BTA HOS STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Alan Cooper, Court File Nos 27 €V-13-3463 Plainuift v Memorandum in Support of Motion Reopen Discovery And Amend Scheduling, Order John Lawrence Steele, Prenda Law I Holdings. LLC, Ingenuity13, LLC, Defendants ‘Cooper brings this motion to reopen discovery and extend the subsequent dates on the scheduling order by 120 days. This case is complicated in part because of questions that exist regarding the interrelationship of the defendants and because this case has some relationship to a large number of other cases, both pending and resolved. Furthermore, the information given by Defendants about their relationships and the identities of their principals has been expressly dishelieved by several courts, The additional time requested for discovery and for scheduling ADR and all other pretrial deadlines will help ensure that this case is resolved on the merits in an efficient and reasonable manner, as is favored under Minnesota law. Any delay caused by reopening discovery and resetting the remaining deadlines will not be prejudicial to any partys ‘ANDARD. Courts have wide Latitude in issuing scheduling orders. In re Commr'n Public Safety, 755 NAW.24 706,711 (Mi n. 2007). Courts should mend scheduling orders and reopen discovery where the interests of justice will be served by having a trial on the merits with as complete a record as is practical. In a complicated case such as this, adequate preparation for trial may take longer than ordinary. but such preparations are essential for proper adjudication. [The basic philosophy underlying modern discovery rules that ‘a lawsuit should be an intensive search for the truth, not a game to be determined in outcome by consideration of tactics and surprise.”” Anderson v, Florence, 181 N.W 2d 873, 876 (Minn. 1970)(citations omitied). The interests of justice will be served by reopening discovery in this matter and allowing both sides an appropriate amouut of time in which to conduct written and oral discovery. The ability of all Parties to present their best case, as well as to make further efforts at sertlement, will be best. setved by further discovery and the modification of the scheduling order, STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS. This case is based on Defendants’ theft of Cooper's identity, and the use of that identity in connection with a nationwide copyright litigation scheme perpetrated by Defendants. Numerous federal courts have already held that one or more Defendants did in fact steal Cooper's identity for use in this scheme in an effort to extract settlements from individuals accused of copyright infringement." " Ingenuity13 LLC v, John Doe, No. 2:12-cv8333-ODW, 2013 WL 1898633 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2013); AF Holdings, LLC v. Navasca, No. C-12-2396, (N.D.Cal. October 16, 2013); AF Holdings, LLC v. Doe(s), No. 12-1445, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187458, at *10-12 (D. Minn.2T-CVAS-BS PRES Fo: See DINGI20%5 9 42 02 PAM Hennepin County Gna MA ‘The scope of relevant documentary and testimonial evidence to be gathered in support of Cooper's claim is broad, but manageable. Ilis Cooper's position that the relevant written and oral discovery required to collect all of the evidence he seeks, assuming cooperation with the discovery process by Defendants, is 120 days. Cooper has also retained two additional attorneys’ who have been involved in other related cases and who have detailed knowledge of the underlying facts to help finish any remaining discovery and to prepare for trial Discovery was initially served on Defendants at the outset of this case. A preat deal of time was lost after the case was removed to the District of Minnesota, 10 be remanded to this Court after 10 months of briefing. Godfread Decl., Ex. ‘ull responses to that written discovery ‘were never received. Plaintiff has received also received responses to third party discovery ARGUMENT This Court may reopen discovery and amend the scheduling order for good cause and has wide diseretion in doing so. See In re Comun'n Public Saftey. “A continuance or permission to engage in further discovery should not be denied to a party except in the most extreme circumstances.” Rice v. Perl, 320 NW.24 407, 412 (Minn, 1982) Courts considering staying deadlines and reopening discovery often consider whether a party seeking reopening of discovery has been reasonably