Sc wera auneun W 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28. MICHAEL E. WEINSTEN (BAR NO. 155680) EVAN N. SPIEGEL, ESQ. (BAR NO. 198071) LINDSAY MOLNAR, ESQ (BAR NO. 272156) LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 90067-2906 Telephone: (310) 556-3501 Facsimile: (310) 556-3615 Email; — myeinsten@lavelysinger.com espiegel@lavelysinger.com Imolnar@lavelysinger. com Attomeys for Plaintiff James Woods SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES JAMES WOODS, an individual, Case No.: BC 589746 Plaintiff, [Hon. Mel Recana, Dept. 45) EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT EARLY LIMITED DISCOVERY; eer MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND aon paper asabeer nnd nneanfcte AUTHORIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; ” ° DECLARATIONS OF JAMES WOODS AND pee MICHAEL E. WEINSTEN vs. [Proposed Order filed concurrently herewith] Hearing Date: August 28, 2015 Time: 8:30 a.m. Complaint Filed: July 29, 2015 ‘TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff James Woods (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attomeys of record, hereby applies ex parte for an order granting him leave to conduct early discovery on third- party Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”), and defendant Does” Internet Service Providers, for the limited purpose of determining the identities of defendants John Doe a/k/a “Abe List” (“Abe List”) and Doc No. 2 a/k/a ‘EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EARLY DISCOVERYSee wxaauaeon Wl 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 ai 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “T.G, Emerson” (collectively, the “Doe Defendants”), defendants who have defamed Plaintiff using anonymous Twitter accounts. Plaintiff seeks to obtain the Doe Defendants Twitter account information maintained by Twitter to establish the true and real identities of the Doe Defendants, including the email addresses and Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses that the Doc Defendants used to ereate their accounts ‘with Twitter. Plaintiff also seeks any optional account information that the Doe Defendants may have provided to Twitter, including their real names, telephone numbers, physical addresses, and/or general locations. To the extent Twitter does not maintain the actual identifying information of the Doe Defendants, Plaintiff seeks to issue subpoenas to the relevant service providers which may be identified by information provided by Twitter. This Application is made pursuant to Cal, Rules of Court, Rules 3.1200 to 3.1207, as well as California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2019.020(b), 2025.210(b), and 2025.270(d), on the grounds that there is good cause to grant early discovery sin ) the identities of the Doe Defendants is essential to Plaintiff's prosecution of his claims, and (ji) the subscriber information which identifies the Doe Defendants is under the immediate threat of destruction, Moreover, and although not required on this Application, Plaintiff has set forth a prima facie case for defamation. Accordingly, for the purpose of ultimately establishing the identity of the Doe Defendants so tha Plaintiff may (i) amend the complaint to add the Doe Defendants’ real names and addresses, and ({i) thereafter be able to affect service and properly prepare his case, Plaintiff seeks an order permitting Plaintiff to serve Subpoenas Duces Tecum Without Deposition on Twitter, Inc., and permitting Plaintiff to serve any other third party discovery reasonably calculated to identifying Doe Defendants. Plaintiff provides as exhibits to this Ex Parte Application copies of the subpoenas intended to be served upon Twitter, Ine. for the purpose of discovering the Doe Defendants” identities or contact information. See Declaration of Michael Weinsten, Esq. (“Weinsten Decl.”), 8, Exhs. F-G. ‘This Application is based upon the instant Application, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Declarations of Michael Weinsten and James Woods and exhibits attached thereto, the pleadings and records on file herein, such further papers as may be filed in connection with this Application, and upon such further argument and evidence as may be presented in connection with the hearing on this Application, 2 ‘EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EARLY DISCOVERYSeow raueon i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ai 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On August 27, 2015, prior to 10:00 am., counsel for Plaintiff notified counsel for Abe List, Kenneth P. White, via telephone and electronic mail that Plaintiff would be bringing this ex parte application before the Court on August 28, 2015. Declaration of Michael Weinsten, Esq. (“Weinsten, Decl.”), 7, Exh. E. Counsel for Abe List indicated that he would be opposing the Application. id. Plaintiff does not know the identity of Doe No. 2 a/k/a T.G. Emerson and no counsel has appeared on. his or her behalf. Thus, Plaintiff has no way of serving notice of this Application on Doe No. 2. Weinsten Decl., 7. No previous ex parte applications have been filed by Plaintiff on this issue. Weinsten Decl., 49. DATED: August 28, 2015 LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MICHAEL WEINSTEN EVAN SPIEGEL LINDRBAY D. MOLNAR By: JHAEL WEINSTEN Attomeys for Plaintiff JAMES WOODS 3 "EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EARLY DISCOVERYMEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff James Woods (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against John Doe a/k/a “Abe List” and Do No. 2 for the publication of malicious and fabricated statements by individuals that hide behind the Twitter names “Abe List” (“AL”) and T.G. Emerson (“TG”) (collectively, the “ Doe Defendants”). The Doe Defendants each falsely and separately accused the internationally-known, award winning actor James Woods of being a “cocaine addict” on the widely popular and well known social media site ‘Twitter, messages that were sent to thousands of the Doe Defendants’ followers and hundreds of thousands of Mr. Woods’ followers. Indeed, the malicious nature of defendants’ actions is perhaps best! ‘exemplified by AL’s own lawyer who apparently rebuked him on twitter as a “Jackass who tweeted abusively to many.”! Due to the fact that the Doe Defendants hide behind anonymous Twitter names, the true identities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to Plaintiff and cannot be determined without serving subpoenas on Twitter (and their internet services providers) secking the subscriber information for the Doe Defendants. ‘There is simply no other way. Bottom line: Plaintiff cannot prepare his case (and/or ‘meet statutorily and court-imposed deadlines) unless he is granted leave to conduct limited discovery so that he can determine the identities of the Doe Defendants. In addition, separate from the need to identify and serve Doe Defendants in a timely manner, ‘there is particular urgency here in that Twitter only retains data for deleted Tweets and Twitter accounts for “a very brief period of time.” Shortly after this lawsuit was filed, AL deleted his Twitter account and! it is no longer accessible. Similarly, and shortly after Plaintiff filed a complaint with Twitter about TG’s defamatory post, TG deleted the post and it is no longer accessible, ‘Thus, there is an immediate threat that the identification of the Defendants (j.c., their subscriber information), as well as defamatory posts that are the crux of Plaintiff's claims, will be destroyed by Twitter pursuant to its data retention policies. * According to numerous internet sources, AL counsel Kenneth White is credited as the founder of the internet blog “popehat.” Popehat apparently has it’s own twitter account under the handle “Deez Hats @Popehat.” Shortly after the complaint was filed, on July 30, Deez Hats @Popchat tweeted “To be fair, @abelisted was a jackass who tweeted abusively to many, your narrator included.” -Weinsten Decl. 5- 1 ‘EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EARLY DISCOVERYCe rane en 10 ab 12, 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 24 25 26 a7 28 U. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS Actor and Plaintiff herein James Woods has a Twitter account with over 200,000 followers under the handle @RealJamesWoods. See Dectaration of James Woods (“Woods Decl.”), 2. On July 15, 2015, AL stepped over the line by falsely accusing Mr. Woods of being a “cocaine addict” on the social media site ‘Twitter, a message sent to thousands of AL’s followers and hundreds of| thousands of Mr. Woods’ followers. Woods Decl., 43. Specifically, AL concocted and published on his Twitter account the outrageous, baseless, false and defamatory statement “cocaine addict James ‘Woods still sniffing and spouting” (hereinafter, the “False Statement”). 1d., Exh. A. In doing so, AL intended to, and did, convey to thousands of AL’s followers and others with access to the internet the false claim that Woods is addicted to cocaine, a controlled substance. id. Any person who read the False Statement posted to the AL Twitter Account clearly understood the references to “@RealJamesWoods" and “James Woods” to be references to the actor James Woods, because his photograph is clearly depicted on the twitter pages where the defamatory statement appears. Woods Decl., Exh: A. On the very same day, July 15,2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint with Twitter regarding AL’s defamatory comment. Woods Decl., 44. The comment, however, was not removed. Id. ‘Thus, in ode: to clear his name and mitigate the substantial damages caused, Woods had no choice but to file a lawsuit. Significantly, after this lawsuit was filed, AL apparently deactivated his account thus removing the defamatory tweet. Id. at | 5. AL!s outrageous claim appears to be the culmination of a malicious on-line campaign by AL to discredit and damage Woods" reputation, a campaign which began as early as December 2014. In the past, AL has referred to Woods with such derogatory terms as a “joke,” “ridiculous,” “scum” and “clown-boy.” Woods Decl., 6, Exh. B. Although AL’s rantings against Woods began with childish name calling, it has clearly escalated beyond the protections of free speech, ice., the First Amendment does not permit anyone to falsely represent to the-public-that another person is addicted to an illegal 2 ‘EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EARLY DISCOVERY,Cera aneen 10 u 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s 26 ar 28, narcotic. On August 18, 2015, and after the publication of AL’s False Statement, another Twitter user that goes by the name of T.G. Emerson “@indictGW” (“TG”) published a similar false statement about Plaintiff which stated, “@RealJamesWoods James Woods is a notorious coke fiend and registered sex offender” (hereinafter, TG’s False Statement”). Woods Decl., 7, Exh. C. TG’s False Statement was published on his or her Twitter account, which has hundreds of followers, and Plaintiff s Twitter account, which has hundreds of thousands of followers. Id. at { 8. On the very same day, August 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint with Twitter regarding TG's False Statement, Woods Decl., 9. At some point thereafter, TG’s False Statement was removed from TG’s Twitter account, but it unknown whether it was removed by Twitter or TG. Id. Despite AL and TG’s false statements otherwise, Woods is not now, nor has he ever been, a “coke fiend” or a “cocaine addict.” Woods Decl., 410. Indeed, Woods has never used cocaine. Jd. Nor is Woods a registered sex offender. Id. at {11 On August 24, 2015, purported counsel for AL sent a letter to counsel for Plaintiff essentially arguing, inter alia, that the AL False Statement was a joke (‘e., not to be taken seriously) and/or hyperbole and, therefore, could not be defamatory? Weinsten Decl., 4. Ofcourse, a plain reading of the statement suggests otherwise, and there was nothing at all in the tweet to suggest to any of Mr. ‘Woods’ hundreds of thousands of followers that AL was only kidding. Importantly, by taking this stance, AL effectively admits that he knew the statement was false when made. Although damages are presumed whereas here the libel is per se, the impact of AL and TG's reckless and malicious behavior cannot be understated. ‘The ability of an actor or celebrity to obtain on screen and other work, including endorsement deals, commercials, etc., is largely dependent on reputation. There are countless public examples of celebrities losing lucrative contracts and other ? This letter from AL’s counsel has not been attached since it was labeled a “settlement communication” pursuant to this litigation 3 ‘EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EARLY DISCOVERYopportunities because of allegations of wrongdoing, whether true or not. In this case, Mr. Woods has spent the better part of 68 years building a substantial career and reputation as one of the most hard working and prolific actors of our time. His image and reputation are paramount to his career and sense ‘of being, ‘The fact that Mr. Woods is a public figure does not give the Doe Defendants any right to level false accusations of criminal activity at Mr. Woods. To the contrary, the fact that Mr. Woods is a public figure, coupled with the worldwide reach of the internet, makes the defendants’ behavior even more reprehensible, and the damages even greater. IU. THIS COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT THIS APPLICATIO! California Code of Civil Procedure (*C.C.P.”) § 2019.020(b) provides “for good cause shown, the court may establish the sequence and timing of discovery for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice.” Specifically applicable in this case, C.C.P. § 2025.210(b) provides a similar standard governing expedited depositions, including deposition subpoenas where business records of a nonparty are sought: “On a motion with or without notice, the court, for good cause shown, may grant plaintiff leave to serve a deposition notice earlier” than twenty days after the service of the summons on the defendant, And, § 2025.270(d) provides: “On motion or ex parte application of any party or deponent, for good cause shown, the court may shorten or extend the time for| scheduling a deposition.” Thus, under the California Discovery Act, this Court has the authority to gran this Application, IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO GRANT THIS APPLICATION. Courts reviewing the “good cause” standard in the various discovery statutes tend to emphasize the liberality with which discovery procedures are intended to be interpreted. Waters v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal. 2d 885, 888-89 (“applying the liberality of construction which we believe appropriate to discovery procedures, we hold here that plaintiff has sufficiently shown ‘good cause"); Associated Brewers Disiributing Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal, 2d 583, 587-88 (noting that good cause must be “governed by discovery standards” and-holding that-a party need not demonstrate discovery sought is] 4 ‘EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EARLY