Declaration of Daniel A. Kohler

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 71 Page ID #:56
1 MARC E. MAYER (SBN 190969)

mem@msk.com
2 DANIEL A. KOHLER (SBN 285501)
dxk@msk.com
3 MATTHEW S. BEASLEY (SBN 288070)
msb@msk.com
4 MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
11377 West Olympic Boulevard
5 Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683
Telephone: (310) 312-2000
6 Facsimile: (310) 312-3100
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff
RIOT GAMES, INC.
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION
11
12 RIOT GAMES, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
13
Plaintiff,
14
v.
15
STEFAN DELGADO ARGOTE a/k/a
16 Ohm and Burberry; MATTHIAS
OLTMANN a/k/a Joduskame,
17 Rolle3k, and Sheppard; TYRONE
TOM PAUER a/k/a Beaving;
18 CHACHANI MISTI Y PICHU PICHU
S.R.L., a company organized under the
19 laws of Peru; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive,
20
Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
8037088.1
28
CASE NO. 2:16-CV-5871-RSWL-AS

The Honorable Alka Sagar
DECLARATION OF DANIEL A.
KOHLER IN SUPPORT OF EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR
LEAVE TO TAKE LIMITED
IMMEDIATE DISCOVERY
[Memorandum of Points and Authorities
and [Proposed] Order filed concurrently
herewith]
I, Daniel A. Kohler, declare as follows:
2
3
1.
I am an attorney-at-law, duly licensed to practice law in the State of
4 California. I am an associate with the law firm of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp
5 LLP, counsel of record for plaintiff Riot Games, Inc. (Riot) in this action. I
6 know all of the following of my own personal knowledge and, if called as a
7 witness, could and would competently testify thereto.
8
9
2.
This is an action for violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of
10 the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), intentional interference with

11 contract, and unfair competition, arising from the sale and distribution of an online
12 video game cheating service and software product known as LeagueSharp
13 (L#). L# is a software program specifically designed to enable its users to cheat
14 in Riots popular League of Legends (LoL) video game.
15
Riots Preliminary Investigation
16
17
3.
During Riots preliminary investigation, Riot uncovered evidence that
18 among the individuals responsible for the creation, development, maintenance, and
19 distribution of L# are Matthias Oltmann a/k/a Joduskame, Stefan Delgado
20 Argote a/k/a Ohm, and Tyrone Tom Pauer a/k/a Beaving. (These
21 individuals are referred to herein as the Individual Defendants.) Riot also
22 uncovered evidence that the L# service purports to be sold via Chachani Misti y
23 Pichu Pichu S.R.L (Chachani), an entity purportedly organized under the laws of
24 Peru. (The Individual Defendants and Chachani collectively are referred to herein
25 as the Named Defendants.)
26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
8037088.1
4.
On July 25, 2016, Riot sent to the Individual Defendants cease and
28 desist letters regarding their creation and sale of L#. In response to those letters,
1
1 the Individual Defendants represented (through their German counsel) that

2 Chachani is, in fact, responsible for maintaining the L# software and its website
3 (www.joduska.me), and seemed to claim that the Individual Defendants are not
4 responsible for the exploitation of L#. (www.joduska.me is referred to herein as
5 the L# Website.) Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 are true and correct copies of the
6 responses Riot received from each of the Individual Defendants, as well as English
7 translations of the same.
8
9
5.
In December of 2015, a lawsuit was filed in the United Kingdom on
10 behalf of Chachani against a third party who purportedly had copied the L#
11 software without the authorization of Chachani. A true and correct copy of the
12 complaint in this action is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
13
14
6.
However, Riots preliminary investigation has uncovered evidence
15 that leads it to believe that Chachani is merely a shell company used by

16 anonymous individuals to conceal their identity. For example, Riot has uncovered
17 evidence that: (1) Chachani does not in fact reside at the address listed in its U.K.
18 Complaint, (2) there are no corresponding records in the local registers, reference
19 guides, or telephone directories for Chachani, and (3) there is no telephone or fax
20 number listed for Chachani.
21
22
7.
Riot also has obtained evidence that the individuals or entities
23 responsible for maintaining the L# Website are actively destroying evidence (e.g.,
24 by deleting posts from their Websites forums) due to the instant lawsuit having
25 been filed.
26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
8037088.1
28
2
Service On The Named Defendants
1
2
8.
Riot has begun the process of effecting service on the Named
3 Defendants through the Hague Service Convention (the Hague) (for the
4 Individual Defendants) and the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory
5 and Additional Protocol (the IACAP) (for Chachani). To date, Riot has prepared
6 the papers for service through the Hague and has begun the process of obtaining
7 certified translations of each initiating document. Riot also has prepared the papers
8 to be served on Chachani through the IACAP.
9
The Requested Early Discovery
10
11
9.
By the Ex Parte Application filed concurrently herewith, Riot seeks
12 leave to serve four subpoenas for business records: one directed to PayPal, Inc.
13 (PayPal), one to G2A LLC (G2A), and the remaining two to Cloudflare Inc.
14 (Cloudflare) and Namecheap Inc. (Namecheap). Riot requests this early
15 discovery in order to ascertain the identities of the individuals or entities who
16 receive payment for the L# software, as well as those individuals or entities that
17 registered and maintain the website through which L# is distributed. True and
18 correct copies of the four subpoenas that Riot seeks leave to serve are attached
19 hereto as Exhibit 3.
20
21
10.
PayPal and G2A are international e-commerce businesses allowing
22 payments and money transfers to be made through the Internet. During its
23 preliminary investigation, Riot learned that the individuals responsible for L# use
24 PayPal and G2A to receive and process the payments they receive in connection
25 with L#.
26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
8037088.1
11.
Cloudflare is a content delivery service which provides web services,
28 including DDOS protection, data pass-through, and privacy-related services for the
3
1 L# Website. Namecheap is the domain name registrar that registered the

