LHF Productions, Inc. v. Does
2:16-cv-02028
| D. Nev. | Sep 30, 2019Background
- LHF Productions sued unknown defendants (later naming Brian Kabala) for copyright infringement based on BitTorrent activity traced to IP addresses; an amended complaint attached IP/time/location data tying an IP to Kabala.
- Kabala answered and counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and abuse of process; LHF voluntarily dismissed its infringement claims.
- The court dismissed Kabala’s counterclaims under Nevada’s anti‑SLAPP statute (NRS § 41.660), finding Kabala failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that LHF acted with an ulterior motive or committed an improper act; declaratory relief was moot because LHF had no live claims.
- Kabala moved for reconsideration, arguing (1) newly discovered evidence (no PCAPs, delegation to a consultant) shows LHF lacked good faith, (2) the court applied the wrong burden (clear and convincing vs prima facie), and (3) Cobbler Nevada v. Gonzalez requires a different result; he also moved to strike exhibits and to supplement with a declaration.
- The court denied reconsideration, finding no new evidence, holding that even under the lower prima‑facie standard Kabala produced no evidence of ulterior motive or improper act, that Cobbler Nevada is factually/procedurally distinguishable, and denying motions to strike and to supplement (supplement witness lacked personal knowledge/expertise).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (LHF) | Defendant's Argument (Kabala) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new evidence shows LHF lacked good faith under NRS 41.660(3)(a) | LHF: its Detection System produced evidence linking Kabala’s IP to torrenting; counsel’s reference to PCAPs was a misunderstanding; delegating enforcement to consultants doesn’t show bad faith | Kabala: LHF had no PCAPs tying him to the torrent; enforcement delegated to Guardley/CMS; Cobbler Nevada shows IP-only evidence is insufficient | Denied — no new evidence; counsel confusion and use of consultants do not negate good faith; Kabala produced no evidence of ulterior motive or improper act |
| Proper burden for proving probability of success under anti‑SLAPP (clear & convincing vs prima facie) | LHF: even if prima facie applies, Kabala still fails because he offered no contrary evidence | Kabala: court erred by applying clear and convincing; statute requires prima facie | Court: acknowledged it applied the higher standard but ruled Kabala would fail under the prima‑facie standard as well |
| Whether Cobbler Nevada compels relief here | LHF: Cobbler is distinguishable (multi‑user dwelling vs Kabala living alone; additional pattern evidence linking Kabala) and Cobbler was a Rule 12 dismissal, not anti‑SLAPP/summary‑judgment context | Kabala: Cobbler shows IP‑only proofs are insufficient; counsel who lost in Cobbler later represented LHF, so LHF should have known claim was unsupported | Denied — Cobbler is factually/procedurally inapposite; Kabala failed to submit evidence required under anti‑SLAPP framework |
| Motions to strike LHF’s opposition exhibits and to supplement with Madden declaration | LHF: exhibits were produced previously; Madden lacks personal knowledge and is not an expert, so his declaration is inadmissible | Kabala: exhibits not produced; Madden’s statement shows forensics are unreliable and helps his prima‑facie case | Denied — exhibits were previously produced or immaterial to the reconsideration ruling; Madden lacks admissible relevance/expertise |
Key Cases Cited
- Cobbler Nevada v. Gonzalez, 901 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2018) (IP‑address‑only evidence was insufficient to plead infringement where multiple users could have used the IP)
- Coker v. Sassone, 432 P.3d 746 (Nev. 2019) (Nevada Supreme Court instructs courts to treat anti‑SLAPP motions like summary‑judgment motions)
- Vancheri v. GNLV Corp., 777 P.2d 366 (Nev. 1989) (definition and explanation of a prima facie case)
- Bull v. McKuskey, 615 P.2d 957 (Nev. 1980) (settlement‑oriented litigation is not improper unless the plaintiff knew the claim lacked any basis)
- Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) (district courts may grant motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(e))