- 25 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Poland, and the European Union, may have with respect to protecting its citizens’

personal data.

V. WANAT’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Having analyzed the applicable U.S. and foreign law above, the Special Master

will now apply the law to the specific discovery issues raised by the parties.

A. Request for Production No. 3:

REQUEST: Produce all correspondence between you and any person or entity related

to this lawsuit, including, but not limited to any correspondence with any persons

involved in the operation of EPorner and any third party vendor used by Eporner.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that the above request is overbroad,

vague, ambiguous, exceeds the scope of discovery and in violation of FRCP 34(b)(1)(a)

because AMA fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of

items to be inspected. Wanat also states that Request No. 3 calls for material that is

protected by attorney-client privilege, and its disclosure would subject him to undue

burden and hardship per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC; and, that

pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek the

requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague Convention

that Wanat contends would insulate him from liability for disclosing the requested

documents.

The Special Master sustains Wanat’s objection in part, because Request No. 3 is

overbroad, insomuch as it calls for correspondence that goes beyond the issue of

jurisdiction, which the Special Master concludes is relevant discovery. Furthermore,

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 56
- 26 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Request No. 3 shall be limited to correspondence that is dated prior to the filing of the

lawsuit. However, the Special Master denies Wanat’s objection, insomuch as Request

No. 3 seeks correspondence that is relevant to the issue of jurisdiction.

Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 3, to the extent that Wanat possesses

responsive correspondence relevant to the issue of jurisdiction, and dated prior to the

filing of the lawsuit. With regard to any claims of privilege, Wanat should assert any

privilege, if necessary, and comply with the requirements of FRCP 26(b)(5).

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 3 is vague, ambiguous and not stated with

reasonable particularity, are sustained in part, and denied in part, for the reasons stated

above.

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 3 subjects Wanat to undue burden and

hardship as provided by foreign law are denied. Due to the above analysis of

international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention, are not applicable in

this case.

B. Request for Production No. 15:

REQUEST: If you are not the registrant of the <eporner.com> domain name, produce

any and all documents related to communication between You and the registrant of the

<eporner.com> domain name from January 1, 2008 to the present.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that the above request is overbroad,

vague and ambiguous with regard to the term “related to communications between You

and the registrant of the <eporner.com>”, thus forcing Wanat to speculate the scope and

intended meaning of this Request, and that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 2 of 56
- 27 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

discovery of admissible evidence. Wanat also asserts that Request No. 15 exceeds the

scope of discovery, and that the time limitations imposed by Request No. 15 call for

information that cannot be related to the copyright infringement allegations that were

raised in the Complaint. Due to AMA’s request for “all documents” in Wanat’s

possession, Request No. 15 fails to describe with particularity each item or category of

items to be inspected in violation of FRCP 34(b)(1)(a). Also, according to Wanat,

Request No. 15 calls for correspondence whose disclosure would subject Wanat to

undue burden and hardship, because he contends this would expose him to civil and

criminal liability under Polish law, per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC;

and, that pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should

seek the requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague

Convention, which Wanat contends would insulate him from liability for disclosing the

requested documents.

The Special Master sustains Wanat’s objections, in part, because Request No. 15

is overbroad, insomuch as it calls for documents that go beyond the issue of jurisdiction,

which the Special Master concludes is relevant discovery. Furthermore, Request No. 15

shall be limited to documents related to communication between Wanat and the

registrant of the <eporner.com> domain name that is dated prior to the filing of the

lawsuit. However, the Special Master denies Wanat’s objections, insomuch as Request

No. 15 seeks documents that are relevant to the issue of jurisdiction.

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 3 of 56
- 28 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 15, to the extent that Wanat possesses

responsive documents related to communication relevant to the issue of jurisdiction, and

dated prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 15 is vague, ambiguous and not stated with

reasonable particularity, are sustained in part, and denied in part, for the reasons stated

above.

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 15 subjects Wanat to undue burden and

hardship, pursuant to foreign law, are denied. Due to the above analysis of international

comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention, are not applicable in this case.

C. Request for Production No. 16:

REQUEST: If you are not the operator of the EPorner website, produce any and all

documents related to communications between you and the operator of the EPorner

website from January 1, 2008 to the present.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that the above request is overbroad,

vague, ambiguous, with regard to the phrase “related to communications between You

and the operator of the Eporner website” forcing Wanat to speculate the scope and

meaning of this Request, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Wanat also asserts that Request No. 16 exceeds also the scope of

discovery. Wanat further claims that the time limitations imposed by this Request call

for information that cannot possibly be related to the copyrights infringement allegations

that were raised in the Complaint, as they concern the year 2015, while AMA’s Request

seeks information from 2008 onward. Wanat further asserts that to the extent AMA asks

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 4 of 56
- 29 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

for all documents in Wanat’s possession, this Request fails to describe with particularity

each item, or category of items, to be inspected in violation of FRCP 34(b)(1)(a). Wanat

also claims that Request No. 16 calls for correspondence, that if disclosed, would subject

Wanat to undue burden and hardship, because it would expose him to civil and criminal

liability under Polish law, per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC; and, that

pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek the

requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague Convention,

which Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the requested

documents.

The Special Master sustains Wanat’s objections in part, because Request No. 16

is overbroad, insomuch as it calls for documents related to communications that go

beyond the issue of jurisdiction, which the Special Master concludes is relevant

discovery. Furthermore, Request No. 16 shall be limited to all documents related to

communications between Wanat and the operator of the EPorner website that are dated

prior to the filing of the lawsuit. However, the Special Master denies Wanat’s

objections, insomuch as Request No. 16 seeks documents related to communications that

are relevant to the issue of jurisdiction.

Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 16, to the extent that Wanat possesses

responsive communications relevant to the issue of jurisdiction, and dated prior to the

filing of the lawsuit.

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 5 of 56
- 30 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 16 is vague, ambiguous and not stated with

reasonable particularity, are sustained in part, and denied in part, for the reasons stated

above.

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 16 subjects Wanat to undue burden and

hardship as provided by foreign law are denied. Due to the above analysis of

international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention, are not applicable in

this case.

D. Request for Production No. 17:

REQUEST: Produce all documents in your possession referencing or relating to AMA

and/or any of AMA's brands, including DeepThroatLove, TeenBFF, RealExGirlfriends,

18YearsOld, MassageCreep, PornPros, ShadyPi, MilfHumiliation, CrueltyParty,

Disgraced18, CumshotSurprise, 40ozBounce, JurassicCock, FreaksOfCock,

EuroHumpers, FreaksOfBoobs, CumDisgrace, CockCompetition, PimpParade,

SquirtDisgrace, POVD, Tiny4K, CastingCouch-X, Passion-HD, and FuckYouCash.com

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that he is not in possession of any of the

requested materials, and which he did not obtain in connection with Wanat’s function

and business activity, in relation to the business conducted between Wanat and his

business partner, who did not agree to disclose such information. Wanat claims that the

disclosure of such information would expose Wanat to civil and criminal liability

pursuant to Polish law, per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC; and, that

pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek the

requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague Convention,

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 6 of 56
- 31 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

which Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the requested

documents.

Wanat’s Objections to Request No. 17 are denied. The Special Master concludes

that the materials called for in Request No. 17 do not constitute business secrets pursuant

to the LUC and hence, disclosure would not subject Wanat to undue burden and

hardship. Moreover, since the PP and the Hague Convention do not apply in this case,

those objections are also denied.

E. Request for Production No. 18:

REQUEST: Produce a record of all domain names registered by you from January 2008

to the present.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that the above request is overbroad, and

not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The case

involves allegations of copyright infringements that occurred on <eporner.com.>

Whether Wanat has registered any other domains, from 2008 to present, has no bearing

on the instant action, especially on the issue of personal jurisdiction over Wanat.

The Special Master sustains Wanat’s objections in part, because Request No. 18

is overbroad, insomuch as it calls for a record of all domain names that goes beyond the

issue of jurisdiction, which the Special Master concludes is relevant discovery.