2 joduksa.me domain name. Namecheap employs a service (utilized by the
3 individuals or entities who maintain the L# Website) called Whoisguard, which
4 allows individuals who register domain names with Namecheap to shield their
5 identify from public Whois searches.
6
7
12.
The discovery Riot seeks by its Ex Parte Application is intended to
8 (1) reveal the identities of each person or entity who has registered with PayPal or
9 G2A in order to receive monetary transfers in connection with L#, and from where
10 such person or persons conducted their activities; (2) reveal the location and
11 identity of the web hosting service used to operate the L# service; and (3) reveal
12 the identities of the individuals or entities that registered the L# Website domain
13 name through Namecheap, as well as those individuals or entities who continue to
14 maintain the website through Cloudflare.
15
16
13.
Riot does not at this time seek financial data or the details of specific
17 transactions (though it reserves its right to do so in the future). In the event that
18 Riot later determines that it requires additional early discovery, it will apply to the
19 Court for leave to serve such additional discovery.
20
21
14.
I will provide the subpoenaed entities (PayPal, G2A, Namecheap, and
22 Cloudflare) with no fewer than 21 days to respond to the requested subpoenas, so

23 that any affected third party will have ample opportunity to lodge any objections or
24 file any motions concerning the subpoena.
25
26 //
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
8037088.1
28 //
4
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
2
3
Executed on this 22nd day of August, 2016, at Los Angeles, California.
4
5
6
Daniel A. Kohler
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
8037088.1
28
5
EXHIBIT 1
EX 1 - PG 6
EX 1 - PG 7
EX 1 - PG 8
[Letterhead Lawyer Michael Euler]
Law offices of Beiten Burkhardt

Ganghoferstrasse 33
80339 Munich
Legal matter Riot Games Inc. and Riot Games Ltd. ./. Matthias Oltmann, Your letter of
25 July 2016, Your reference 16/03128 AVW/nwe
Dear colleague Dr. von Walter,
I advise my representation of Matthias Oltmann, resident in Nordholz 4a, 26197
Groenkneten, presenting the respective power of attorney.
I have been retained with respect to your writing dated 25 July 2016, in which you request
my client on behalf of the companies Riot Games Inc., USA, and Riot Games Ltd., Ireland, to
forbear the development, distribution and operation of the software LeagueSharp". In this
regard it should be noted that this writing has the same content as the written warnings
issued to Mr Stefan Delgado-Argote and the entrepreneurial company Vex Consulting UG.
First of all it has to be clarified with regard to Mr Oltmann, too, that my client does not
operate the website www.joduska.me. Insofar as your clients wish that the website wwwjoduska.me no longer offers the software Leaguesharp" your clients are free to address in this
regard the operator of www.joduska.me, the undertaking Chachani, Misti y Pichu Pichu SRL
specified by you.
Mr Oltmann is neither a managing director nor a shareholder of Chachani, Misti y Pichu
Pichu SRL. Also, Mr Oltmann has not rendered unfair support to the company Vex Consulting UG or the company Chachani, Misti y Pichu Pichu SRL as service provider to the
distribution of the software Leaguesharp", much less would he act as the de facto manager
of Vex Consulting UG.
A corresponding allegation is obviously a shot in the dark, particularly as you again claim at
the beginning of your writing that Riot could provide evidence substantiating that my client
offers and distributes the software Leaguesharp" via the Internet, but at the same time
accusing Mr Oltmann of only supporting the Chachani, Misti y Pichu Pichu SRL in this
regard. In this context a precise submission of facts is requested on how your clients actually
come to make such an allegation.
EX 1 - PG 9

