Liberi V Taitz - Plaintiffs Opposition To Intelius MTD Doc 390

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390 #:9217
Filed 09/24/11 Page 1 of 7 Page ID
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Philip J. Berg, Esquire Pennsylvania I.D. 9867 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com
Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION LISA LIBERI, et al, : : : Plaintiffs, : : : : : : : : : : Defendants. : : : : : : :
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW) PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT INTELIUS, INC.S MOTION TO DISMISS, DOCKET NO. 380 Date of Hearing: October 17, 2011 Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m. Location: Courtroom 10D
vs. ORLY TAITZ, et al,
Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, Philip J. Berg, Esquire file the within Response in Opposition; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; and Declarations in Opposition to Defendant, Intelius, Inc.s [Intelius] Motion to Dismiss [MTD]. In support hereof, Plaintiffs aver the following: Intelius has filed manufactured (newly created) documents with the Declaration of Benjamin Nelson;
Liberi, et al, Plaintiffs Opp. To Intelius MTD 09.23.2011
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Intelius has destroyed and spoiled evidence pertaining to this case by deleting accounts; deleting searches on the Plaintiffs; deleting actual reports sold on the Plaintiffs; and creating reports which they falsely claim are the products sold; Intelius is a Credit Reporting Agency and bound by the Fair Credit Reporting Act [FCRA]; California's Consumer Credit Reporting Agency Act [CCRAA]; and Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act [ICRAA] as outlined on their website in several places and in their submission to the United States Securities and Exchange Division; Intelius is not immune by the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S. 230, et. Seq. [CDA] and the CDA does not pertain to the within action; Intelius has deleted the account of Plaintiff Lisa Ostella and deleted the reports that were run on her; Intelius has failed to address the two (2) letters sent to them by Plaintiff Lisa Liberi regarding the incorrect and wrong information maintained on Plaintiff Lisa Liberi; Intelius admits in their MTD and Declaration of Benjamin Nelson that more reports were sold to unauthorized individuals than Plaintiffs were aware of; Plaintiffs have not incorporated into their Complaint Intelius Terms of Service and/or Frequently Asked Questions; and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Intelius fails to uphold their own Terms of Service filed with Benjamin Nelsons Declaration. 1. Defendant Orly Taitz [Taitz] as an attorney threatened to take Philip
J. Berg, Esquire [Berg] down and to do so she stated she was going to destroy his paralegal, Plaintiff Lisa Liberi [Liberi] and get rid of her. Taitzs threat was due to Liberi refusing to assist Taitz in her litigation, which Liberi later learned was a scam. During this same time, Plaintiff Lisa Ostella [Ostella] told Taitz to find another web master as Ostella refused to lie and substantiate Taitzs false statements of hacking. 2. This case is not about in-fighting; it is not about President Obama;
nor do the Plaintiffs and Defendants have histories of working together, except for Taitz and Ostella for a very short few months. 3. In or about April 2009, Taitz as an Attorney and a Dentist through the
Law Offices of Orly Taitz [L.O.O.T.], Orly Taitz, Inc., and as President of Defend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc. [DOFF] hired or sought Neil Sankey, Todd Sankey, Sankey Investigations, Inc., The Sankey Firm [Sankey Defendants] to obtain very private data of Liberi and Ostella; and to conduct illegal background checks; obtain credit and financial data and obtain other very private information of Liberi and Ostella.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
4.
The private data obtained by the Sankey Defendants and Taitz from
Intelius was Liberi and Ostellas Social Security numbers; dates of birth; places of birth; fathers names; relatives names; siblings names; addresses; unlisted phone numbers; childrens names; spouses names, spouses dates of birth; spouses Social Security numbers; financial records; credit reports; medical records; Sealed Court information; and other primary identifying information. In fact, Plaintiff Liberi does not own real estate, yet the Reed Defendants and Defendant Intelius supplied Plaintiff Liberis home address and Liberi and Ostellas unlisted phone numbers. 5. It was later learned that Taitz and the Sankey Defendants utilized
LexisNexis, ChoicePoint, Accurint [the Reed Defendants] and Defendant Intelius to obtain Plaintiffs Ostella and Liberis private data.
6.
Defendant Yosef Taitz is the hands-on CEO of Daylight. Mr. Taitz
was involved with the design of Daylights programs, software and hardware. Mr. Taitz and Daylights toolkits provide programming interface applications which are built into the design and used with Oracle. The design allows for remote application execution, cross site scripting, remote interface and injection attacks, which are vulnerabilities that Oracle, Daylight and Mr. Taitz were aware of. 7. Defendants Yosef and Orly Taitz used their expertise with the
Daylight tools and Oracle flexibilities to access Intelius databases, where they also obtained Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostellas private data. Mr. Taitz in his Motion to
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Dismiss in his individual capacity stated he could not be held liable as any damages caused to the Plaintiffs would be the responsibility of Defendant Daylight Chemical Systems, Inc. 8. Intelius claims they cannot be held liable since their system was
hacked. Intelius had a duty to ensure their data maintained on their databases was at all-time maintained secure. Intelius also had a duty to uphold their own promises to the public found on their website that they have security specialists ensuring their IT systems were and are maintained securely. 9. Defendants Taitz; DOFF; L.O.O.T., have admitted in Court filings
that they obtained Plaintiffs private data directly from the Sankey Defendants; the Reed Defendants and Defendant Intelius. See DOFFs Motion to Dismiss [MTD] filed July 11, 2011, appearing as Docket No. [DN] 283; Orly Taitzs MTD filed July 11, 2011, DN 280; and L.O.O.T.s MTD filed September 14, 2011, DN 376 and their Amended MTD filed September 16, 2011, DN 377. Taitz stated that the Sankey Defendants, Reed Defendants and Defendant Intelius, Inc. are responsible for Plaintiffs damages. Taitz also published all over her website that she obtained the private data from LexisNexis, ChoicePoint and Intelius. See DN 190 through 190-27 filed May 20, 2011. 10. In Intelius MTD they claiming Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim
in which relief can be granted. Intelius claims they only supply public records, that
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
they are not bound by the Fair Credit Reporting Laws [F.C.R.A.]; the California Credit Reporting Agencies Act [CCRAA]; or the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act [ICRAA], because they are not a Consumer Reporting Agency, which clearly is not the case. In support thereof, they filed a Declaration from Intelius, Inc.s custodian of Records, Benjamin Nelson. 11. Intelius attempts to use Ruben Nieto and the Spokeo search run on
Mr. Nietos email address as a comparison to what they sold the Defendants herein. There is no comparison. Plaintiffs did not seek or obtain Mr. Nietos Social Security number, date of birth, home address or other private data. The Spokeo report was far different than the information sold by Intelius on the Plaintiffs. 12. Benjamin Nelson [Nelson] attached as Exhibit 3 a TalentWise
report on Lisa Liberi. Although, Intelius states all through their MTD that they only provided information on the name Lisa Liberi and not that of Plaintiff Liberi, which makes absolutely no sense, Nelsons Exhibit 3 clearly shows it is a report specifically on Plaintiff Lisa Liberi as it contains Liberis full Social Security number, address and date of birth. 13. In addition, the accurate background report Liberi pulled on herself,
Intelius Background Report No. 30897400 only contains information pertaining to Plaintiff Lisa Liberi and no other name of Lisa Liberi.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
14.
Plaintiffs Opposition is based upon their Opposition, the attached
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support hereof; Declarations of Philip J. Berg, Esquire; Lisa Liberi; and Lisa Ostella filed concurrently herewith; Plaintiffs Opposition and Objections to Intelius Request for Judicial Notice; upon records on file with this Court and such further oral and/or documentary evidence that may be presented at the time of the Hearing. WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to Deny Defendant Intelius, Inc.s Motion to Dismiss. In the alternative, Plaintiffs Request Leave to Amend their Complaint. Respectfully submitted,
Dated: September 23, 2011
/s/ Philip J. Berg Philip J. Berg, Esquire Pennsylvania I.D. 9867

LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com Attorney in Pro Se and Counsel for Plaintiffs
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390-1 #:9224
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) TABLE OF CONTENTS....i-ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.iii-viii MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES..1-25 I. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW ......1-2 DECLARATION OF BENJAMIN NELSON CONTAINS FALSE STATATEMENTS and MANUFACTURED DOCUMENTS:..................................2-5 INTELIUS FURNISHED CONSUMER REPORTS ON LIBERI and OSTELLA...........................................5-6 THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT, 47 U.S.C. 230 DOES NOT APPLY to the WITHIN ACTION....6-8 INTELIUS IS A CREDIT REPORTING AGENCY BY THEIR OWN ADMISSIONS; PLAINTIFFS 12th THROUGH 16th CAUSES OF ACTION WILL PREVAIL:....8-11 INTELIUS HAS DESTROYED and SPOILED EVIDENCE..11-12
III. IV.
V.
VI.
VII. INTELIUS HAD A DUTY TO REINVESTIGATE THE WRONG INFORMATION THEY HAD ON PLAINTIFFS and CORRECT PLAINTIFFS FILES ACCORDINGLY...12-14 VIII. PLAINTIFFS NON-FCRA CLAIMS are NOT PREEMPTED AND INTELIUS MISQUOTED and MISINTERPRETED THE STATUTE THEY are CITING..14-15
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Page(s) IX. PLAINTIFFS 1st THROUGH 3rd CAUSE OF ACTIONS.....15-19 A. Plaintiffs 1st Cause of Action Willful and Intentional Intrusion upon Plaintiffs Solitude, Seclusion and Private Affairs - Invasion of Privacy...16-18 Plaintiffs Second Cause of Action, Public Disclosure of Private Facts is Properly Pled against Intelius..19 Plaintiffs 3rd Cause of Action False Light Invasion of Privacy...19
B.
