Discovery and bond in an AF Holdings case
I was browsing through some of AF Holdings’ individual suits, and came across a JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER, by Brett Gibbs (counsel for Plaintiff) and Nicholas Ranallo (counsel for defendant) in AF Holdings LLC v. Joe Navasca, Case No. 3:12-cv-02396-EMC.
As was discussed in DieTrollDie’s “Double Tap Tactics” post, AF Holdings was required to post a security bond in another suit because they’re a foreign corporation. Ranallo is asking the court to require AF Holdings to do the same thing in this case.
“…Mr. Navasca will file a motion to require Plaintiff to post an undertaking pursuant to the court’s inherent power and California Code of Civil Procedure §1030. Plaintiff is a foreign corporation organized in a notorious “asset protection” jurisdiction that appears to engage in no business beyond filing copyright infringement suits. Defendant doubts his ability to ultimately collect any award of costs and attorney fees that is ultimately rendered in his favor. Defendant likewise can show a “reasonable possibility of obtaining judgment” in this action, and an undertaking is therefore appropriate, as recognized in another AF Holdings case in this jurisdiction(AF Holdings v. Trinh; 3:12-cv-02393-CRB).
In addition, it appears that the defendant is ready to thorough depose the Plaintiff, including their “expert” Mr. Hansmeier.
Mr. Navasca anticipates conducting a deposition of the PMK at AF Holdings regarding the creation and licensing of the work that forms the basis of the instant suit, as well as the corporate structure of AF Holdings and Mr. Navasca further anticipates that he will need to depose relevant individuals at Heartbreaker Productions who have knowledge regarding the creation, licensing, distribution, and revenues derived from the subject work. Mr. Navasca anticipates further discovery directed at Peter Hansmeier, the individual responsible for IP address harvesting at 6881 Forensics, LLC. Finally, Mr. Navasca will pursue discovery as to such other individuals that are determined to have significant relevant information following initial discovery, and may seek further discovery in support of affirmative defenses and/or counterclaims, in the event that Mr. Navasca chooses to pursue such claims.
The big question is, will we get that far?
A bit more musings can be found in my earlier post on the first bond request;
I’m happy that Nick did not stop on a single case and is pushing forward. I also suspect he knows something about the devil kitchen that we don’t. I hope we’ll be able to peek through curtains rather soon,
SJD
November 27, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Me and DTD been lookin’ for somethin’ in Arizona to buttress a
motion for an undertaking. Finaly found it, not a statute, not in AZ
Constitution, nope a court rule, local to be exact. Told ya
Prenda ain’t gonna like Arizona!
LRCiv 54.1(c)In every action in which the plaintiff was
not a resident of the District of Arizona at the time suit was
brought, or, having been so, afterwards removed from this
District, an order for security for costs may be entered upon
application therefor within a reasonable time upon notice. In
default of the entry of such security at the time fixed by the
Court, judgment of dismissal shall be entered on motion.
Hi SJD . . .
trollassassins
November 28, 2012 at 12:50 pm