-2-
Furthermore, as regards content full reference is made to the legal argumentation in the
matter Stefan Delgado-Argote and Vex Consulting UG.
In addition, you do not even begin to give the slightest indication why the software
Leaguesharp" should constitute a violation of Riot's copyright to the software League of
Legends". It is neither claimed that the software Leaguesharp" uses programme code of the
software League of Legends" nor is it shown how the use of the software "Leaguesharp"
should violate copyrights of Riot Games Inc. USA, and of Riot Games Ltd., especially since
Riot Games Ltd. solely offers the game in Europe although all rights are allegedly held by
Riot Games Inc. USA.
It is the opinion here that your given warning notice is not valid simply because it lacks the
indication and description of a specific violation of provisions under competition and/or
copyright law.
As you have given a warning notice in your letter of 25 July 2016 apparently without any
legal ground, I have to request your clients for the purpose of
Avoidance of a Declaratory Action
to declare not later than
Monday, 8 August 2016
a waiver in that both Riot Games Inc. USA and Riot Games Ltd., Ireland, have no claim
towards Mr Oltmann to refrain from further developing, distributing or making publicly
available, using or making available for use to third parties the software "Leaguesharp", in
particular, if this so happens as under www.joduska.me.
For the avoidance of doubt, on behalf of my client I reject your claim, asserted in the writing
of 25 July 2016 because of formal reasons, as no original Power of Attorney of your clients
pursuant to Sec. 174 (I) BGB was attached to your letter and the due authorisation was
merely assured.
In the course of further correspondence information is requested on whether an authorisation
to accept service of process for a negative declaratory action is present, unless a declaration
of waiver is received not later than 8 August 2016.
Best regards,
Michael Euler
Lawyer
EX 1 - PG 10
EX 1 - PG 11
EX 1 - PG 12
EX 1 - PG 13

Ganghoferstrae 33
80339 Munich
Legal matter Riot Games Inc. and Riot Games Ltd. ./. Tyrone Tom Pauer, Your letter of 25
July 2016, Your reference 16/03128 AVW/nwe

I advise my representation of Mr Tyrone Tom Pauer, resident in Hans-Herwig-Strae 9,
44534 Lnen, presenting the respective power of attorney.
I have been retained with respect to your writing dated 25 July 2016, in which you request
my client on behalf of the companies Riot Games Inc., USA, and Riot Games Ltd., Ireland, to
forbear the development, distribution and operation of the software LeagueSharp". In this
regard it should be noted that this writing has the same content as the written warnings
issued to Mr Stefan Delgado-Argote and the entrepreneurial company Vex Consulting UG.
First of all it has to be clarified with regard to Mr Pauer, too, that my client does not operate
the website www.joduska.me. Insofar as your clients wish that the website wwwjoduska.me
no longer offers the software Leaguesharp" your clients are free to address in this regard the
operator of www.joduska.me, the undertaking Chachani, Misti y Pichu Pichu SRL specified
by you.
Insofar as you claim that Mr Pauer assists with the development and distribution of the
software Leaguesharp", the respective allegation is obviously also a shot in the dark,
particularly as you have already made demonstrably false claims in the warning notices to
the clients Matthias Oltmann, Delgado-Argote as well as the company Vex Consulting UG
who are also legally represented by me.
My client does not hold any rights to the software Leaguesharp". According to our present
information the undertaking Chachani, Misti y Pichu Pichu SRL is the sole holder of rights
who distributes the software Leaguesharp" under www.joduska.me via the Internet.
EX 1 - PG 14

-2-
Furthermore, as regards content full reference is made to the legal argumentation in the
matter Stefan Delgado-Argote and Vex Consulting UG.
software League of Legends" nor is it shown how the use of the software "Leaguesharp" should
violate copyrights of Riot Games Inc. USA, and of Riot Games Ltd., especially since Riot Games
Ltd. solely offers the game in Europe although all rights are allegedly held by Riot Games Inc.
USA.
It is the opinion here that your given warning notice is not valid simply because it lacks the
indication and description of a specific violation of provisions under competition and/or
copyright law.
As you have given a warning notice in your letter of 25 July 2016 apparently without any
legal ground, I have to request your clients for the purpose of
a waiver in that both Riot Games Inc. USA and Riot Games Ltd., Ireland, have no claim towards
Mr Pauer to refrain from further developing, distributing or making publicly available, using or
making available for use to third parties the software "Leaguesharp", in particular, if this so
happens as under www.joduska.me.
For the avoidance of doubt, on behalf of my client I reject your claim, asserted in the writing
of 25 July 2016 because of formal reasons, as no original Power of Attorney of your clients
pursuant to Sec. 174 (I) BGB was not attached to your letter and the due authorisation was
merely assured.
In the course of further correspondence information is requested on whether an authorisation to
accept service of process for a negative declaratory action is present, unless a declaration of
waiver is received not later than 8 August 2016.
Best regards,
Michael Euler
Lawyer
EX 1 - PG 15
EX 1 - PG 16
EX 1 - PG 17
EX 1 - PG 18
EX 1 - PG 19

Ganghoferstrae 33
80339 Munich
Legal matter Riot Games Inc. and Riot Games Ltd. ./. Stefan Delgado-Argote + Vex
Consulting UG, Your letters of 25 + 26 July 2016, Your reference 16/03128 AVW/nwe