C. X. XI.
PLAINTIFFS 5th, 6th and 17th CAUSE OF ACTION WILL PREVAIL...19-20 PLAINTIFFS 8th CAUSE OF ACTION...20-21
XII. PLAINTIFFS 9th and 19th CAUSE OF ACTION..21-22 XIII. PLAINTIFFS 18th CAUSE OF ACTION, UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES..23-24 XIV. PLAINTIFFS 20th CAUSE OF ACTION, RES IPSA LOQUITOR.24-25 XV. CONCLUSION...25
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s)
ABC Internat. Traders, Inc. v Matsushita Electric Corp., (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1247, 1270 [61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 112, 931 P.2d 290].......23 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (... 1, 2 Bank of the West v. Superior Court, (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1266 [10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 538, 833 P.2d 545]....23 Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.,570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir.2009)...7 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).2 Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist., (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 825826 [15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 679, 843 P.2d 624]24 Byrne v. Boadle, (1863) 159 Eng. Rep. 29924 Carafano v. Metrosplash.Com. Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003)........7 Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 181 [83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 548, 973 P.2d 527]..23 Christensen v. Superior Court, (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 868 [2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 79].22 Dennis v. BEH-I, LLC, 520 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir.2008)...14 Ess v. Eskaton Properties, Inc., 97 Cal. App. 4th 120 [118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 240] (3d Dist. 2002)..22 Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates, Com, LLC 521 F.3d 1157, 1167-68 (9th Cir.2008)...................................................................7 Garcia v. UnionBancal Corp., 2006 WL 2619330 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2006)...12
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued CASES Page(s)
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)...21 Goddard v. Google, No. C 08-2738 JF (PVT), 2008 WL 5245490 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2008)..7 Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1157 (9th Cir. 2009).14, 15 Guillory v. Godfrey, 134 Cal. App. 2d 628 [286 P.2d 414] (2d Dist. 1955)21 Hall v. Time Inc., (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 847, 852 [70 Cal. Rptr.3d 466]23 Hassoldt v. Patrick Media Group, Inc., 84 Cal. App. 4th 153 [100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 662] (2d Dist.2000).22 Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1, [26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834]..15, 17, 18 International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court, (2007) 42Cal.4th 319, 338 [64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 693, 165 P.3d 488].....17, 18 Jennifer M. v. Redwood Women's Health Ctr., (2001) 88 Cal.App. 4th 81 ..20 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 89 S.Ct. 1843, 23 L.Ed.2d 404 (1969)...1 Kasky v. Nike, Inc., (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939, 949 [119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 296, 45 P.3d 243]...23 Kinsey v. Macur, (1980) 107 Cal. App. 3d 264 [165 Cal. Rptr. 608].18 Leibert v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 32 Cal. App. 4th 1693 [39 Cal. Rptr. 2d 65] (1st Dist. 1995)...15
iv
Levy-Zentner Co. v. Southern Pac. Transportation Co., (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 762...14 Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245 (9th Cir.1995).2 Lugtu v. California Highway Patrol (2001) 26 Cal.4th 703, 716 [110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 528, 28 P.3d 249]..16 Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008)1 Neary v. Regents of University of California, 185 Cal. App. 3d 1136 [230 Cal. Rptr. 281] (1st Distr. 1986)....21 Ochoa v.Superior Court, (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 159 [216 Cal. Rptr. 661]22 Operating Engineers Local 3 v. Johnson, 110 Cal. App. 4th 180 [1 Ca. Rptr. 3d 552] (1st Dist. 2003)...19 Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court, (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 370 [53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 513, 150 P.3d 198]..17 Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 96522 Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) 521 U.S. 844, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874..6, 7 Ross v. Creel Printing & Publishing Co., 100 Cal. App. 4th 736 [122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 787] (1st Dist. 2002)..22 Schulz v. Neovi Data Corp., (2005) 129 Cal. App. 4th 124
Schwartz v. Thiele, 242 Cal. App. 2d 799 [51 Cal. Rptr. 767] (2d Dist. 1966)..15, 18
Shahinian v. McCormick, (1963) 59 Cal.2d 554.24 Smith v. Los Angeles Bookhinders Union No. 63, 133 Cal. App. 2d 486 [286 P.2d 194] (2d Dist. 1955).21 Smith v. National Broadcasting Co., 138 Cal. App. 2d 807807 (2nd Dist. 1956)...15, 16 Spackman v. Good, (1966) 245 Cal. App. 2d 518 [54 Cal. Rptr. 78]..21 State Rubbish CollectorsAssn v. Siliznoff, (1952) 38 Cal. 2d 330 [240 P. 2d 282]....22 Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, 434435 [131 Cal. Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334]16 Taus v. Loftus, (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 683 [54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 775]18 Timperley v. Chase Collection Service, 272 Cal. App. 2d 697 [77 Cal. Rptr. 782] (2d Dist. 1969)..18 Witriol v. LexisNexis Group, 2006 WL 1128036 (N.D.Cal. Apr 27, 2006)...20 Ybarra v. Spangard, (1944) 25 Cal.2d 486, 489 [154 P.2d 687]24 FEDERAL STATUTES Page(s)
15 U.S.C. 1681g14 15 U.S.C. 1681(h).14
vi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued FEDERAL STATUTES Page(s)
15 U.S.C. 1681(h)(e)....14, 15 15 U.S.C. 1681i.14 15 U.S.C. 1681i(a)(1)(A)...13 15 U.S.C. 1681 i(a)(4)...13 15 U.S.C. 1681 i(a)(6)-(7).13 15 U.S.C. 1681m...14 15 U.S.C. 1681n..14, 15 15 U.S.C. 1681o..14, 15 47 U.S.C. 230..6 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1).7 47 U.S.C. 230(f)(2)..7 STATE STATUTES Page(s)
Business and Professions Code17200, et. seq.... 23, 24 California Civil Code 1798, et seq...11 FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Page(s)
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)1 Federal Rules of Evidence, 646 Subd. (b)...24
vii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued MISC. Page(s)
6A Cal. Jur. 3d, Assaults and Other Willful Torts 153 (2003)..21
viii
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390-2 #:9232 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION : : LISA LIBERI, et al, : CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: : : 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW) Plaintiffs, : vs. : : PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF : ORLY TAITZ, et al, : POINTS AND AUTHORITIES : Defendants. : Date of Hearing: October 17, 2011 : Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom 10D : Location: I. STANDARD OF REVIEW: Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the
1.
Complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). For purposes of a Motion to Dismiss [MTD], the Plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, and the Court must construe the Complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, 89 S.Ct. 1843, 23 L.Ed.2d 404 (1969). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the Plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173
Liberi, et al, Plaintiffs Brief in Support of their Opp to Intelius MTD 09.23.2011
L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Leave to Amend must be Granted unless it is clear that the Complaint's deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir.1995). II. 2. DECLARATION OF BENJAMIN NELSON CONTAINS STATATEMENTS and MANUFACTURED DOCUMENTS: FALSE
Benjamin Nelson [Nelson] states he is the Custodian of Records for
Defendant Intelius, Inc. [Intelius] and has been for approximately six [6] years. Nelson includes eight [8] Exhibits which purport to be genuine. 3. Nelson claims they maintain every search that has ever been run on any
individuals name. Nelson states according to Intelius records, the only Defendant in this case to have ever conducted a search on Lisa Liberi was Orly Taitz on April 12, 2009. See Nelsons Declaration, pg. 2, 5. This completely contradicts Taitz, the Sankey Defendants and a witness of Plaintiffs, Charles Edward Lincoln, III, testimony. And, Nelson contradicts himself in his own Declaration. Nelson attaches as Exhibit 1 to his declaration the generic search he claims Orly Taitz conducted on Plaintiff Liberi. The names associated with
Nelsons Exhibit 1 do not come up when searching Intelius, Inc. See the Declaration of Lisa Liberi at pg. 4, 9 and EXHIBIT E attached to Liberis Declaration. 4. Nelson states Liberi conducted a search on herself on April 10, 2010, almost a
year after Taitz supposedly conducted her search. Nelson attaches as Exhibit 2 the supposed report obtained by Liberi. See Nelson Decl. at pg. 3, 6. 5. Nelsons Exhibit 2 is NOT the report purchased and/or obtained by Liberi.
In fact, it is far different. See the actual report purchased by Liberi, Intelius Report No.
30897400 with the receipt from Intelius attached to Lisa Liberis Declaration as EXHIBIT A. See also Liberis Declaration at pgs 1-2, 1-2. The Reports attached by Nelson as Exhibits 1 and 2 contains Plaintiff Liberis physical home address; and Liberis previous Intelius reports did not contain her physical address. 6. Nelson claims Intelius is not a Consumer Credit Agency and they only sell
generalized public information on a name and not a specific person. Nelson attached as Exhibit 3 to his Declaration a TalentWise Report on Liberi that Liberi purchased. Nelsons Exhibit 3 contains Liberis full Social Security number and date of birth, which has been blackened out by Nelson. See Nelsons Exhibit 3. 7. Nelson next inputs some Terms and Conditions which he claims you must
accept and agree to; and that they claim Intelius reports are not bound by the Fair Credit Reporting Act [F.C.R.A.]. These are not the Terms and Conditions Liberi was required to accept and acknowledge. See the Declaration of Lisa Liberi at pg 3, 6. In fact, the terms and conditions of the reports obtained by Liberi state they are governed by the F.C.R.A. See EXHIBIT C attached to Lisa Liberis Declaration. 8. Nelson and Intelius claim Plaintiffs incorporated Intelius Terms and
Conditions and Frequently Asked Questions that are attached as Exhibits 4 and 8 into their First Amended Complaint. This is not true as the Terms and Conditions are far different than what Plaintiffs had to agree to and there is no reference as to the Frequently Asked Questions:. See the declaration of Lisa Liberi at pg. 3, 6. 9. Nelson states that Neil Sankey had an Intelius account, that Sankey did not run
any searches on Liberi and Sankey did not open his account until November 2009. This is
impossible. Taitz and Sankey himself admitted to using Intelius. Further, Sankey was conducting interviews at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009 stating he used LexisNexis, ChoicePoint, Jobs.com and Intelius, Inc., all of which is on file with this Court with the original lawsuit and original requests for protective orders. 10. To further show the dishonesty of Mr. Nelson, he next states that Lisa Ostella
never had an account with Intelius. This is far from the truth. See the Declaration of Lisa Ostella and a copy of Lisa Ostellas account information with Intelius showing she opened her Intelius account in December 2008, see Lisa Ostellas Declaration at pg. 3, 8-9 and EXHIBIT 1 attached to Lisa Ostellas Declaration. Intelius recently cancelled Lisa Ostellas account. 11. Mr. Nelson talks about a letter sent by Mr. Berg on behalf of Lisa Liberi. Mr.