Furthermore, Request No. 18 shall be limited to such a record that is dated prior to the

filing of the lawsuit. However, the Special Master denies Wanat’s objection, insomuch

as Request No. 18 seeks record that is relevant to the issue of jurisdiction.

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 7 of 56
- 32 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 18, to the extent that Wanat possesses

a responsive record relevant to the issue of jurisdiction, and dated prior to the filing of

the lawsuit.

F. Request for Production No. 19:

REQUEST: Produce copies of all advertising agreements between the registrant and/or

operator(s) of the EPorner website and any other person or entity.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that the above request is overbroad, not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and exceeds the

scope of discovery. According to Wanat, Request No. 19 requests documents, that if

disclosed, would subject Wanat to undue burden and hardship, because it would expose

him to civil and criminal liability under Polish law, to the extent that the subject

agreements constitute business secrets within the meaning of the LUC, and their

disclosure would constitute violation of Art. 51.1 of the PDP. Wanat also asserts that the

agreements requested were transmitted to him under an assumed obligation in

connection with his function and business activity in relation to the operation of his

business, and thus, disclosure thereof would expose Wanat to liability pursuant to Polish

law, per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC; and, that pursuant to the Court’s

minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek the requested information

through alternative procedures, such as the Hague Convention, which Wanat claims

would insulate him from liability for disclosing the requested documents.

The Special Master sustains Wanat’s objections in part, because Request No. 19

is overbroad, insomuch as it calls for agreements that go beyond the issue of jurisdiction,

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 8 of 56
- 33 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

which the Special Master concludes is relevant discovery. Furthermore, Request No. 19

shall be limited to agreements that are dated prior to the filing of the lawsuit. However,

the Special Master denies Wanat’s objections, insomuch as Request No. 19 seeks

agreements that are relevant to the issue of jurisdiction.

As to the objection related to data privacy, the Special Master sustains the

objection, insomuch as Request No. 19 seeks advertising agreements that contain private

data, as defined by the PDP. Pursuant to the international comity analysis, Wanat may be

subject to criminal liability under the PDP, which would place an undue burden on

Wanat.

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 19 subjects Wanat to undue burden and

hardship as provided by foreign law are denied. Due to the above analysis of

international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention, are not applicable in

this case.

Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 19, to the extent that Wanat possesses

responsive advertising agreements between the registrant and/or operator(s) of the

EPorner website, and any other person or entity relevant to the issue of jurisdiction,

dated prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and that do not contain private data, as defined by

the PDP.

G. Request for Production No. 21:

REQUEST: Produce copies of all requests for removal of content on the EPorner

website, including but not limited to requests under 17 U.S.C. § 512, sent by any other

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 9 of 56
- 34 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

person or entity to the registrant and/or operator(s) of the EPorner website, and/or the

designated agent for receipt of such notices on behalf of the EPorner website.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that the above request is overbroad, not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and exceeds the

scope of discovery. Wanat also asserts that Request No. 21 requests documents, that if

disclosed, would subject him to undue burden and hardship, because it would expose

him to civil and criminal liability under Polish law, and to the extent that the subject

documents constitute business secrets within the meaning of the LUC, their disclosure

would constitute violation of Art. 51.1 of the PDP. Wanat also asserts that the

documents requested in Request No. 21 were transmitted to Wanat under an assumed

obligation in connection with his function and business activity in relation to the

operation of Wanat’s business, per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC; and,

that pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek

the requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague

Convention, which Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the

requested documents.

The Special Master sustains Wanat’s objections in part, because Request No. 21

is overbroad, insomuch as it calls for copies of all requests for removal of content on the

EPorner website that go beyond the issue of jurisdiction, which the Special Master

concludes is relevant discovery. Furthermore, Request No. 21 shall be limited to copies

of all requests for removal that are dated prior to the filing of the lawsuit. However, the

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 10 of 56
- 35 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Special Master denies Wanat’s objections, insomuch as Request No. 21 seeks documents

that are relevant to the issue of jurisdiction.

As to the objection related to data privacy, the Special Master sustains the

objection insomuch as Request No. 21 seeks copies of all requests for removal of

content on the EPorner website that contain private data, as defined by the PDP.

Pursuant to the international comity analysis, Wanat may be subject to criminal liability

as provided therein, which would place an undue burden on Wanat.

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 21 subjects Wanat to undue burden and

hardship as provided by the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention are denied. Due to

the above analysis of international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention,

are not applicable in this case.

Thus, Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 21, to the extent that Wanat

possesses copies of all requests for removal of content on the EPorner website, including

but not limited to, requests under 17 U.S.C. § 512, sent by any other person or entity to

the registrant and/or operator(s) of the EPorner website, and/or the designated agent for

receipt of such notices on behalf of the EPorner website relevant to the issue of

jurisdiction, dated prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and that do not contain private data,

as defined by the PDP.

H. Request for Production No. 22:

REQUEST: Produce all documents tending to show the identity(ies) or the uploader(s)

of the content on the EPorner website identified in Exhibit 7 to AMA's Motion for Ex

Parte Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 8-7).

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 11 of 56
- 36 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat assert that Request No. 22 calls for documents

that if disclosed would subject him to undue burden and hardship because it would

expose him to civil and criminal liability under Polish law, to the extent that the subject

documents constitute business secrets within the meaning of the LUC, and their

disclosure would constitute violation of Art. 51.1 of the PDP; and, that pursuant to the

Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek the requested

information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague Convention, which

Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the requested documents.

The Special Master sustains the objection insomuch as Request No. 22 seeks

identity(ies) or the uploader(s) of the content on the EPorner website that contain private

data, as defined by the PDP. Pursuant to the international comity analysis, Wanat may be

subject to criminal liability as provided therein, which would place an undue burden and

hardship on Wanat. Wanat’s objection with regard to the Hague Convention and the

LUC is denied. Due to the above analysis of international comity, the Hague Convention

and the LUC is not applicable in this case.

Thus, Wanat is ordered to Respond to Request No. 22, to the extent Wanat

possesses documents tending to show the identity(ies) or the uploader(s) of the content

on the EPorner website identified in Exhibit 7 to AMA's Motion for Ex Parte Temporary

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 8-7) that do not contain private data,

as defined by the PDP.

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 12 of 56
- 37 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I. Request for Production No. 25:

REQUEST: Produce all documents tending to show the existence and specifics of the

EPorner website's policy for termination of repeat copyright infringers pursuant to 17

U.S.C. § 512 (i).

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that Request No. 25 requests documents

that if disclosed would subject Wanat to undue burden and hardship, because it would

expose him to civil and criminal liability under Polish law, to the extent that the subject

documents constitute business secrets within the meaning of the LUC, and their

disclosure would constitute a violation of Art. 51.1 of the PDP. Wanat also asserted that

the documents called for in Request No. 25 were transmitted to him under an assumed

obligation in connection with his function and business activity in relation to the

operation of his business, per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC; and, that

pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek the

requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague Convention,

which Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the requested

documents.

The Special Master sustains the objections insomuch as Request No. 25 seeks

documents tending to show the existence, and specifics, of the EPorner website's policy

for termination of repeat copyright infringers pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512 (i) that contain

private data, as defined by the PDP. Pursuant to the international comity analysis, Wanat

may be subject to criminal liability as provided therein, which would place an undue

burden on Wanat. Wanat’s objections that Request No. 25 subjects Wanat to undue

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 13 of 56
- 38 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

burden and hardship pursuant to the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention are denied.

Due to the above analysis of international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague

Convention, are not applicable in this case.

Thus, Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 25, to the extent that Wanat

possesses documents tending to show the existence and specifics of the EPorner

website's policy for termination of repeat copyright infringers pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §

512 (i) that do not contain private data as defined by the PDP.

