UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

IN RE: )
)
SUBPOENA ISSUED TO )
INVESTORSHUB.COM )
on behalf of the United States District )
Court for the Northern District of )
Indiana in the case of Michiana Dairy )
Processors, LLC v. All Star Beverages, Inc. )
Case No. 2:09-CV-0039-PRC )

MOTION TO QUASH,
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO STAY SUBPOENA

John Doe (identified in the subpoena as “Risicare”), Jack Doe (identified in the subpoena
as “wicke”), Jim Doe (identified in the subpoena as “greedy_malone”), Jason Doe (identified in the
subpoena as “dollarwize”), and Jed Doe (identified in the subpoena as “LVTruthseeker”) by
counsel, move pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c) to quash a certain subpoena issued on March 18,
2010 on behalf of Donna Mohlman. For the reason set forth below, the subpoena should be
quashed.
Alternatively, this Court may choose to stay the subpoena as to the five Doe movants while
they seek a protective order from the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana. This Court should also be aware that, by agreement with counsel issuing the
subpoena, this motion is also being filed with the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana, where the underlying lawsuit is pending.
FACTS
1. John Doe, Jack Doe, Jim Doe, Jason Doe and Jed Doe are members of an Internet
web site known as InvestorsHub.com. A feature of this web site is a forum where members may
engage in discussion and debate about investment opportunities, stocks, and other topics of interest
to them (see http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/hubstocks.aspx). The members commonly use
“screen names” to identify themselves to other members of the forums.
2. John Doe uses the alias “Risicare” when he posts messages to the forums at
InvestorsHub.com.

1
 3. Jim Doe uses the alias “greedy_malone” when he posts messages to the forums at
InvestorsHub.com.
4. Jack Doe uses the alias “wicke” when he posts messages to the forums at
InvestorsHub.com.
5. Jason Doe uses the alias “dollarwize” when he posts messages to the forums at
InvestorsHub.com.
6. Jed Doe uses the alias “LVTruthseeker” when he posts messages to the forums at
InvestorsHub.com.
7. Messrs. Doe, among others, have participated in a discussion regarding a certain
stock, Prime Star Group, Inc. (PSGI). In this discussion, they have raised questions of legitimate
concern to investors and potential investors concerning the business operations of Prime Star
Group, Inc. These questions include whether regulatory authorities are investigating the company,
the backgrounds of the company’s leadership, and possible ties to other companies that have been
the target of investigations. This information, if true, would be of concern to potential investors in
that the value of the stock of Prime Star Group, Inc. could be adversely affected.
8. The discussions of Prime Star Group, Inc. have been very critical of the company.
Not surprisingly, the company’s leadership is unhappy about the negative comments.
9. The company’s leadership has embarked upon a scheme to silence its critics at
InvestorsHub. The company has used various means in an effort to unmask the identities of its
critics for the purpose of filing lawsuits against them or seeking other forms of punishment.
10. In one instance, the company’s leadership identified one of its critics as an
individual employed in a government position. The company’s leadership complained, and the
critic was disciplined. See http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Prime-Star-Group-
Uncovers-Identity-of-Anonymous-Basher-1096791.htm; http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?
section=news/iteam&id=7227821 [both last visited March 31, 2010].
11. Donna Mohlman is, on information and belief, the former spouse of Roger
Mohlman, the chief executive officer, chairman and president of Prime Star Group, Inc.

2
 12. On March 18, 2010, Ms. Mohlman caused a subpoena to be issued by an officer of
this Court to InvestorsHub.com. The subpoena requires InvestorsHub.com to produce
information, including the names, email addresses, and Internet protocol (IP) addresses of seven
individuals, including Messrs. Doe. The subpoena was signed by J. Craig Knox, Andrews, Crabtree,
Knox & Andrews, 1558 Village Square Boulevard, Tallahassee, FL, 32309. It was not signed by the
Clerk of this Court. A copy of this subpoena and its exhibits is attached to this motion as Exhbit
A.
13. The subpoena was issued by this Court because its recipient, InvestorsHub.com, is a
business located in the Northern District of Florida. The subpoena was issued under the auspices
of a case pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana,
Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC v. All Star Beverages, Inc., et al. Case No. 2:09-CV-0039-PRC. In that
case, Donna Mohlman alleges that Michiana Dairy Processors and its attorneys have conspired
with others to “ruin the names” of Roger Mohlman, Donna Mohlman and the defendant
companies through a series of postings at InvestorHub.com. Presumably, Ms. Mohlman believes
Messrs. Doe are part of the conspiracy.
14. The underlying lawsuit involves a claim by Michiana Dairy Processors that various
defendants breached a contract, fraudulently transferred assets, and that Donna Mohlman
committed fraudulent acts. Donna Mohlman has filed a counter claim against Michiana Dairy
Processors, LLC, alleging that it and its attorneys have conspired with others to “ruin the names”
of Donna Mohlman, her former spouse, Roger Mohlman, and the various companies involved in
the lawsuit.
15. Messrs. Doe request that the Court quash the subpoena, or in the alternative, to
stay the subpoena while Messrs. Doe seek a protective order from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana.
16. This subpoena is not the first effort Ms. Mohlman has made to reveal the identity
of her critics. As shown by the affidavit of Sonya Branstine, the president of InvestorsHub.com,
Ms. Mohlman has tried to have other subpoenas issued for this information, using different courts
and a different lawsuit. [See Exhibit B.]