Nelson makes no mention of Lisa Ostella, who this same letter also pertained to. To show the disregard Intelius has on Plaintiffs private data, Intelius failed to redact Plaintiff Liberis Social Security number, date of birth, address, spouses name, spouses Social Security number, spouses date of birth and other private data from their Exhibit 5 of Nelsons Declaration. See Nelsons Exhibit 5. 12. Nelson states no one ever ran a report on Lisa Ostella. Untrue. See Ostellas
Declaration at pg. 3-4, 10, 12. Ostella ran a report on herself. See EXHIBIT 2 attached to Lisa Ostellas Declaration. 13. Nelson states Intelius sent a letter to Ostella in response to a letter they received
from her. Nelson states they explained in order for her to obtain who performed searches on her, she would need a Subpoena or Court Order. Ostella never received this supposed letter
from Intelius, see Lisa Ostellas Declaration at pg. 6, 20. Nelson attached Ostellas letter to Intelius as Exhibit 6 without redacting any personal information. When writing to Intelius you are required to supply certain confidential information, which Nelson has now published. 14. The Declaration of Benjamin Nelson should not be used or considered by the
Court, nor should his Exhibits. The Exhibits are not a true depiction of the reports previously purchased by Liberi. The reports purchased by Liberi were not only public record Nelson was dishonest in his
information; and they pertained solely to Liberi herself.
testimony to this Court. Ostella does and did have an account with Intelius; a report had been purchased on Ostella and the reports purchased on the Plaintiffs contained very confidential information, including dates of birth, home addresses, Social Security numbers and other private data as shown on the actual reports. III. 15. INTELIUS FURNISHED CONSUMER REPORTS ON LIBERI and OSTELLA Intelius claims they did not furnish a consumer report on any of the
Plaintiffs. Intelius statement is contradicted by their own Exhibits provided by Nelson. In particular, Nelsons Exhibit 3. Liberi obtained a TalentWise report, which is a Consumer report governed by the F.C.R.A. Liberi and Ostella both purchased reports which were specific to Plaintiff Lisa Liberi and Lisa Ostella, and only contained information specific to them. See Liberis Decl at pgs1-2, 1, and EXHIBIT A attached to Lisa Liberis Declaration. See also Lisa Ostellas Declaration at pg. 4 14 and EXHIBIT 2 attached to Lisa Ostellas Declaration. 16. Moreover, according to Intelius October 2009 United States Securities and
Exchange Commission [SEC] filing, Intelius was under investigation by the Federal Trade
Commission [FTC] to ensure they were complying with the F.C.R.A. and other rules governing the sale of private data. 17. This is also confirmed in Intelius Security statement that states they are in
fact a Credit Reporting Agency. See the Declarations of Philip J. Berg, Esquire at pg. 3 , 7; Lisa Liberi at pg. 3, 5; and Lisa Ostella at pgs. 4-5, 15. IV. 18. THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT, 47 U.S.C. 230 DOES NOT APPLY to the WITHIN ACTION: Intelius claims they are immune by the Communications Decency Act, 47
U.S. 230, et. Seq. [CDA]. Intelius claims to be a provider of an interactive computer service and Plaintiffs in their FAC claim Intelius is a publisher or speaker of information. Intelius states they only publish information maintained by third parties. [Intelius MTD, Pgs 10-12]. This is very creative of Intelius to say the least, but, their arguments fail. 19. Intelius is a commercial data broker by their own admissions on their website
and in media articles, who purchase private information on individuals from LexisNexis, ChoicePoint, Accurint and other data brokers and resells the information to the general public. Intelius is not an interactive website as defined by the CDA. This lawsuit against Intelius is about Intelius selling Plaintiffs private data to parties who did not have a permissible or legal purpose to obtain it, which allowed Taitz and the other Defendants to publish Plaintiffs private information and carry out their threats and injure the Plaintiffs. 20. Intelius is not a newsgroup or bulletin board; it is not a service publisher or an
interactive computer service. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) 521 U.S. 844, 851, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874. Nor does the CDA apply as outlined by Intelius.
21.
Section 230(c)(1) refers directly to the user of an interactive computer
service. Section 230(f)(2) defines interactive computer service as any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet.... [emphasis added] Carafano v. Metrosplash.Com. Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). None of which apply to Intelius, Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) 521 U.S. 844, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874.). 22. The term "information content provider" for purposes of the Act, means any
person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service. 47 U.S.C.A. 230(f)(3), Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates, Com, LLC (Roommates), 521 F.3d 1157, 1167-68 (9th Cir.2008). 23. The provider of an interactive computer service allowing users within a
particular "community" to post profiles and communicate with each other was an "information content provider," partly responsible for the creation or development of a false profile of an actress created by a third party, and thus was not entitled to immunity under the Communications Decency Act, Carafano v. Metrosplash.Com. Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). A website/blog owner/operator becomes liable as an information content provider when they contribute to its alleged unlawfulness, 521 F.3d at 1167-68. See also Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1106 (9th Cir.2009); Goddard v. Google, No. C 08-2738 JF (PVT), 2008 WL 5245490 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 17, 2008).
24.
Intelius does not have immunity under the CDA, 47 U.S.C. Section 230, et. seq.
For the reasons stated herein, this Court must Deny Intelius Motion. V. INTELIUS IS A CREDIT REPORTING AGENCY BY THEIR OWN ADMISSIONS; PLAINTIFFS 12th THROUGH 16th CAUSES OF ACTION WILL PREVAIL: 25. Intelius claims in their MTD on page 12 that Plaintiffs Twelfth through
Sixteenth Causes of Action fail because they are not a consumer reporting agency. 26. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their FAC at pgs 61-74 144-174; and pgs.
127-142, 335-380, as if fully set forth here at length. 27. Intelius states on their website at http://www.intelius.com/corp/security, See
the Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the following: Intelius recognizes the sensitivity surrounding many of its applications and the data they rely on. As such, Intelius' information security policy addresses security at all levels: personnel, technology and operations. Intelius follows the highest industry standards for protecting personally identifiable information such as Personal Names, Social Security Numbers and Credit Card Numbers Intelius is a certified credit reporting agency. Compliance: We devote tremendous time and resources to assure that we have the best data available, configured to your needs. We've contracted with multiple redundant data sources so you can be confident that Intelius' information is as accurate as possible. Our technologies all meet the standards of compliance required in the following federal acts:
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) sets forth guidelines regarding criminal
checks for tenant and pre-employment screening. Intelius is a certified credit reporting agency and can help insure you are compliant with current regulations and updates as they happen... 28. Intelius states Taitz obtained the same report as Liberi did. That the reports
Liberi and Taitz obtained were a simple background search on only the name Lisa Liberi and not that of Plaintiff Liberi. Enterprise division, as did Liberi purchased background reports through Intelius Taitz. Intelius states on their website at
http://www.intelius.com/corp/enterprise. See the Declarations of Philip J. Berg, Esquire; Lisa Ostella at pg. 5, 17; and Lisa Liberi at pg. 3, . Intelius states the following: We have the following comprehensive business solutions: FCRA-compliant screening services:

Pre-employment screening Tenant Screening
Intelius recognizes that you value your time, you're concerned about the bottom line, and you have unique information challenges. That's why our solutions are costeffective and simple to establish, and Intelius' results are accurate, immediate and easy to understand.
29.