J. Request for Production No. 26:

REQUEST: Produce all documents tending to show which and how many accounts on

the EPorner website have been disabled due to violations of the EPorner website's policy

for termination of repeat copyright infringers pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512 (i), and please

break them down by U.S.A. and non-U.S.A. accounts.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that Request No. 26 requests documents

that, if disclosed, would subject Wanat to undue burden and hardship because it would

expose him to civil and criminal liability under Polish law, to the extent that the subject

documents constitute business secrets within the meaning of the LUC, and their

disclosure would constitute violation of Art. 51.1 of the PDP. Wanat also asserts that the

documents called for in Request No. 26 were transmitted to him under an assumed

obligation in connection with his function and business activity in relation to the

operation of his business, per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC; and, that

pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek the

requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague Convention,

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 14 of 56
- 39 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

which Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the requested

documents.

The Special Master sustains the objections insomuch as Request No. 26 seeks

documents tending to show which, and how many, accounts on the EPorner website

have been disabled due to violations of the EPorner website's policy for termination of

repeat copyright infringers pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512 (i) that contain private data as

defined by the PDP. Pursuant to the international comity analysis, Wanat may be subject

to criminal liability as provided therein, which would place an undue burden on Wanat.

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 26 subjects him to undue burden and hardship as

provided by the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention are denied. Due to the above

analysis of international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention, are not

applicable in this case.

Thus, Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 26 by producing the documents

tending to show which, and how many accounts on the EPorner website, have been

disabled due to violations of the EPorner website's policy for termination of repeat

copyright infringers pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512 (i), breaking them down by U.S.A. and

non-U.S.A. accounts, that do not contain private data as defined by the PDP.

K. Request for Production No. 27:

REQUEST: Produce all documents tending to show which and how many U.S.A. and

non-U.S.A. accounts on the EPorner website have been disabled for any reason.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that Request No. 27 requests documents

whose disclosure would subject Wanat to undue burden and hardship, because it would

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 15 of 56
- 40 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

expose him to civil and criminal liability under Polish law, to the extent that the subject

documents constitute business secrets within the meaning of the LUC, and their

disclosure would constitute violation of Art. 51.1 of the PDP. Wanat also states that the

documents called for in Request No. 27 were transmitted to him under an assumed

obligation in connection with his function and business activity in relation to the

operation of his business, per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC; and, that

pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek the

requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague Convention,

which Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the requested

documents.

The Special Master sustains the objections insomuch as Request No. 27 seeks

documents tending to show which and how many U.S.A. and non-U.S.A. accounts on

the EPorner website have been disabled for any reason that contain private data as

defined by the PDP. Pursuant to the international comity analysis, Wanat may be subject

to criminal liability as provided therein, which would place an undue burden on Wanat.

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 27 subjects him to undue burden and hardship

pursuant to the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention are denied. Due to the above

analysis of international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention, are not

applicable in this case.

Thus, Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 27 by producing the documents

tending to show which, and how many U.S.A. and non-U.S.A. accounts on the EPorner

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 16 of 56
- 41 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

website, have been disabled for any reason, that do not contain private data as defined by

the PDP.

L. Request for Production No. 28:

REQUEST: If you are not the operator of the EPorner website, produce any and all

contracts, purchase orders, and correspondence that you have had with the EPorner

website.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that the above request is overbroad, not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and exceeding the

scope of discovery. Wanat also asserts that Request No. 28 calls for documents whose

disclosure would subject Wanat to undue burden and hardship, because it would expose

him to civil and criminal liability under Polish law, to the extent that the subject

documents constitute business secrets within the meaning of the LUC, and their

disclosure would constitute violation of Art. 51.1 of the PDP. Wanat also asserts that

contracts, purchase orders, and correspondence with the EPorner website requested in

Request No. 28, were transmitted to him under an assumed obligation in connection with

his function and business activity in relation to the operation of his business, per Art.

266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC; and, that pursuant to the Court’s minute order

dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek the requested information through

alternative procedures, such as the Hague Convention, which Wanat claims would

insulate him from liability for disclosing the requested documents.

The Special Master sustains Wanat’s objections in part, because Request No. 28

is overbroad, insomuch as it calls for contracts, purchase orders, and correspondence that

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 17 of 56
- 42 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Wanat has had with the EPorner website that go beyond the issue of jurisdiction, which

the Special Master concludes is relevant discovery. However, the Special Master denies

Wanat’s objections, insomuch as Request No. 28 seeks contracts, purchase orders, and

correspondence with the EPorner website that are relevant to the issue of jurisdiction.

As to the objection related to data privacy, the Special Master sustains the

objection insomuch as Request No. 28 seeks contracts, purchase orders, and

correspondence with the EPorner website that contain private data as defined by the

PDP. Pursuant to the international comity analysis, Wanat may be subject to criminal

liability as provided therein, which would place an undue burden on Wanat. Wanat’s

objections that Request No. 28 subjects Wanat to undue burden and hardship pursuant to

the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention are denied. Due to the above analysis of

international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention, are not applicable in

this case.

Thus, Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 28, to the extent that Wanat

possesses contracts, purchase orders, and correspondence with the EPorner website

relevant to the issue of jurisdiction, which do not contain private data as defined by the

PDP.

M. Request for Production No. 31:

REQUEST: Produce each and every document in your possession reflecting any

communication with your DMCA agent, including but not limited to emails, letters, text

messages, voicemails and facsimiles.

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 18 of 56
- 43 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that the above request is overbroad,

vague, and ambiguous with regard to the term “your DMCA agent”, thus forcing Wanat

to speculate as to the scope and intended meaning of Request No. 31. According to

Wanat, Request No. 31 also exceeds the scope of discovery, which only concerns the

issue of jurisdiction. Wanat also asserts that the documents that Request No. 31 calls for

must have been produced after the filing of the lawsuit and that Request No. 31 assumes

facts that are not in evidence, i.e. that Wanat is a service provider within the meaning of

17 U.S.C. § 512(c) who designated a “DMCA agent”. Wanat further asserts that Request

No. 31 calls for correspondence whose disclosure would subject him to undue burden

and hardship because it would expose him to civil and criminal liability under Polish

law, to the extent that the subject correspondence was transmitted to him under an

assumed obligation in connection with his function and business activity in relation to

the operation of his business, per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC; and,

that pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek

the requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague

Convention, which Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the

requested documents.

The Special Master sustains Wanat’s objections, because Request No. 31 is

overbroad, insomuch as it calls for documents in Wanat’s possession reflecting any

communication with his DMCA agent, including but not limited to emails, letters, text

messages, voicemails and facsimiles that go beyond the issue of jurisdiction, which the

Special Master concludes is relevant discovery. Furthermore, Request No. 31 shall be

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 19 of 56
- 44 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

limited to all documents related to communications between Wanat and the operator of

the DMCA agent website, which are dated prior to the filing of the lawsuit. However,

the Special Master denies Wanat’s objections, insomuch as Request No. 31 seeks

communications that are relevant to the issue of jurisdiction.

Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 31, to the extent that Wanat possesses

responsive communications relevant to the issue of jurisdiction, and dated prior to the

filing of the lawsuit.

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 31 is vague and ambiguous are sustained in

part, and denied in part, for the reasons stated above.

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 31 subjects Wanat to undue burden and

hardship as provided by foreign law are denied. Due to the above analysis of

international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention, are not applicable in

this case.

N. Interrogatory No. 2:

INTERROGATORY: With specificity, identify the registrant of the <eporner.com>

domain name, including but not limited to (a) name, (b) postal address, (c) telephone

number and (d) email address.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that Interrogatory No. 2 calls for

information, which if disclosed, would subject him to undue burden and hardship

because the requested information relates to identified or identifiable individuals, and

hence its disclosure would subject Wanat to civil and criminal liability under Polish law,

and constitute violation of Art. 51.1 of the PDP. Wanat also asserts that information

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 20 of 56
- 45 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

called for in Interrogatory No. 2 was transmitted to him under assumed obligation in

connection with his function and business activity in relation to the operation of Wanat

and his business partner (per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC); and, that

pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek the

requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague Convention,

which Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the requested

documents.