I advise my representation of Mr Stefan Delgado-Argote, Kaiser-Friedrich-Ring 74, 65189
Wiesbaden, as well as of the entrepreneurial company Vex Consulting UG, ibidem,
represented by the Managing Director Stefan Delgado-Argote, presenting the respective
power of attorney.
I have been retained with respect to your writings dated 25 July and 26 July 2016, in which
you request my clients on behalf of the companies Riot Games Inc., USA, and Riot Games
Ltd., Ireland, to forbear the development, distribution and operation of the software
LeagueSharp". Vex Consulting UG shall furthermore remove all copies of the software held
ready and prohibit the use by third parties.
First of all it has to be clarified that my clients do not operate the website www.joduska.me.
Insofar as your clients wish that the website wwwjoduska.me no longer offers the software
Leaguesharp", your clients are free to address in this regard the operator of
www.joduska.me, the undertaking Chachani, Misti y Pichu Pichu SRL specified by you.
Mr Stefan Delgado-Argote is neither a managing director nor a shareholder of Chachani,
Misti y Pichu Pichu SRL. And Vex Consulting UG does also not hold any shares in the
aforementioned undertaking.
Moreover, Mr Delgado-Argote as managing partner of Vex Consulting UG has not rendered
unfair support to Chachani, Misti y Pichu Pichu SRL as service provider in the distribution of
the software Leaguesharp".
A corresponding allegation is obviously a shot in the dark, particularly as you again claim at
the beginning of your writing that Riot could provide evidence substantiating that my clients
offer and distribute the software Leaguesharp via the Internet, but at the same time accusing
EX 1 - PG 20

-3-
my clients of only supporting the Chachani, Misti y Pichu Pichu SRL in this respect. In this
context a precise submission of facts is requested on how your clients actually come to make
such an allegation.
With regard to the accusations made, unsubstantiated even on the merits due to a lack of
liability on the part of my clients for the undertaking Chachani, Misti y Pichu Pichu SRL, the
signatory has familiarised with how the software Leaguesharp" works and in doing so has
found that the decisions of the Regional Appeal Court of Hamburg quoted by you, decision
dated 6 November 2014 3 U 86/13 and the Regional Appeal Court of Dresden, decision
dated 20 January 2015 14 U 1127/14, may not in the least apply in this matter, even if my
clients would in fact distribute the software Leaguesharp" which is provably not the case.
A violation of Sec. 4 No. 4 or rather Sec. 4 No. 10 UWG old version (German Act Against
Unfair Competition) which may arise in the context of the distribution of Leaguesharp" will
yet fail when reference is made to the decision of the Regional Appeal Court of Hamburg
simply because my clients are no competitors of Riot Games Inc. USA or Riot Games Ltd.,
Ireland.
The prerequisite for a concrete competitive relationship is that the competing enterprises are
engaged in business activities at the same time in the same geographic product market.
To determine the relevant product market, it is important that the products and services
offered by the competing enterprises and demanded by the customers (end customer / final
user) are regarded as being interchangeable. Products and services are deemed to be
interchangeable if they can be compared and thus interchanged due to their characteristics,
prices and intended use.
In the case at hand to start with the interchangeability of products is lacking as the software
Leaguesharp" is merely a programme which only functions in relation to the software
League of Legends" and presupposes its presence. According to our present information
neither Riot Games Inc. USA nor Riot Games Ltd., Ireland offer a software with the same
content as is provided by Leaguesharp".
With regard to a competition hindering competitor" one could, after all, only focus on the
undertaking Chachani, Misti y Pichu Pichu SRL as it is the sole distributor of the software
Leaguesharp". It is unneccesary to point out that Mr Delgado-Argote as well as the
company Vex Consulting UG do not support Chachani, Misti y Pichu Pichu SRL in respect
of violating competition regulations.
In so far as the decision of the Regional Appeal Court of Hamburg also concerned a
trademark infringement, this cannot be found in the software titles Leaguesharp" and
League of Legends" but has actually not been asserted by you. In this regard it would,
EX 1 - PG 21

-3-
however, be doubtful anyway to what extent my clients shall be held liable for the distribution
of the software Leaguesharp" via the undertaking Chachani, Misti y Pichu Pichu SRL.
The decision of the Regional Appeal Court of Dresden, decision dated 20 January 2015
14 U 1127/14 is not in the least relevant for the alleged facts as presented by you. The
Regional Appeal Court of Dresden had to render a decision in an action where the plaintiff
held the respective defendant liable for commercial reproduction of client software for the
Plainitff's online games.
The defendant should be specifically prohibited to produce and/or process for commercial
purposes an automation software for the plaintiff's games, if the defendant itself or if it has a
third party copy parts of the client software for the online games to the hard drive of a PC
and/or loads it to the main memory and/or has it displayed on the screen.
My clients can claim neither to have had any part in the programming of the programme
Leaguesharp" nor to have made commercial use of the game software of "League of
Legends" for that purpose.
Insofar as you claim that the software Leaguesharp" allows users within the game League
of Legends" to run scripts, automatically executing predefined actions in the game in order to
push the gamer's performance, and this results in a violation of Clause III. E. of the End User
License Agreement (EULA), ignorance is initially pleaded in this respect. Relevant licensing
provisions of the game League of Legends" remain unknown here and are also not attached
to your letters dated 25 and 26 July 2016. Also from a legal perspective, the effectiveness of
such end user licensing provisions remains more than doubtful.
software League of Legends" nor is it shown how the use of the software "Leaguesharp"
should violate copyrights of Riot Games Inc. USA, and of Riot Games Ltd., especially since
Riot Games Ltd. solely offers the game in Europe although all rights are allegedly held by
Riot Games Inc. USA.
As you have given warning notices in your letters of 25 July and 26 July 2016 issued to Vex
Consulting UG and Mr Stefan Delgado-Argote apparently without any legal ground, I have to
request your clients for the purpose of
EX 1 - PG 22