And, Intelius states in their October 19, 2009 SEC Report, Report S-1 located at
http://ipo.nasdaq.com/edgar_conv_html%5C2009%5C10%5C19%5C0000950123-09051082.html at the end of page 24 and beginning of page 25: Because we use personal information in providing our information services, we are subject to government regulation and vulnerable to adverse publicity. We provide
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390-2 Filed 09/24/11 Page 10 of 25 Page ID #:9241 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
many types of data and services that already are subject to regulation under the FCRA, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Drivers Privacy Protection Act and, to a lesser extent, various other federal, state and local laws and regulations. Violation of these laws or regulations may result in substantial fines, judgments and other penalties. These laws and regulations are designed to protect the privacy of the public and to prevent the misuse of personal information in the marketplaceMany states have enacted laws to protect personal information. 30. Intelius claims Lisa Ostella does not have standing because they never sold any
type of report on her, including a Consumer Report. This is not true. See the Decl. of Lisa Ostella at pg. 4, 12, 14 and EXHIBIT 2 attached to Lisa Ostellas Declaration. Intelius falsely claims the only search results provided on Liberi was a generic background check, which again is not true and contradicted by the reports attached in Nelsons Declaration, including the TalentWise report. 31. Taitz has admitted receiving reports on Plaintiffs Ostella and Liberi from the
Sankey Defendants, Reed Defendants and Intelius. See DOFFs MTD filed July 11, 2011, DN 283; Taitzs MTD filed July 11, 2011, DN 280; and L.O.O.T.s MTD filed September 14, 2011, DN 376 and their Amended MTD filed September 16, 2011, DN 377. Taitz stated that the Sankey Defendants, Reed Defendants and Defendant Intelius, Inc. are responsible for Plaintiffs damages. Taitz also published all over her website that she obtained the private data from LexisNexis, ChoicePoint and Intelius. 32. Intelius states that searches performed on Plaintiffs were only general searches,
however, as can be seen by Nelsons Exhibit 3, which is a report on Liberi, it contains only Liberis name, address full Social Security number, date of birth, only information pertaining
10
to Lisa Liberi, Plaintiff herein and no other individual. Also, same goes for the actual background check Liberi performed on her, attached to Lisa Liberis Declaration with the receipt as EXHIBIT A, it only contains information pertaining to Plaintiff Lisa Liberi and not any other individual. Same goes for the report pulled on Lisa Ostella. See Lisa Ostellas Declaration EXHIBITS 2, it contains Ostellas name, address, and Social Security number. These are not generic reports as falsely claimed by Intelius. 33. As can be seen by Intelius own statements on their website and with the
United States Security and Exchange Commission, and Plaintiffs Exhibits attached hereto, Intelius is in fact a Credit Reporting Agency and they are bound by the FCRA; CCRAA; the ICRAA, and Cal. Civ. Code 1798, et. seq. For these reasons, Intelius MTD must be Denied. VI. 34. INTELIUS HAS DESTROYED and SPOILED EVIDENCE: Intelius has deleted the account of Lisa Ostella. See Ostella Decl. at pg3, 8-9,
and EXHIBIT 1 attached to Lisa Ostellas Declaration. Ostellas account information shows opened in December 2008 and Ostella learned it had been deleted when she attempted to access her account in September 2011. Intelius also deleted all of Ostellas search details. 35. Intelius has deleted all records pertaining to Plaintiff Lisa Liberi and submitted
manufactured reports claiming those to be the reports received by Taitz and Liberi. This is not true as proven by Liberis Decl at pgs. 1-2, 1-2, and EXHIBITS A and B attached to Lisa Liberis Declaration, which is Liberis report she purchased, Intelius report number 30897400, that is completely different than the manufactured report provided by Nelson and Intelius attached as Exhibit 2 to Nelsons Declaration. Intelius cannot furnish
11
the proper reports purchased by Liberi, Ostella, and/or obtained by Defendants Taitz, Yosef Taitz and the Sankey Defendants, as they have destroyed and deleted them. 36. To further prove the deletions by Intelius, if you run the name Lisa Liberi in the
State of California or New Mexico, nothing returns, and if you run Lisa Liberi nationwide, all you receive is two [2] Lisa Liberis one in PA and the other in FL. See the Declaration of Lisa Liberi at pg. 4, 9 and EXHIBIT E attached to Lisa Liberis Declaration. Not even the report manufactured by Mr. Nelson and/or Intelius filed as Exhibits 1 and 2 come up. 37. Intelius then claims on page 17 of their MTD that Plaintiffs cannot prove their
cause of actions 12 through 16 because they cannot produce the credit reporting agency reports obtained on them. Intelius cites Garcia v. UnionBancal Corp., 2006 WL 2619330 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2006), which is inapposite. Garcia is about a Bank employees brief case which contained some customers private data; the brief case was then stolen. The bank was not a credit reporting agency, nor did it pertain to any type of consumer report. Plaintiffs have provided the reports they have received as well as Defendant Taitz and the Sankey Defendants own statements, testimony and filings that they obtained Plaintiffs private data in reports they received from LexisNexis, ChoicePoint and Intelius. 38. Liberi and Ostella have provided their reports as Exhibits attached hereto.
Intelius argument fails and their Motion must be Denied. VII. INTELIUS HAD A DUTY TO REINVESTIGATE THE WRONG INFORMATION THEY HAD ON PLAINTIFFS and CORRECT PLAINTIFFS FILES ACCORDINGLY: Intelius states they did not have a duty to reinvestigate the wrong information
39.
they maintained on Plaintiffs Ostella and Liberi. Intelius claims that Ostella did not even
12
attempt to bring forth the wrong information Intelius maintained on her and that Bergs letter stating there were inaccuracies in Liberis file was inadequate. [Intelius MTD pg. 18]. 40. Mr. Bergs letter addressed Plaintiffs, Liberi and Ostella. Ostella did bring
forth that Intelius maintained an incorrect birth date for her and other incorrect information. See Philip J. Berg, Esquires letter to Intelius attached to Nelson Declaration as Exhibit 5. 41. Intelius fails to mention the letter sent to them on November 1, 2010 directly
from Plaintiff Lisa Liberi. Liberis letter was sent priority mail with delivery confirmation 0309-3220-0001-9214-5504. See the Declaration of Lisa Liberi, pg. 3, 7 and EXHIBIT D attached to Lisa Liberis Declaration. Every piece of incorrect information contained on Liberi in her Intelius reports is outlined in Liberis letter. Although delivered, Intelius never responded to Liberi; failed to correct the wrong data; or sent her a corrected report. 42. As our law holds, in order to trigger a credit agency's duty under the FCRA to
investigate a claim of inaccurate information, a consumer must notify the agency of the purported reporting error, as Plaintiffs Ostella and Liberi have done. See 15 U.S.C. 1681 i(a)(1)(A). Once a Credit Agency is notified of inaccurate information contained in a
consumers file that is being disputed, the agency must reinvestigate the inaccuracies and record the status of the disputed information within 30 days, 15 U.S.C. 1681i(a)(1)(A). The FCRA contains provisions similar to those of the CCRAA with respect to consideration of all relevant materials submitted by the consumer, id. 1681 i(a)(4), and provision of a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the disputed information, id. 1681 i(a)(6)-(7).
13
43.
Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to support their 12th through 16th Cause of
Actions. The FCRA's reinvestigation provision, 15 U.S.C. 1681i, does not on its face require that an actual inaccuracy exist for a Plaintiffs to state a claim, but Ostella and Liberi have outlined the inaccuracies in their Complaint and in letters to Intelius, they have met their burden and Intelius MTD must be Denied. Dennis v. BEH-I, LLC, 520 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2008); Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1157 (9th Cir. 2009). VIII. PLAINTIFFS NON-FCRA CLAIMS are NOT PREEMPTED AND INTELIUS MISQUOTED and MISINTERPRETED THE STATUTE THEY are CITING: 44. Intelius on page 19 claims Plaintiffs non-FCRA claims are preempted pursuant
to Section 1681h(e) of the F.C.R.A. 15 U.S.C. 1681(h) or 1681(h)(e) do not pertain to the within action. 45. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their FAC at pgs. 61-74, 144-174 and pgs.
127-137, 335-364. 46. 15 U.S.C. 1681h(e) states in pertinent part:
Except as provided in sections 1681n and 1681o of this title, no consumer may bring any action or proceeding in the nature of defamation, invasion of privacy, or negligence with respect to the reporting of information against any consumer reporting agency, any user of information, or any person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency, based on information disclosed pursuant to section 1681g, 1681h, or 1681m [emphasis added] 47. 15 U.S.C. 1681g pertains to disclosure of the file to the consumer; 15 U.S.C.
1681h pertains to the conditions and disclosure to consumers whom the report relates; and 15 U.S.C. 1681m pertains to the requirements of the users of the consumer reports. None of
14
which Plaintiffs are suing Intelius for. Plaintiffs are suing Intelius pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681n and 1681o. 15 U.S.C. 1681 h(e) does not apply to the within action or preempt Plaintiffs non-FCRA claims. See Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1165-67 (9th Cir. 2009) which is right on point. IX. 48. PLAINTIFFS 1st THROUGH 3rd CAUSE OF ACTIONS Intelius claims that Plaintiffs 1st through 3rd Cause of Actions fail because Intelius claims they never disclosed any
Intelius did not invade Plaintiffs privacy.
information about Berg or Ostella and the only information they disclosed on Liberi was information as to the name Lisa Liberi and not Lisa Liberi the Plaintiff herein. Intelius contradicts their own statements with their own Exhibits. See also EXHIBITS A and B attached to Lisa Liberis Declaration and EXHIBIT 2 attached to Lisa Ostellas
Declaration, which proves the reports sold on Liberi and Ostella were not of a name only, but particular to Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostella herein. 49. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, the previous paragraphs 2 through 46 as
if fully set forth here at length. 50. Legally recognized privacy interests are generally of two [2] classes. The first
is the interest in precluding the dissemination or misuse of sensitive and confidential information otherwise known as informational privacy. Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1, [26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834]; Leibert v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 32 Cal. App. 4th 1693 [39 Cal. Rptr. 2d 65] (1st Dist. 1995). Informational privacy encompasses the right to be free from the wrongful publicizing of Plaintiffs private affairs and activities, which are outside of legitimate public concern. Smith v. National Broadcasting Co., 138 Cal. App.