The Special Master sustains Wanat’s objections insomuch as Interrogatory No. 2

seeks identify the registrant of the <eporner.com> domain name, including but not

limited to (a) name, (b) postal address, (c) telephone number and (d) email address that

contain private data as defined by the PDP. Pursuant to the international comity analysis,

Wanat may be subject to criminal liability as provided therein, which would place an

undue burden on Wanat. Wanat’s objections that Interrogatory No. 2 subjects Wanat to

undue burden and hardship as provided by the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention

are denied. Due to the above analysis of international comity, the LUC, the PP and the

Hague Convention, are not applicable in this case.

Thus, Wanat is ordered to respond to Interrogatory No. 2, except that Wanat is

not required to respond to the extent doing so would reveal private data as defined by the

PDP.

O. Interrogatory No. 6:

INTERROGATORY: With specificity, identify each and every third party vendor used

in the operation of the EPorner website, including but not limited to all payment

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 21 of 56
- 46 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

processors, all advertising brokers, all affiliates and all hosting companies, including but

not limited to (a) name, (b) postal address, (c) telephone number and (d) email address.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that Interrogatory No. 6 requests

information, which if disclosed, would subject Wanat to undue burden and hardship

because it constitutes business secrets within the meaning of the LUC and hence, it

would expose him to civil and criminal liability under Polish law, and their disclosure

would constitute violation of Art. 51.1 of the PDP. Wanat further asserts that the

information called for in Interrogatory No. 6 was transmitted to him under an assumed

obligation in connection with his function and business activity in relation to the

operation of Wanat’s business (per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC); and,

that pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek

the requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague

Convention, which Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the

requested documents. Wanat further asserts that Interrogatory No. 6 is unduly

burdensome and seeks information not relevant to the limited jurisdictional discovery.

As to the objection related to data privacy, the Special Master sustains the

objection insomuch as Interrogatory No. 6 seeks to identify each and every third party

vendor used in the operation of the EPorner website, including but not limited to all

payment processors, all advertising brokers, all affiliates and all hosting companies,

including but not limited to (a) name, (b) postal address, (c) telephone number and (d)

email address that contain private data as defined by the PDP. Pursuant to the

international comity analysis, Wanat may be subject to criminal liability as provided

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 22 of 56
- 47 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

therein, which would place an undue burden on Wanat. Wanat’s objections that

Interrogatory No. 6 subjects Wanat to undue burden and hardship as provided by the

LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention are denied. Due to the above analysis of

international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention, are not applicable in

this case.

Thus, Wanat is ordered to respond to Interrogatory No. 6, except that Wanat is

not required to respond to the extent doing so would reveal private data as defined by the

PDP.

P. Interrogatory No. 7:

INTERROGATORY: Identify all domain names that you currently own or maintain, or

have ever owned or maintained and the registrars you used to register them.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that Interrogatory No. 7 is overbroad and

seeks information that is not relevant to the limited scope of jurisdictional discovery.

The Special Master sustains Wanat’s objection in part, because Interrogatory No.

7 is overbroad, insomuch as it calls for information that goes beyond the issue of

jurisdiction, which the Special Master concludes is relevant discovery. Furthermore,

Interrogatory No. 7 shall be limited to information dated prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

However, the Special Master denies Wanat’s objection, insomuch as Interrogatory No. 7

seeks information is relevant to the issue of jurisdiction.

Thus, Wanat is ordered to respond to Interrogatory No. 7, to the extent that Wanat

possesses responsive information relevant to the issue of jurisdiction, and with regard to

events that occur prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 23 of 56
- 48 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Interrogatory No. 8:

INTERROGATORY: Identify with specificity the PayPal account associated with

EPorner, including but not limited to the account number, the name under which the

account is registered, and all persons with access to the account.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that Interrogatory No. 8 requests

information, which if disclosed, would subject Wanat to undue burden and hardship

because it constitutes business secrets within the meaning of the LUC and hence, it

would expose him to civil and criminal liability under Polish law, and their disclosure

would constitute violation of Art. 51.1 of the PDP. Wanat further asserts that the

information called for in Interrogatory No. 8 transmitted to him under an assumed

obligation in connection with his function and business activity in relation to the

operation of Wanat’s business (per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC); and,

that pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek

the requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague

Convention, which Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the

requested documents.

As to the objection related to data privacy, the Special Master sustains the

objection insomuch as Interrogatory No. 8 seeks the PayPal accounts associated with

EPorner, including but not limited to the account number, the name under which the

account is registered, and all persons with access to the account that contain private data

as defined by the PDP. Pursuant to the international comity analysis, Wanat may be

subject to criminal liability as provided therein, which would place an undue burden on

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 24 of 56
- 49 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Wanat. Wanat’s objections that Interrogatory No. 8 subjects Wanat to undue burden and

hardship as provided by the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention are denied. Due to

the above analysis of international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention,

are not applicable in this case.

Thus, Wanat is ordered to respond to Interrogatory No. 8, except that Wanat is

not required to respond to the extent doing so would reveal private data as defined by the

PDP.

R. Request for Admission No. 1:

REQUEST: Admit that your DMCA agent is located in the United States.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that Request for Admission No. 1 is

vague and ambiguous with regard to the term “Your DMCA agent” and thus it forces

Wanat to speculate as to the scope and the intended meaning of Request for Admission

No. 1. Wanat further alleges that to the extent Request for Admission No. 1 calls for

information concerning an agent designated pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(2), Request

for Admission No. 1 assumes facts that is not in evidence.

The Objection for Request for Admission No. 1 that it is vague and ambiguous is

denied, in part. Wanat is required to respond to Request for Admission No. 1 pursuant to

his obligations under Rule FRCP 36(a)(4) insomuch as the Request relates to the issue of

jurisdiction and relates to the time period prior to the date the lawsuit was filed.

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 25 of 56
- 50 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

S. Request for Admission No. 2:

REQUEST: Admit that you did not retain your DMCA agent until after the

commencement of the case currently pending against you in the U.S. District Court for

the District of Arizona (Case No. CV 15-01674-PHX-ROS).

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that Request for Admission No. 2 is

vague and ambiguous with regard to the term “Your DMCA agent” and thus it forces

Wanat to speculate as to the scope and the intended meaning of Request For Admission

No. 2. Wanat further alleges that to the extent Request For Admission No. 2 calls for

information concerning an agent designated pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(2), Request

For Admission No. 2 assumes facts that is not in evidence. Wanat further asserts that

Request For Admission No. 2 is not relevant to the scope of jurisdictional discovery.

The Objection for Request for Admission No. 2 that it is vague, ambiguous and

not relevant to jurisdiction is denied, in part. Wanat is required to respond to Request for

Admission No. 2 pursuant to his obligations under Rule FRCP 36(4) insomuch as the

Request relates to the issue of jurisdiction and relates to the time period prior to the date

the lawsuit was filed.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

Based on the preceding discussion, AMA’s Motion to Compel and Wanat's

Motion for Protective Order are GRANTED IN PART, AND DENIED IN PART.

Furthermore, the requests of both parties, for reimbursement of attorney's fees and costs

related to the Motions, are DENIED.

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 26 of 56
- 51 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Dated: August 19, 2016. Respectfully Submitted,

Justyna Regan

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C.

225 W. Washington Street, Suite 2600

Chicago, IL 60606

Tel: (312) 460-4200

regan@millercanfield.com

Special Master for Discovery Matters

Case No. 2:15-cv-01674-ROS

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 27 of 56
- 52 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 19, 2016, I served a true and correct copy

of the foregoing document via electronic mail on:

Jakub Medrala, Esq.

DONATH & MEDRALA, PLLC

1091 S. Cimarron Road, #A-1

Las Vegas, NV 89145

jmedrala@domelaw.com

Marc J. Randazza, Esq.

Ronald D. Green, Esq.

Pandazza Legal Group, PLLC

4035 S. El Capitan Way

Las Vegas, NV 89147

mjr@randazza.com

rdg@randazza.com

Respectfully Submitted,

William A. Jensen,

of Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone P.L.C.

27321751.4\088888-04548

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 28 of 56
- 25 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Poland, and the European Union, may have with respect to protecting its citizens’

personal data.

V. WANAT’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Having analyzed the applicable U.S. and foreign law above, the Special Master

will now apply the law to the specific discovery issues raised by the parties.