3
 17. Messrs. Doe have had no communications with Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC or
its counsel concerning the issues in this litigation or any messages that they may have posted to
discussion forums on the Internet. [See Exhibits C, D, E, F and G.]

ARGUMENT
I. Legal Standard
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court may quash a subpoena if it
“requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter” or “subjects a person to undue
burden.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iii) and (iv). This Court is the appropriate venue for this motion
because subpoenas must be challenged before the issuing court. Fed.R.Civ.P. (c)(3)(A) (“On timely
motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena…”) (emphasis added).
II. Anonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment
The First Amendment to the Constitution provides broad protection to persons engaged in
speech. The protection is broad enough that it encompasses anonymous speech. The Supreme
Court of the United States has consistently defended the right to engage in anonymous speech in
many situations, noting that “[a]nonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority…[that]
exemplifies the purpose [of the First Amendment] to protect unpopular individuals from
retaliation…at the hand of an intolerant society.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334,
357 (1995). The Court in McIntyre also stated that, “an author’s decision to remain anonymous, like
other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of
the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.” 514 U.S. at 342. This protection of
anonymous speech is hardly new; in 1960 the Supreme Court struck down an ordinance requiring
identifying information on handbills as a violation of the First Amendment. The Court observed,
“[a]nonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the
progress of mankind.” Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960).
Anonymous speech receives the same constitutional protection regardless of the means of
communication. Speech on the Internet does not receive a different level of protection. Reno v.
ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997). As the U.S. District Court for the Western District of

4
Washington noted in 2001, “The right to speak anonymously extends to speech via the Internet.
Internet anonymity facilitates the rich, diverse, and far ranging exchange of ideas.” Doe v.
2theMart.com, 140 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1093 (W.D. Wash. 2001).
The courts have also held that state action is implicated in cases involving subpoenas and
other court orders. See New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Thus, First Amendment
protections are triggered, and this Court must ensure those protections are enjoyed by Messrs.
Doe.
III. Anonymous speakers enjoy a qualified privilege under the First
Amendment.

It is well settled that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. Material that is
obscene does not enjoy protection, nor does speech that is defamatory. See, e.g., Columbia Ins. Co. v.
Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999). The courts have taken an approach to cases
where a party desires to unmask an anonymous critic that balances the First Amendment interests
of the speaker with the rights of the allegedly aggrieved party. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc. v. Does 1–40,
326 F.Supp.2d 556, 565 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). This approach fulfills the caution raised by the Supreme
Court in Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation: Courts must “be vigilant…[and] guard
against undue hindrances to…the exchange of ideas.” 525 U.S. 182, 192 (1999). Thus, even while
certain classes of speech do not receive any protection from the First Amendment, litigants may
not use a court’s discovery powers to uncover the identities of people who have simply made
statements the litigants dislike.
IV. The law imposes a high burden on those seeking to unmask critics.
The first state case to analyze the issues present in this motion—a litigant’s ability to
compel a provider of Internet services to reveal an anonymous speaker’s identity— is Dendrite
Int’l, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. App. 2001). The New Jersey Court of Appeals fashioned a
set of factors that has been used by courts around the country. 1 The factors are as follows:

1 See, e.g., Independent Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie, 966 A.2d 432 (Md. 2009); Doe I v. Individuals, 561
F.Supp.2d 249 (D.Conn. 2008); Quixtar, Inc. v. Signature Management Team, LLC, 566 F.Supp. 1205
(D.Nev. 2008); Mobilisa, Inc. v. John Doe 1, 170 P.3d 712 (Ariz. App. 2007); Greenbaum v. Google, Inc.,
845 N.Y.S.2d 695 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 2007); Highfields Capital Management, L.P. v. Doe, 385 F.Supp.2d 969
(N.D.Cal. 2005).

5
 (a) Has the litigant made reasonable efforts to notify the accused Internet user
of the pendency of the identification proceeding and explain how to present a defense?
(b) Has the litigant set forth the exact statements that she contends constitutes
actionable speech?
(c) Has the litigant alleged all elements of the cause of action and introduced
prima facie evidence within her control sufficient to survive a motion for summary
judgment; and
(d) If the court concludes the litigant has made a prima facie case, what is the
balance between the speaker’s First Amendment right to speak anonymously and the
strength of the prima facie case, along with the necessity for the disclosure of the
anonymous defendant’s identity to allow the litigant to properly proceed?