15
2d 807807 (2nd Dist. 1956), Schwartz v. Thiele, 242 Cal. App. 2d 799 [51 Cal. Rptr. 767] (2d Dist. 1966). 51. As for Intelius statements that they are not responsible for the private data
Yosef Taitz in his professional capacity as CEO of Defendant Daylight Information Systems, Inc. [Daylight] obtained from their (Intelius) databases. To the contrary, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code 1714(a), as pled by Plaintiffs in their FAC at pg. 81, 198, Intelius had a duty to ensure all data they maintain on individuals is secure from intrusion, legal or otherwise. [A]s a general principle, a defendant owes a duty of care to all persons who are foreseeably endangered by his conduct, with respect to all risks which make the conduct unreasonably dangerous Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, 434435 [131 Cal. Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334]; see Civ. Code, 1714; Lugtu v. California Highway Patrol (2001) 26 Cal.4th 703, 716 [110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 528, 28 P.3d 249], and authorities cited). A. Plaintiffs 1st Cause of Action Willful and Intentional Intrusion upon Plaintiffs Solitude, Seclusion and Private Affairs - Invasion of Privacy: Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their FAC at pgs 61-74, 144-174 and
52.
pgs 78-83, 187-204 as if fully set forth here at length. 53. Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled that their private data, including but not
limited to address, names, spouses names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, etc. was disseminated by Intelius to Defendants. Plaintiffs pled that Intelius disclosed their private data without any type of permissible purpose, verification, or authorization of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs pled that Intelius obtained their information from the Reed Defendants, without any type of permissible or legal purpose. Plaintiffs pled Intelius re-sold their private information
16
to third parties, including but not limited to Katrinka Lawson; Teresa Loggia; Julieana Choy; Taitz and the Sankey Defendants. By Intelius own admissions, they have disclosed Plaintiffs personal information numerous times to parties who had no permissible purpose to obtain it. All these individuals received reports specifically to Plaintiff Lisa Liberi, just as Liberi received on herself. See Nelsons Declaration, Nelsons Exhibit 3 and EXHIBITS A and B attached to Lisa Liberis Declaration and EXHIBIT 2 attached to Lisa Ostellas Declaration. 54. All of which constitutes a serious invasion of privacy. The disclosure of a
persons Social Security number, birth date, address (unless you own the property, your address is not public), unlisted telephone number; and other private data reflected in the reports attached as Exhibit 5 to Nelsons Decl. and in EXHIBITS A and B attached to Lisa Liberis Declaration and EXHIBIT 1attached to Lisa Ostellas Declaration. 55. In Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th 1, our Court considered the showing a person must
make to state a violation of California's constitutional right to privacy. That decision made clear that the right of privacy protects the individual's reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion. Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court, (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 370 [53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 513, 150 P.3d 198], citing Hill, supra, at pp. 3637.) As our Court summarized Hill's holding, The party claiming a violation of the constitutional right of privacy established in article I, section 1 of the California Constitution must establish (1) a legally protected privacy interest, (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances, and (3) a serious invasion of the privacy interest. International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court, (2007) 42
17
Cal.4th 319, 338 [64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 693, 165 P.3d 488], citing Hill, supra, at pp. 3940. "A particular class of information is private when well-established social norms recognize the need to maximize individual control over its dissemination", like Plaintiffs Social Security numbers, dates of birth, spouses information, addresses, places of birth, credit data, financial data, etc., Hill 7 Cal.4th 1, 35. B. 56. Plaintiffs Second Cause of Action, Public Disclosure of Private Facts is Properly Pled against Intelius: Intelius states Plaintiffs 2nd Cause of Action for public disclosure of private
facts fail because they did not disclose any private facts about Plaintiffs. This is contradicted by Intelius own statements as to who they furnished Liberis reports to and their Exhibit 3 showing Liberis Social Security number, date of birth, address, name, only information specific to Plaintiff Liberi. 57. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their FAC at pgs 61-74 144-174 and pgs.
78-85, 187-214, as if fully set forth here at length. 58. The elements of the tort of public disclosure of private facts are: (1) public
disclosure, (2) of a private fact, (3) which would be offensive and objectionable to the reasonable person, and (4) which is not of legitimate concern. Taus v. Loftus, (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 683 [54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 775]. 59. Plaintiffs have met the elements required. Schwartz v. Thiele, 242 Cal. App. 2d
799 [51 Cal. Rptr. 767] (2d Dist. 1966); Timperley v. Chase Collection, Service, 272 Cal. App. 2d 697 [77 Cal. Rptr. 782] (2d Dist. 1969); Kinsey v. Macur, 107 Cal. App. 3d 264 [165 Cal. Rptr. 608]. //
18
C. 60.
Plaintiffs 3rd Cause of Action False Light Invasion of Privacy: Intelius states Plaintiffs 3rd Cause of Action fails because Plaintiffs failed to
state any information Intelius published to any person which was false. Plaintiffs asserted that Intelius reports contained wrong names, wrong birth dates, wrong addresses; and wrong social security numbers; so it appeared Plaintiffs were using multiple identities. Taitz
accused Liberi of using multiple names and Social Security numbers based on the report she received from Intelius and the Reed Defendants. Intelius, in their Exhibits 1 and 2 show Plaintiff Liberi being convicted in a criminal case that she was not convicted in. 61. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their FAC at pgs 61-74 144-174 and pgs.
78-90, 187-225, as if fully set forth here at length. 62. Plaintiffs suffered damages, as pled in their Complaint, including but not
limited to harassment, hospitalizations, damage to their reputation, loss of business, etc. and were exposed to hatred, contempt, ridicule, embarrassment, humiliation and obloquy. 63. Plaintiffs have met their burden. False Light Invasion of Privacy, concerns
ones piece of mind. Operating Engineers Local 3 v. Johnson, 110 Cal. App. 4th 180 [1 Ca. Rptr. 3d 552] (1st Dist. 2003). X. 64. PLAINTIFFS 5th, 6th and 17th CAUSE OF ACTION WILL PREVAIL Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their FAC at pgs 61-74 144-174; pgs. 78-
90, 187-225; at pgs 94-102 239-264; and at pgs. 142-149 381-389, as if fully set forth here at length. 65. Intelius claims these cause of actions will fail because Intelius did not
intentionally disclose information, not otherwise public [regarding Liberi or Ostella], which
19
knew or should have reasonably known was obtained from personal information maintained by a state agency or from records within a system of recordsmaintained by a federal government agency and therefore, Plaintiffs are not entitled to statutory damages per 1798.85(a)(1), [Intelius MTD, pgs. 21, 22]. Intelius argument is contradicted by Nelsons Declaration admitting to all 3rd parties Liberis reports were submitted to. It is common knowledge that Social Security numbers are handled by the Social Security Administration, etc. 66. Intelius disclosed a report to Taitz and the Sankey Defendants which contained
Liberis Social Security number and date of birth. Intelius states Taitz and Liberi obtained the same report, the actual reports Liberi received contained her Social Security number, so by Intelius own admissions, they violated Cal. Civ. Code Section 1798.85(a)(1), which states a person or entity may not communicate or make available to any third party, any ones Social Security numbers. The Sankey Defendants and Taitz admit to receiving Plaintiffs private data from the Reed Defendants and Intelius. 67. Plaintiffs have met their burden. See the unreported opinion of Witriol v.
LexisNexis Group, 2006 WL 1128036 (N.D.Cal., Apr 27, 2006) quoting Jennifer M. v. Redwood Women's Health Ctr., 88 Cal.App. 4th 81, 89 (Cal.Ct.App.2001). See also Cal. Civ. Code 1798.53; 1798.85; and 1798.81.5(a). XI. 68. PLAINTIFFS 8th CAUSE OF ACTION Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the previous paragraphs and their FAC at pgs
61-74 144-174; and pgs. 111-118, 281-300, as if fully set forth here at length.
20
69.
Intelius maintained incorrect information on the Plaintiffs so it appeared
Plaintiffs were using more than one name, date of birth, and Social Security number, wrong dates of birth, wrong names and other incorrect data. The information in the reports provided by Intelius, were stated as fact, and did not pertain to a general name, e.g. Lisa Liberi. The reports provided by Intelius were specific to Plaintiffs Liberi and Ostella. Plaintiffs will succeed on their Defamation claim, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974). Publication of a false statement means communication to some third person, in this case to the Sankey Defendants, Taitz, Katrinka Lawson; Teresa Loggia; Julieana Choy and others, who understood the defamatory meaning of the statement and its application to the person to whom reference was made. Smith v. Los Angeles Bookhinders Union No. 63, 133 Cal. App. 2d 486 [286 P.2d 194] (2d Dist. 1955); Neary v. Regents of University of California, 185 Cal. App. 3d 1136 [230 Cal. Rptr. 281] (1st Distr. 1986); 6A Cal. Jur. 3d, Assaults and Other Willful Torts 153 (2003). XII. 70. PLAINTIFFS 9th and 19th CAUSE OF ACTION Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their previous paragraphs and FAC at pgs
61-74 144-174; pgs. 78-90, 187-225; at pgs 118-122 301-314; and at pgs. 152-157 398-416, as if fully set forth here at length. 71. Intelius actions outlined herein and in Plaintiffs FAC caused Liberi and Ostella
severe mental and emotional suffering and distress Intelius actions and inactions were intentional and outrageous conduct. Guillory v. Godfrey, 134 Cal. App. 2d 628 [286 P.2d 414] (2d Dist. 1955); Spackman v. Good, (1966) 245 Cal. App. 2d 518 [54 Cal. Rptr. 78].
21
72.
