) (citing

Sheets v. Yamaha Motors Corp., 891 F.2d

533, 538 (5th Cir.1990)); see also Vandeventer

v. Wabash Nat'l Corp., 893 F.Supp. 827,

840 (N.D.Ind.1995) (“where there is no direct

evidence of subjective intent the courts have

applied the objective test and have inferred

improper purpose when a certified document

(1) is meritless, and (2) results in delay,

harassment, a needless increase in costs, or

some other illegitimate result”). This is perhaps

a more roundabout way of framing the issue

like Judge Conley framed it: “even if this

court is unable to conclude definitively that

the attorney subjectively thought that he or she

was engaging in harassment, sanctions may

be warranted where an objectively reasonable

attorney should know that: (1) there is no

real need to take a given litigation action;

and (2) the action would substantially harass

or embarrass the opposing party.” 2013 WL

4821911, at *4 (citing Harlyn, 9 F.3d at

1270) (emphases in original); see also Sheets,

891 F.2d at 538 (if a “reasonably clear legal

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 16 of 60 Pg ID 110
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, Slip Copy (2013)

 © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3

justification can be shown for the filing of the

paper in question, no improper purpose can be

found and sanctions are inappropriate”).

As before Judge Conley, Malibu Media

vigorously defends its decision to attach

Exhibit C to its complaints, explicitly

disclaiming any sort of ill motive or intent. In a

lengthy memorandum, Malibu Media explains

that it hired a company called IPP International

to expand the universe of .torrent files that

are scanned as part of Malibu Media's presuit investigation. The result is Exhibit C,

which is used as a cross-reference tool to

help paint a picture of the alleged infringer.

By comparing publicly-available information

about the subscriber with the information in the

cross-reference tool, Malibu Media asserts that

is able to confirm or deny that the subscriber

is the actual infringer. For example, if Malibu

Media learns that the subscriber is a fan of the

Chicago White Sox who enjoys fly fishing, and

the cross-reference tool shows that four White

Sox games and a how-to manual for fly fishing

were downloaded using the subscriber's IP

address, Malibu Media can use this information

to prove that the subscriber was the individual

who infringed its copyrights.

*3 As an initial matter, the actual relevance

of this information is highly questionable.

An IP address identifies, at most, an

internet subscription that can be used

by multiple people. Accordingly, it does

not necessarily follow that the individual

associated with certain unique characteristics

—i.e., the White Sox fan/fly fishing enthusiast

—is the individual who downloaded Malibu

Media's films. Moreover, Malibu Media is a

purveyor of “sophisticated erotica which is

appealing to men, women, and couples,” 2

so hardcore pornography downloads are

minimally probative of the actual infringer's

identity. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b)(1), (2) (“other

acts” evidence “is not admissible to prove

a person's character in order to show that

on a particular occasion the person acted

in accordance with the character,” but such

evidence “may be admissible for another

purpose, such as proving ... identity ...”).

Even if Exhibit C is somehow relevant or

useful in this game of “whodunit,” there is

no legitimate justification for Malibu Media

to attach the exhibit to its complaints in

the first instance. In the mine run of cases,

Malibu Media tracks the infringing activity to

a specific IP address. Malibu Media then files a

complaint along with a motion to serve a thirdparty subpoena on the anonymous defendant's

Internet Service Provider. At this point, Malibu

Media has stated a plausible claim for relief. A

plaintiff doesn't need to anticipate or overcome

substantive defenses in its pleadings. At the

pleading stage at least, the exhibit is completely

unnecessary. Judge Conley's Order, 2013 WL

4821911, at *3 (“Malibu Media concedes that

in all of the cases it has filed it ‘has never had a

case dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)

(6)’ with or without the attachment of an exhibit

of this kind”). Malibu Media's assertion that

it was simply trying to bolster the strength of

its case does not pass scrutiny since it could

have achieved the same result by filing Exhibit

C under seal, redacting the most scandalous

titles therefrom, or “pleading that it has a much

more comprehensive list of materials and, if

a defendant refuses to acquiesce or assist,

providing the actual list to him or her directly

and confidentially.” Id. at *2.

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 17 of 60 Pg ID 111
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, Slip Copy (2013)

 © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4

With regard to “assistance,” Malibu Media

argues that in its experience, the infringer

is almost always the subscriber, but if the

Doe defendant is innocent, then he or she

will usually know the actual infringer. To this

end, the complaint attaches a form labeled

“Exculpatory Evidence Request” 3 which can

be used in conjunction with Exhibit C to help

identify the infringing party. This is simply

an additional form of coercion. The subscriber

might attempt to shift blame to someone else,

but the subscriber would still feel substantial

pressure to accept the blame, especially if the

actual infringer is a family member or other

close relation. Either way, the choice between

outing yourself or one of your relatives as an

alleged connoisseur of extreme pornography

isn't a very appealing scenario. Moreover, if

the subscriber argues that a neighbor or other

third-party gained access through a hacked or

unsecured WI–FI connection, the subscriber

still must consider the possibility that Malibu

Media will forge ahead with its complaint in

any event.

*4 Finally, the entirety of Malibu Media's

litigation conduct strongly suggests that

Exhibit C was filed for an improper purpose.

According to a PACER search, Malibu Media

has filed over a thousand cases thus far in

2013. 4 The Court doubts that Malibu Media

has the resources to fully litigate even a fraction

of this amount of cases. Malibu Media has

the legal right to enforce its copyrights, but

the sheer number of lawsuits corroborates

the Court's belief that Exhibit C was being

filed to coerce quick and early settlements.

Malibu Media explains that at the beginning

of 2013, it stopped suing people in joined

suits and began to sue defendants on an

individual basis. Malibu Media portrays this as

a voluntary decision to focus on “persistent online infringers,” but in reality, Malibu Media

was forced to pursue individual defendants

because courts began rejecting its attempts

to prosecute “same-swarm joined” 5 cases

against multiple defendants. See, e.g., Malibu

Media, LLC v. John Does 1–23, 878 F.Supp.2d

628 (E.D.Va.2012); Malibu Media, LLC v.

Doe, 923 F.Supp.2d 1339 (M.D.Fla.2013).

As one court observed, by “requiring Malibu

to file separate lawsuits for each of the

Doe Defendants, Malibu will have to expend

additional resources to obtain a nuisance-value

settlement—making this type of litigation less

profitable. If Malibu desires to vindicate its

copyright rights, it must do it the old-fashioned

way and earn it.” Malibu Media, LLC v. John

Does 1 through 10, 2012 WL 5382304, at

*4 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2012); see also In re

BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement

Cases, 2012 WL 1570765 at *13 (“In the

four cases before this Court, plaintiffs have

improperly avoided more than $25,000 in

filing fees by employing its swarm joinder

theory”). Thus, the widespread use of Exhibit

C can be viewed as a concerted attempt to

recoup some of the efficiency that was lost

when courts started rejecting Malibu Media's

attempts to pursue multi-defendant lawsuits.

