Professional Documents
Culture Documents
310-Cv-03647-Wha Docket 28 Declaration of Sperlein in Support of Plaintiff's Reply To Opposition To Motion To Strike
310-Cv-03647-Wha Docket 28 Declaration of Sperlein in Support of Plaintiff's Reply To Opposition To Motion To Strike
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12
13 )
) CASE NO. 10-3647 (MEJ)
14 )
IO GROUP, INC. d/b/a TITAN MEDIA, a ) DECLARATION OF D. GILL
15
California corporation, ) SPERLEIN IN SUPPORT OF
16 ) PLAINTIFF IO GROUP, INC.’S REPLY
) TO ANONOMOUSLY FILED
17 Plaintiff, ) OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
18 vs. )
)
19 DOES 1-244, individuals, )
)
20
Defendants. )
21 )
22
I, D. Gill Sperlein, declare:
23
24 1. I am a member of the State Bar of California and the bar of this Court. I am the
25
attorney of record in this matter.
26
2. On behalf of my client Io Group, Inc. I have filed a number of copyright
27
28 infringement cases in this district over the last 8 years, including other cases very similar to the
-1-
DECLARATION OF D. GILL SPERLEIN IN
SUPPORT OF REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE
C-10-3647 (WHA)
Case3:10-cv-03647-WHA Document28 Filed04/15/11 Page2 of 3
1 above captioned matter. I have represented Io Group, Inc. in copyright infringement actions
2
against corporate defendants such as Larry Flynt Productions and Veoh, Inc. and I have prosecuted
3
claims against foreign companies and individuals even when recovery on a judgment was highly
4
5
unlikely.
11 address.
12 4. In an earlier filed case similar to this one, a defendant filed several motions that had
13
been written by an attorney and sold to the defendant. The attorney publically admitted that
14
“every single motion to quash has failed” but that they “create more work for the people suing
15
you, and therefore it will take more effort to reveal your identity.” In my brief opposing the
16
17 motions I wrote that Plaintiff would seek sanctions against the party and the lawyer. The case was
18 Io Group, Inc. v. Does 1-138, Plaintiff Io Group, Inc.’s Opposition to S.P.’s Motion to Dismiss for
19
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Docket No. 40 and Plaintiff Io Group, Inc.’s Opposition to S.P.’s
20
Motion to for Protective Order, Docket No. 41.
21
5. As far as I know, the individual who filed the Motion to Dismiss in this matter has
22
28
address over time. Rather the ip address changes from time to time.
-2-
DECLARATION OF D. GILL SPERLEIN IN
SUPPORT OF REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE
C-10-3647 (WHA)
Case3:10-cv-03647-WHA Document28 Filed04/15/11 Page3 of 3
5
Three other individuals had been assigned two of the ip addresses identified in the Complaint.
6 Prior to that time each ip address was identified as a different Doe in the Complaint.
7 Pursuant to the laws of the United States, I declare under penalty of perjury the
8
foregoing is true and correct.
9
10
4/15/2011 /s/ D. Gill Sperlein
11
Dated: _____________ ____________________________________
12
D. GILL SPERLEIN
13 Attorney for Io Group, Inc.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
DECLARATION OF D. GILL SPERLEIN IN
SUPPORT OF REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE
C-10-3647 (WHA)