Intelius actions and inactions were extreme and outrageous invasion of
Plaintiffs mental and emotional tranquility and were beyond all bounds of decency. State Rubbish Collectors Assn v. Siliznoff, (1952) 38 Cal. 2d 330 [240 P. 2d 282], Ochoa v. Superior Court, (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 159 [216 Cal. Rptr. 661]. 73. Intelius actions were intentional and reckless conduct with the intent to inflict
injury and they engaged in the acts with the realization that injury would occur upon Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional distress and Plaintiff Liberi also suffered medical complications due to the severe emotional distress. Plaintiffs have fulfilled all the elements for recovery under their Ninth and Nineteenth Cause of Actions. Ross v. Creel Printing & Publishing Co., 100 Cal. App. 4th 736 [122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 787] (1st Dist. 2002); Hassoldt v. Patrick Media Group, Inc., 84 Cal. App. 4th 153 [100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 662] (2d Dist. 2000); Ess v. Eskaton Properties, Inc., 97 Cal. App. 4th 120 [118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 240] (3d Dist. 2002); Christensen v. Superior Court, (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 868 [2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 79]. See also Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 965 (The Court held under California law, if the defendant is guilty of "despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others" then the bar is lowered). 74. Intelius disregard for the Plaintiffs privacy and right to maintain their data
private warrants damages for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. See Ochoa v. Superior Court, (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 159 [216 Cal. Rptr.]. // // // //
22
XIII. PLAINTIFFS 18th CAUSE OF ACTION, UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 75. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their FAC at pages 149-151, 390-397 as if
fully set forth here at length. 76. Intelius systematic violation of the FCRA, CCRAA, ICRAA and IPA, as
alleged in Plaintiffs FAC, coupled with their unlawful invasion of Plaintiffs Privacy Rights and other wrongful conduct re-alleged herein and in Plaintiffs FAC, reveals a pattern and practice of unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code 17200, et. seq. 77. The Unfair Competition Law [UCL] prohibits, and provides civil remedies
for, unfair competition, which it defines as any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice. 17200. Its purpose is to protect both consumers and competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial markets for goods and services. Kasky v. Nike, Inc., (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939, 949 [119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 296, 45 P.3d 243]; See Hall v. Time Inc., (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 847, 852 [70 Cal. Rptr.3d 466]. In service of that purpose, the Legislature framed the UCL's substantive provisions in broad, sweeping language Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 181 [83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 548, 973 P.2d 527]; See also Bank of the West v. Superior Court, (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1266 [10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 538, 833 P.2d 545] [The Legislature intended this sweeping language to include anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law. ] and provided courts with broad equitable powers to remedy violations ABC Internat. Traders, Inc. v Matsushita Electric Corp., (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1247, 1270 [61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 112, 931 P.2d 290].
23
78.
Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Cal. Business and Professions
Code 17200, et seq. and the requirements outlined in Schulz v. Neovi Data Corp., (2005) 129 Cal. App. 4th 1. XIV. PLAINTIFFS 20th CAUSE OF ACTION, RES IPSA LOQUITOR: 79. Under the theory of Res Ipsa Loquitur, Plaintiffs must show that: (1) the cause
of the injury is of a kind that does not occur ordinarily in the absence of someone's negligence; (2) the injury was caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the Defendant or of a third party for whose conduct the defendant is legally responsible; and (3) that the injury was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of appellants. See Shahinian v. McCormick, (1963) 59 Cal.2d 554, 559; see also Levy-Zentner Co. v. Southern Pac. Transportation Co., (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 762, 777-780. 80. The Res Ipsa Loquitor rule provides an illustration. The doctrine shifts the
burden of producing evidence so that Plaintiffs may bring tort claims even if they lack specific proof that their injury was caused by negligence of a particular Defendant. See Ybarra v. Spangard, (1944) 25 Cal.2d 486, 489 [154 P.2d 687]; Byrne v. Boadle, (1863) 159 Eng. Rep. 299, 300, as cited in Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist., (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 825826 [15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 679, 843 P.2d 624]. In California, the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor is defined by statute as a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. Evid. Code, 646, subd. (b).) (Ibid.; See Ybarra v. Spangard, supra, 25 Cal.2d 486, 489, quoting Prosser on Torts.) 81. Intelius had a duty to ensure that Sankey Defendants, Taitz, Katrinka Lawson;
Teresa Loggia; Julieana Choy and others had a legal right to obtain Plaintiffs reports.
24
Intelius also had a duty to properly communicate and reinvestigate the incorrect information they maintained on Liberi and Ostella. Instead, Intelius simply ignored the letters and refused to adhere to their requirements under the FCRA. And, since suit has been filed against them, they have destroyed and spoiled evidence, deleted Ostellas account; deleted all searches and actual reports purchased and provided on Liberi and Ostella. 82. VIII. 83. Plaintiffs have met their burden, Intelius Motion must be Denied. CONCLUSION: For the reasons outlined herein, Defendant Intelius, Inc. Motion to Dismiss
must be Denied. In the alternative, Plaintiffs Request to Amend their Complaint. Respectfully submitted,
Dated: September 23, 2011
/s/ Philip J. Berg Philip J. Berg, Esquire Pennsylvania I.D. 9867 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com Attorney in Pro Se and Counsel for Plaintiffs
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Philip J. Berg, Esquire (PA I.D. 9867) E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659 Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION LISA LIBERI, et al, : : : : Plaintiffs, : : : : : : : : Defendants. : : :
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW) DECLARATION OF PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE Date of Hearing: October 17, 2011 Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m. Location: Courtroom 10D
DECLARATION OF PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, am over the age of 18 and am a party to the within action. I have personal knowledge of the facts herein, and if called to do, I could and would competently testify. I am making this Declaration under the penalty of perjury of the Laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746. 1. I am an Attorney in good standing, licensed to practice law in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I am licensed to practice in the U.S. District
Declaration of Philip J. Berg, Esquire
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Courts, Middle and Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Third Circuit Court of Appeals; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; and the U.S. Supreme Court. 2. Intelius with their Motion to Dismiss [MTD] has filed a Declaration
from Benjamin Nelson [Nelson] who claims to be the Custodian of Records for the past six [6] years. 3. Nelson states that I sent a letter on behalf of Plaintiff Lisa Liberi
[Liberi] and dealt with incorrect information they have on file for my client. My letter, as demonstrated by Nelsons Exhibit 5 also pertained to Plaintiff Lisa Ostella [Ostella] and dealt with incorrect information Intelius maintains on her. 4. Nelson also states they are not a Consumer Credit Reporting
Agency and they are not required to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [FCRA]. To the contrary, I located several locations on Intelius website, that you can access by going to www.intelius.com that states they are a Consumer Credit Reporting Agency and comply with the FCRA as well as other State and Federal laws. 5. October On file with the United States Security Exchange [SEC] is Intelius 19, 2009 Form S-1 Registration and located at
http://ipo.nasdaq.com/edgar_conv_html%5C2009%5C10%5C19%5C000095012309-051082.html. Intelius states on pages 24 and 25 in their report to the SEC: Because we use personal information in providing our information services, we are subject to government regulation and vulnerable to
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
adverse publicity. We provide many types of data and services that already are subject to regulation under the FCRA, Gramm-LeachBliley Act, Drivers Privacy Protection Act and, to a lesser extent, various other federal, state and local laws and regulations. Violation of these laws or regulations may result in substantial fines, judgments and other penalties. These laws and regulations are designed to protect the privacy of the public and to prevent the misuse of personal information in the marketplace. 6. Intelius repeats that they are a Consumer Reporting Agency and
follows the FCRA in their enterprise agreement located on their website at http://www.intelius.com/enterpriseagreement.php. In this agreement, Intelius
states numerous times they are a consumer reporting agency governed by the FCRA. 7. Intelius repeats they are a Consumer and Credit Reporting Agency in
their Security and compliance statements located on their website at http://www.intelius.com/corp/security. In this publication by Intelius, they state: Intelius recognizes the sensitivity surrounding many of its applications and the data they rely on. As such, Intelius' information security policy addresses security at all levels: personnel, technology and operations. Intelius is a certified credit reporting agency.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
8.
And,
in
Intelius
TalentWise
Agreement
located
at
https://www.talentwise.com/terms.html, Intelius again confirms they are governed by the FCRA because they are a Consumer Reporting Agency: DUE TO THE SENSITIVE AND HIGHLY REGULATED NATURE OF THE DATA AND INFORMATION YOU AND YOUR ORGANIZATION WILL GAIN ACCESS TO THROUGH INTELIUS SCREENING SOLUTIONS LLC (d/b/a "TALENTWISE") Intelius Screening Solutions LLC (d/b/a "TalentWise") is a consumer reporting agency and provides consumer reports and investigative consumer reports ("Screening Reports") as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") 9. The statements of Mr. Nelson are not accurate. I also have copies of
the background checks conducted on Plaintiff Lisa Liberi. Each background report Mrs. Liberi obtained from Intelius and U.S. Search contained her full Social Security number, date of birth, name, address, spouses name and other information identified to her. The reports obtained by Mrs. Liberi were not generalized
searches of only a name. 10. Mr. Nelson states Defendant Orly Taitz obtained the same report as
Lisa Liberi. With this, Mr. Nelson has confirmed and substantiated Plaintiffs allegations against Intelius. The reports Mrs. Liberi obtained were reports
governed by the FCRA as they were classified by Intelius as Consumer Reports and that is the same Report obtained by Orly Taitz and Neil Sankey on Mrs. Liberi, as stated in Mr. Nelsons Declaration.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
11.
The reports attached to Mr. Nelsons Declaration as Exhibit 1 and
2 are not the same reports obtained by Mrs. Liberi. 12. I am very concerned with the fact Intelius has spoiled evidence and
deleted evidence. This is very prejudicial to my clients. All evidence should have been preserved by Intelius and their Attorneys as they were aware they were in litigation. 13. Intelius has deleted Plaintiff Lisa Ostellas account; deleted all
searches performed by Mrs. Ostella; provided reports which do not match or contain the same data as those purchased by Mrs. Liberi; and Intelius, although they claim to maintain all searches performed, stated Mrs. Ostella never had an account which had two [2], one of which was recently opened. 14. Intelius has also deleted all files they had available on both Mrs.