A. Request for Production No. 3:

REQUEST: Produce all correspondence between you and any person or entity related

to this lawsuit, including, but not limited to any correspondence with any persons

involved in the operation of EPorner and any third party vendor used by Eporner.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that the above request is overbroad,

vague, ambiguous, exceeds the scope of discovery and in violation of FRCP 34(b)(1)(a)

because AMA fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of

items to be inspected. Wanat also states that Request No. 3 calls for material that is

protected by attorney-client privilege, and its disclosure would subject him to undue

burden and hardship per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC; and, that

pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek the

requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague Convention

that Wanat contends would insulate him from liability for disclosing the requested

documents.

The Special Master sustains Wanat’s objection in part, because Request No. 3 is

overbroad, insomuch as it calls for correspondence that goes beyond the issue of

jurisdiction, which the Special Master concludes is relevant discovery. Furthermore,

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 29 of 56
- 26 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Request No. 3 shall be limited to correspondence that is dated prior to the filing of the

lawsuit. However, the Special Master denies Wanat’s objection, insomuch as Request

No. 3 seeks correspondence that is relevant to the issue of jurisdiction.

Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 3, to the extent that Wanat possesses

responsive correspondence relevant to the issue of jurisdiction, and dated prior to the

filing of the lawsuit. With regard to any claims of privilege, Wanat should assert any

privilege, if necessary, and comply with the requirements of FRCP 26(b)(5).

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 3 is vague, ambiguous and not stated with

reasonable particularity, are sustained in part, and denied in part, for the reasons stated

above.

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 3 subjects Wanat to undue burden and

hardship as provided by foreign law are denied. Due to the above analysis of

international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention, are not applicable in

this case.

B. Request for Production No. 15:

REQUEST: If you are not the registrant of the <eporner.com> domain name, produce

any and all documents related to communication between You and the registrant of the

<eporner.com> domain name from January 1, 2008 to the present.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that the above request is overbroad,

vague and ambiguous with regard to the term “related to communications between You

and the registrant of the <eporner.com>”, thus forcing Wanat to speculate the scope and

intended meaning of this Request, and that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 30 of 56
- 27 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

discovery of admissible evidence. Wanat also asserts that Request No. 15 exceeds the

scope of discovery, and that the time limitations imposed by Request No. 15 call for

information that cannot be related to the copyright infringement allegations that were

raised in the Complaint. Due to AMA’s request for “all documents” in Wanat’s

possession, Request No. 15 fails to describe with particularity each item or category of

items to be inspected in violation of FRCP 34(b)(1)(a). Also, according to Wanat,

Request No. 15 calls for correspondence whose disclosure would subject Wanat to

undue burden and hardship, because he contends this would expose him to civil and

criminal liability under Polish law, per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC;

and, that pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should

seek the requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague

Convention, which Wanat contends would insulate him from liability for disclosing the

requested documents.

The Special Master sustains Wanat’s objections, in part, because Request No. 15

is overbroad, insomuch as it calls for documents that go beyond the issue of jurisdiction,

which the Special Master concludes is relevant discovery. Furthermore, Request No. 15

shall be limited to documents related to communication between Wanat and the

registrant of the <eporner.com> domain name that is dated prior to the filing of the

lawsuit. However, the Special Master denies Wanat’s objections, insomuch as Request

No. 15 seeks documents that are relevant to the issue of jurisdiction.

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 31 of 56
- 28 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 15, to the extent that Wanat possesses

responsive documents related to communication relevant to the issue of jurisdiction, and

dated prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 15 is vague, ambiguous and not stated with

reasonable particularity, are sustained in part, and denied in part, for the reasons stated

above.

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 15 subjects Wanat to undue burden and

hardship, pursuant to foreign law, are denied. Due to the above analysis of international

comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention, are not applicable in this case.

C. Request for Production No. 16:

REQUEST: If you are not the operator of the EPorner website, produce any and all

documents related to communications between you and the operator of the EPorner

website from January 1, 2008 to the present.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that the above request is overbroad,

vague, ambiguous, with regard to the phrase “related to communications between You

and the operator of the Eporner website” forcing Wanat to speculate the scope and

meaning of this Request, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Wanat also asserts that Request No. 16 exceeds also the scope of

discovery. Wanat further claims that the time limitations imposed by this Request call

for information that cannot possibly be related to the copyrights infringement allegations

that were raised in the Complaint, as they concern the year 2015, while AMA’s Request

seeks information from 2008 onward. Wanat further asserts that to the extent AMA asks

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 32 of 56
- 29 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

for all documents in Wanat’s possession, this Request fails to describe with particularity

each item, or category of items, to be inspected in violation of FRCP 34(b)(1)(a). Wanat

also claims that Request No. 16 calls for correspondence, that if disclosed, would subject

Wanat to undue burden and hardship, because it would expose him to civil and criminal

liability under Polish law, per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC; and, that

pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek the

requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague Convention,

which Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the requested

documents.

The Special Master sustains Wanat’s objections in part, because Request No. 16

is overbroad, insomuch as it calls for documents related to communications that go

beyond the issue of jurisdiction, which the Special Master concludes is relevant

discovery. Furthermore, Request No. 16 shall be limited to all documents related to

communications between Wanat and the operator of the EPorner website that are dated

prior to the filing of the lawsuit. However, the Special Master denies Wanat’s

objections, insomuch as Request No. 16 seeks documents related to communications that

are relevant to the issue of jurisdiction.

Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 16, to the extent that Wanat possesses

responsive communications relevant to the issue of jurisdiction, and dated prior to the

filing of the lawsuit.

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 33 of 56
- 30 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 16 is vague, ambiguous and not stated with

reasonable particularity, are sustained in part, and denied in part, for the reasons stated

above.

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 16 subjects Wanat to undue burden and

hardship as provided by foreign law are denied. Due to the above analysis of

international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention, are not applicable in

this case.

D. Request for Production No. 17:

REQUEST: Produce all documents in your possession referencing or relating to AMA

and/or any of AMA's brands, including DeepThroatLove, TeenBFF, RealExGirlfriends,

18YearsOld, MassageCreep, PornPros, ShadyPi, MilfHumiliation, CrueltyParty,

Disgraced18, CumshotSurprise, 40ozBounce, JurassicCock, FreaksOfCock,

EuroHumpers, FreaksOfBoobs, CumDisgrace, CockCompetition, PimpParade,

SquirtDisgrace, POVD, Tiny4K, CastingCouch-X, Passion-HD, and FuckYouCash.com

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that he is not in possession of any of the

requested materials, and which he did not obtain in connection with Wanat’s function

and business activity, in relation to the business conducted between Wanat and his

business partner, who did not agree to disclose such information. Wanat claims that the

disclosure of such information would expose Wanat to civil and criminal liability

pursuant to Polish law, per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC; and, that

pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek the

requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague Convention,

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 34 of 56
- 31 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

which Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the requested

documents.

Wanat’s Objections to Request No. 17 are denied. The Special Master concludes

that the materials called for in Request No. 17 do not constitute business secrets pursuant

to the LUC and hence, disclosure would not subject Wanat to undue burden and

hardship. Moreover, since the PP and the Hague Convention do not apply in this case,

those objections are also denied.

E. Request for Production No. 18:

REQUEST: Produce a record of all domain names registered by you from January 2008

to the present.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that the above request is overbroad, and

not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The case

involves allegations of copyright infringements that occurred on <eporner.com.>

Whether Wanat has registered any other domains, from 2008 to present, has no bearing

on the instant action, especially on the issue of personal jurisdiction over Wanat.

The Special Master sustains Wanat’s objections in part, because Request No. 18

is overbroad, insomuch as it calls for a record of all domain names that goes beyond the

issue of jurisdiction, which the Special Master concludes is relevant discovery.

Furthermore, Request No. 18 shall be limited to such a record that is dated prior to the

filing of the lawsuit. However, the Special Master denies Wanat’s objection, insomuch

as Request No. 18 seeks record that is relevant to the issue of jurisdiction.