diligent and that specific reasons to reopen discovery can be identified. See 1d. Plaintiff has been reasonably diligent in secking discovery in this case and has ‘a good faith belief that additional facts will be uncovered by reopening discovery. Some of the Nov. 6, 2013), vacated by AF Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 12-1445, 2014 WL 1285757, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43318 (D. Minn. Mar. 27, 2014), AF Holdings. LLC v. Patel, 2:12-cv-00262 WCO (ND. Ga. Nov. 20, 2014). These orders are attached as Godfread Decl., Ex. A-D. Erin Russell and Jason Sweet have been counsel of record in w number of cases in other states involving the Defendants and will join undersigned as co-counse! to Plaintiff pending granting of the forthcoming pro hac vice motions. 3FERIA ES RS ee ee DIH20185 942 02 PM exept Gounty Cred, MM allegations brought by Plaintiff have been found to be true by other courts and Plaintiff is confident that by granting this motion he will be able to prove the remaining facts plead in his Complaint. However, even if this Court were to find a lapse of diligence on the part of any party in conducting discovery, because Minnesota law favors disposition on the merits and a full investigation of faets. this Count should allow the reopening of discovery and modification of the scheduling order. There is nothing to suggest “extreme circumstances” that the Rice court believed were necessary to deny a request for additional time for discovery. I. Plaintiff's Abi To Conduct Orderly Discovery Has Been Obstructed Plaintiffs initial written discovery responses were given only cursory responses with numerous objections. Plaintiff has had some success with third party subpoenas and independent investigation, but will stil need to have the opportunity to seek further discovery from Defendants. Plaintiff is confident that with the help of new co-counsel any deficiencies in discovery or pre-trial preparation will be resolved by granting this motion and allowing the parties additional time to prepare Il, Plaintiff Can Identify Specific Areas That Require Further Discovery And That Can Be Completed In A Reasonable Amount Of Additional Time. Plaintiff can identify several reasons that discovery should be reopened, any one of which may be sufficient for this Court to find good cause to exercise its discretion in doing so. The areas where Plaintiff believes additional discovery is both necessary and able to be completed are discussed below A. Due To Incomplete Disclosures, Parties C: Id Not Have Had Full Opportunity To Perform Discovery On Issues Not Disclosed26201 9 42 02 P enviepin County Cr, STEERED, As an initial matter. not all of the parties have fully exchanged required Rule 26 disclosures. The full disclosures might lead to additional factual inquiries that are as yet unknown to either party. This Court should give all parties the right to adequately prove or defend any of the claims or counterclaims. This is not possible if the parties were not privy to all information that should have been disclosed pursuant to Rule 26. Once all disclosures have been ‘made in full, the parties will be able to verify that all discoverable evidence has been obiained. This alone should be grounds for the Court to exercise its diseretion in allowing further discovery so that none of the parties are taken by surprise and that other errors are avoided that could be more costly to deal with Tater. B. The Parties Have Had Only Incomplete Testimony On The Facts At Issue Both Cooper and Steele have given swom testimony in other cases on factual matters that relate to this case, but there are additional facts that relate to this case that require further discovery. None of the parties have been deposed yet in this case. While other courts have concluded that the Defendants did misappropriate Plaintiff's identity, we still do not have a clear answer from Defendants as to how much they may profited or which Defendants in particular profited from that misappropriation, Defendant Steele indicated that he wanted to depose the Plaintiff, but could not settle on a mutually acceptable date and never noticed a deposition. Plaintiff also needs the opportunity to depose Steele, and the officers of each of the other Defendants, especially on matters that were not fully disclosed or that relate to facts and defenses that were not previously known to Plaintiff. This case will not be ready for