Liberi and Mrs. Ostella. When attempting to search Mrs. Liberis name, the reports provided by Mr. Nelson do not come up, nor do the reports Mrs. Liberi has purchased. 15. Intelius is a Consumer Reporting Agency bound by the Fair Credit
Reporting Laws; California Laws; and Federal Trade Commission [FTC] regulations.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
16.
Intelius should have had safety precautions in place, had they of,
Defendant Orly Taitz, Yosef Taitz, Neil Sankey and the other Sankey Defendants would not have been able to obtain my clients private data from Intelius. 17. Intelius did not have a permissible or legal purpose in purchasing my
clients private data from the Reed Defendants and then selling it to third parties. 18. Mr. Nelson has also confirmed three [3] additional parties Mrs.
Liberis private data was sold to, without any type of permissible purpose. 19. For the reasons outlined in Plaintiffs Opposition and Brief thereto,
Defendant Intelius, Inc.s Motion to Dismiss must be Denied. I declare under the penalty of perjury of the Laws of the United States and California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 24th day of September, 2011 in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, County of Montgomery. /s/ Philip J. Berg Philip J. Berg, Esquire, Declarant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Attorney for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION LISA LIBERI, et al, : : : Plaintiffs, : : : : : : : : : : Defendants. : : : :
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW) DECLARATION OF LISA LIBERI Date of Hearing: October 17, 2011 Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m. Location: Courtroom 10D
Declaration of Lisa Liberi I, Lisa Liberi, am over the age of 18 and am a party to the within action. I have personal knowledge of the facts herein, and if called to do, I could and would competently testify. I am making this Declaration under the penalty of perjury of the Laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746. 1. I ran reports on myself through Intelius in April 2010. I purchased
two [2] separate reports at that time. The first report I purchased was a full
Declaration of Lisa Liberi
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
background report on myself. Intelius assigned my report, Intelius Report No. 30897400. See my Intelius report and receipt attached hereto and incorporated in by reference as EXHIBIT A. As shown by the report I purchased, the
information contained within the file only pertains to me, not the general name Lisa Liberi. 2. I have never seen an Intelius report or purchased an Intelius report that
appears as the one filed by Benjamin Nelson as his Exhibit 2 to his Declaration. EXHIBIT A attached hereto is the only background report I have purchased from Intelius, the two [2] reports do not match. Mr. Nelsons report is far different than the report I actually received. 3. At the time I conducted my search, when I ran the name Lisa Liberi
there were only two [2] files which came up, both of which belonged to me. 4. I also ran a report on myself through Intelius and purchased the
TalentWise Report. The TalentWise report, like my background report, is very specific to me only, not just a name of Lisa Liberi. As can be seen on my TalentWise report, attached hereto as EXHIBIT B, it contains my date of birth, address, Social Security number and other private data, which has been properly redacted for this filing. At the time I purchased my TalentWise report, it was all done online. There was absolutely no verification by Intelius to ensure I was entitled to the report, as required by the FCRA. My Intelius TalentWise Report Number is 30897630.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
5.
Intelius continues stating they are not a credit reporting agency and
they do not have to adhere to the FCRA. This is contrary to Intelius statements on their website at http://www.intelius.com/enterpriseagreement.php;
http://www.intelius.com/corp/security; https://www.talentwise.com/terms.html or what they filed in October 2009 with the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) located on the SEC website at
http://ipo.nasdaq.com/edgar_conv_html%5C2009%5C10%5C19%5C000095012309-051082.html, and, the terms and conditions I was required to accept to purchase my reports. In all these locations, Intelius openly admits they are a Consumer Reporting Agency and they adhere to the FCRA, and other State and Federal laws, as required. 6. The terms and conditions I had to agree to for my TalentWise report
are attached hereto as EXHIBIT C and do not match the terms and conditions attached to Mr. Nelsons Declaration as his Exhibit 4. 7. On November 1, 2010, I sent a very detailed letter to Intelius
regarding the incorrect information they maintained on me in their files. See EXHIBIT D. I sent my letter to them with delivery confirmation by way of priority mail through the post office. I never received my reports from Intelius, nor did I receive any type of response.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
8.
I also discovered that Intelius pulled my private data from reports they
purchased from LexisNexis and ChoicePoint, [the Reed Defendants]. I was never notified Intelius was purchasing reports or my private data from the Reed Defendants; I never gave my permission, nor would I have, and I am disgusted they resold my private data for a profit. More disgusting is the fact they sold my private data to Orly Taitz to carry out her threats towards me; to Neil Sankey to supply to Taitz; to K. Lawson, T. Loggia and Ms. Choy. I was never notified by Intelius of these searches, of these reports provided on me, or any legal permissible purpose for which Intelius provided my reports. Instead, Intelius provided my private information without any verification, for a profit. These were not general searches of a name that Intelius sold to these individuals. 9. I conducted another search at www.intelius.com after receiving Mr.
Nelsons Declaration. Everything pertaining to me had been deleted. There were not any Lisa Liberis appearing with addresses in San Francisco, Virginia, or any Liberis with the first names appearing in Mr. Nelsons report attached as his Exhibit 2 to his Declaration. The names and addresses appearing in Mr.
Nelsons report, Exhibit 2 to his Declaration were non-existent. See the screen shots attached hereto as EXHIBIT E. 10. I always believed my identifying information, including my Social
Security number, date of birth, place of birth, maiden name, relatives names, etc.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
would remain confidential and I would have full control over who my information was supplied to, not a data broker for a profit. 11. My family and I have been severely damaged as a result of the Reed
Defendants and Intelius, freely providing my confidential information for a fee which profits them. Although there are laws to protect my information, the Reed and Intelius Defendants refuse to adhere to the laws and protect individuals, including my family members privacy and mine. 12. In fact these Defendants sold my information for threats to be carried
out against me, which they were. As a result, I have been severely harassed, cyberstalked, stalked, ridiculed, my privacy invaded, and my full identity stolen over and over again, along with my husbands. My son has been stalked by Defendant Taitz. As a result of the stress induced by the Defendants, I have had paramedics at my home numerous times due to my health complications from the severe stress; I have been hospitalized for heart complications due to the stress; I have had to pay for cardiac treatments, including but not limited to Enhanced External Counterpulsation [EECP] on two (2) occasions; Echo Cardiograms; and other cardiac testing which is very expensive. 13. Intelius simply ignored the letters from my attorney and from me.
Intelius did not report the misuse of the information they provided on me and my family to law enforcement or any other data brokers. Intelius did not report to law
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
enforcement Defendants Orly Taitz, Neil Sankey, Yosef Taitzs, etc. misuse of the information maintained with Intelius. Intelius, like the Reed Defendants, just ignored it.
I declare under the penalty of perjury of the Laws of the United States and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 23rd day of September, 2011 in the State of New Mexico.
Lisa Liberi, Declarant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT A
From: Intelius <donotreply@intelius.com> Date: Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 10:25 PM Subject: Intelius Purchase Receipt - Order #30897400 To: lisaliberi@gmail.com
Hello Lisa, Your order number 30897400 was placed on April 10th, 2010, 9:20 PM (PST). Thank you for placing your order with Intelius.com Your credit card statement will reflect a $44.96 charge from Intelius.com. To access your reports purchased in the last 45 days, visit View My Reports. Order Details 1 Background Report Club Intelius Discount. You saved $4.99. Total Charge Your Savings: $4.99 Customer Service Contact Information: Contact Us via Email. Club Intelius Phone Number: (866) 974-6187 Service Hours: Mon - Fri, 4:30AM - 10:00PM PST This is an automated notification. Please do NOT reply to this e-mail. Please print this page or note the order number for future reference. Thank you for your business and making Intelius your trusted information source. Best Regards, $44.96 $44.96
Intelius
If you would like to unsubscribe, please contact Customer Service
Exb. "A", pg. 8
Thank You for Your Order - Intelius.com
https://www.intelius.com/search-detail-out.php?Select=1&ReportType=8&Selection=0
Club Member lisaliberi@gmail.com [Sign Out] | My Intelius Help: (888) 445-2727 | View My Reports
Verification Services
People Search Email Search Social Net Search Criminal & Sex Offender Identity Protect Tenant Screening All Products & Services Reverse Cell Phone Directory Employee Screening
Information Services
Protection Services
Business Services
Background Check
Reverse Phone Lookup
Property & Neighborhood
Your Transaction Was Successful.
Your Credit Card Will Reflect A $44.96 Charge From Intelius.
Your Order # is 30897400.
Thank you for placing your order with Intelius
Background Report - April 10, 2010

Order #30897400 What is a Background Report?
Your Report Summary
Name:
Lisa Liberi
Report Contents
Personal Public Records Data Property History Summary Single State Civil Judgments
Person Selection
Address History
Single State Criminal Check
People Search Report
A Background Report contains information collected from public records and publicly available data. The report is designed as a service to assist you in locating or verifying an individual's background information. The data within the report is compiled from thousands of different sources that include government, property, and other public record repositories. The Intelius service organizes and integrates information together as a convenient service for you.
1 of 10
Exb. "A", pg. 9
It is important to understand that public records are only as accurate as the agencies that input them. Please be sure to closely review the public information listed about the individual that you may be researching in the report.
4/11/2010 12:26 A
Run Another Background Report
Expand All
Collapse All
Person Selection
We found 2 records that match your search. Click "View Report" to view background report on each individual.
1 Lisa Liberi (909) 466-9532 View all Addresses Currently Viewing
Known Address: 7349 Milliken #140 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
2 Lisa Liberi
Known Address: 11952 Huntley Dr Rch Cucamonga, CA 91739 View all Addresses
View report
View report
Viewed
Personal Public Records Data

What is a Personal Public Records Data?