-3-
a waiver in that both Riot Games Inc. USA and Riot Games Ltd., Ireland, have no claim
towards Vex Consulting UG and Mr Stefan Delgado-Argote to refrain from further developing,
distributing or making publicly available, using or making available for use to third parties the
software "Leaguesharp", in particular, if this so happens as under www.joduska.me. Apart
from that it can be summarised that Vex Consulting UG is not obliged to remove all copies of
the software held ready and prohibit the use by third parties, particularly since it remains
completely incomprehensible why Vex Consulting UG should keep ready the litigious
software when - according to your argumentation - the distribution is handled via the
undertaking Chachani, Misti y Pichu Pichu SRL.
For the avoidance of doubt, on behalf of my client I reject your claim, asserted in the writings
of 25 and 26 July 2016 because of formal reasons, as no original Power of Attorney of your
clients pursuant to Sec. 174 (I) BGB was attached to your letter and the due authorisation
was merely assured.
In the course of further correspondence information is requested on whether an authorisation
to accept service of process for a negative declaratory action is present, unless a declaration
of waiver is received not later than 8 August 2016.
Best regards,
Michael Euler
Lawyer
EX 1 - PG 23
EXHIBIT 2
EX 2 - PG 24
EX 2 - PG 25
EX 2 - PG 26
EX 2 - PG 27
EX 2 - PG 28
EX 2 - PG 29
EX 2 - PG 30
EX 2 - PG 31
EX 2 - PG 32
EX 2 - PG 33
EX 2 - PG 34
EX 2 - PG 35
EX 2 - PG 36
EX 2 - PG 37
EX 2 - PG 38
EX 2 - PG 39
EX 2 - PG 40
EX 2 - PG 41
Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 45 of 71 Page ID

#:100
EX 2 - PG 42

#:101
EX 2 - PG 43

#:102
EX 2 - PG 44

#:103
EX 2 - PG 45

#:104
EXHIBIT 3
8684.1

#:105
AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action

for the
Central District of California
Riot Games, Inc.
Plaintiff
v.
STEFAN DELGADO ARGOTE a/k/a Ohm and
Burberry, et al.,
))
))
))
Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-5871-RSWL-AS

(If the action is pending in another district, state where:)
Defendant
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS

OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION
To:
G2A LLC, c/o Inc. Plan of Nevada, 613 Saddle Rider Court, Henderson, NV 89011
Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following
documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the
material:
See Attachment A.
Place: First Records Retrieval

1511 W. Beverly Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Date and Time:
Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or
other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party
may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.
Place:
Date and Time:
The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule
45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are
attached.
Date:
CLERK OF COURT
OR
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Attorney's signature
Daniel A. Kohler, Attorney for Plaintiff
The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) Plaintiff
Riot Games, Inc.
, who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
Daniel A. Kohler, Esq., Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP / 11377 W. Olympic Boulevard / Los Angeles, CA 90064
Email: dxk@msk.com / Telephone: (310) 312-2000
EX 3 - PG 46
8684.1

#:106
AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (Page 2)

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)
This subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)
I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows:
on (date)
; or
I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:
Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also
tendered to the witness fees for one days attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
$
My fees are $
for travel and $
for services, for a total of $ 0.00
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Server's signature
Printed name and title
Server's address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
EX 3 - PG 47
8684.1

#:107
AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action(Page 3)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e) (Effective 12/1/07)
(c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena.
(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or
attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take
reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a
person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this
duty and impose an appropriate sanction which may include lost
earnings and reasonable attorneys fees on a party or attorney
who fails to comply.
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.
(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce
documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or
to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the
place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear
for a deposition, hearing, or trial.
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or
tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or
attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to
inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or
to inspecting the premises or to producing electronically stored
information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be
served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14
days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the
following rules apply:
(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving
party may move the issuing court for an order compelling production
or inspection.
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and
the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's
officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.
(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must
quash or modify a subpoena that:
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
(ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a partys officer
to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is
employed, or regularly transacts business in person except that,
subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded to
attend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where
the trial is held;
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if
no exception or waiver applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by
a subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the
subpoena if it requires:
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research,
development, or commercial information;
(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that
does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from
the expert's study that was not requested by a party; or
(iii) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur
substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial.
(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances
described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or
modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under
specified conditions if the serving party:
(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that
cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and
(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably
compensated.
(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.