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 35 of 56
- 32 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 18, to the extent that Wanat possesses

a responsive record relevant to the issue of jurisdiction, and dated prior to the filing of

the lawsuit.

F. Request for Production No. 19:

REQUEST: Produce copies of all advertising agreements between the registrant and/or

operator(s) of the EPorner website and any other person or entity.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that the above request is overbroad, not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and exceeds the

scope of discovery. According to Wanat, Request No. 19 requests documents, that if

disclosed, would subject Wanat to undue burden and hardship, because it would expose

him to civil and criminal liability under Polish law, to the extent that the subject

agreements constitute business secrets within the meaning of the LUC, and their

disclosure would constitute violation of Art. 51.1 of the PDP. Wanat also asserts that the

agreements requested were transmitted to him under an assumed obligation in

connection with his function and business activity in relation to the operation of his

business, and thus, disclosure thereof would expose Wanat to liability pursuant to Polish

law, per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC; and, that pursuant to the Court’s

minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek the requested information

through alternative procedures, such as the Hague Convention, which Wanat claims

would insulate him from liability for disclosing the requested documents.

The Special Master sustains Wanat’s objections in part, because Request No. 19

is overbroad, insomuch as it calls for agreements that go beyond the issue of jurisdiction,

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 36 of 56
- 33 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

which the Special Master concludes is relevant discovery. Furthermore, Request No. 19

shall be limited to agreements that are dated prior to the filing of the lawsuit. However,

the Special Master denies Wanat’s objections, insomuch as Request No. 19 seeks

agreements that are relevant to the issue of jurisdiction.

As to the objection related to data privacy, the Special Master sustains the

objection, insomuch as Request No. 19 seeks advertising agreements that contain private

data, as defined by the PDP. Pursuant to the international comity analysis, Wanat may be

subject to criminal liability under the PDP, which would place an undue burden on

Wanat.

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 19 subjects Wanat to undue burden and

hardship as provided by foreign law are denied. Due to the above analysis of

international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention, are not applicable in

this case.

Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 19, to the extent that Wanat possesses

responsive advertising agreements between the registrant and/or operator(s) of the

EPorner website, and any other person or entity relevant to the issue of jurisdiction,

dated prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and that do not contain private data, as defined by

the PDP.

G. Request for Production No. 21:

REQUEST: Produce copies of all requests for removal of content on the EPorner

website, including but not limited to requests under 17 U.S.C. § 512, sent by any other

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 37 of 56
- 34 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

person or entity to the registrant and/or operator(s) of the EPorner website, and/or the

designated agent for receipt of such notices on behalf of the EPorner website.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that the above request is overbroad, not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and exceeds the

scope of discovery. Wanat also asserts that Request No. 21 requests documents, that if

disclosed, would subject him to undue burden and hardship, because it would expose

him to civil and criminal liability under Polish law, and to the extent that the subject

documents constitute business secrets within the meaning of the LUC, their disclosure

would constitute violation of Art. 51.1 of the PDP. Wanat also asserts that the

documents requested in Request No. 21 were transmitted to Wanat under an assumed

obligation in connection with his function and business activity in relation to the

operation of Wanat’s business, per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC; and,

that pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek

the requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague

Convention, which Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the

requested documents.

The Special Master sustains Wanat’s objections in part, because Request No. 21

is overbroad, insomuch as it calls for copies of all requests for removal of content on the

EPorner website that go beyond the issue of jurisdiction, which the Special Master

concludes is relevant discovery. Furthermore, Request No. 21 shall be limited to copies

of all requests for removal that are dated prior to the filing of the lawsuit. However, the

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 38 of 56
- 35 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Special Master denies Wanat’s objections, insomuch as Request No. 21 seeks documents

that are relevant to the issue of jurisdiction.

As to the objection related to data privacy, the Special Master sustains the

objection insomuch as Request No. 21 seeks copies of all requests for removal of

content on the EPorner website that contain private data, as defined by the PDP.

Pursuant to the international comity analysis, Wanat may be subject to criminal liability

as provided therein, which would place an undue burden on Wanat.

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 21 subjects Wanat to undue burden and

hardship as provided by the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention are denied. Due to

the above analysis of international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention,

are not applicable in this case.

Thus, Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 21, to the extent that Wanat

possesses copies of all requests for removal of content on the EPorner website, including

but not limited to, requests under 17 U.S.C. § 512, sent by any other person or entity to

the registrant and/or operator(s) of the EPorner website, and/or the designated agent for

receipt of such notices on behalf of the EPorner website relevant to the issue of

jurisdiction, dated prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and that do not contain private data,

as defined by the PDP.

H. Request for Production No. 22:

REQUEST: Produce all documents tending to show the identity(ies) or the uploader(s)

of the content on the EPorner website identified in Exhibit 7 to AMA's Motion for Ex

Parte Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 8-7).

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 39 of 56
- 36 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat assert that Request No. 22 calls for documents

that if disclosed would subject him to undue burden and hardship because it would

expose him to civil and criminal liability under Polish law, to the extent that the subject

documents constitute business secrets within the meaning of the LUC, and their

disclosure would constitute violation of Art. 51.1 of the PDP; and, that pursuant to the

Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek the requested

information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague Convention, which

Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the requested documents.

The Special Master sustains the objection insomuch as Request No. 22 seeks

identity(ies) or the uploader(s) of the content on the EPorner website that contain private

data, as defined by the PDP. Pursuant to the international comity analysis, Wanat may be

subject to criminal liability as provided therein, which would place an undue burden and

hardship on Wanat. Wanat’s objection with regard to the Hague Convention and the

LUC is denied. Due to the above analysis of international comity, the Hague Convention

and the LUC is not applicable in this case.

Thus, Wanat is ordered to Respond to Request No. 22, to the extent Wanat

possesses documents tending to show the identity(ies) or the uploader(s) of the content

on the EPorner website identified in Exhibit 7 to AMA's Motion for Ex Parte Temporary

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 8-7) that do not contain private data,

as defined by the PDP.

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 40 of 56
- 37 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I. Request for Production No. 25:

REQUEST: Produce all documents tending to show the existence and specifics of the

EPorner website's policy for termination of repeat copyright infringers pursuant to 17

U.S.C. § 512 (i).

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that Request No. 25 requests documents

that if disclosed would subject Wanat to undue burden and hardship, because it would

expose him to civil and criminal liability under Polish law, to the extent that the subject

documents constitute business secrets within the meaning of the LUC, and their

disclosure would constitute a violation of Art. 51.1 of the PDP. Wanat also asserted that

the documents called for in Request No. 25 were transmitted to him under an assumed

obligation in connection with his function and business activity in relation to the

operation of his business, per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC; and, that

pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek the

requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague Convention,

which Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the requested

documents.

The Special Master sustains the objections insomuch as Request No. 25 seeks

documents tending to show the existence, and specifics, of the EPorner website's policy

for termination of repeat copyright infringers pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512 (i) that contain

private data, as defined by the PDP. Pursuant to the international comity analysis, Wanat

may be subject to criminal liability as provided therein, which would place an undue

burden on Wanat. Wanat’s objections that Request No. 25 subjects Wanat to undue

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 41 of 56
- 38 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

burden and hardship pursuant to the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention are denied.

Due to the above analysis of international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague

Convention, are not applicable in this case.

Thus, Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 25, to the extent that Wanat

possesses documents tending to show the existence and specifics of the EPorner

website's policy for termination of repeat copyright infringers pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §

512 (i) that do not contain private data as defined by the PDP.

J. Request for Production No. 26:

REQUEST: Produce all documents tending to show which and how many accounts on

the EPorner website have been disabled due to violations of the EPorner website's policy

for termination of repeat copyright infringers pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512 (i), and please

break them down by U.S.A. and non-U.S.A. accounts.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that Request No. 26 requests documents

that, if disclosed, would subject Wanat to undue burden and hardship because it would

expose him to civil and criminal liability under Polish law, to the extent that the subject

documents constitute business secrets within the meaning of the LUC, and their

disclosure would constitute violation of Art. 51.1 of the PDP. Wanat also asserts that the

documents called for in Request No. 26 were transmitted to him under an assumed

obligation in connection with his function and business activity in relation to the

operation of his business, per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC; and, that

pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek the

requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague Convention,

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 42 of 56
- 39 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

which Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the requested

documents.