This approach balances the First Amendment rights of the speaker with the interests of a litigant
who may have a legitimate cause of action.
One of the early federal decisions to examine the issues presented by this motion is Doe v.
2themart.com, Inc., 140 F.Supp.2d 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2001). In that case, the court addressed a set of
facts that is almost identical to this case. A corporation was sued by some of its shareholders in a
derivative action. The corporation issued a subpoena to an Internet service provider seeking the
identification of people who had posted anonymous messages critical of the corporation. The
anonymous critics sought to quash the subpoena on the grounds that their messages and identities
were protected by the First Amendment. The District Court agreed and quashed the subpoena.
Notably, the critical statements posted by the anonymous users were very harsh:
Some of the messages posted on the [2themart] site have been less than flattering to
the company. In fact, some have been downright nasty. For example, a user calling
himself “Truthseeker” posted a message stating “[2themart] is a Ponzi scam that Charles
Ponzi would be proud of…. The company’s CEO, Magliarditi, has defrauded employees
in the past. The company’s other large shareholder, Rebeil, defrauded customers in the
past.” Another poster named “Cuemaster” indicated that “they were dumped by their
accountants…these guys are friggin liars…why haven’t they told the public this yet???
Liars and criminals!!!!!” Another user, not identified in the exhibits, wrote “Lying,
cheating, thieving, stealing, lowlife criminals!!!!” Other postings advised [2themart]
investors to sell their stock. “Look out below!!!! This stock has had it…get short or sell
your positions now while you still can.” “They [2themart] are not building anything,
except extensions on their homes…bail out now.”

140 F.Supp.2d at 1090. Although counsel for Messrs. Doe has not reviewed every message
identified in Ms. Mohlman’s subpoena, there is no dispute that some of the messages she has
pointed to are equally harsh in their criticism of PSGI and those affiliated with it.
In 2themart.com, the court used a balancing test that differs somewhat from the Dendrite
test. The court analyzed four factors:

6
 1. Whether the subpoena was issued in good faith and not for any improper purpose;
2. Whether the information sought relates to a core claim or defense;
3. Whether the identifying information is directly and materially relevant to that
claim or defense; and
4. Whether the information sufficient to establish or to disprove that claim or defense
is unavailable from any other source.
140 F.Supp.2d at 1095. The court explained it adopted this test because:
This test provides a flexible framework for balancing the First Amendment rights of
anonymous speakers with the right of civil litigants to protect their interests through
the litigation discovery process. The Court shall give weight to each of these factors as
the court determines is appropriate under the circumstances of each case. This Court is
mindful that it is imposing a high burden. “But the First Amendment requires us to be
vigilant in making [these] judgments, to guard against undue hindrances to political
conversations and the exchange of ideas.” Buckley, 525 U.S. at 192, 119 S.Ct. 636.

Id. Whether this Court adopts the Dendrite test or the 2themart.com test, the inescapable conclusion
is that this subpoena must be quashed.
V. Ms. Mohlman’s subpoena fails the Dendrite balancing test.
1. Ms. Mohlman has not made reasonable efforts to alert Messrs. Doe of the pendency
of the identification proceeding nor explained how to present a defense.

In this instance, Ms. Mohlman has not made reasonable efforts to alert the anonymous
Internet users that she intends to discover their identities. Nevertheless, Messrs. Doe acknowledge
they were aware of Ms. Mohlman’s efforts in light of the fact that this is the third attempt she has
made—with each attempt using some other lawsuit as a tool to attempt to discover the identities
of these individuals.
Ms. Mohlman first attempted to unmask her critics (none of whom have filed this motion
to quash) by having a subpoena issued on July 23, 2008 by the California Superior Court in the
case of Mohlman, et al. v. Mary Miller Kervosh, et al., Case No. 37-2008-86707-CU-PO-CTL. In
that instance, InvestorsHub.com refused to produce the subpoenaed records because the California
court lacked jurisdiction. Several weeks later, on September 5, 2008, Ms. Mohlman’s attorneys had
another subpoena issued in a difference case: Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC v. Roger Howard
Mohlman, Case No. 08-03780-7, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern

7
District of California. InvestorsHub.com again refused to comply with the subpoena based upon
the fact that the subpoena violated the 100-mile limit. Now, Ms. Mohlman again seeks to discover
the identity of her critics, and again she uses a lawsuit that is unrelated to the criticism leveled by
Messrs. Doe. In each instance, the service provider—InvestorsHub.com—has received the
subpoenas without any advance notice to Messrs. Doe. It is only because the service provider has
advised its subscribers targeted by the subpoena that they have any direct knowledge at all.
Similarly, Ms. Mohlman has not provided any of her targets with information on how to
resist or object to the subpoena, as established by the affidavits of Messrs. Doe.
With these facts, the first factor weighs in favor of Messrs. Doe.
2. Ms. Mohlman has not identified the specific statements that she claims constitute
actionable speech.