(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information.
These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically
stored information:
(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce
documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary
course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to
the categories in the demand.
(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not
Specified. If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing
electronically stored information, the person responding must
produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or
in a reasonably usable form or forms.
(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One
Form. The person responding need not produce the same
electronically stored information in more than one form.
(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person
responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored
information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably
accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel
discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show
that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue
burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless
order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows
good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The
court may specify conditions for the discovery.
(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.
(A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed
information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to
protection as trial-preparation material must:
(i) expressly make the claim; and
(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents,
communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without
revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the
parties to assess the claim.
(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a
subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trialpreparation material, the person making the claim may notify any
party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it.
After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or
destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use
or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take
reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it
before being notified; and may promptly present the information to
the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person
who produced the information must preserve the information until
the claim is resolved.
(e) Contempt. The issuing court may hold in contempt a person
who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the
subpoena. A nonpartys failure to obey must be excused if the
subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a
place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii).
EX 3 - PG 48

#:108
ATTACHMENT A
I. INSTRUCTIONS
1.
G2A LLC (G2A) is to make available for copying all requested documents that
are in its possession, custody, or control, including documents in the possession, custody, or
control of its attorneys, accountants, agents, representatives, or any other persons acting on its
behalf.
2.
G2A is to produce any Microsoft Excel and/or other database-related files in their
native electronic format.
3.
Should a claim be made that any subpoenaed document is not subject to
discovery by reason of privilege or some other legal protection, please provide a privilege
log containing the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5).
II. DEFINITIONS
As used herein, the following terms are intended to have the meanings indicated:
1.
The phrase All Documents means every Document, whether an original or copy
as defined below, and every such Document or writing that can be located through reasonably
diligent efforts.
2.
And means and/or and or means and/or. The plural of any word used
herein includes the singular, and the singular includes the plural. The masculine gender of any
word used herein includes the feminine. The past tense of a verb used herein includes the
present tense, and the present tense includes the past tense.
3.
The terms Document and Documents include without limitation the original
and all drafts of all written or graphic matter, however produced or reproduced, of any kind or
description, and all copies thereof which are different from the original (whether different by
interlineation, receipt stamp, notation, indication of copies sent or received, or otherwise),
whether printed or recorded electronically or magnetically or reproduced by hand, including
documents and electronically stored information as defined by Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and writings and recordings as defined by Rule 1001(1) of the Federal Rules of
Evidence. Examples of Documents are: agreements or contracts, communications,
correspondence, e-mails, telegrams, cables, memoranda, records, books, summaries of records or
personal conversations or interviews, diaries, desk calendars, appointment books, journals,
message pads, forecasts, statistical statements, accountants workpapers, graphs, charts,
diagrams, certificates and certifications, tables, indexes, pictures, recordings, sound recordings,
images, data or data compilations stored in any medium, tapes, microfilm, charges, accounts,
analytical records, minutes or records of meetings, conferences or conversations, reports or
summaries of interviews, reports or summaries of investigations, texts or surveys, opinions or
reports of consultants, appraisals, reports or summaries of negotiations, advertisements,
brochures, pamphlets, circulars, trade letters, press releases, stenographic or handwritten or other
notes, projections, working papers, checks front and back, check stubs or receipts, envelopes,
invoice vouchers, data processing cards, tapes, backup tapes, disks or any other written,
8048688.1/47638-00002
EX 3 - PG 49

#:109
recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, filmed or graphic matter, however produced or

reproduced, and any other document or writing of whatever description, including but not limited
to any other information contained in any computer, computer peripheral equipment, computer
library, or website, although not yet printed.
4.
number.
5.
The term IP Address means Internet Protocol address and Internet Protocol
The term Identify means:
(a)
for individuals, to provide the name, Social Security number, date of birth,
home addresses, office addresses, mailing addresses, billing addresses, e-mail addresses,
telephone numbers, facsimile numbers, Media Access Control number, related Internet websites,
IP Addresses used by the subscriber with the date, time zone, hour, minute, and second when
each IP Address was used, and any and all other identifying information, including, for example,
information contained on any activity logs;
(b)
for entities, to provide the name, office addresses, mailing addresses,
billing addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, facsimile numbers, Media Access
Control number, related Internet websites, IP Addresses used by the subscriber with the date,
time zone, hour, minute, and second when each IP Address was used, and any and all other
identifying information, including, for example, information contained on any activity logs; and
(c)
in all other instances, the term shall be construed in accordance with its
ordinary meaning, with the object of providing information sufficient to permit complete and
accurate identification of the requested subject matter.
III. DOCUMENTS REQUESTED