DISCOVERYSowrxrauneon i 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 2B 24 25 26 2 28 admissible evidence to satisfy the good cause requirement). Here, there is good cause to grant this application for two separate and independent reasons. First, and most importantly, Plaintiff requires this discovery in order to identify the Doe Defendants so they can be properly served, and so Plaintiff can adequately prepare his case in a timely manner, Weinsten Decl., 6. ‘This kind of basic identifying information is commonly sought by subpoena in defamation claims involving anonymous defendants on the internet. See, e.g., Readify, Pty Lid. v. Readifyblog, 2013 WL 1703982 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (order granting ex parte application for leave engage in discovery in defamation case). Indeed, this information is critical for Plaintiff to meet statutorily imposed deadlines, including California Rule of Court 3.110(b) which requires Plaintiff to serve the Defendants (and file proofs of service with the court) within sixty (60) days after filing the Complaint. In an effort to conserve judicial resources, Plaintiff has taken all possible steps to locate and identify the Doe Defendants to no avail, including: (i) searching the Doe Defendants’ Twitter accounts for information that may identify or help identify either Doe Defendant; (ii) searching other Internet Blogs and websites to which the Doe Defendants’ Twitter accounts provided hyperlinks, for information| that may identify either of the Doe Defendants, or provide contact information; and (jii) searching social media websites and other online search engines for the pseudonym used by the Doe Defendants (ie., Abe List and T.G. Emerson). Weinsten Decl., $3. Second, there is an immediate threat that the subscriber information for AL and the relevant ‘Tweets by TG will be destroyed by Twitter in light of its data retention policy. Under the link for Twitter’s “Data Retention Information,” it states as follows: “NOTE: Once an account has been deactivated, there is a yery brief period in which we may be able to access account information, including Tweets.” See Weinsten Decl., 6, Exh. D, p. 3 (Emphasis Added). In short, a subpoena to Twitter is the only way Plaintiff can identify the Doe Defendants and Plaintiff must identify them in order to effect service of process. California courts have held that this, 5 ‘EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EARLY DISCOVERYwe wn 12 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 along with the threat of destruction of information, constitutes good cause. See Jo Group, Ine. v. Does 1-65, individuals (N.D. Cal., Oct. 15, 2010, 10-4377 SC) 2010 WL 4055667, at *2 (finding good cause for limited expedited discovery because ISPs retain subscriber logs for a short period of time before destroying them and because service of a third-party subpoena appeared to be the only way to identify the doe defendants). Accordingly, this Court should grant Plaintiff's Application, V. PLAINTIFF HAS SET FORTH A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF DEFAMATION. Based on prior correspondence, Plaintiff expects AL”s counsel to argue at the hearing of this matter that Plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case for defamation before early discovery is permitted. To the extent that is required (and it is not), a prima facie case is easily established here. Indeed, the Doe Defendants’ statements on their face are libel per se.? Defamation is effected by either “Libel” or “Slander.” Cal. Civ, Code §44. “Libel is a false and unprivileged publication in writing . . . which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.” Cal. Civ, Code §45. The critical question is “whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact.” Sanders v. Walsh, 219 Cal.App.4" 855, 863 (2013). The definition of libel is very broad, and “includes almost any Ianguage which, upon its face, has a natural tendency to injure a man’s reputation, either generally or with respect to his occupation.” Forsher v. Bugliosi, 26 Cal.3d 792, 803 (1980), Ifa defamatory meaning appears from the language itself without the necessity of explanation or the pleading of extrinsic facts, there is libel per se. See Cal. Civ. Code § 45a; MacLeod v, Tribune Publishing Co., 52 Cal. 2d 536, 549 (1959). “Perhaps the clearest example of libel per se is an accusation of crime.” See Barnes-Hind, Inc. v. Superior Court, 181 Cal.App.3d 377, 385 (1986). Simple statements of fact, even when couched as an opinion, are libelous. See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1,19 (US. * Where statements are libelous per se “general damages have been presumed as a matter of law. Allard vs Church of Scientology, 58 Cal.App:3d 439,450 (1976). 6 ‘EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EARLY DISCOVERYSewer ane oen ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18, 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 1990) (“Ifa speaker says, ‘In my opinion John Jones is a liar,’ he implies a knowledge of facts which lead to the conclusion that Jones told an untruth.””. Here, Plaintiff has clearly established a prima facie case of defamation, As demonstrated by the declaration of Mr. Woods, the publication by AL and TG of the factual statement claiming Me. Woods i a cocaine addict is plainly false, as is TGs claim that Mr. Woods is a registered sex offender. Moreover, as both statements involve criminal activity, they are liable per se. See, e.g., Yow v. National Enquirer, Inc., $50 F Supp-2d 1179, 1190 (E.D. Cal, 2008) (court held under California law that complaint alleging that weekly tabloid magazine article about a male celebrity's alleged drug use implied that plaintiff used cocaine with celebrity was sufficient to state claim for defamation per se based on felony drug use.). While AL's counsel has previously claimed that the AL False Statement is “mere hyperbole” and] is not taken seriously because it was an anonymous posting on the internet, this is contrary to established| law. In fact, under similar circumstances this argument has been soundly rejected by California courts. ‘See Bently Reserve L.P. v. Papaliolios, 218 Cal.App.Ath 418, 429 (2013). The court in Bently Reserve stated that, “the mere fact speech is broadcast across the Internet by an anonymous speaker does not ipso| [facto make it nonactionable opinion and immune from defamation law.” Jd. at 429. Similarly, the court, in Sanders held that specific factual allegations (like those here) were defamatory, despite the online forum, Sanders, 219 Cal.App.4th at 865. The Sanders court also acknowledged that California case law does not “stand for the proposition that online commentary is pure opinion per se” and, instead, “[w]here} specific, false factual allegations are published and they cause damage, a defamation action will lie.” 1d, at 865. Indeed, in this case, the offensive Twitter postings were not in any way couched as opinion, joke or hyperbole. Nor were they qualified in any way whatsoever. Moreover, to the extent AL or TG attempt to argue that the Court should consider other statements on their Twitter accounts, or any previous tweets by Mr. Woods; the argument is-a.red-herring. First, there is no reason any of Mr. 1 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EARLY DISCOVERYCe rane en 10 I 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 7 28 Woods’ followers, all of whom were exposed to the defamatory statements, would even bother to investigate the speakers and/or their Twitter sites to determine if they were reliable sources. As to Mr. Woods, we