The Court should bear in mind that Ms. Mohlman has not filed a claim before any state or
federal court that pleads a proper cause of action for defamation against Messrs. Doe or any other
individuals. The sum total of her “claim” for defamation is found in four short paragraphs Ms.
Mohlman filed as a counterclaim against Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC in the underlying
litigation.
Most notably, Ms. Mohlman has not identified any statements attributed to Messrs. Doe
that allegedly form the basis for her counterclaim. She merely asserts that she “has had her name
defamed on the Internet.” Indeed, Ms. Mohlman does not even state whether Michiana Dairy
Processors, LLC made the purportedly defamatory statements.
The only information Ms. Mohlman has provided that could be interpreted as identifying
the allegedly defamatory statements is found on the exhibit to her subpoena: the message numbers
of literally hundreds of messages posted to the discussion forums at InvestorsHub.com. She has
provided these message numbers, according to her subpoena, for the purpose of obtaining the
name, email address, and Internet protocol addresses for each of the posts. She has not, so far as
anyone can tell, claimed that any of these messages are defamatory. Indeed a most cursory review
of the messages reveals that some of them simply quote or link to online news reports of criminal
charges being filed against Roger Mohlman and do not mention Ms. Mohlman at all. Even if there
are allegedly defamatory statements buried somewhere within all of those messages identified in

8
the subpoena, the burden is on Ms. Mohlman to identify specific defamatory statements allegedly
made by Messrs. Doe. The Court is not required to sift through her offering to determine whether
Ms. Mohlman has met her burden, nor should the Court require Messrs. Doe to sift through every
message to determine whether any of them could constitute defamatory speech under Indiana law.
For these reasons, the second factor weighs in favor of Messrs. Doe.
3. Ms. Mohlman has not set forth the elements of a defamation claim or come forward
with admissible evidence to establish a prima facie case.

In this case, as noted above, Ms. Mohlman has not provided this Court (or any other court)
with any evidence at all to establish a prima facie case. Again, she has merely said that her name has
been ruined. She has not alleged that the individuals she seeks to unmask (specifically Messrs. Doe)
made any statements, she has not alleged that any such statements were untrue or made with
reckless disregard to their falsity, that the statements were published, and that she has been damaged
as a result. The lack of specific evidence requires that this factor weigh in favor of Messrs. Doe.
4. The Court need not review the fourth factor because Ms. Mohlman has not
established a prima facie case.

The Dendrite test requires the Court to balance the interests of the litigant with the
interests of the anonymous critics only if the litigant has established a prima facie case. Ms.
Mohlman has not met this standard, so the Court’s analysis ends here. Assuming for the sake of
argument that Ms. Mohlman did establish a prima facie case, the balancing test still weighs in favor
of Messrs. Doe, as will be explained in the analysis of the 2themart.com balancing test.
VI. Ms. Mohlman’s subpoena fails the 2themart.com balancing test.
1. Ms. Mohlman’s subpoena was not issued in good faith.

The question concerning the good faith of Ms. Mohlman is a close one, but the Court
should still conclude that the subpoena was not issued in good faith. In this underlying lawsuit, the
plaintiff has charged Mr. Mohlman and his companies with breach of contract and fraud. Ms.
Mohlman was also named as a defendant, and she asserted a counter counterclaim against
Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC. In her claim, Ms. Mohlman charges that Michiana Dairy
Processors, LLC conspired “with others” to ruin her name.

9
 Despite the allegations in her counter claim, Ms. Mohlman has not named any of the Doe
recipients that are the subject of the subpoena as third-party defendants. Instead, she has tried for a
third time to strip them of their anonymity. The experience of the Mohlman critic who has
already been unmasked suggests that Ms. Mohlman has no interest at all in seeking redress for any
alleged defamation in a proper court. Rather, the actions of Roger Mohlman and PSGI indicate
that they are more likely to use extra-judicial means to inflict some punishment on Messrs. Doe—
and then issue a press release about it.
2. The subpoenas have nothing to do at all with the underlying litigation.
For purposes of expediency, Messrs. Doe believe the Court can dispense with parts two,
three and four of the 2themart.com test. These factors examine whether the subpoenaed
information is related to a claim or defense in the case, whether the information goes to the core
of the claims or defenses, and whether the information is available from any other source.
In this instance, each of the Doe subpoena recipients has testified through his affidavit that
he has had no communications with counsel for Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC other than to
respond to counsel’s request for a copy of the subpoena or with respect to any issues involved in
the lawsuit. There have been no such communications with the attorneys or anyone otherwise
connected with Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC. In the absence of any connection with that
plaintiff, the Doe subpoena recipients cannot have any information that remotely or directly relates
to any claim or defense in the underlying lawsuit. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion that
can be reached is that Ms. Mohlman is once again using a lawsuit as an opportunity to issue a
subpoena for her own purposes—purposes that are unrelated to the underlying lawsuit.
Given that the information sought by this subpoena has nothing at all to do with the issues
involved in the federal lawsuit, this Court should quash the subpoena.
VII. Conclusion.
The First Amendment’s protection for free speech erects a high barrier for those who
desire to unmask an anonymous critic. This constitutional privilege, of course, is not absolute, and
plaintiffs may properly seek information necessary to pursue meritorious litigation. See Columbia
Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578 (N.D.Cal. 1999). Nevertheless, litigants are not entitled