1.
All Documents sufficient to Identify all G2A accounts linked to, associated with,
or related to any of the following e-mail addresses, and any and all related G2A accounts:
(a)
contact@joduska.me
(b)
joduskame@outlook.de
(c)
letsplaysharp@gmail.com
2.
All Documents sufficient to Identify all individuals and/or entities who have at
any time held, owned, administered, transferred money from, or withdrawn money from any of
the G2A accounts identified in response to Document Request No. 1.
3.
All IP Addresses used to access, log into, or register, any of the G2A accounts
identified in response to Document Request No. 1.
8048688.1/47638-00002
2
EX 3 - PG 50

#:110
4.
All Documents sufficient to Identify all G2A accounts linked to, associated with,
or related to any of the following names, user names, or identities, and any and all related G2A
accounts:
(a)
Chachani Misti y Pichu Pichu
(b)
Joduska
(c)
Joduska.me
(d)
Leaguesharp
(e)
L#
5.
6.
All IP Addresses used to access, log into, or register, any of the G2A accounts
7.
All Documents sufficient to Identify all G2A accounts that received any payment
with a Description containing the words Leaguesharp, L# and/or Joduska and any and all
related G2A accounts.
8.
8048688.1/47638-00002
3
EX 3 - PG 51

#:111

for the
Riot Games, Inc.
Plaintiff
v.
Burberry, et al.,
))
))
))

Defendant

To:
Namecheap, Inc., c/o Namecheap Legal Dept., 11400 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90064
material:
See Attachment A.

Date and Time:
Place:
Date and Time:
attached.
Date:
CLERK OF COURT
OR
Riot Games, Inc.
EX 3 - PG 52

#:112

PROOF OF SERVICE
on (date)
; or
$
My fees are $
for travel and $

Date:
Server's signature
Server's address
EX 3 - PG 53

#:113
or inspection.
the trial is held;
compensated.

stored information:
EX 3 - PG 54

#:114
ATTACHMENT A
I. INSTRUCTIONS
1.
Namecheap Inc. (Namecheap) is to make available for copying all requested
documents that are in its possession, custody, or control, including documents in the possession,
custody, or control of its attorneys, accountants, agents, representatives, or any other persons
acting on its behalf.
2.
Namecheap is to produce any Microsoft Excel and/or other database-related files
in their native electronic format.
3.
II. DEFINITIONS
1.
diligent efforts.
2.
3.
8062788.1/47638-00002
EX 3 - PG 55

#:115

4.
number.
5.
(a)
(b)
(c)

1.
All Documents sufficient to Identify all Namecheap accounts that are now, or at
any time have been, linked to, associated with, or related to any of the following domain names,
and any and all related Namecheap accounts:
(a)
www.joduska.me
2.
any time held, owned, administered, or transferred money to or from, any of the Namecheap
accounts identified in response to Document Request No. 1.
3.
All IP Addresses used to access, log into, or register, any of the Namecheap
8062788.1/47638-00002
2
EX 3 - PG 56

#:116

for the
Riot Games, Inc.
Plaintiff
v.
Burberry, et al.,
))
))
))

Defendant

To:
Cloudflare, Inc., 101 Townsend Street, San Francisco, CA 94107
material:
See Attachment A.

Date and Time:
Place:
Date and Time:
attached.
Date:
CLERK OF COURT
OR
Riot Games, Inc.
EX 3 - PG 57

#:117

PROOF OF SERVICE
on (date)
; or
$
My fees are $
for travel and $

Date:
Server's signature
Server's address
EX 3 - PG 58

#:118
or inspection.
the trial is held;
compensated.

stored information:
EX 3 - PG 59

#:119
ATTACHMENT A
I. INSTRUCTIONS
1.
Cloudflare Inc. (Cloudflare) is to make available for copying all requested
documents that are in its possession, custody, or control, including documents in the possession,
custody, or control of its attorneys, accountants, agents, representatives, or any other persons
acting on its behalf.
2.
Cloudflare is to produce any Microsoft Excel and/or other database-related files in
their native electronic format.
3.
II. DEFINITIONS
1.
diligent efforts.
2.
3.
8048738.2/47638-00002
EX 3 - PG 60

#:120

4.
number.
5.
(a)
(b)
(c)

1.
All Documents sufficient to Identify all Cloudflare accounts that are now, or at
any time have been, linked to, associated with, or related to any of the following domain names,
and any and all related Cloudflare accounts:
(a)
www.joduska.me
2.
any time held, owned, administered, or transferred money to or from, any of the Cloudflare
3.
All IP Addresses used to access, log into, or register, any of the Cloudflare
8048738.2/47638-00002
2
EX 3 - PG 61
8304.1

#:121

for the
Riot Games, Inc.
Plaintiff
v.
Burberry, et al.,
))
))
))

Defendant

To:
PayPal, Inc., c/o CT Corporation System, 818 W Seventh St., Suite 930, Los Angeles, CA 90017
material:
See Attachment A.