Whatever the reason, these types of cases

are already infected with the potential for

abuse, and Malibu Media doubled-down by

threatening to publicly associate infringers

with extreme pornographic works having no

relevance to its own copyrights. Malibu Media

and its counsel should not be allowed to abuse

the legal system in this manner without being

called to account for it.

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 18 of 60 Pg ID 112
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, Slip Copy (2013)

 © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5

As a last resort, Malibu Media argues that

neither it nor its counsel should be sanctioned

because it has taken corrective action by

moving to seal Exhibit C in previously-filed

cases, and also because it has instructed counsel

nationwide to never file Exhibit C with a

complaint again. Given that there is no “safe

harbor” provision when a Court acts on its

own initiative under Rule 11(c)(3), “corrective

action ... should be taken into account in

deciding what—if any—sanction to impose if,

after consideration of the litigant's response, the

court concludes that a violation has occurred.”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 Advisory Committee Notes

(1993). However, the Court also considers

whether “the improper conduct ... was part

of a pattern of activity” or whether “the

person has engaged in similar conduct in

other litigation.” Obviously, the use of Exhibit

C is (or was) part of an overall pattern of

abusive litigation practices. Malibu Media is

a sophisticated litigant, so it should not be

allowed to avoid sanctions simply by adapting

its tactics after being questioned by multiple

federal judges. Moreover, the ultimate goal of

Rule 11 sanctions is deterrence. Fed.R.Civ.P.

11(c)(4). The sanction imposed by Judge

Conley achieved a measure of deterrence;

further sanctions are warranted as a way

of supplementing and reinforcing the initial

deterrent effect. Accordingly, the sanction here

will be the same as before Judge Conley: $200

per case, for a total of $600.

*5 NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE

FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

THAT:

1. EFF's motions for leave to file a brief amicus

curiae in support of sanctions [ECF No. 26 in

Case No. 13–C–536, ECF No. 20 in Case No.

13–C–544, and ECF No. 14 in Case No. 13–C–

779] are GRANTED;

2. Malibu Media's motions to seal Exhibit C to

the complaints [ECF No. 19 in Case No. 13–

C–536, ECF No. 14 in Case No. 13–C–544,

and ECF No. 9 in Case No. 13–C–779] are

DENIED as moot;

3. Malibu Media's motions for leave to file its

response to the Court's Order to show cause

under seal [ECF No. 22 in Case No. 13–

C–536, ECF No. 18 in Case No. 13–C–544,

and ECF No. 12 in Case No. 13–C–779] are

GRANTED; and

4. Counsel for Malibu Media is sanctioned

$200 in each of the above-captioned cases for a

total of $600, to be paid to the Clerk of Court.

Footnotes

1 Compare, “A Girls Fantasy” with “Cute innocent Japanese girl ... helpless body” (Case No. 13–C–536); “Red

Satin” with “18XGirls ... Takes On Two ...” (Case No. 13–C–544); and “First Love” with “....Amber.VS.Nikki.Sexx. ...

Challenge.ImmoralLive” (Case No. 13–C–779).

2 Response to the Order to Show Case, Ex. E, Declaration of Colette Field, ¶ 4.

3 This form includes the following entries: “1. List all authorized users (including household members) of any IP Address

assigned to the Defendant; ... 5. What is the distance from the Defendant's residence to the closest neighbor? _____

Yards; ... 9. Has the Defendant and/or Authorized Users as listed in # 1 above ever visited a streaming media site

containing unauthorized copies of Plaintiff's works?” Case No. 13–C–536, ECF No. 1–4.

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 19 of 60 Pg ID 113
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, Slip Copy (2013)

 © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6

4 On December 12, 2013, a search for “All Court Types Party Search Name malibu media filed on or after 01/01/2013 All

Courts” showed 1,115 records found.

5 “BitTorrent works by breaking files into many smaller files ‘to reduce the load on the source computer, rather than

downloading a file from a single source computer (one computer directly connected to another), [and] allows users to

join a ‘swarm’ of host computers to download and upload from each other simultaneously (one computer connected to

numerous computers).” In re BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement Cases, ––– F.R.D. ––––, 2012 WL 1570765,

at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 24, 2012).

End of Document © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 20 of 60 Pg ID 114
EXHIBIT 

3 

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 21 of 60 Pg ID 115
2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 22 of 60 Pg ID 116 2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 8-1 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 57
2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 23 of 60 Pg ID 117 2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 8-1 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 58
2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 24 of 60 Pg ID 118 2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 8-1 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 59
2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 25 of 60 Pg ID 119 2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 8-1 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 60
2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 26 of 60 Pg ID 120 2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 8-1 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 61
2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 27 of 60 Pg ID 121 2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 8-1 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 62
2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 28 of 60 Pg ID 122 2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 8-1 Filed 03/03/15 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 63
EXHIBIT 

3 

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 29 of 60 Pg ID 123
Select A Case

Malibu Media LLC is a plaintiff in 152 cases.

1:13­cv­12178­

TLL­CEB

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 24.247.208.185

filed 05/15/13 closed 05/22/14

1:13­cv­13482­

TLL­CEB

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 107.5.44.126

filed 08/14/13 closed 12/05/13

1:13­cv­13932­

TLL­CEB

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 66.188.46.228

filed 09/13/13 closed 11/25/13

1:13­cv­14012­

TLL­CEB

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 97.86.83.214

filed 09/19/13 closed 11/25/13

1:13­cv­14014­

TLL­CEB

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 97.87.26.66

filed 09/19/13 closed 10/17/13

2:12­cv­12584­

SFC­LJM

Malibu Media LLC v. Does 1­46 filed 06/14/12 closed 01/03/13

2:12­cv­12586­

PJD­MJH

Malibu Media, LLC. v. Does, filed 06/14/12 closed 05/02/13

2:12­cv­12587­

DPH­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1­9 filed 06/14/12 closed 06/28/13

2:12­cv­12591­

SJM­PJK

Malibu Media LLC v. Does 1­10 filed 06/14/12 closed 02/04/13

2:12­cv­12593­

SJM­MAR

Malibu Media LLC v. Does, et al filed 06/14/12 closed 02/04/13

2:12­cv­12597­

BAF­MJH

Malibu Media LLC v. Does 1­43 filed 06/14/12 closed 04/11/13

2:12­cv­13311­ Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe filed 07/26/12 closed 11/27/12

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 30 of 60 Pg ID 124
LPZ­MAR

2:12­cv­13312­

DPH­MJH

Malibu Media LLC v. John Does filed 07/26/12 closed 12/27/13

2:12­cv­13667­

GCS­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1­15 filed 08/18/12 closed 03/05/13

2:12­cv­13669­

LPZ­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1­38 filed 08/19/12 closed 11/27/12

2:12­cv­13887­

PDB­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. Vancamp filed 09/01/12 closed 11/26/12

2:12­cv­14105­

VAR­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1­42 filed 09/14/12 closed 05/07/13