trial without these depositions being completed. Plaintiff is confident that the additional time requested will be sufficient to complete those depositions and 5(27-EN-13-63- Fed in Fourth Judickl Desinct Cous DINGO", 9.42 02 PA Henmeqsn County € any others that are necessary to prepare this case for trial. C. Plaintiff's Claims By Their Nature Require Additional ne For Discovery Plaintiff is bringing el: ims that involve misappropriation and conspiracy, which are by their very nature difficult to prove without reviewing all circumstantial evidence. See ¢.g Scheele v. Union Loan & Finance Co.,274 N.W. 673,678 (Minn. 1937). This case involves a substantial amount of ci mstantial evidence that will prove Plaintiff's claims, but it will require additional discovery from Defendants to make proper use of this evidence. While Plaintiff is not bringing a fraud claim, there are substantial similarities as the misappropriation claim involves the use of a forged signature and misrepresentations in other courts that Defendants had Plaintiff's authorization to use his signature, D. _ Plaintiff Is A Solo Practitioner But Has Brought On Co-Counsel ‘The volume of information relating to this case is vast due in large part to the number of other cases that have some factual relationship to it. Plaintiff's counsel is a solo practitioner and has been able to compile a large amount of data about the Defendants and the hundreds of cases they brought in federal courts that use the Plaintiff's signature. However, more help was needed and Plaintiff has retained two additional attorneys, Erin Russell of Illinois and Jason Sweet of Massachusetts. Both have had substantial experience with other cases involving the Defendants as well as experience with complex litigation generally and will be able to help prepare this case for trial as efficiently as possible. As such, Plaintiff has good reason to believe that with the additional time requested, and with additional help, this case will be ready for trial.SO ae OR RF OUI SR Ciel Thats Cae DING 942 (2 PMA oemepan County Cr, CONCLUSION Jn summary, Cooper wishes to make sure that as this complicated case proceeds to trial, all parties have had a fair opportunity to explore the factual issues. ‘This will not be possible without the reopening of discovery and resetting dates on the scheduling order. All parties are no doubt eager to make their case, but it would seem as though none of the parties are fully prepared for trial at this time. Cooper therefore asks that this Court exercise its discretion and reopen discovery for a period of 120 days and adjusting the remaining dates on the scheduling order accordingly Dated: February 16, 2015 GODFREAD LAW FIRM, PC By: s/Paul Godfread Paul Godfread (389316) {6043 Hudson Road, Suite 305 Woodbury, MN 55125 Phone: (612) 284-7325 Fax: (612) 465-3609 paul@ godfreadlaw.com Attomey for Plaintiff, Alan Coopern Fourth Judicial Drstict Court DN62015 9.42.02 PM Honnepin County Chl, MN 27GV 13-63 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 549.211, subd. 2, to the party against whom the allegations in this motion are asserted. Dated: February 16, 2015 GODFREAD LAW FIRM, PC By: s/Paul Godfread Paul Godfread (389316)APEVAT HES ——— Fed in Fourth Judicsal Orstiet Court 2015 042 02 PM Hennepin County Cra, MN STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Alan Cooper, Court File No.: 27-CV-13-34-63 Plaintiff | ve | Declaration of Paul Godfread John Lawrence Steele, Prenda Law Ine., AE Holdings, LLC, Ingenuity13, LLC, Defendants | l. Tam over 18 years of age and counsel for Alan Cooper in the above titled case. I make the following Declaration based on my personal knowledge: ‘The following are true and correct copies of public documents, discovery responses, and correspondence between myself and Defendants. Exhibit A - Order - Ingenuity13, LLC v. Jobn Doe, No. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW (C.1). Cal.) Exhibit B ~ Order - AF Holdings, LLC v. Navasca, No, C-12-2396 (N.D. Cal.) Exhibit C - Order ~ AF Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 12-1445 (D.Minn.) (vacated) Exhibit D ~ Minutes ~ AF Holdings, LLC v. Patel, 2:12-cv-000262-WCO (N.D. Ga.) Exhibit E- Remand Order — Cooper v. Steele 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: February 16, 2015 GODFREAD LAW FIRM, PC By: sPaulGodfread 6043 Hudson Road, Suite 305 Woodbury, MN 55125 (612) 284-7325 Attorney for Plaintiff, Alan Cooper 1