Date and Time:
Place:
Date and Time:
attached.
Date:
CLERK OF COURT
OR
Riot Games, Inc.
EX 3 - PG 62
8304.1

#:122

PROOF OF SERVICE
on (date)
; or
$
My fees are $
for travel and $

Date:
Server's signature
Server's address
EX 3 - PG 63
8304.1

#:123
or inspection.
the trial is held;
compensated.

stored information:
EX 3 - PG 64

#:124
ATTACHMENT A
I. INSTRUCTIONS
1.
PayPal, Inc. (PayPal) is to make available for copying all requested documents
that are in its possession, custody, or control, including documents in the possession, custody, or
control of its attorneys, accountants, agents, representatives, or any other persons acting on its
behalf.
2.
PayPal is to produce any Microsoft Excel and/or other database-related files in
their native electronic format.
3.
II. DEFINITIONS
1.
diligent efforts.
2.
3.
8048315.3/47638-00002
EX 3 - PG 65

#:125

4.
number.
5.
(a)
(b)
(c)

1.
All Documents sufficient to Identify all PayPal accounts linked to, associated
with, or related to any of the following e-mail addresses, and any and all related PayPal accounts:
(a)
contact@joduska.me
(b)
joduskame@outlook.de
(c)
letsplaysharp@gmail.com
2.
the PayPal accounts identified in response to Document Request No. 1.
3.
All IP Addresses used to access, log into, or register, any of the PayPal accounts
8048315.3/47638-00002
2
EX 3 - PG 66

#:126
4.
All Documents sufficient to Identify all PayPal accounts linked to, associated
with, or related to any of the following names, user names, or identities, and any and all related
PayPal accounts:
(a)
Chachani Misti y Pichu Pichu
(b)
Joduska
(c)
Joduska.me
(d)
Leaguesharp
(e)
L#
5.
6.
All IP Addresses used to access, log into, or register, any of the PayPal accounts
7.
All Documents sufficient to Identify all PayPal accounts that received any
payment with a Description containing the words Leaguesharp, L#, Joduska, and any and
all related PayPal accounts.
8.
8048315.3/47638-00002
3
EX 3 - PG 67

Declaration of Daniel A. Kohler

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Declaration of Daniel A. Kohler

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 71 Page ID #:56

1 MARC E. MAYER (SBN 190969)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION

CASE NO. 2:16-CV-5871-RSWL-AS

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 2 of 71 Page ID #:57

I, Daniel A. Kohler, declare as follows:

I am an attorney-at-law, duly licensed to practice law in the State of

This is an action for violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of

10 the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), intentional interference with

During Riots preliminary investigation, Riot uncovered evidence that

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 3 of 71 Page ID #:58

1 the Individual Defendants represented (through their German counsel) that

In December of 2015, a lawsuit was filed in the United Kingdom on

However, Riots preliminary investigation has uncovered evidence

15 that leads it to believe that Chachani is merely a shell company used by

Riot also has obtained evidence that the individuals or entities

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 4 of 71 Page ID #:59

Service On The Named Defendants

Riot has begun the process of effecting service on the Named

By the Ex Parte Application filed concurrently herewith, Riot seeks

PayPal and G2A are international e-commerce businesses allowing

Cloudflare is a content delivery service which provides web services,

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 5 of 71 Page ID #:60

1 L# Website. Namecheap is the domain name registrar that registered the

The discovery Riot seeks by its Ex Parte Application is intended to

I will provide the subpoenaed entities (PayPal, G2A, Namecheap, and

22 Cloudflare) with no fewer than 21 days to respond to the requested subpoenas, so

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 6 of 71 Page ID #:61

Executed on this 22nd day of August, 2016, at Los Angeles, California.

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 7 of 71 Page ID #:62

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 8 of 71 Page ID #:63

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 9 of 71 Page ID #:64

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 10 of 71 Page ID #:65

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 11 of 71 Page ID #:66

[Letterhead Lawyer Michael Euler]

Law offices of Beiten Burkhardt

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 12 of 71 Page ID #:67

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 13 of 71 Page ID #:68

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 14 of 71 Page ID #:69

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 15 of 71 Page ID #:70

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 16 of 71 Page ID #:71

[Letterhead Lawyer Michael Euler]

Law offices of Beiten Burkhardt

Dear colleague Dr. von Walter,

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 17 of 71 Page ID #:72

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 18 of 71 Page ID #:73

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 19 of 71 Page ID #:74

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 20 of 71 Page ID #:75

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 21 of 71 Page ID #:76

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 22 of 71 Page ID #:77

[Letterhead Lawyer Michael Euler]

Law offices of Beiten Burkhardt

Dear colleague Dr. von Walter,

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 23 of 71 Page ID #:78

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 24 of 71 Page ID #:79

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 25 of 71 Page ID #:80

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 26 of 71 Page ID #:81

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 27 of 71 Page ID #:82

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 28 of 71 Page ID #:83

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 29 of 71 Page ID #:84

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 30 of 71 Page ID #:85

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 31 of 71 Page ID #:86

Case 2:16-cv-05871-RSWL-AS Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/16 Page 32 of 71 Page ID #:87