The Special Master sustains the objections insomuch as Request No. 26 seeks

documents tending to show which, and how many, accounts on the EPorner website

have been disabled due to violations of the EPorner website's policy for termination of

repeat copyright infringers pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512 (i) that contain private data as

defined by the PDP. Pursuant to the international comity analysis, Wanat may be subject

to criminal liability as provided therein, which would place an undue burden on Wanat.

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 26 subjects him to undue burden and hardship as

provided by the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention are denied. Due to the above

analysis of international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention, are not

applicable in this case.

Thus, Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 26 by producing the documents

tending to show which, and how many accounts on the EPorner website, have been

disabled due to violations of the EPorner website's policy for termination of repeat

copyright infringers pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512 (i), breaking them down by U.S.A. and

non-U.S.A. accounts, that do not contain private data as defined by the PDP.

K. Request for Production No. 27:

REQUEST: Produce all documents tending to show which and how many U.S.A. and

non-U.S.A. accounts on the EPorner website have been disabled for any reason.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that Request No. 27 requests documents

whose disclosure would subject Wanat to undue burden and hardship, because it would

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 43 of 56
- 40 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

expose him to civil and criminal liability under Polish law, to the extent that the subject

documents constitute business secrets within the meaning of the LUC, and their

disclosure would constitute violation of Art. 51.1 of the PDP. Wanat also states that the

documents called for in Request No. 27 were transmitted to him under an assumed

obligation in connection with his function and business activity in relation to the

operation of his business, per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC; and, that

pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek the

requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague Convention,

which Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the requested

documents.

The Special Master sustains the objections insomuch as Request No. 27 seeks

documents tending to show which and how many U.S.A. and non-U.S.A. accounts on

the EPorner website have been disabled for any reason that contain private data as

defined by the PDP. Pursuant to the international comity analysis, Wanat may be subject

to criminal liability as provided therein, which would place an undue burden on Wanat.

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 27 subjects him to undue burden and hardship

pursuant to the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention are denied. Due to the above

analysis of international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention, are not

applicable in this case.

Thus, Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 27 by producing the documents

tending to show which, and how many U.S.A. and non-U.S.A. accounts on the EPorner

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 44 of 56
- 41 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

website, have been disabled for any reason, that do not contain private data as defined by

the PDP.

L. Request for Production No. 28:

REQUEST: If you are not the operator of the EPorner website, produce any and all

contracts, purchase orders, and correspondence that you have had with the EPorner

website.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that the above request is overbroad, not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and exceeding the

scope of discovery. Wanat also asserts that Request No. 28 calls for documents whose

disclosure would subject Wanat to undue burden and hardship, because it would expose

him to civil and criminal liability under Polish law, to the extent that the subject

documents constitute business secrets within the meaning of the LUC, and their

disclosure would constitute violation of Art. 51.1 of the PDP. Wanat also asserts that

contracts, purchase orders, and correspondence with the EPorner website requested in

Request No. 28, were transmitted to him under an assumed obligation in connection with

his function and business activity in relation to the operation of his business, per Art.

266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC; and, that pursuant to the Court’s minute order

dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek the requested information through

alternative procedures, such as the Hague Convention, which Wanat claims would

insulate him from liability for disclosing the requested documents.

The Special Master sustains Wanat’s objections in part, because Request No. 28

is overbroad, insomuch as it calls for contracts, purchase orders, and correspondence that

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 45 of 56
- 42 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Wanat has had with the EPorner website that go beyond the issue of jurisdiction, which

the Special Master concludes is relevant discovery. However, the Special Master denies

Wanat’s objections, insomuch as Request No. 28 seeks contracts, purchase orders, and

correspondence with the EPorner website that are relevant to the issue of jurisdiction.

As to the objection related to data privacy, the Special Master sustains the

objection insomuch as Request No. 28 seeks contracts, purchase orders, and

correspondence with the EPorner website that contain private data as defined by the

PDP. Pursuant to the international comity analysis, Wanat may be subject to criminal

liability as provided therein, which would place an undue burden on Wanat. Wanat’s

objections that Request No. 28 subjects Wanat to undue burden and hardship pursuant to

the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention are denied. Due to the above analysis of

international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention, are not applicable in

this case.

Thus, Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 28, to the extent that Wanat

possesses contracts, purchase orders, and correspondence with the EPorner website

relevant to the issue of jurisdiction, which do not contain private data as defined by the

PDP.

M. Request for Production No. 31:

REQUEST: Produce each and every document in your possession reflecting any

communication with your DMCA agent, including but not limited to emails, letters, text

messages, voicemails and facsimiles.

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 46 of 56
- 43 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that the above request is overbroad,

vague, and ambiguous with regard to the term “your DMCA agent”, thus forcing Wanat

to speculate as to the scope and intended meaning of Request No. 31. According to

Wanat, Request No. 31 also exceeds the scope of discovery, which only concerns the

issue of jurisdiction. Wanat also asserts that the documents that Request No. 31 calls for

must have been produced after the filing of the lawsuit and that Request No. 31 assumes

facts that are not in evidence, i.e. that Wanat is a service provider within the meaning of

17 U.S.C. § 512(c) who designated a “DMCA agent”. Wanat further asserts that Request

No. 31 calls for correspondence whose disclosure would subject him to undue burden

and hardship because it would expose him to civil and criminal liability under Polish

law, to the extent that the subject correspondence was transmitted to him under an

assumed obligation in connection with his function and business activity in relation to

the operation of his business, per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC; and,

that pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek

the requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague

Convention, which Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the

requested documents.

The Special Master sustains Wanat’s objections, because Request No. 31 is

overbroad, insomuch as it calls for documents in Wanat’s possession reflecting any

communication with his DMCA agent, including but not limited to emails, letters, text

messages, voicemails and facsimiles that go beyond the issue of jurisdiction, which the

Special Master concludes is relevant discovery. Furthermore, Request No. 31 shall be

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 47 of 56
- 44 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

limited to all documents related to communications between Wanat and the operator of

the DMCA agent website, which are dated prior to the filing of the lawsuit. However,

the Special Master denies Wanat’s objections, insomuch as Request No. 31 seeks

communications that are relevant to the issue of jurisdiction.

Wanat is ordered to respond to Request No. 31, to the extent that Wanat possesses

responsive communications relevant to the issue of jurisdiction, and dated prior to the

filing of the lawsuit.

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 31 is vague and ambiguous are sustained in

part, and denied in part, for the reasons stated above.

Wanat’s objections that Request No. 31 subjects Wanat to undue burden and

hardship as provided by foreign law are denied. Due to the above analysis of

international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention, are not applicable in

this case.

N. Interrogatory No. 2:

INTERROGATORY: With specificity, identify the registrant of the <eporner.com>

domain name, including but not limited to (a) name, (b) postal address, (c) telephone

number and (d) email address.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that Interrogatory No. 2 calls for

information, which if disclosed, would subject him to undue burden and hardship

because the requested information relates to identified or identifiable individuals, and

hence its disclosure would subject Wanat to civil and criminal liability under Polish law,

and constitute violation of Art. 51.1 of the PDP. Wanat also asserts that information

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 48 of 56
- 45 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

called for in Interrogatory No. 2 was transmitted to him under assumed obligation in

connection with his function and business activity in relation to the operation of Wanat

and his business partner (per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC); and, that

pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek the

requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague Convention,

which Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the requested

documents.

The Special Master sustains Wanat’s objections insomuch as Interrogatory No. 2

seeks identify the registrant of the <eporner.com> domain name, including but not

limited to (a) name, (b) postal address, (c) telephone number and (d) email address that

contain private data as defined by the PDP. Pursuant to the international comity analysis,

Wanat may be subject to criminal liability as provided therein, which would place an

undue burden on Wanat. Wanat’s objections that Interrogatory No. 2 subjects Wanat to

undue burden and hardship as provided by the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention

are denied. Due to the above analysis of international comity, the LUC, the PP and the

Hague Convention, are not applicable in this case.