are not aware of any false statements of fact made by Mr, Woods and his sometimes sharp commentary on political matters is irrelevant to the allegations here. Finally, to the extent relevant, there is no question the statements are malicious in that these defendants acted with reckless disregard for the truth, ‘There is no record anywhere of Mr, Woods being, a cocaine addict and/or a registered sex offender. Moreover, AL, the first publisher, had a specific history of attacking Mr. Woods so his motives are directly in question. Also, the fact that AL"s counsel has taken the position that AL”s statement was either a joke or hyperbole alone demonstrates AL did not himself believe the statement was true, In sum, Plaintiff has more than established a prima facie case. VI. CONCLUSION For all the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant his, Application granting him leave to conduct early discovery. ‘Dated: August 28, 2015 LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MICHAEL E. WEINSTEN EVANN. SPIEGEL LINDSAY MOLNAR, MICHAEL FE. WEINSTEN Attomeys for Plaintiff JAMES WOODS 8 ‘EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EARLY DISCOVERYDECLARATIONDECLARATION OF JAMES Woops 1, James Woods, declare as follows: 1. 1 am the plaintiff in the above-referenced action. I have personal and_firsthan knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently thereto under oath, 2. 1 have an account with the social media website Twitter under the handld @RealJamesWoods. My Twitter account has over 200,000 followers. 3. On July 15, 2015, defendant John Doe a/k/a “Abe List” (“AL”) stepped over the line b falsely accusing me of being a “cocaine addict” on the social media site Twitter, a message sent t thousands of AL’s followers and hundreds of thousands of my followers, Specifically, AL concocte: and published on his Twitter account the outrageous, baseless, false statement “cocaine addict James ‘Woods still sniffing and spouting” (hereinafter, “AL’s False Statement”). Attached as Exhibit “A” hereto is a true and correct copy of AL’s False Statement, 4, Appalled and shocked by AL's outrageously false statement, on the very same day, Jul 15, 2015, I filed a complaint with Twitter requesting that it remove AL’s false comment. ‘The comment] however, was not removed, 5. Indeed, not until after this lawsuit was filed was AL’s Twitter account deactivated:(0 deleted), 6. AL also previously referred to me on his Twitter (and mine) by such derogatory terms a a “Joke,” “ridiculous,” “scum” and “clown-boy.” Attached as Exhibit “B” hereto is a true and correc copy of AL’s other statements about me. 7. On August 18, 2015, and after the publication of AL’s False Statement, another Twittey user that goes by the name of ''.G. Emerson “@indictGW” (“TG”) published a false statement about m which stated “@RealJamesWoods James Woods is a notorious coke fiend and registered sex offender’ (hereinafter, TG’s False Statement”). Attached as Exhibit “C” hereto is a true and correct copy of TG’: False Statement. 8. TGs False Statement was published on his or her Twitter account, which has hundre of followers, and my Twitter account, which has hundreds of thousands of followers.9. nthe very same day, August 18, 2015, I filed a complaint with Twitter regarding TG" False Statement. At some point thereafter, TG’s False Statement was removed ftom TG’s Twitte: account, but it unknown whether it was removed by Twitter or TG. 10. have not now, nor have ever been, a “coke fiend” or “cocaine addict.” In fact, I ha never done cocaine. 11, Tamalso not, and have never been, a registered sex offender. 12, To my knowledge, I have never spoken with AL or TG, nor have I informed anyone Tam a “cocaine addict,” “coke fiend” or registered sex offender. I am also not aware of any medi organization or other reputable source accusing me of the foregoing. It appears clear to me that on AL's prior offensive remarks, the sole reason of the false statement was to do me harm and in doin, such harm, AL had a reckless disregard for the truth. 13, For over forty-five years, I have built a career and reputation as an actor, AL and TG’ reckless and malicious behavior, through the worldwide reach of the internet, has now jeopardized good name and reputation on an international scale, 1 declare urider penalty of perjury under the laws of the United. States of America that foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 27th day of August, 2015 at Los AngelEXHIBIT Ahttps;//twitter.com/abelisted/status/621328418861248512 USATODAY app features Bruce Jenner's atest dress selection, but makes zero ‘mention of Planned Parenthood baby parts market. Abe List 3 +2 Follow @abelisted @RealJamesWoods @benshapiro cocaine addict James Woods still sniffing andEXHIBIT Beer et Ges Meta Feces “Jees Woods Gfudsnrshents e225 ior ab moved by Oba Chen mensge day to the eps of is ‘Tasch He tnaly ptt oe any Muss mors ore S se ee 8 ‘Abe List ot roto gaoeistes @RealJamesWoods you are a ridiculous scum clown-boy James, a joke. oe Deenaa- Sp dames Woods @RealJames\eods - th ‘Why di it take’ lawsuit from @JudicialWatch to break this open? Where are the ‘so-called investigative journalists ofthe once great MSM? Fee pocteaimnt 2-2 Follow @RealJamesWoods James Woods is a notorious coke fiend and registered sex offender. remest ravntes 1 2 re 4:39 PM - 18 Aug 2015DECLARATIONowe Uw awe wd 10 W 12 13 14 15 16 7 18, 19 20 21 2 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL WEINSTE! 1, Michael Weinsten, declare as follows: 1, Lam an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all of the Courts of the State of California and am a partner in the law firm Lavely & Singer Professional Corporation, counsel fo1 Plaintiff James Woods (“Plaintif’), herein. 1 have personal and firsthand knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently thereto undey oath. 2. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on July 29, 2015 against eleven (11) doe defendants, including John Doe a/k/a “Abe List” and Doe No. 2 a/k/a'T.G. Emerson (collectively, the “Doe Defendants”). 3. Iman effort to conserve judicial resources, Plaintiff has taken all possible steps to locate and identify the Doe Defendants to no avail, including: (i) searching the Doe Defendants’ Twitter accounts for information that may identify or help identify either Doe Defendant; (ii) searching other Intemet Blogs and websites to which the Doe Defendants’ Twitter accounts provided hyperlinks, for information that may identify cither of the Doe Defendants, or provide contact information; and (iii) searching social media websites and other online search engines for the pseudonym used by the Dod Defendants (i.e., Abe List and T.G, Emerson). 4, On August 24, 2015, counsel for AL sent a letter to my firm suggesting that the AL Falsq Statement was a joke (ie., not to be taken seriously) and/or hyperbole and, therefore, could not bd defamatory. 5. According to numerous intemet sources, AL counsel Kenneth White is credited as the founder of the internet blog “popehat.” Popehat apparently has its own twitter account under the handl¢ “Deez Hats @Popehat.” Shortly after the complaint was filed, on July 30, 2015, Deez Hats @Popeha tweeted “To be fair, @abelisted was a jackass who tweeted abusively to many, your narrator included.” 