10
to use the discovery tools and their power to uncover the identities of people who have simply
made statements that litigants dislike.
In this case, Ms. Mohlman has not come close to clearing the barrier required by the First
Amendment. She has not made any allegation in her counter claim that the people she seeks to
unmask have been working in concert with Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC. She has not alleged
that Messrs. Doe have made any defamatory statements at all. Given that this is Ms. Mohlman’s
third attempt to strip Messrs. Doe of their anonymity, the burden is upon her to satisfy the courts
that her need for this information outweighs the First Amendment rights of Messrs. Doe.
VIII. Certification.
I hereby certify pursuant to N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(B) that on April 6, 2010, I spoke with
Lyle R. Hardman, Esq., identified on the subpoena in question as the attorney requesting the
issuance of the subpoena, to confer about the possible agreed withdrawal of the subpoena. Mr.
Hardman and I discussed the issues presented by the subpoena, and both sides maintain that this
issue is best resolved by the Court.
Respectfully submitted,

s/ William L. Wilson
William L. Wilson, Indiana Bar No. 16245-71
ANDERSON, AGOSTINO & KELLER, P.C.
131 South Taylor Street
South Bend, IN 46601
(574) 288-1510 Tel.
(815) 550-9947 Fax
wilson@aaklaw.com

Attorney for Messrs. Doe

11
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the following was served upon:

J. Craig Knox, Esq. Lyle R. Hardman, Esq.

Andrews, Crabtree, Knox & Andrews Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros, LLP
1558 Village Square Boulevard P.O. Box 4156
Tallahassee, FL 32309 South Bend, IN 46634-4156
cknox@ackalaw.com lhardman@hsk-law.com

by electronic mail delivery and United States Mail, postage prepaid, on April 6, 2010.

s/ William L. Wilson
William L. Wilson

12
AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action

UNITED STATEs DISTRICT COURT

for the
Northern District of Florida

Michiana Dairy Processors LLC)

Plaintiff)
v. ) Civil Action No. 2:09-CV-0039-prc
All Star Beverages, Inc. et al)
_________________________________________________ ) (If the action is pending in another district, state where:

Defendant )Northern District of Indiana

SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, Oft OBJECTS

OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: Investorshub.com, Inc. c/o Corporate Services Company

1201 Hays Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301
SProduction: 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: The i.p. addresses, emails and names of the posters known as "dollarwize", "greed y_malon e",
"LVTruth Seeker", "Risicare", "sky-king", "springroll", and "Wicke" for their posts on the message board of the
stock of Prime Star Group, Inc. (PSGI), which are listed and attached as Exhibit A, hereto.

Place: by mailing copies to: J. Craig Knox Date and Time:

1558-1 Village Square Blvd. 04/15/2010 10:00 am
Tallahassee, FL 32309

iJ 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 conseqiuences of not doine so. are
attahed.J. Craig Knox (FL Bar ID #0286729)
Andrews, Crabtree, Knox & Andrews
Date: ~1558 Village Square Boulevard
Date moy ("\Tallahassee. FL 32309
cknoxna,ackalaw.cont Ph: (850) 297-0090
CLERK OFCOURT
OR

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Attar?W's signature

The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name ofparry) Donna Mohiman
_____________________________________________________who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
Lyle R. Hardman
Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros LLP, P.O. Box 4156, South Bend, IN 46634-4156, 574-232-4801, Ihardman@hsk-law.com
 EXHIBIT A

Posts of "greedy-malone" numbered:

1090, 1091, 1096, 1100,1101,1103,1105,1110,1596,1597,1652,1654,1656,
1658,1659,1661,1667,1670,1677,1682,1685,1688,1690,
1693,1695,1697,1704,1706,1708,1709,1712,1715,1767,
1781,1782,1784,1792,1793,1800,1808,1826,1854,1856,
1861,1863,1955,1956,1958,1974,1994,2051,2053,2067,
2083,2099,2168,2194, 2368,2411,2415,2438,2499,2517

Posts of "springroll" numbered:

2140,2143,2147,2149,2151,2156,2173,2189,2192,
2208,2218,2220,2250,2260,2264,2269,2271,2314,2315

Posts of "LVTruthSeeker" numbered:

2176,2188,2210,2211,2213,2225,2245,2249,2278,2287,2288,2317,2325,233
0,2336,2370,2397,2406,2407

Posts of "dollarwize" numbered:

566,567,570,562,564,566,567,573,574,576,577,582,583
587,594,615,617,618,974,975,979,1145,1175,1304,1305,1424,1494,1504,18
98,1997,2033

Posts of "sky-king" numbered:

586,616,621,748,753,754,755,756,758,761,762,764,776,
855,856,871,874,877,878,881,883,885,886,888,889,932,
936,940,942,944,945,946,972,981,983,1012,1016,1025,
1035,1040,1045,1049,1107,1115,1136,1141,1146,1147,
1150,1151,1158,1159,1162,1173,1178,1184,1187,1189,
1194,1195,1197,1198,1199,1208,1214,1216,1221,1243,
1247,1248,1250,1251,1252,1253,1254,1255,1262,1263,
1268,1269,1277,1279,1280,1281,1282,1283,1284,1285,
1287,1288,1291,1294,1297,1299,1301,1302,1309,1310,
1313,1315,1316,1318,1321,1323,1329,1332,1362,1363,
1364,1365,1380,1384,1385,1388,1390,1406,1410,1416,
1417,1449,1450,1451,1456,1461,1463,1468,1479,1490,
1502,1516,1517,1519,1520,1674,1679,1680,1699,1715

Posts of "Risicare" numbered:

843,858,859,863,880,1177,1292,1426,1611,1612,1620,

1
162 2,1632,1633,1634,163 5,162 8,1646,1648,1649,1655,
1664,1668,1672,1692,1710,1717,1734,1737,740,1745,
1747,1756,1764,1772,1779,1783,1785,1786,1795,1803,
1804,1810,1812,1813,1816,1837,1838,1840,1845,1848,
1851,1855,1856,1857,1860,1862,1879,1880,1884,1885,
1887,1892,1912,1925,1929,1934,1936,1941,1954,1979,
1981,1987,1993,2 003,2 017,2 024,2 02 5,2 06,2 048,2 056,
2057,2061,2064,2066,2069,2077,2082,2101,2103,2105
2 13 1,2 132,2 13 7,2 140,2 144,2 145,2 146,2 148,2 155,2 158,
2160,2162,2164,2169,2175,2201,2203,2205,2207, 2297, 2299, 2308, 2309,
2318, 2319, 2321, 2323, 2349, 2360, 2362, 2364, 2365, 2369, 2380, 2381,
2391, 2393, 2402, 2445, 2455, 2458, 2459, 2463, 2487, 2488, 2492, 2515

Posts of "Wicke" numbered:

2362, 2363, 2367, 2375, 2403, 2408, 2409, 2437, 2448, 2449, 2452, 2453,
2473, 2474, 2475, 2505, 2506, 2509,2511, 2520,2521

2
 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) A voiding 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 attorney's 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 SubpoenaL
(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 party's 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) Formfor Producing ElectronicallyStored Information Not
Specifed 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 Producedin Only One
Form. The person responding need not produce the same
electronically stored information in more than one form.
(D) Inaccessible ElectronicallySt ored 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 trial-
preparation 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 nonparty's 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).
AO 88B (Rev. 06/09) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No. 2:09-CV-0039-prc

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 day's 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.

Server's signature

Printed name and title

Server's address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

IN RE: )
)
SUBPOENA ISSUED TO )
INVESTORSHUB.COM )
on behalf of the United States District )
Court for the Northern District of )
Indiana in the case of Michiana Dairy )
Processors, LLC v. All Star Beverages, Inc. )
Case No. 2:09-CV-0039-PRC )

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN DOE

John Doe, being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and states:
1. I am of adult age. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this affidavit. I
am not aware of any legal basis that would lead to the conclusion that I am not competent to give
testimony in court. If called as a witness, I would testify as set forth in this affidavit. I understand
that even though I am executing this affidavit using a pseudonym, I am still subject to the pains
and penalties for perjury for any untruthful statements.
2. I am a user of an Internet web site known as InvestorsHub.com (which is at times
referred to as iHub by its members and administrators). In the course of my use of this web site, I
frequently post messages to a part of the web site commonly known as discussion boards or
forums. When I do so, I post messages using the alias “Risicare.”
3. As a part of my participation and use of InvestorsHub.com, I have posted a number
of messages concerning questions about Prime Star Group, Inc., a “penny stock” that trades under
the symbol PSGI. I, among others, have raised these questions out of a concern that the actions of
the company’s management may be harmful to investors and potential investors.
4. Shortly after March 18, 2010, I was notified by InvestorsHub.com via email that
InvestorsHub.com had received a subpoena from this Court seeking information that would
disclose my identity to Donna Mohlman.
5. Although I have been aware of the lawsuit captioned Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC
v. All Star Beverage, Inc., I have had no communications with the principals, officers, employees or
agents of Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC, with the exception of a brief communication with its
attorneys regarding the subpoena in question. The sum and substance of the communication was
that counsel for Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC, wanted a copy of the subpoena. Since then, I
have had no further communications of any kind with anyone connected with Michiana Dairy
Processors, LLC. At no time has anyone connected with Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC
contacted me concerning the messages I posted at InvestorsHub.com or to encourage me to
continue posting messages regarding PSGI.
6. At no time has Donna Mohlman or her representatives provided any advance
notice that the subpoena would be served or any guidance on how one might object to the
subpoena.
7. I have no personal knowledge of any facts or information that involve the claims
found in the complaint filed by Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC or the counter claims filed by the
defendants. I am not connected in any way with Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC or any of the
defendants in that lawsuit. Any issues of breach of contract or fraudulent conduct are entirely
unknown to me other than what I have read in court filings or other public information sources.
I affirm under the penalties for perjury that the foregoing statements are true.