2:13­cv­10508­

PDB­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe filed 02/07/13 closed 04/18/13

2:13­cv­10510­

DPH­MJH

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe filed 02/07/13 closed 01/22/14

2:13­cv­10511­

AJT­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC. v. John Doe filed 02/07/13 closed 01/14/14

2:13­cv­10512­

JAC­LJM

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe filed 02/07/13 closed 03/05/14

2:13­cv­10513­

JAC­MAR

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe filed 02/07/13 closed 09/22/14

2:13­cv­10514­

NGE­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe filed 02/07/13 closed 07/31/13

2:13­cv­10515­

VAR­PJK

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe filed 02/07/13 closed 11/26/13

2:13­cv­10516­

DML­PJK Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe filed 02/07/13 closed 11/26/13

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 31 of 60 Pg ID 125
2:13­cv­11395­

AJT­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 173.15.247.73

filed 03/28/13 closed 05/30/13

2:13­cv­11399­

PDB­MJH

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe, Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 50.4.167.195

filed 03/28/13 closed 06/10/13

2:13­cv­11400­

VAR­PJK

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe, Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 67.149.149.208

filed 03/28/13 closed 06/11/13

2:13­cv­11402­

BAF­MJH

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe, Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 67.149.60.242

filed 03/28/13 closed 06/10/13

2:13­cv­11403­

PDB­MJH

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 67.149.93.128

filed 03/28/13 closed 05/08/13

2:13­cv­11404­

VAR­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 68.40.72.69

filed 03/28/13 closed 03/19/14

2:13­cv­11406­

GCS­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 68.42.169.117

filed 03/29/13 closed 06/10/13

2:13­cv­11408­

AC­MJH

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe Subcriber Assigned

IP Address 68.43.147.209

filed 03/29/13 closed 05/03/13

2:13­cv­11409­

RHC­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe Subcriber Assigned

IP Address 68.43.178.213

filed 03/29/13 closed 06/11/13

2:13­cv­11411­

JAC­LJM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe Subcriber Assigned

IP Address 68.43.250.236

filed 03/29/13 closed 06/13/13

2:13­cv­11415­

PDB­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 68.43.94.45

filed 03/29/13 closed 04/28/15

2:13­cv­11419­

DML­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 68.60.89.188

filed 03/29/13 closed 06/12/13

2:13­cv­11423­

JAC­MJH

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe, Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 71.205.144.142

filed 03/29/13 closed 06/13/13

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 32 of 60 Pg ID 126
2:13­cv­11425­

PDB­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 68.62.110.74

filed 03/29/13 closed 08/23/13

2:13­cv­11428­

SFC­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 68.62.73.143

filed 03/29/13 closed 07/29/13

2:13­cv­11430­

SFC­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe, Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 71.205.183.68

filed 03/29/13 closed 10/31/13

2:13­cv­11432­

GAD­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 69.244.145.197

filed 03/29/13 closed 07/24/14

2:13­cv­11434­

RHC­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 69.245.123.233

filed 03/29/13 closed 09/23/13

2:13­cv­11435­

RHC­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 71.13.57.174

filed 03/29/13 closed 10/17/13

2:13­cv­11436­

DML­MJH

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe, Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 71.238.169.163

filed 03/29/13 closed 07/08/14

2:13­cv­11438­

GAD­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe, Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 71.238.209.103

filed 03/29/13 closed 01/31/14

2:13­cv­11446­

AJT­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe, Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 75.133.49.188

filed 03/29/13 closed 01/14/14

2:13­cv­11450­

SJM­LJM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe, Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 97.85.60.65

filed 03/29/13 closed 03/26/14

2:13­cv­11458­

SFC­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 98.243.108.194

filed 03/29/13 closed 09/03/14

2:13­cv­12159­

NGE­PJK

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 107.5.193.35

filed 05/15/13 closed 10/03/13

2:13­cv­12164­

JAC­MAR

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 68.40.252.5

filed 05/15/13 closed 09/04/13

2:13­cv­12168­ Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

filed 05/15/13 closed 06/02/14

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 33 of 60 Pg ID 127
NGE­MAR IP address 24.11.27.159

2:13­cv­12169­

RHC­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 24.192.110.153

filed 05/15/13 closed 12/05/13

2:13­cv­12175­

AJT­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 24.231.185.185

filed 05/15/13 closed 01/13/14

2:13­cv­12176­

AJT­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 24.247.199.131

filed 05/15/13 closed 11/25/13

2:13­cv­12179­

DML­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 50.4.164.163

filed 05/15/13 closed 03/25/14

2:13­cv­12197­

GAD­PJK

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 67.149.158.6

filed 05/17/13 closed 08/05/14

2:13­cv­12198­

PDB­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 67.149.89.224

filed 05/17/13 closed 02/27/14

2:13­cv­12200­

GER­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 68.40.123.7

filed 05/17/13 closed 10/24/13

2:13­cv­12201­

DPH­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 68.40.46.12

filed 05/17/13 closed 12/27/13

2:13­cv­12202­

PDB­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 68.43.35.2

filed 05/17/13 closed 09/17/13

2:13­cv­12204­

GAD­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 68.41.170.197

filed 05/17/13 closed 08/26/13

2:13­cv­12206­

DPH­LJM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 68.41.19.221

filed 05/17/13 closed 08/27/13

2:13­cv­12208­

MOB­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 68.41.86.4

filed 05/17/13 closed 09/30/13

2:13­cv­12209­

SJM­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 68.42.172.154 filed 05/17/13 closed 10/03/13

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 34 of 60 Pg ID 128
2:13­cv­12210­

RHC­MJH

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 68.42.185.159

filed 05/17/13 closed 10/24/13

2:13­cv­12213­

SFC­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 68.43.4.96

filed 05/17/13 closed 12/02/13

2:13­cv­12214­

AJT­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 68.43.84.236

filed 05/17/13 closed 01/22/14

2:13­cv­12216­

PDB­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 68.60.140.87

filed 05/17/13 closed 08/05/13

2:13­cv­12217­

VAR­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 68.62.41.133

filed 05/17/13 closed 05/15/15

2:13­cv­12218­

NGE­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 69.14.181.108

filed 05/17/13 closed 03/12/14

2:13­cv­12220­

AJT­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 69.246.89.172

filed 05/17/13 closed 01/22/14

2:13­cv­12224­

SFC­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 71.227.1.206

filed 05/17/13 closed 03/11/14

2:13­cv­12228­

RHC­MAR

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 71.227.121.19

filed 05/17/13 closed 11/27/13

2:13­cv­12229­

BAF­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 71.227.20.227

filed 05/17/13 closed 12/26/13

2:13­cv­12230­

SFC­MJH

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 71.227.60.76

filed 05/17/13 closed 11/12/13

2:13­cv­12232­

DML­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 96.27.16.131

filed 05/17/13 closed 11/13/13

2:13­cv­12233­

NGE­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 98.250.184.53

filed 05/17/13 closed 10/04/13

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 35 of 60 Pg ID 129
2:13­cv­12234­