6. There is good cause to grant this Application because Plaintiff requires this discovery i order to identify the Doe Defendants so they can be properly served, and so Plaintiff can adequately)Seow rx aunwn W 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 ai 22 23 24 25 26 2 28 prepare his case in a timely manner. In addition, there is an immediate threat that the subscribe: information for AL and the relevant Tweets by TG will be destroyed by Twitter in light of its dat retention policy. Under the link for Twitter’s “Data Retention Information,” it states as follows; “NOTE: Once an account has been deactivated, there is a very brief period in which we may be able access account information, including Tweets.” Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct cop} of Twitter’s data retention policy. 7. On August 27, 2015, I notified counsel for Abe List, Kenneth P, White, via telephone and electronic mail that Plaintiff would be bringing this ex parte application bofore the Court on August 28. 2015. A true and correct copy of my email to Mr. White is attached hereto as Exhibit E, Counsel fo1 Abe List indicated that he would be opposing the Application. 1d. Plaintiff does not know the identity of Doc No, 2 a/k/a T.G, Emerson and no counsel has appeared on his or her behalf. Thus, Plaintiff ha no way of serving notice of this Application on Doe No. 2. 8. Copies of the subpoenas intended to be served upon Twitter, Inc, for the purpose o! discovering the Doe Defendants’ identities or contact information are attached hereto as Exhibit F for AL and Exhibit G for TG. 9. No previous ex parte applications have been filed by Plaintiff on this issue. 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 27th day of August, 2015 at Los Angeles, CaliforniEXHIBIT DHelp Center (/) Twitter Rules & policies (/categories/56itcategory_236) Guidelines (/categories/56#category_237) Report a violation (/categories/56#category_238) Advertiser policies (/categories/56#category_239) + Back to Policies & Violations (/categories/56) Guidelines for law enforcement ‘These guidelines are intended for law enforcement authorities seeking information about Twitter accounts. Information concerning requests to withhold content on Twitter is available here (-4od.d.darticles!20169222). More general information is available in our Privacy Policy (https:/twitter.com/privacy), Terms of Service (https://twitter.com/tos), and Twitter Rules J.d.darticles!18311). Topics Covered: °° What is Twitter? © What Account Information Does Twitter Have? © Does Twitter Have Access to User-Generated Photos or Videos? ° Data Retention Information © Preservation Requests © Requests for Twitter Account Information © Private Information Requires a Subpoena or Court Order © Contents of Communications Requires a Search Warrant © Will Twitter Notify Users of Requests for Account Information? ‘© What Details Must Be Included in Account Information Requests? © Production of Records © Racords Authentication © Emergency Disclosure Requests ° Howto Make an Emergency Disclosure Request © Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties© Assisting a Twitter User © Contact Information What is Twitter? ‘Twitter is a real-time global information network that lets users cteate and share ideas and information instantly. People and organizations send 140-character messages through our website and mobile site, client applications (e.g., Twitter for Android; Twitter for iOS), SMS, or any variety of third-party applications. For more information, please visit: https://about.twitter.com (https://about.twitter.com). For the latest on ‘Twitter's features and functionality please visit our Help Center (.././././). ‘Twitter is provided to people who live in the United States by Twitter, Inc., a company based in San Francisco, California. Twitter is provided to people who live outside the United States by Twitter International Company, a company based in Dubiin, Ireland, What Account Information Does Twitter Have? Most Twitter account information is public, so anyone can see it. A Twitter account profile contains a Profile photo, header photo, background image, and status updates, called Tweets. In addition, the account holder has the option to fill out a location (e.g., San Francisco), a URL (¢.g., twitter.com), and a ‘short "blo" section about the account for display on their public profile, Please see our Privacy Policy (https:/Itwitter.com/privacy) for more information on the data we collect from and about users. Does Twitter Have Access to User-Generated Photos or Videos? Twitter provides photo hosting for some image uploads (i.c., pic.twitter.com images) as well as Twitter account profile photos, header photos, and account background images. However, Twitter is not the sole Photo provider for images that may appear on the Twitter platform. More information about posting photos ‘on Twitter can be found here (./././../atticles/20156423). ‘Twitter provides video hosting for some videos uploaded to Twitter (i.e., pic.twitter.com videos) as well as those posted to Periscope and Vine, What is Periscope? Periscope is a standalone mobile service that lets users create and share real-time video broadcasts. Please see the Periscope Privacy Statement (hitps://www.periscope.tv/privacy) for more information on the data we collect from and about Periscope users. What is Vine?Vine is a standalone mobile service that lets users create and share short looping videos. Please see the Vine Privacy Policy (https:/Wvine.co/privacy) for more information on the data we collect from and about Vine users. Data Retention Information ‘Twitter retains different types of Information for different time periods, and in accordance with our Terms: of Service (https://twitter.com/tos) and Privacy Policy (https://twitter.com/privacy). Given Twitter's real-time hature, some Information (e.g,, IP logs) may only be stored for a very brief period of time, ‘Some information we store is automatically collected, while other information Is provided at the user's digcration. Though we do store this information, we cannot guarantee its accuracy. For example, the user May have created a take or anonymous profile. Twitter doesn't require real name use, email verifiéation, or identity authentication, More information on Twitter's retention pollcles can be found in our Privacy Policy (https://twitter.com/privacy). NOTE: Once an account has been deactivated, there Is a very brief period in which we may be able to ‘access account information, including Tweets, More information about deactivated accounts Is available here (.1././larticles/16368), Content deleted by account holders (e.g., Tweets) is generally not available. Preservation Requests We accept requests from law enforcement to preserve records, which constitute potentially retevant evidence in legal proceedings. We will preserve, but not disclose, a temporary snapshot of the relevant ‘account records for 90 days pending service of valid legal process. Preservation requests, in accordance with applicable law, should be signed by the requesting official, include the @username and URL of the subject Twitter profile (e.g., @safety and https:/twitter.comisatety (httpsi//twitter.com/safety)), have a valid return official email address, and be sent on law enforcement letterhead. Requests may be sent via the methods described below. Requests for Twitter Account Information Requests for user account information from law enforcement should be directed to Twitter, Inc. in San Francisco, California or Twitter international Company in Dublin, Ireland. Twitter responds to valid legal process issued in compliance with applicable (aw. Private Information Requires a Subpoena or Court Order Non-public information about Twitter users will not be released to law enforcement except in response to appropriate legal process such as a subpoena, court order, or other valid legal process — or in response to a valid emergency request, as described below.Contents of Communications Requires a Search Warrant Requests for the contents of communications (e.., Tweets, Direct Messages, photos) require a valid search warrant or equivalent from an agency with proper jurisdiction over Twitter. Will Twitter Notify Users of Requests for Account Information? Yes, Twitter's policy is to notify users of requests for their account information, which includes a copy of the request, prior to disclosure unless we are prohibited from doing so (e.g., an order under 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b) (http:/iwmw.