/s/ John Doe

John Doe
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

IN RE: )
)
SUBPOENA ISSUED TO )
INVESTORSHUB.COM )
on behalf of the United States District )
Court for the Northern District of )
Indiana in the case of Michiana Dairy )
Processors, LLC v. All Star Beverages, Inc. )
Case No. 2:09-CV-0039-PRC )

AFFIDAVIT OF JIM DOE

Jim Doe, being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and states:
1. I am of adult age. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this affidavit. I
am not aware of any legal basis that would lead to the conclusion that I am not competent to give
testimony in court. If called as a witness, I would testify as set forth in this affidavit. I understand
that even though I am executing this affidavit using a pseudonym, I am still subject to the pains
and penalties for perjury for any untruthful statements.
2. I am a user of an Internet web site known as InvestorsHub.com (which is at times
referred to as iHub by its members and administrators). In the course of my use of this web site, I
frequently post messages to a part of the web site commonly known as discussion boards or
forums. When I do so, I post messages using the alias “greedy_malone.”
3. As a part of my participation and use of InvestorsHub.com, I have posted a number
of messages concerning questions about Prime Star Group, Inc., a “penny stock” that trades under
the symbol PSGI. I, among others, have raised these questions out of a concern that the actions of
the company’s management may be harmful to investors and potential investors.
4. Shortly after March 18, 2010, I was notified by InvestorsHub.com via email that
InvestorsHub.com had received a subpoena from this Court seeking information that would
disclose my identity to Donna Mohlman.
5. Although I have been aware of the lawsuit captioned Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC
v. All Star Beverage, Inc., I have had no communications with the principals, officers, employees or
agents of Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC, with the exception of a brief communication with its
attorneys regarding the subpoena in question. The sum and substance of the communication was
that counsel for Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC, wanted a copy of the subpoena. Since then, I
have had no further communications of any kind with anyone connected with Michiana Dairy
Processors, LLC. At no time has anyone connected with Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC
contacted me concerning the messages I posted at InvestorsHub.com or to encourage me to
continue posting messages regarding PSGI.
6. At no time has Donna Mohlman or her representatives provided any advance
notice that the subpoena would be served or any guidance on how one might object to the
subpoena.
7. I have no personal knowledge of any facts or information that involve the claims
found in the complaint filed by Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC or the counter claims filed by the
defendants. I am not connected in any way with Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC or any of the
defendants in that lawsuit. Any issues of breach of contract or fraudulent conduct are entirely
unknown to me other than what I have read in court filings or other public information sources.
I affirm under the penalties for perjury that the foregoing statements are true.

/s/ Jim Doe

Jim Doe
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

IN RE: )
)
SUBPOENA ISSUED TO )
INVESTORSHUB.COM )
on behalf of the United States District )
Court for the Northern District of )
Indiana in the case of Michiana Dairy )
Processors, LLC v. All Star Beverages, Inc. )
Case No. 2:09-CV-0039-PRC )

AFFIDAVIT OF JACK DOE

Jack Doe, being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and states:
1. I am of adult age. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this affidavit. I
am not aware of any legal basis that would lead to the conclusion that I am not competent to give
testimony in court. If called as a witness, I would testify as set forth in this affidavit. I understand
that even though I am executing this affidavit using a pseudonym, I am still subject to the pains
and penalties for perjury for any untruthful statements.
2. I am a user of an Internet web site known as InvestorsHub.com (which is at times
referred to as iHub by its members and administrators). In the course of my use of this web site, I
frequently post messages to a part of the web site commonly known as discussion boards or
forums. When I do so, I post messages using the alias “wicke.”
3. As a part of my participation and use of InvestorsHub.com, I have posted a number
of messages concerning questions about Prime Star Group, Inc., a “penny stock” that trades under
the symbol PSGI. I, among others, have raised these questions out of a concern that the actions of
the company’s management may be harmful to investors and potential investors.
4. Shortly after March 18, 2010, I was notified by InvestorsHub.com via email that
InvestorsHub.com had received a subpoena from this Court seeking information that would
disclose my identity to Donna Mohlman.
5. Although I have been aware of the lawsuit captioned Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC
v. All Star Beverage, Inc., I have had no communications with the principals, officers, employees or
agents of Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC, with the exception of a brief communication with its
attorneys regarding the subpoena in question. The sum and substance of the communication was
that counsel for Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC, wanted a copy of the subpoena. Since then, I
have had no further communications of any kind with anyone connected with Michiana Dairy
Processors, LLC. At no time has anyone connected with Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC
contacted me concerning the messages I posted at InvestorsHub.com or to encourage me to
continue posting messages regarding PSGI.
6. At no time has Donna Mohlman or her representatives provided any advance
notice that the subpoena would be served or any guidance on how one might object to the
subpoena.
7. I have no personal knowledge of any facts or information that involve the claims
found in the complaint filed by Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC or the counter claims filed by the
defendants. I am not connected in any way with Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC or any of the
defendants in that lawsuit. Any issues of breach of contract or fraudulent conduct are entirely
unknown to me other than what I have read in court filings or other public information sources.
I affirm under the penalties for perjury that the foregoing statements are true.