VAR­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 98.250.27.153

filed 05/17/13 closed 01/13/14

2:13­cv­13484­

VAR­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 107.5.56.236

filed 08/14/13 closed 11/06/13

2:13­cv­13486­

PJD­LJM

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE filed 08/14/13 closed 12/19/13

2:13­cv­13493­

MOB­MJH

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 24.23.70.34

filed 08/14/13 closed 10/09/13

2:13­cv­13506­

SFC­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.40.95.137

filed 08/15/13 closed 11/12/13

2:13­cv­13507­

PDB­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.41.196.169

filed 08/15/13 closed 10/22/13

2:13­cv­13513­

RHC­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 68.42.75.117

filed 08/15/13 closed 10/17/13

2:13­cv­13514­

LPZ­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 68.43.142.190

filed 08/15/13 closed 11/05/13

2:13­cv­13515­

MOB­LJM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 68.43.28.31

filed 08/15/13 closed 11/17/14

2:13­cv­13516­

SFC­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.43.83.10

filed 08/15/13 closed 03/21/14

2:13­cv­13524­

DPH­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 68.61.101.206

filed 08/16/13 closed 01/31/14

2:13­cv­13525­

DML­LJM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 69.246.123.91

filed 08/16/13 closed 11/13/13

2:13­cv­13527­

GCS­LJM

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 71.227.7.215

filed 08/16/13 closed 01/15/14

2:13­cv­13528­ Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

filed 08/16/13 closed 10/28/13

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 36 of 60 Pg ID 130
DML­MJH assigned IP address 71.238.18.139

2:13­cv­13533­

LPZ­LJM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 76.112.242.237

filed 08/16/13 closed 01/13/14

2:13­cv­13534­

SJM­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 76.112.250.217

filed 08/16/13 closed 09/22/14

2:13­cv­13535­

BAF­LJM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 76.112.97.202

filed 08/16/13 closed 12/09/14

2:13­cv­13536­

DML­MJH

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 98.209.89.207

filed 08/16/13 closed 11/26/13

2:13­cv­13538­

VAR­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 98.243.72.29

filed 08/16/13 closed 10/25/13

2:13­cv­13874­

AC­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 107.5.246.241

filed 09/11/13 closed 11/05/13

2:13­cv­13900­

DML­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 24.247.164.175

filed 09/12/13 closed 11/26/13

2:13­cv­13955­

BAF­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 66.227.253.129

filed 09/16/13 closed 11/26/13

2:13­cv­13958­

NGE­MAR

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.40.198.191

filed 09/17/13 closed 10/19/13

2:13­cv­13981­

DML­LJM

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.43.213.55

filed 09/17/13 closed 11/26/13

2:13­cv­13982­

SFC­MJH

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.43.255.198

filed 09/17/13 closed 06/09/14

2:13­cv­13984­

DPH­LJM

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 69.245.66.97

filed 09/17/13 closed 12/27/13

2:13­cv­13987­

GER­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 71.238.130.1 filed 09/17/13 closed 12/03/13

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 37 of 60 Pg ID 131
2:13­cv­13997­

GER­MAR

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 71.238.43.15

filed 09/18/13 closed 11/25/13

2:13­cv­13998­

PJD­MAR

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 76.112.100.46

filed 09/18/13 closed 11/25/13

2:13­cv­14000­

NGE­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 76.112.71.32

filed 09/18/13 closed 12/18/13

2:13­cv­14009­

AJT­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 76.20.168.170

filed 09/19/13 closed 01/22/14

2:13­cv­14011­

GCS­PJK

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 76.20.173.2

filed 09/19/13 closed 01/02/14

2:13­cv­14016­

AJT­MAR

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 98.209.20.39

filed 09/19/13 closed 01/22/14

2:13­cv­14035­

AC­MJH

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 98.250.117.76

filed 09/20/13 closed 11/27/13

2:13­cv­14037­

BAF­MAR

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 98.250.60.87

filed 09/20/13 closed 01/16/14

2:13­cv­14038­

DML­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 98.250.79.56

filed 09/20/13 closed 11/27/13

2:14­cv­14216­

SFC­MJH

MALIBU MEDIA LLC v. JOHN DOE

SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS

68.40.121.50

filed 11/03/14 closed 05/11/15

2:14­cv­14218­

AC­DRG

MALIBU MEDIA LLC v. JOHN DOE

SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS

68.42.92.140

filed 11/03/14 closed 12/01/14

2:14­cv­14220­

SJM­MJH

MALIBU MEDIA LLC v. JOHN DOE

SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS

68.42.93.130

filed 11/03/14 closed 05/20/15

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 38 of 60 Pg ID 132
2:14­cv­14221­

PDB­DRG

MALIBU MEDIA LLC v. JOHN DOE

SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS

68.43.11.252

filed 11/03/14 closed 01/09/15

2:14­cv­14222­

LJM­MKM

MALIBU MEDIA LLC v. JOHN DOE

SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS

68.62.47.228

filed 11/03/14 closed 06/01/15

2:14­cv­14231­

MAG­DRG

MALIBU MEDIA LLC v. JOHN DOE

SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS

69.244.164.104

filed 11/04/14 closed 01/26/15

2:14­cv­14237­

SJM­MJH

MALIBU MEDIA LLC v. JOHN DOE

SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS

69.245.90.238

filed 11/04/14 closed 06/23/15

2:14­cv­14238­

GER­DRG

MALIBU MEDIA LLC v. JOHN DOE

SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS

71.205.151.176

filed 11/04/14 closed 02/24/15

2:14­cv­14245­

GAD­DRG

MALIBU MEDIA LLC v. JOHN DOE

SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS

71.227.85.60

filed 11/04/14 closed 12/23/14

2:14­cv­14247­

MAG­RSW

MALIBU MEDIA LLC v. JOHN DOE

SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS

71.238.164.185

filed 11/04/14 closed 01/29/15

2:14­cv­14315­

VAR­RSW

MALIBU MEDIA LLC v. JOHN DOE

SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS

76.112.222.172

filed 11/10/14 closed 01/21/15

2:14­cv­14316­

SFC­RSW

MALIBU MEDIA LLC v. JOHN DOE

SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS

76.122.153.5

filed 11/10/14 closed 01/14/15

2:14­cv­14317­

AJT­MKM

MALIBU MEDIA LLC v. JOHN DOE

SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS

98.209.105.239

filed 11/10/14 closed 03/19/15

2:14­cv­14318­

BAF­RSW

MALIBU MEDIA LLC v. JOHN DOE

SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS

98.224.216.58

filed 11/10/14 closed 01/23/15

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 39 of 60 Pg ID 133
2:14­cv­14321­

DPH­MKM

MALIBU MEDIA LLC v. JOHN DOE

SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS

98.243.135.209

filed 11/10/14 closed 05/26/15

2:14­cv­14323­

GAD­MJH

MALIBU MEDIA LLC v. JOHN DOE

SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS

98.250.157.45

filed 11/10/14 closed 01/27/15

4:12­cv­12598­

GAD­LJM

Malibu Media LLC v. Does 1­28 filed 06/14/12 closed 03/18/13

4:12­cv­13668­

TGB­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOES 1­31 filed 08/19/12 closed 06/20/13