Thus, Wanat is ordered to respond to Interrogatory No. 2, except that Wanat is

not required to respond to the extent doing so would reveal private data as defined by the

PDP.

O. Interrogatory No. 6:

INTERROGATORY: With specificity, identify each and every third party vendor used

in the operation of the EPorner website, including but not limited to all payment

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 49 of 56
- 46 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

processors, all advertising brokers, all affiliates and all hosting companies, including but

not limited to (a) name, (b) postal address, (c) telephone number and (d) email address.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that Interrogatory No. 6 requests

information, which if disclosed, would subject Wanat to undue burden and hardship

because it constitutes business secrets within the meaning of the LUC and hence, it

would expose him to civil and criminal liability under Polish law, and their disclosure

would constitute violation of Art. 51.1 of the PDP. Wanat further asserts that the

information called for in Interrogatory No. 6 was transmitted to him under an assumed

obligation in connection with his function and business activity in relation to the

operation of Wanat’s business (per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC); and,

that pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek

the requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague

Convention, which Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the

requested documents. Wanat further asserts that Interrogatory No. 6 is unduly

burdensome and seeks information not relevant to the limited jurisdictional discovery.

As to the objection related to data privacy, the Special Master sustains the

objection insomuch as Interrogatory No. 6 seeks to identify each and every third party

vendor used in the operation of the EPorner website, including but not limited to all

payment processors, all advertising brokers, all affiliates and all hosting companies,

including but not limited to (a) name, (b) postal address, (c) telephone number and (d)

email address that contain private data as defined by the PDP. Pursuant to the

international comity analysis, Wanat may be subject to criminal liability as provided

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 50 of 56
- 47 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

therein, which would place an undue burden on Wanat. Wanat’s objections that

Interrogatory No. 6 subjects Wanat to undue burden and hardship as provided by the

LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention are denied. Due to the above analysis of

international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention, are not applicable in

this case.

Thus, Wanat is ordered to respond to Interrogatory No. 6, except that Wanat is

not required to respond to the extent doing so would reveal private data as defined by the

PDP.

P. Interrogatory No. 7:

INTERROGATORY: Identify all domain names that you currently own or maintain, or

have ever owned or maintained and the registrars you used to register them.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that Interrogatory No. 7 is overbroad and

seeks information that is not relevant to the limited scope of jurisdictional discovery.

The Special Master sustains Wanat’s objection in part, because Interrogatory No.

7 is overbroad, insomuch as it calls for information that goes beyond the issue of

jurisdiction, which the Special Master concludes is relevant discovery. Furthermore,

Interrogatory No. 7 shall be limited to information dated prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

However, the Special Master denies Wanat’s objection, insomuch as Interrogatory No. 7

seeks information is relevant to the issue of jurisdiction.

Thus, Wanat is ordered to respond to Interrogatory No. 7, to the extent that Wanat

possesses responsive information relevant to the issue of jurisdiction, and with regard to

events that occur prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 51 of 56
- 48 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Interrogatory No. 8:

INTERROGATORY: Identify with specificity the PayPal account associated with

EPorner, including but not limited to the account number, the name under which the

account is registered, and all persons with access to the account.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that Interrogatory No. 8 requests

information, which if disclosed, would subject Wanat to undue burden and hardship

because it constitutes business secrets within the meaning of the LUC and hence, it

would expose him to civil and criminal liability under Polish law, and their disclosure

would constitute violation of Art. 51.1 of the PDP. Wanat further asserts that the

information called for in Interrogatory No. 8 transmitted to him under an assumed

obligation in connection with his function and business activity in relation to the

operation of Wanat’s business (per Art. 266 § of the PP and Art. 11.1 of the LUC); and,

that pursuant to the Court’s minute order dated December 16, 2015, AMA should seek

the requested information through alternative procedures, such as the Hague

Convention, which Wanat claims would insulate him from liability for disclosing the

requested documents.

As to the objection related to data privacy, the Special Master sustains the

objection insomuch as Interrogatory No. 8 seeks the PayPal accounts associated with

EPorner, including but not limited to the account number, the name under which the

account is registered, and all persons with access to the account that contain private data

as defined by the PDP. Pursuant to the international comity analysis, Wanat may be

subject to criminal liability as provided therein, which would place an undue burden on

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 52 of 56
- 49 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Wanat. Wanat’s objections that Interrogatory No. 8 subjects Wanat to undue burden and

hardship as provided by the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention are denied. Due to

the above analysis of international comity, the LUC, the PP and the Hague Convention,

are not applicable in this case.

Thus, Wanat is ordered to respond to Interrogatory No. 8, except that Wanat is

not required to respond to the extent doing so would reveal private data as defined by the

PDP.

R. Request for Admission No. 1:

REQUEST: Admit that your DMCA agent is located in the United States.

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that Request for Admission No. 1 is

vague and ambiguous with regard to the term “Your DMCA agent” and thus it forces

Wanat to speculate as to the scope and the intended meaning of Request for Admission

No. 1. Wanat further alleges that to the extent Request for Admission No. 1 calls for

information concerning an agent designated pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(2), Request

for Admission No. 1 assumes facts that is not in evidence.

The Objection for Request for Admission No. 1 that it is vague and ambiguous is

denied, in part. Wanat is required to respond to Request for Admission No. 1 pursuant to

his obligations under Rule FRCP 36(a)(4) insomuch as the Request relates to the issue of

jurisdiction and relates to the time period prior to the date the lawsuit was filed.

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 53 of 56
- 50 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

S. Request for Admission No. 2:

REQUEST: Admit that you did not retain your DMCA agent until after the

commencement of the case currently pending against you in the U.S. District Court for

the District of Arizona (Case No. CV 15-01674-PHX-ROS).

OBJECTION: In his objection, Wanat asserts that Request for Admission No. 2 is

vague and ambiguous with regard to the term “Your DMCA agent” and thus it forces

Wanat to speculate as to the scope and the intended meaning of Request For Admission

No. 2. Wanat further alleges that to the extent Request For Admission No. 2 calls for

information concerning an agent designated pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(2), Request

For Admission No. 2 assumes facts that is not in evidence. Wanat further asserts that

Request For Admission No. 2 is not relevant to the scope of jurisdictional discovery.

The Objection for Request for Admission No. 2 that it is vague, ambiguous and

not relevant to jurisdiction is denied, in part. Wanat is required to respond to Request for

Admission No. 2 pursuant to his obligations under Rule FRCP 36(4) insomuch as the

Request relates to the issue of jurisdiction and relates to the time period prior to the date

the lawsuit was filed.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

Based on the preceding discussion, AMA’s Motion to Compel and Wanat's

Motion for Protective Order are GRANTED IN PART, AND DENIED IN PART.

Furthermore, the requests of both parties, for reimbursement of attorney's fees and costs

related to the Motions, are DENIED.

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 54 of 56
- 51 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Dated: August 19, 2016. Respectfully Submitted,

Justyna Regan

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C.

225 W. Washington Street, Suite 2600

Chicago, IL 60606

Tel: (312) 460-4200

regan@millercanfield.com

Special Master for Discovery Matters

Case No. 2:15-cv-01674-ROS

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 55 of 56
- 52 -

2:15-cv-01674-ROS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 19, 2016, I served a true and correct copy

of the foregoing document via electronic mail on:

Jakub Medrala, Esq.

DONATH & MEDRALA, PLLC

1091 S. Cimarron Road, #A-1

Las Vegas, NV 89145

jmedrala@domelaw.com

Marc J. Randazza, Esq.

Ronald D. Green, Esq.

Pandazza Legal Group, PLLC

4035 S. El Capitan Way

Las Vegas, NV 89147

mjr@randazza.com

rdg@randazza.com

Respectfully Submitted,

William A. Jensen,

of Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone P.L.C.

27321751.4\088888-04548

Case 2:15-cv-01674-ROS Document 73 Filed 08/19/16 Page 56 of 56