/s/ Jack Doe

Jack Doe
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

IN RE: )
)
SUBPOENA ISSUED TO )
INVESTORSHUB.COM )
on behalf of the United States District )
Court for the Northern District of )
Indiana in the case of Michiana Dairy )
Processors, LLC v. All Star Beverages, Inc. )
Case No. 2:09-CV-0039-PRC )

AFFIDAVIT OF JASON DOE

Jason Doe, being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and states:
1. I am of adult age. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this affidavit. I
am not aware of any legal basis that would lead to the conclusion that I am not competent to give
testimony in court. If called as a witness, I would testify as set forth in this affidavit. I understand
that even though I am executing this affidavit using a pseudonym, I am still subject to the pains
and penalties for perjury for any untruthful statements.
2. I am a user of an Internet web site known as InvestorsHub.com (which is at times
referred to as iHub by its members and administrators). In the course of my use of this web site, I
frequently post messages to a part of the web site commonly known as discussion boards or
forums. When I do so, I post messages using the alias “dollarwize.”
3. As a part of my participation and use of InvestorsHub.com, I have posted a number
of messages concerning questions about Prime Star Group, Inc., a “penny stock” that trades under
the symbol PSGI. I, among others, have raised these questions out of a concern that the actions of
the company’s management may be harmful to investors and potential investors.
4. Shortly after March 18, 2010, I was notified by InvestorsHub.com via email that
InvestorsHub.com had received a subpoena from this Court seeking information that would
disclose my identity to Donna Mohlman.
5. Although I have been aware of the lawsuit captioned Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC
v. All Star Beverage, Inc., I have had no communications with the principals, officers, employees or
agents of Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC, regarding messages I have posted at InvestorsHub.com,
and no one connected with Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC contacted me concerning the
messages I posted at InvestorsHub.com or to encourage me to continue posting messages
regarding PSGI. I have never authored any posted messages regarding Michiana Dairy Processors,
LLC or this lawsuit on any Internet discussion forum.
6. At no time has Donna Mohlman or her representatives provided any advance
notice that the subpoena would be served or any guidance on how one might object to the
subpoena.
I affirm under the penalties for perjury that the foregoing statements are true.

s/ Jason Doe
Jason Doe
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

IN RE: )
)
SUBPOENA ISSUED TO )
INVESTORSHUB.COM )
on behalf of the United States District )
Court for the Northern District of )
Indiana in the case of Michiana Dairy )
Processors, LLC v. All Star Beverages, Inc. )
Case No. 2:09-CV-0039-PRC )

AFFIDAVIT OF JED DOE

Jed Doe, being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and states:
1. I am of adult age. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this affidavit. I
am not aware of any legal basis that would lead to the conclusion that I am not competent to give
testimony in court. If called as a witness, I would testify as set forth in this affidavit. I understand
that even though I am executing this affidavit using a pseudonym, I am still subject to the pains
and penalties for perjury for any untruthful statements.
2. I am a user of an Internet web site known as InvestorsHub.com (which is at times
referred to as iHub by its members and administrators). In the course of my use of this web site, I
frequently post messages to a part of the web site commonly known as discussion boards or
forums. When I do so, I post messages using the alias “LVTruthseeker.”
3. As a part of my participation and use of InvestorsHub.com, I have posted a number
of messages concerning questions about Prime Star Group, Inc., a “penny stock” that trades under
the symbol PSGI. I, among others, have raised these questions out of a concern that the actions of
the company’s management may be harmful to investors and potential investors.
4. Shortly after March 18, 2010, I was notified by InvestorsHub.com via email that
InvestorsHub.com had received a subpoena from this Court seeking information that would
disclose my identity to Donna Mohlman.
5. Although I have been aware of the lawsuit captioned Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC
v. All Star Beverage, Inc., I have had no communications with the principals, officers, employees or
agents of Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC, with the exception of a brief communication with its
attorneys regarding the subpoena in question. The sum and substance of the communication was
that counsel for Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC, wanted a copy of the subpoena. Since then, I
have had no further communications of any kind with anyone connected with Michiana Dairy
Processors, LLC. At no time has anyone connected with Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC
contacted me concerning the messages I posted at InvestorsHub.com or to encourage me to
continue posting messages regarding PSGI.
6. At no time has Donna Mohlman or her representatives provided any advance
notice that the subpoena would be served or any guidance on how one might object to the
subpoena.
7. I have no personal knowledge of any facts or information that involve the claims
found in the complaint filed by Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC or the counter claims filed by the
defendants. I am not connected in any way with Michiana Dairy Processors, LLC or any of the
defendants in that lawsuit. Any issues of breach of contract or fraudulent conduct are entirely
unknown to me other than what I have read in court filings or other public information sources.
I affirm under the penalties for perjury that the foregoing statements are true.

/s/ Jed Doe

Jed Doe