4:13­cv­10509­

TGB­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe filed 02/07/13 closed 09/13/13

4:13­cv­10517­

MAG­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe filed 02/07/13 closed 05/22/13

4:13­cv­11392­

MAG­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 107.5.142.185

filed 03/28/13 closed 07/30/13

4:13­cv­11401­

TGB­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe, Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 67.149.153.211

filed 03/28/13 closed 06/24/13

4:13­cv­11429­

MAG­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 69.136.155.160

filed 03/29/13 closed 04/30/13

4:13­cv­11454­

TGB­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe, Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 98.243.105.60

filed 03/29/13 closed 09/13/13

4:13­cv­12161­

MAG­MKM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 68.40.193.94

filed 05/15/13 closed 07/24/14

4:13­cv­12215­

TGB­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 68.43.60.150

filed 05/17/13 closed 07/02/13

4:13­cv­12231­

MAG­MAR

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned

IP address 71.238.205.92

filed 05/17/13 closed 07/02/13

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 40 of 60 Pg ID 134
4:13­cv­13508­

TGB­MJH

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.41.74.157

filed 08/15/13 closed 03/21/14

4:13­cv­13530­

TGB­MAR

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 71.238.78.240

filed 08/16/13 closed 10/24/13

4:13­cv­13979­

TGB­MJH

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.43.144.78

filed 09/17/13 closed 12/04/13

4:13­cv­13983­

MAG­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.43.61.118

filed 09/17/13 closed 12/03/13

4:13­cv­14010­

MAG­MJH

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 76.20.170.174

filed 09/19/13 closed 12/03/13

4:14­cv­14214­

LVP­MJH

MALIBU MEDIA LLC v. JOHN DOE

SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS

68.43.251.157

filed 11/03/14

4:14­cv­14248­

TGB­DRG

MALIBU MEDIA LLC v. JOHN DOE

SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS

71.238.60.73

filed 11/04/14 closed 02/12/15

5:13­cv­11398­

JCO­LJM

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe Subscriber

Assigned IP Address 24.11.193.234

filed 03/28/13 closed 06/11/13

5:13­cv­13526­

JCO­DRG

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 71.227.19.77

filed 08/16/13 closed 03/18/14

5:13­cv­13872­

JCO­MAR

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 107.5.147.193

filed 09/11/13 closed 03/23/14

5:13­cv­13974­

JCO­RSW

Malibu Media LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.41.69.110

filed 09/17/13 closed 03/23/14

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/23/2015 13:48:40

PACER

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 41 of 60 Pg ID 135
Select A Case

Malibu Media, LLC is a plaintiff in 108 cases.

2:14­cv­12409­

GCS­MKM

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 24.11.171.186

filed 06/20/14 closed 06/08/15

2:14­cv­12415­

SJM­DRG

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.32.94.253

filed 06/20/14 closed 08/08/14

2:14­cv­12424­

PDB­MJH

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.40.105.77

filed 06/20/14 closed 11/14/14

2:14­cv­12430­

NGE­MKM

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.40.40.150

filed 06/21/14 closed 07/14/14

2:14­cv­12432­

RHC­RSW

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.40.60.23

filed 06/21/14 closed 05/22/15

2:14­cv­12433­

GCS­MJH

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.60.177.186

filed 06/21/14 closed 08/07/14

2:14­cv­12434­

RHC­MKM

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.60.32.205

filed 06/22/14 closed 11/17/14

2:14­cv­12457­

MFL­MJH

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 71.205.225.84

filed 06/24/14 closed 10/28/14

2:14­cv­12459­

BAF­DRG

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 76.122.149.155

filed 06/24/14 closed 09/04/14

2:14­cv­12460­

AC­DRG

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 98.209.117.179

filed 06/24/14 closed 03/25/15

2:14­cv­12461­

RHC­MKM

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 98.209.118.88

filed 06/24/14 closed 09/05/14

2:14­cv­12462­ MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

filed 06/24/14 closed 09/09/14

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 42 of 60 Pg ID 136
GAD­MJH assigned IP address 98.209.119.139

2:14­cv­12464­

MFL­DRG

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 98.209.128.196

filed 06/24/14 closed 08/07/14

2:14­cv­12468­

AC­RSW

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 98.209.130.92

filed 06/24/14 closed 08/28/14

2:14­cv­12470­

BAF­RSW

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 98.209.213.28

filed 06/24/14 closed 10/16/14

2:14­cv­12473­

SJM­DRG

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 98.243.38.145

filed 06/24/14 closed 12/03/14

2:14­cv­12474­

PJD­MJH

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 98.250.104.55

filed 06/24/14 closed 09/04/14

2:14­cv­12475­

DML­RSW

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 98.250.200.227

filed 06/24/14 closed 07/31/14

2:15­cv­10267­

MFL­APP

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 107.5.249.77

filed 01/22/15 closed 06/08/15

2:15­cv­10274­

NGE­EAS

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 24.11.220.117,

filed 01/22/15

2:15­cv­10275­

VAR­MKM

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 24.11.89.175,

filed 01/22/15 closed 05/12/15

2:15­cv­10276­

SFC­DRG

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.40.231.48

filed 01/22/15 closed 05/08/15

2:15­cv­10277­

MOB­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.40.32.210

filed 01/22/15 closed 03/11/15

2:15­cv­10279­

DPH­MJH

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.41.154.29

filed 01/22/15

2:15­cv­10280­

NGE­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.41.176.148 filed 01/22/15 closed 04/07/15

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 43 of 60 Pg ID 137
2:15­cv­10281­

SJM­EAS

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.43.211.80

filed 01/22/15 closed 04/08/15

2:15­cv­10282­

GCS­APP

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.60.191.170

filed 01/22/15

2:15­cv­10283­

MFL­DRG

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.60.65.217

filed 01/22/15 closed 02/09/15

2:15­cv­10284­

DPH­APP

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.61.154.40

filed 01/22/15 closed 04/30/15

2:15­cv­10285­

LJM­DRG

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 69.136.133.109

filed 01/22/15

2:15­cv­10286­

AC­EAS

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 69.136.133.161

filed 01/22/15 closed 02/24/15

2:15­cv­10298­

GER­APP

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 69.137.208.59

filed 01/23/15

2:15­cv­10299­

VAR­APP

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 69.245.82.91

filed 01/23/15

2:15­cv­10304­

GCS­MKM

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 71.205.189.172

filed 01/23/15 closed 03/26/15

2:15­cv­10305­

RHC­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 71.205.47.212

filed 01/23/15

2:15­cv­10306­

DML­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 71.238.28.102

filed 01/23/15 closed 03/24/15

2:15­cv­10307­

AC­DRG

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 71.238.55.56

filed 01/23/15 closed 06/08/15

2:15­cv­10308­

AC­DRG

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 76.112.19.190

filed 01/23/15 closed 02/06/15

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 44 of 60 Pg ID 138
2:15­cv­10310­