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2705)). Exceptions to prior notice may include exigent or counterproductive circumstances (¢.g., emergencies; account compromises). We may also provide post-notice to affected users when prior notice is prohibited. What Details Must Be Included in Account Information Requests? When requesting user account information, please include: © The @username and URL of the subject Twitter account in question (e.g., @safety and https://twitter.com/safety (https://twitter.com/safety)); ® Details about what spesific information is requested (e.g., basic subscriber information) and its relationship to your investigation; © NOTE: Please ensure that the information you seek is not available from our public API. We are unable to process overly broad or vague requests. © Avalid official email address (e.g., name@agency.gov (mail get back in touch with you upon receipt of your legal process. :name@agency.gov)) so we may Requests may be submitted by fax or mail; our contact information is available at the bottom of these Guidelines. Requests must be made on law enforcement letterhead. NOTE: We do not accept legal process via email at this time; our support system does not allow attachments for security reasons. Production of Records Unless otherwise agreed upon, we currently provide responsive records in electronic format (Le., text files that can be opened with any word processing software such as Word or TextEdit). Records Authentication The records that we produce are self-authenticating. Additionally, the records are electronically signed to ‘ensure their integrity at the time of production. If you require a declaration, please explicitly note that in your request.Cost Reimbursement ‘Twitter may seek reimbursement for costs associated with information produced pursuant to legal process and as permitted by law (@.g., under 18 U.S.C. §2706 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2706) Emergency Disclosure Requests In line with our Privacy Policy (https:/twitter.com/privacy), we may disclose account information to law ‘enforcement in response to a valid emergency disclosure request. ‘Twitter evaluates emergency disclosure requests on a case-by-case basis in compliance with relevant law (€.g., 18 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(8) (http://www_law.comell.edu/uscode/text/18/2702) and Section 8 Irish Data Protection 1988 and 2003 (hitp:/www.dataprotection.ie/docs/DATA-PROTECTION-ACT-1988-REVISED- Updated-to-14-October-2014/1469.htm#page_46)). If we receive information that provides us with a good faith belief that there is an exigent emergency involving the danger of death or serious physical injury to a person, we may provide information necessary to prevent that harm, if we have it How To Make an Emergency Disclosure Request If there is an exigent emergency that involves the danger of death or serious physical injury to a person that Twitter may have information necessary to prevent, law enforcement officers can submit an ‘emergency disclosure request through our web form (../././../forms/lawenforcement) (the quickest and most efficient method). Alternatively, you may fax emergency requests to 1-415-222-9958 (NOTE: faxed requests may result in a delayed response); please include all of the following information: ® Indication on your cover sheet, which must be on law enforcement letterhead, that you're submitting an Emergency Disclosure Request; © Identity of the person who is in danger of death or serious physical injury; © The nature of the emergency (e.g., report of suicide, bomb threat); © Twitter @usemame and URL (e.g., @safely and https://twitter.com/safoty (httpsu/twitter.com/safety)) of the subject account(s) whose information is necessary to prevent the ‘emergency; © Any specific Tweets (././.../articles/80586) you would like us to review; © The specific information requested and why that information is necessary to prevent the emergency; © The signature of the submitting law enforcement officer; and © Allother available details or context regarding the particular circumstances. Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties‘Twitter's policy is to promptly respond to requests that are properly issued via mutual legal assistance treaty ("MLAT") or letters rogatory, upon proper service of process. Assisting a Twitter User Registered Twitter users can obtain a download of Tweets posted to his or her Twitter account. Directions on how a user can request that information is available in our Help Center (.,/././../articles/20170160). Twitter does not currently offer users a self-serve method to obtain other, non-public information (2.g., IP logs) about their Twitter accounts. If a Twitter user requires his or her non-public account information, please direct the user to send a request to Twitter via our privacy form (.J././..formsiprivacy). We will respond with further instructions. Other Issues Most issues can be resolved by having Twitter account holders submit inquires directly to us through our Help Center (.././.../). More information on how to report violations is available here (.J.t.farticles/15789), General Inquiries Other general inquiries from law enforcement or government officials can be submitted through our web form (.J./.1..formsawenforcement). Contact Information Our address and fax details are: Twitter, Inc. clo Trust & Safety - Legal Policy 1355 Market Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94103 Fax: 1-415-222-9958 (attn: Trust & Safety - Legal Policy) Twitter International Company clo Trust & Safety - Legal Policy 42 Pearse Street Dublin 2 Iretand Fax: 1-415-222-9968 (attn: Trust & Safety - Legal Policy) Receipt of correspondence by any of these means is for convenience only and does not waive any objections, including the lack of jurisdiction or proper service.Non-law enforcement requests should be submitted through our Help Genter (lool). (wives) ©2014 Twiter, Ine, English ¥EXHIBIT ELindsay Molnar, From: Michael Weinsten Sent: ‘Thursday, August 27, 2015 10:00 AM To: kwhite@brownwhitelaw.com ce indsay Molnar; Evan Spiegel Subject: James Woods v. Abe List Dear Mr. White. This email shall serve as notice that tomorrow on August 28, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. in department 45 of the Los Angeles ‘Superior Court at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, California, my client James Woods will move ex parte for an application to conduct early discovery in the case against John Doe aka “Abe List.” Specifically, we will be seeking, ‘among other things, the court’s permission to serve subpoenas on twitter (and other entities as necessary) to obtain identifying information of John Doe 1 and other Doe defendants. In accordance with the California Rules of Court, please advise if you will be appearing to oppose the application. Best regards, Michael E. Weinsten Michael E. Weinsten, Esq. LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California ‘90067-2906 Telephone: (310) 556-3501 x234 Celt: (310) 962-9997 Facsimile: (310) 556-3615 E-mail: mweinsten@lavelysinger.com wow lavelysinger.com ‘THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL GR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW AND MAY HOT GE PUBLISHED OR DISSEMINATED IM WHOLE OR IN PART. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENOCD RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE ‘TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION OR THE TAKING OF ANY ACTION IN RELIANCE (ON-THE CONTENTS OF THIS CONIMUNICATION Is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE UAW OFFICES OF LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION RiMIEDIATELY GY TELEPHONE (310.558.1501) OR E-MAIL (REPLY TO SENDER'S [ADDRESS), AND THEN DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THiS COMMUNICATION AND ANY ATTACHED FILES. THANK YOU.EXHIBIT FSUBP-010 [ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY lone, Sie ar inborn oan FOR ESURT USEORLY | MICHABL E. WEINSTEN, ESQ (BAR NO. 155680) EVAN N: SPIEGEL, ESQ. (BAR NO. 198071) LAVELY & SINGER, P.C. 2049 Century Park Bast, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 90067-2906 teiertone wo. 310-556-3501 faxwo: 310-556-3615 att sooress: espiegeL@lavelysinger com arrorverronaime: Plaintif£ James Woods ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Los Angeles smeeeranoness: 111 N, Hill Street wunesovress: 111 N. Hill Street ‘cryaioar cove: Los Angeles, CA 90012 suncuwe: Stanley Mosk Courthouse PLAINTIFFIPETIIONER: James Woods DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT: John Doe a/k/a "Abe List", et al. DEPOSITION SUBPOENA. CAEN FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS abanuit ‘THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, if known): ‘Custodian of Records for Twitter, Inc. ehetor Bae 1355 Market Street, Suite 900, San Francisco, CA 94103 : q 4, YOU ARE ORDERED TO PRODUCE THE BUSINESS RECORDS described in item 3, as follows: aie To (name of deposition officer): Lavely & Singer, P.C. a] (On (date) At (time): 10:00 a.m. Location (address): 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2400, Los Angeles, CA 90067 7 + & Do not release the requested records to the deposit officer prior to the date and time stated above. :: sve dene 2. LX] by delivering a rue, fegible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3, enclosed in a sealed Inrier= ‘wrapper with the tile and number ofthe action, name of witness, and date of eubpoona clearly written on it. The inner! ‘wrapper shall then be enclosed in an outer envelope or wrapper, sealed, and mailed to the deposition officer atthe’: o> address in item 1 vie b. [1] by delivering a true, tegible, and durable copy ofthe business records described in item 3 to the deposition officer atthe witness's address, on receipt of payment in cash or by check of the reasonable costs of preparing the copy, as‘determines under Evidence Code section 1563(b). en) c. [J by making the original business records described in item 3 available for inspection at your business address by-thei attomey's representative and permitting copying at your business address under reasonable conditions during normal ": business hours " 2. The records are to be produced by the date and time shown in item 1 (but not sooner than 20 days after the issuance of the deposition subpoena, or 18 days after service, whichever date is later). Reasonable costs of locating records, making them: ! available or copying them, and postage, if any, are recoverable as set forth in Evidence Code section 1563(b). The records shall be: accompanied by an affidavit ofthe custodian or other qualified witness pursuant to Evidence Code section 1561. 1 3, The records to be produced are described as follows (if electronically stored information is demancied, the form or sad forms in which each type of information is to be produced may be specified): See Attachment. 3. (2X) Continued on Attachment 3. 8‘ ‘ 4, IF YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS SUBPOENA AS A CUSTODIAN OF CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS UNDER™ ‘CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1985.3 OR 1985.6 AND A MOTION TO QUASH OR AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN”. "= * ‘SERVED ON YOU, A COURT ORDER OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, WITNESSES, AND CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE: « - AFFECTED MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS: DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE |’ FOR THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY: Date issued! TEE OR FANT _SiGRATORE OF PERSON GSTS BUBCEN Attor: aintd, {Proof of service on reverse) oe, Page tot Fem Ades ens se DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION Conor CaProndue, 692008410-2028 0. ‘usr er Jona 2912 OF BUSINESS RECORDS Solutigns: ‘annen Cote $Me | && PlusJAMES WOODS v. JOHN DOE afly/a “Abe List”, et al. Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC589746 ATTACHMENT 3 DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS on Custodian of Records for TWITTER, INC. 1. Relevant Background and Reason for Information Request From Twitter: On July 29, 2015, Plaintiff James Woods (“Woods”) filed the above-entitled lawsuit which arose from the publication of a malicious and fabricated statement by an individual who hides behind the Twitter name “Abe List” and handle/user “@abelisted” (“AbeListed”). On July 15, 2015, AbeListed falsely accused actor James Woods of being a “cocaine addict” on the social media site Twitter, a message sent 10 thousands of AbeListed’s followers and hundreds of thousands of Mr. Woods’ followers. Woods is not now, nor has he ever been, a cocaine addict, and AbeListed had no reason to believe otherwise. Abel.isted’s reckless and malicious behavior, through the worldwide reach of the internet, has now jeopardized Woods’ good name and reputation on an international scale. ‘The documents sought pursuant to this Subpoena are relevant and material to the trial of this case because Woods needs the documents in order to identify and prosecute his defamation and invasion of privacy claims against AbeListed. I. Therecor luces nt to the Subpoena and this Attachment 3 ar with reference to the following Twitter account and user profile ID: 1. twitter.com/abelisted 2. @abelisted 3. mobile.twitter.com/abelisted Collectively referred to herein as the “Abelisted Twitter Acct.” IM. . The records to be produced pursuant to Subpoena and this Attachment “3” are ‘as follows: 1, Account user information for the AbeListed Twitter Acct, including any documents or writings (the term “writings” in this request, and each subsequent request using the term, means as defined by California Evidence Code § 250) evidencing the name, address, telephone number, e-mail address(es), IP address(es) and/or any other available contact and/or identifying information for the holder(s) of the AbeListed ‘Twitter Acct, and/or associated with the Abel.isted Twitter Acct, both concurrently and at any time prior to the date of this request, 2. Any user records, data and writings (or a copy of the information contained therein) which evidence and identify each IP address (including date and time of use of saidIP address) associated with and/or used at any time by any person in relation to creating or modifying or posting to the AbeListed Twitter Acct, Any user records, data and writings (oF a copy of the information contained therein) which evidence and identify the IP address (including date and time of use of said IP address) used by the user who posted the Tweet/Comment “@RealJamesWoods ‘@benshapiro cocaine addict James Woods still sniffing and spouting,” dated July 15, 2015 7:40 AM, at URL http://twitter.com/abelisted/status/621328418861248512 A list of all handle (ie., @names) and associated user names, in addition to the Abelisted handle, used or otherwise associated at any time with the AbeListed Twitter Acct and/or its user(s).EXHIBIT Gpista SUBP.010 "ATTORNEY OR ARTY WITIOUT ATTORNEY Gis Ss arma, anata FoR Coens OREY | MICHAEL E. WEINSTEN, ESQ (BAR NO. 155680) EVAN N. SPIEGEL, SQ. (BAR NO. 198071) LAVELY & SINGER, P.C. 2049 Century Park Hast, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 90067-2906 everoneno” 310-556-3501 rexno: 320-556-3615 enaisooness. espiegel@lavelysinger .com soronev FoR tare) Plaintiff James Woods ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF GALIFORNIA, COUNTYOF Los Angeles srmcersooress: 111 N. Hill Street wauncrooress: 111 N. Hill Street emyswzecoor: Los Angeles, CA 90012 sraoutne, Stanley Mosk Courthouse PLAINTIFFIPETONER: James Woods DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT: John Doe a/k/a "Abe List", et al. CASE NBER DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Bc589746 ‘THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, if known): Custodian of Records for Twitter, Inc. 1355 Market Street, Suite 900, San Francisco, CA 94103 1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO PRODUCE THE BUSINESS RECORDS described in item 3, as follows: To (name of deposition officer’: Lavely & Singer, P.C. On (date) : At(time): 10:00 a.m. Location (address): 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2400, Los Angeles, CA 90067 Do not release the requested recortis to the deposition officer prior to the date and time stated above. 2. [3E] by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the businass records described in item S, enclosed in a sealed inner ‘wrapper with the tle and number of the action, name of witness, and date of subpoena clearly written on it. The inner wrapper shal! then be enclosed in an outer envelope or wrapper, sealed, and mailed to the deposition officer at the address in item 4 b. [1] by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3 to the deposition officenat the witness's address, on receipt of payment in cash or by check of the reasonable costs of preparing the copy, as determined under Evidence Code section 1663(b).. . c. [1 by making the original business records described in item 3 available for inspection at your business address by the. attomey's representative and permitting eopying at your business address under reasonable conditions during normal business hours. 2. The records are to be produced by the date and timo shown in item 1 (but not sooner than 20 days after the issuance of the - deposition subpoena, or 15 days after service, whichever date slater). Reasonable costs of locating records, making them available or copying them, and postage, if any, are recoverable as set forth in Evidence Code section 1563(t). The records shall be ‘accompanied by an affidavit of the custodian or other qualified witness pursuant to Evidence Code section 1561. 3. The records to be produced are described as follows (if electronically stored information is demanded, the form or forms in which each type of information is to be produced may be specified): See Attachment 3. (EX) Continued on Attachment 3. 4. IF YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS SUBPOENA AS A CUSTODIAN OF CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1985.3 OR 1985.6 AND A MOTION TO QUASH OR AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN SERVED ON YOU, A COURT ORDER OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, WITNESSES, AND CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AFFECTED MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS. DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE FOR THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY. Date issued: Evan Spiegel, Esq. » (vee OF FRNA (SIGNATURE OF PERSON SUNG SUBPOENA for Plai (Proof of service on reverse) tad Pogetet2 Foe aan ie DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION ‘oie Gt rae, 2 0-2 SUBP-010 [Rev. January 1, 2012) OF BUSINESS RECORDS rut HJAMES WOODS v. JOHN DOE afi/a “Abe List”, etal. Los Angeles Superior Cow: ‘ase No. BC589746, ATTACHMENT 3 DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS on Custodian of Records for TWITTER, INC. I. _ Relevant Background and Reason for Information Request From Twitter: On July 29, 2015, Plaintiff James Woods (“Woods”) filed the above-entitled lawsuit which arose from the publication of a malicious and fabricated statement by an individual who hides behind the Twitter name “Abe List” and handle/user “@abelisted” (“AbeListed”), On August 18, 2015, Woods became aware of Doe No. 2 in the above-entitled lawsuit. On August 18, 2015, Doe No. 2 also made a malicions and fabricated statement while hiding behind his or her Twitter name “I.G. Bmerson” and handle/user “@indictGW” (“Emerson”). Specifically, Emerson falsely accused actor James Woods of being a “notorious coke fiend and registered sex offender on the social media site Twitter, a message sent to hundreds of Emerson’s followers and hundreds of thousands of Mr. Woods’ followers. Woods is not now, nor has he ever been, a “coke fiend” or “a registered sex offender,” and Emerson had no reason to believe otherwise, Emerson’s reckless and malicious behavior, through the worldwide reach of the internet, has now jeopardized Woods’ good name and reputation on an international scale, The documents sought pursuant to this Subpoena are relevant and material to the trial of this case because Woods needs the documents in order to identify and prosecute his defamation and invasion of privacy claims against Emerson in the above lawsuit, I. The records to be produced pursuant to the Subpoena and this Attachment 3 are ‘with reference to the following Twitter account and user profile ID: 1. twitter.com/indictGW 2. @indictGW 3. mobile.twittcr.com/indict GW Collectively referred to herein as the “Emerson Twitter Acct.” III. The records to be produced pursuant to Subpoena and this Attachment “3” are as follows: 1 Account user information for the Emerson Twitter Acct, including any documents or vwiitings (the term “writings” in this request, and each subsequent request using the term, means as defined by California Evidence Code § 250) evidencing the name, address, telephone number, e-mail address(es), 1P address(es) and/or any other available contact and/or identifying information for the holder(s) of the Emersonot Twitter Acct, and/or associated with the Emerson Twitter Acct, both concurrently and at any time prior to the date of this request. Any user records, data and writings (or a copy of the information contained therein) which evidence and identify each IP address (including date and time of use of said IP address) associated with and/or used at any time by any person in relation to creating or modifying or posting to the Emerson Twitter Acct, Any user records, data and writings (or a copy of the information contained therein) which evidence and identify the IP address (including date and time of use of said IP address) used by the user who posted the Tweet/Comment “@ReallamesWoods James Woods is a notorious coke fiend and registered sex offender,” dated August 18, 2015 4:39 PM, at URL http:/twitter.com/indietGW/status/633785319972802560 A list of all handle (i.¢., @names) and associated user names, in addition to the @indictGW handle, used or otherwise associated at any time with the Emerson Twitter Acct and/or its usor(s).