MAG­EAS

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 76.112.191.249

filed 01/23/15 closed 03/05/15

2:15­cv­10312­

DPH­MKM

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 76.112.215.178

filed 01/23/15

2:15­cv­10315­

BAF­MKM

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 76.20.142.32

filed 01/23/15

2:15­cv­10317­

LJM­MKM

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 98.224.249.176

filed 01/23/15 closed 05/06/15

2:15­cv­10318­

AJT­DRG

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 98.243.33.250

filed 01/23/15

2:15­cv­10319­

DML­MJH

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 98.243.83.99

filed 01/23/15 closed 03/24/15

2:15­cv­10327­

GER­DRG

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 98.250.164.192

filed 01/26/15

2:15­cv­11138­

BAF­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 107.5.162.183

filed 03/26/15

2:15­cv­11140­

RHC­DRG

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 107.5.220.99

filed 03/26/15 closed 05/26/15

2:15­cv­11141­

LJM­MKM

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.32.94.38

filed 03/26/15 closed 05/06/15

2:15­cv­11142­

RHC­DRG

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.40.166.187

filed 03/26/15

2:15­cv­11143­

LJM­DRG

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.40.222.35

filed 03/26/15

2:15­cv­11144­

GER­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.40.255.35

filed 03/26/15

2:15­cv­11145­

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 45 of 60 Pg ID 139
AC­DRG Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE filed 03/26/15 closed 05/21/15

2:15­cv­11146­

BAF­MKM

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE filed 03/26/15

2:15­cv­11147­

LJM­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE filed 03/26/15 closed 06/03/15

2:15­cv­11148­

RHC­EAS

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.43.146.163

filed 03/26/15

2:15­cv­11149­

DPH­EAS

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.43.194.12

filed 03/26/15

2:15­cv­11150­

RHC­MKM

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.43.30.125

filed 03/26/15

2:15­cv­11152­

SFC­APP

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.60.65.49

filed 03/26/15 closed 04/23/15

2:15­cv­11178­

MAG­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 69.244.170.26

filed 03/28/15

2:15­cv­11179­

SJM­MKM

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 69.245.81.200

filed 03/28/15

2:15­cv­11180­

AC­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 69.246.52.4

filed 03/28/15 closed 06/08/15

2:15­cv­11181­

PDB­MKM

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 71.238.112.150

filed 03/28/15

2:15­cv­11183­

SFC­APP

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 71.238.162.164

filed 03/28/15

2:15­cv­11184­

AJT­EAS

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 71.238.81.53

filed 03/28/15

2:15­cv­11186­

GER­APP

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 73.161.173.32 filed 03/28/15

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 46 of 60 Pg ID 140
2:15­cv­11187­

MOB­MJH

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 73.161.51.223

filed 03/28/15

2:15­cv­11188­

MOB­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 73.161.63.135

filed 03/28/15

2:15­cv­11189­

GCS­APP

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 73.191.167.32

filed 03/28/15 closed 04/20/15

2:15­cv­11190­

RHC­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 76.112.199.177

filed 03/28/15 closed 06/09/15

2:15­cv­11191­

SFC­MKM

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 98.250.10.10

filed 03/28/15 closed 06/02/15

2:15­cv­11192­

BAF­MKM

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 98.250.172.117

filed 03/28/15 closed 05/11/15

2:15­cv­11494­

SFC­EAS

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.36.88.66

filed 04/25/15

2:15­cv­11496­

VAR­MKM

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.41.54.108

filed 04/25/15

2:15­cv­11498­

LJM­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.62.31.2

filed 04/25/15

2:15­cv­11499­

BAF­MJH

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 69.245.115.6

filed 04/25/15

2:15­cv­11500­

SJM­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 73.161.75.204

filed 04/25/15

2:15­cv­11501­

GCS­APP

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 76.112.1.252

filed 04/25/15

2:15­cv­11503­

PDB­MKM

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 98.209.212.2

filed 04/25/15 closed 06/02/15

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 47 of 60 Pg ID 141
2:15­cv­11504­

NGE­MKM

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 98.224.235.202

filed 04/25/15

2:15­cv­11505­

VAR­EAS

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 98.250.194.70

filed 04/25/15 closed 06/19/15

2:15­cv­11506­

AC­DRG

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 98.250.234.133

filed 04/25/15

2:15­cv­12085­

BAF­APP

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 50.133.53.198

filed 06/09/15

2:15­cv­12087­

NGE­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.36.188.83

filed 06/09/15

2:15­cv­12088­

AC­EAS

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.37.205.37

filed 06/09/15

2:15­cv­12090­

SJM­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.41.97.221

filed 06/09/15

2:15­cv­12092­

RHC­MJH

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.56.145.75

filed 06/09/15

2:15­cv­12094­

AJT­MKM

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.58.196.166

filed 06/09/15

2:15­cv­12098­

AJT­MKM

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 73.161.78.80

filed 06/09/15

2:15­cv­12102­

GCS­MJH

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 73.191.193.79

filed 06/09/15

2:15­cv­12103­

MFL­EAS

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 76.112.9.228

filed 06/09/15

4:14­cv­12412­

LVP­MJH

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 24.11.94.45

filed 06/20/14 closed 08/22/14

4:14­cv­12465­ MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 48 of 60 Pg ID 142
TGB­DRG assigned IP address 98.209.130.247 filed 06/24/14 closed 09/15/14

4:15­cv­10316­

LVP­APP

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 98.209.144.30

filed 01/23/15

4:15­cv­10328­

TGB­DRG

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 98.250.24.56

filed 01/26/15 closed 02/26/15

4:15­cv­11495­

LVP­APP

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.41.220.174

filed 04/25/15

4:15­cv­11497­

TGB­APP

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.61.117.223

filed 04/25/15 closed 06/02/15

4:15­cv­11502­

TGB­APP

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 98.209.124.170

filed 04/25/15

4:15­cv­12089­

TGB­DRG

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.37.217.182

filed 06/09/15

4:15­cv­12096­

LVP­DRG

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.60.180.205

filed 06/09/15

5:14­cv­12431­

JEL­DRG

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 68.40.58.17

filed 06/21/14 closed 05/13/15

5:14­cv­12458­

JCO­PJK

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 71.238.22.46

filed 06/24/14 closed 07/16/14

5:14­cv­12471­

JCO­RSW

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 98.243.118.0

filed 06/24/14 closed 12/17/14

5:15­cv­10278­

JEL­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 68.40.60.2

filed 01/22/15 closed 03/23/15

5:15­cv­11139­

JCO­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 107.5.212.218

filed 03/26/15

5:15­cv­11182­

JEL­MKM

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 71.238.141.44 filed 03/28/15 closed 04/27/15

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 49 of 60 Pg ID 143
5:15­cv­11185­

JCO­DRG

Malibu Media, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber

assigned IP address 71.238.91.228

filed 03/28/15

5:15­cv­12099­

JEL­APP

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 73.18.209.252

filed 06/09/15

5:15­cv­12100­

JCO­RSW

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber

assigned IP address 73.191.162.188

filed 06/09/15

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/23/2015 13:45:30

PACER

Login:

mk3650:3857578:0 Client Code:

Description: Search

Search

Criteria:

Last Name: Malibu

Media

Billable

Pages:

5 Cost: 0.50

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 50 of 60 Pg ID 144
EXHIBIT 

4 

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 51 of 60 Pg ID 145
1

R.J. Cronkhite

From: R.J. Cronkhite

Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 1:18 PM

To: 'Paul Nicoletti'

Subject: Stipulation elements

Paul,

Filing the summons under seal is fine, so long as we do it as part of a stipulation that:

1. Acknowledges that defendant’s counsel will provide plaintiff’s counsel, in strict confidence, w/ defendant’s

name and address;

2. Dismisses the notice to reveal defendant’s identity, w/ prejudice;

3. Bars further notices to reveal defendant’s identity.

We can either enter into a separate protective order or incorporate PO provisions into the stipulation (I can add these,

or you can).

After stipulation is entered, you can then send me a waiver of service.

Regards,

R.J. Cronkhite 

Associate Attorney 

The Mike Cox Law Firm, PLLC 

17430 Laurel Park Drive North, Suite 120 E 

Livonia, MI 48152 

734-591-4002 (o) 

734-558-5809 (c) 

734-591-4006 (f) 

Confidentiality Notice: This electronic message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications 

Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2521, and contains information from The Mike Cox Law Firm, PLLC which may be 

confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This information is intended for the use of the 

addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, 

printing or any other use of, or any action in reliance on the contents of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you 

have received this communication in error, please notify us by telephone at (734) 591-4002 and delete the original 

message. 

IRS Circular 230 Notice: Federal tax advice, if any, contained in this document and its attachments may not be used or 

referred to in the promoting, marketing or recommending of any entity, investment plan or arrangement, nor is the advice 

intended or written to be used, and may not be used, by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding Federal tax penalties. 

Electronic Signature: Nothing contained in this communication is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a 

specific statement to the contrary is included in this message. 

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 52 of 60 Pg ID 146
1

R.J. Cronkhite

From: R.J. Cronkhite

Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 1:16 PM

To: 'Paul Nicoletti'

Subject: stipulation status

Paul,

I gave you a call to discuss a moment ago.   

I’m assuming the below is fine.  When do you think you can send me a stipulation?

Regards,

R.J. Cronkhite 

Associate Attorney 

The Mike Cox Law Firm, PLLC 

17430 Laurel Park Drive North, Suite 120 E 

Livonia, MI 48152 

734-591-4002 (o) 

734-558-5809 (c) 

734-591-4006 (f) 

Confidentiality Notice: This electronic message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications 

Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2521, and contains information from The Mike Cox Law Firm, PLLC which may be 

confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This information is intended for the use of the 

addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, 

printing or any other use of, or any action in reliance on the contents of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you 

have received this communication in error, please notify us by telephone at (734) 591-4002 and delete the original 

message. 

IRS Circular 230 Notice: Federal tax advice, if any, contained in this document and its attachments may not be used or 

referred to in the promoting, marketing or recommending of any entity, investment plan or arrangement, nor is the advice 

intended or written to be used, and may not be used, by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding Federal tax penalties. 

Electronic Signature: Nothing contained in this communication is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a 

specific statement to the contrary is included in this message. 

From: R.J. Cronkhite 

Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 1:18 PM 

To: 'Paul Nicoletti' 

Subject: Stipulation elements 

Paul,

Filing the summons under seal is fine, so long as we do it as part of a stipulation that:

1. Acknowledges that defendant’s counsel will provide plaintiff’s counsel, in strict confidence, w/ defendant’s

name and address;

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 53 of 60 Pg ID 147
2

2. Dismisses the notice to reveal defendant’s identity, w/ prejudice;

3. Bars further notices to reveal defendant’s identity.

We can either enter into a separate protective order or incorporate PO provisions into the stipulation (I can add these,

or you can).

After stipulation is entered, you can then send me a waiver of service.

Regards,

R.J. Cronkhite 

Associate Attorney 

The Mike Cox Law Firm, PLLC 

17430 Laurel Park Drive North, Suite 120 E 

Livonia, MI 48152 

734-591-4002 (o) 

734-558-5809 (c) 

734-591-4006 (f) 

Confidentiality Notice: This electronic message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications 

Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2521, and contains information from The Mike Cox Law Firm, PLLC which may be 

confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This information is intended for the use of the 

addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, 

printing or any other use of, or any action in reliance on the contents of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you 

have received this communication in error, please notify us by telephone at (734) 591-4002 and delete the original 

message. 

IRS Circular 230 Notice: Federal tax advice, if any, contained in this document and its attachments may not be used or 

referred to in the promoting, marketing or recommending of any entity, investment plan or arrangement, nor is the advice 

intended or written to be used, and may not be used, by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding Federal tax penalties. 

Electronic Signature: Nothing contained in this communication is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a 

specific statement to the contrary is included in this message. 

From: Paul Nicoletti [mailto:pauljnicoletti@gmail.com] 

Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 8:51 PM 

To: R.J. Cronkhite 

Subject: Re: Stipulation and revealing my client's identity for settlement purposes - Settlement Communication Pursuant 

to FRE 408 - Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 2:15-cv-10274 

RJ, thank you for your condolences. Your suggestion however does not provide for the issuance of a summons 

which can be filed under seal as well as the waiver. In other words, we still need to issue a summons and file 

the return despite the fact that your client is proceeding without being publicly named. Thoughts? 

Best Regards, 

NICOLETTI LAW, PLC

Paul Nicoletti (P-44419) 

33717 Woodward Avenue, Ste. #433 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

Landline: (248) 203-7800 

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 54 of 60 Pg ID 148
1

R.J. Cronkhite

From: R.J. Cronkhite

Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 7:42 PM

To: Paul J. Nicoletti (pauljnicoletti@gmail.com)

Subject: Proposed Protective Order

Paul,

Hope your email is up and operational.

When you have time, please email me a Word version of your protective order; I want to incorporate it directly within

the stipulation we discussed and return for your review and approval.

Regards,

R.J. Cronkhite 

Associate Attorney 

The Mike Cox Law Firm, PLLC 

17430 Laurel Park Drive North, Suite 120 E 

Livonia, MI 48152 

734-591-4002 (o) 

734-558-5809 (c) 

734-591-4006 (f) 

Confidentiality Notice: This electronic message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications 

Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2521, and contains information from The Mike Cox Law Firm, PLLC which may be 

confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This information is intended for the use of the 

addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, 

printing or any other use of, or any action in reliance on the contents of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you 

have received this communication in error, please notify us by telephone at (734) 591-4002 and delete the original 

message. 

IRS Circular 230 Notice: Federal tax advice, if any, contained in this document and its attachments may not be used or 

referred to in the promoting, marketing or recommending of any entity, investment plan or arrangement, nor is the advice 

intended or written to be used, and may not be used, by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding Federal tax penalties. 

Electronic Signature: Nothing contained in this communication is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a 

specific statement to the contrary is included in this message. 

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 55 of 60 Pg ID 149
1

R.J. Cronkhite

From: R.J. Cronkhite

Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 2:38 PM

To: Paul J. Nicoletti (pauljnicoletti@gmail.com)

Subject: Request for Proposed Protective Order

Paul,

Could you please provide me with the draft protective order that we discussed yesterday?

Thanks.

R.J. Cronkhite 

Associate Attorney 

The Mike Cox Law Firm, PLLC 

17430 Laurel Park Drive North, Suite 120 E 

Livonia, MI 48152 

734-591-4002 (o) 

734-558-5809 (c) 

734-591-4006 (f) 

Confidentiality Notice: This electronic message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications 

Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2521, and contains information from The Mike Cox Law Firm, PLLC which may be 

confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This information is intended for the use of the 

addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, 

printing or any other use of, or any action in reliance on the contents of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you 

have received this communication in error, please notify us by telephone at (734) 591-4002 and delete the original 

message. 

IRS Circular 230 Notice: Federal tax advice, if any, contained in this document and its attachments may not be used or 

referred to in the promoting, marketing or recommending of any entity, investment plan or arrangement, nor is the advice 

intended or written to be used, and may not be used, by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding Federal tax penalties. 

Electronic Signature: Nothing contained in this communication is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a 

specific statement to the contrary is included in this message. 

From: R.J. Cronkhite 

Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 7:42 PM 

To: Paul J. Nicoletti (pauljnicoletti@gmail.com) 

Subject: Proposed Protective Order 

Paul,

Hope your email is up and operational.

When you have time, please email me a Word version of your protective order; I want to incorporate it directly within

the stipulation we discussed and return for your review and approval.

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 56 of 60 Pg ID 150
1

R.J. Cronkhite

From: R.J. Cronkhite

Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 11:50 AM

To: Paul J. Nicoletti (pauljnicoletti@gmail.com)

Subject: RE: Request for Proposed Protective Order

Paul,

I’ve drafted my portion of the stipulation.  Please send me the protective order.

Thanks.

R.J. Cronkhite 

Associate Attorney 

The Mike Cox Law Firm, PLLC 

17430 Laurel Park Drive North, Suite 120 E 

Livonia, MI 48152 

734-591-4002 (o) 

734-558-5809 (c) 

734-591-4006 (f) 

Confidentiality Notice: This electronic message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications 

Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2521, and contains information from The Mike Cox Law Firm, PLLC which may be 

confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This information is intended for the use of the 

addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, 

printing or any other use of, or any action in reliance on the contents of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you 

have received this communication in error, please notify us by telephone at (734) 591-4002 and delete the original 

message. 

IRS Circular 230 Notice: Federal tax advice, if any, contained in this document and its attachments may not be used or 

referred to in the promoting, marketing or recommending of any entity, investment plan or arrangement, nor is the advice 

intended or written to be used, and may not be used, by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding Federal tax penalties. 

Electronic Signature: Nothing contained in this communication is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a 

specific statement to the contrary is included in this message. 

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 57 of 60 Pg ID 151
1

R.J. Cronkhite

From: R.J. Cronkhite

Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 11:16 AM

To: Paul J. Nicoletti (pauljnicoletti@gmail.com)

Subject: Pending Stipulation

Paul,

I cannot wait much longer regarding the stipulation we’ve discussed.  If we cannot work out a stipulation today, I intend

to file a response to your motion and proceed to hearing.

Regards,

R.J. Cronkhite 

Associate Attorney 

The Mike Cox Law Firm, PLLC 

17430 Laurel Park Drive North, Suite 120 E 

Livonia, MI 48152 

734-591-4002 (o) 

734-558-5809 (c) 

734-591-4006 (f) 

Confidentiality Notice: This electronic message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications 

Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2521, and contains information from The Mike Cox Law Firm, PLLC which may be 

confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This information is intended for the use of the 

addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, 

printing or any other use of, or any action in reliance on the contents of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you 

have received this communication in error, please notify us by telephone at (734) 591-4002 and delete the original 

message. 

IRS Circular 230 Notice: Federal tax advice, if any, contained in this document and its attachments may not be used or 

referred to in the promoting, marketing or recommending of any entity, investment plan or arrangement, nor is the advice 

intended or written to be used, and may not be used, by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding Federal tax penalties. 

Electronic Signature: Nothing contained in this communication is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a 

specific statement to the contrary is included in this message. 

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 58 of 60 Pg ID 152
1

R.J. Cronkhite

From: R.J. Cronkhite

Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 5:44 PM

To: 'Paul Nicoletti'

Subject: deadline for stipulation and order - 6/23 noon 

Paul,

My response to your notice is, by court order, due Wednesday.  Unless we can wrap this stipulation up tomorrow by

noon, I’ll need to devote my time to finishing my response and won’t have time for the stipulation and order.

Please let me know whether I can sign your name to the stip and order and submit for entry, or provide me your

requested changes so I can make changes before noon tomorrow.

Thanks.

R.J. Cronkhite 

Associate Attorney 

The Mike Cox Law Firm, PLLC 

17430 Laurel Park Drive North, Suite 120 E 

Livonia, MI 48152 

734-591-4002 (o) 

734-558-5809 (c) 

734-591-4006 (f) 

Confidentiality Notice: This electronic message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications 

Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2521, and contains information from The Mike Cox Law Firm, PLLC which may be 

confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This information is intended for the use of the 

addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, 

printing or any other use of, or any action in reliance on the contents of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you 

have received this communication in error, please notify us by telephone at (734) 591-4002 and delete the original 

message. 

IRS Circular 230 Notice: Federal tax advice, if any, contained in this document and its attachments may not be used or 

referred to in the promoting, marketing or recommending of any entity, investment plan or arrangement, nor is the advice 

intended or written to be used, and may not be used, by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding Federal tax penalties. 

Electronic Signature: Nothing contained in this communication is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a 

specific statement to the contrary is included in this message. 

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 59 of 60 Pg ID 153
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 24, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing 

paper using the CM/ECF system, which automatically transmitted a Notice of 

Electronic Filing to all ECF registrants in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

The Mike Cox Law Firm, PLLC

/s/ R.J. Cronkhite

R.J. Cronkhite (P78374)

Attorneys for Defendant

17430 Laurel Park Drive North, Suite

120E Livonia, MI 48152

(734) 591-4002

rj@mikecoxlaw.com

2:15-cv-10274-NGE-EAS Doc # 21 Filed 06/24/15 Pg 60 of 60 Pg ID 154