Subject Name: Lisa Liberi
Listed Aliases: Lisa Liberi
Personal public record data can be inaccurate, so it's important to understand what is in the public records for Lisa Liberi.
Personal public records data refers to information such as aliases, birth dates, age and other data found to be connected to Lisa Liberi in the public record. This information can further help you by identifying alternate and/or maiden names, age variations, and any other information that may be associated with Lisa Liberi.
Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390-4 Filed 09/24/11 Page 10 of 35 Page ID #:9272
Address History For Lisa Liberi

What is an Address History?
2 of 10
Exb. "A", pg. 10
4/11/2010 12:26 A
1 91730
Lisa Liberi Rancho Cucamonga, CA
7349 Milliken #140
(909) 466-9532
Property Report
2 Upland, CA 91784
Lisa Liberi
1537 Grandview
Property Report
This report section lists historical addresses associated with an individual from public records. An Address History can assist in flagging address exceptions that may exist in public records. The addresses and phone numbers are not listed in date order and should be individually reviewed.
3 Santa Fe, NM 87508
Lisa Liberi
4 Bonito
(505) 466-2505
Property Report
Property History Summary

What is a Property History Summary?
This section lists summary, neighbors, relatives and area data associated with the property when available. The Relatives and Associates section lists potential relatives or previous occupants associated with an individual and / or their address from public records. The Neighbors Around the Property section lists the immediate neighbors around the property. These sections can help confirm the people linked to your subject and provide additional people that may have current or forwarding information on the whereabouts of your subject.
3 of 10
Exb. "A", pg. 11
4/11/2010 12:26 A
ADDRESS & CONTACT INFO: 7349 Milliken #140 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 466-9532
Get A Complete Property Report
PROPERTY DETAILS
Owner Name Ldc Central Park Plaza

NEIGHBORS AROUND THE PROPERTY
Property Info Taxes: $11,001 (2008)
Name
Complete Property Reports Include: Arturo Palato 7868 Milliken Ave Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 945-0591 Background Check
Roger C Sparks 7723 Milliken Ave Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 466-7989 Background Check
List of all 65 neighborhood sex offenders Sales History Mortgage Information Satellite Image And More Jeffery Miller 7868 Milliken Ave Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 758-0795 Background Check
Get a Complete Property Report Gina Duncan 7868 Milliken Ave Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 244-0668
Background Check
Jr G Black 7868 Milliken Ave Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 483-1349

AREA DATA
Background Check
Total Population 51,969
Avg. House Price $145,500
Avg. Household Income $50,047
Area Sex Offenders 65
4 of 10
Exb. "A", pg. 12
ADDRESS & CONTACT INFO: 1537 Grandview Upland, CA 91784
Get A Complete Property Report
4/11/2010 12:26 A
Single State Criminal Check

What is a Single State Criminal Check?
This section lists criminal records from county courts, department of corrections, administration of the courts, and other legal agencies for the selected state. The types of offenses include felonies, misdemeanors, sexual offenses, and more. Please closely review each record as subjects with a common name may return multiple criminal record results.
NATIONWIDE CRIMINAL CHECK OFFER
"30% of people change their addresses nationwide each year...especially criminals" Get $10 off on a Nationwide Criminal Check for Lisa Liberi now.
Criminal Check Disclaimer

Customers are charged a search fee for executing a Criminal Check. The Criminal Check report returns results which may include all criminal records or no results found on the individual. In the event of using this service for criminal background checks, you should not assume that this data provides a complete or accurate history of any person's criminal history. You should use extreme caution when interpreting the results of a criminal background search for any type of personal verification. Positive or false matches in criminal searches may not provide confirmation of an individual's criminal background. Please reference the updated Intelius User Agreement for additional restrictions regarding the usage of
5 of 10
Exb. "A", pg. 13
4/11/2010 12:26 A
this data.
CRIMINAL CHECK FOR ALL LISA LIBERI IN THE STATE OF CA
Record 1 of 4
IDENTIFICATION
Lisa Liberi
CA
SOURCE: CA
OFFENSE DETAILS FSB044914 - Confirm Case at the Courthouse San Bernadino 06/30/2004 OFFENSE COUNTY: San Bernadino DISTRICT: SAN BERNARDINO SUPERIOR
CASE NUMBER:
COUNTY CHARGED:
OFFENSE DATE:
Record 2 of 4
IDENTIFICATION
Lisa A Liberi
CA
SOURCE: CA
OFFENSE DETAILS FSB044914 - Confirm Case at the Courthouse San Bernadino 06/30/2004 OFFENSE COUNTY: DISTRICT: SAN BERNARDINO SUPERIOR San Bernadino
CASE NUMBER:
COUNTY CHARGED:
OFFENSE DATE:
Record 3 of 4
IDENTIFICATION
Lisa R Liberi
CA
SOURCE: CA
DOB: May 28, 1965
OFFENSE DETAILS 030202LL - Confirm Case at the Courthouse San Bernadino DISTRICT: SAN BERNARDINO SUPERIOR
6 of 10
Exb. "A", pg. 14
CASE NUMBER:
COUNTY CHARGED:
4/11/2010 12:26 A
Civil Judgment Report

What are Tax Lien, Bankruptcy, & Judgments?
This section lists civil records from county courts for the selected address. The types of records include property tax liens, general tax liens, bankruptcies, small claims, judgments, and more associated with the selected address. Please closely review each record as common addresses may return multiple civil record results.
7 of 10
Exb. "A", pg. 15
4/11/2010 12:26 A
CIVIL JUDGMENT RECORDS FOR LISA LIBERI IN THE STATE OF CA - 6 RECORDS FOUND
RECORD 1 Liberi, Lisa Civil Judgment 20020400 10567 Green Acre Dr Ca Redlands Centennial San Bernardino County, San Bernardino Superior Court Unlawful Detainer: N Court Code: Ca254 Zip: 91730 City: Rancho Cucamonga Amount Liability: $20,944.00 Entity Type: Individual Record Case Number: 2002 193850
CIVIL RECORD VERIFICATION: CONFIRM CASE # 2002 193850 AT THE COURT HOUSE
Defendant:
Filing Type:
Filing Date:
Address:
State:
Plaintiff:
Court Name:
RECORD 2 Liberi, Lisa Chapter 7 Filing (New) 20020807 Rancho Cucamonga 91739 9099830877 Ontario 91762 Casbrf1 Pc Action Type: Court Name: Assets Available: Attorney State: Ca N California Fed Court-riverside Bankruptcy Attorney Address: Attorney: State: Ca Curtis R Aijala 123 W B St # C Address: 11952 Huntley Dr Entity Type: Individual Record Case Number: 0222845
CIVIL RECORD VERIFICATION: CONFIRM CASE # 0222845 AT THE COURT HOUSE
Defendant:
Filing Type:
Filing Date:
City:
Zip:
Attorney Phone:
Attorney City:
Attorney Zip:
Court Code:
Judge Initials:
RECORD 3 Liberi, Lisa Chapter 7 Dismissal 20020807 Rancho Cucamonga 91739 9099830877 Case Number: Entity Type: Address: State: Attorney: Attorney Address: 0222845 Individual Record 11952 Huntley Dr Ca Curtis R Aijala 123 W B St # C
CIVIL RECORD VERIFICATION: CONFIRM CASE # 0222845 AT THE COURT HOUSE
Defendant:
Filing Type:
Filing Date:
City:
8 of 10
Exb. "A", pg. 16
Zip:
Attorney Phone:
4/11/2010 12:26 A
Customers are charged a search fee for executing a Civil Judgment check. The Civil Judgment report returns results which may include all civil judgment records or no results found on the individual.
In the event of using this service for civil background checks, you should not assume that this data provides a complete or accurate history of any person's civil judgment history.
You should use extreme caution when interpreting the results of a civil judgment background search for any type of personal verification.
Positive or false matches in civil searches may not provide confirmation of an individual's civil judgment background.
Please reference the updated Intelius User agreement for additional restrictions regarding the usage of data.
Current & Historical People Search Report

Previous Cities Avg. Income / Home Value
Name
Address History
What is a Current & Historical People Search Report?
Lisa Liberi Avg. Income: $50,047
Address 1: 7349 MILLIKEN 140 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 (909) 466-9532
Address 2: 1537 GRANDVIEW UPLAND, CA 91784 (909) 466-9532
Rancho Cucamonga, CA Upland, CA Santa Fe, NM
Property Report Avg. Home Value: $149,300
RELATIVES: Address 3: B Liberi 4 BONITO SANTA FE, NM 87508 (505) 466-2505
This section lists current and historical people search records that share the same name and state as your search subject. The People Search Summary can be helpful in providing a consolidated view of matching current and historical records for your subjects name across multiple public sources. Income & Home Value are compiled from property, demographic, census, & other public record sources. Income & Home Value may contain specific household and area statistics associated with an individual or address. Avg. Income: $70,461
Lisa Liberi
Address 1: 11952 HUNTLEY DR RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739
Rancho Cucamonga, CA Avg. Home Value: $180,200
9 of 10
Exb. "A", pg. 17
Property Report
4/11/2010 12:26 A
Background Information
MI Last Name State
First Name
Select a State
City [optional]
What does a Background Check include?
Current/Previous Address [optional]
Se arch
Background reports include, when available, a criminal and sex offender check, lawsuits, judgments, liens, bankruptcies, home value & property ownership, address history, phone numbers, relatives & associates, neighbors, marriage/divorce records and more.
Nanny Employment Check & Other Hires
Bookmark Intelius | Help | About | Careers | Privacy | Contact Us | FAQ | Terms & Conditions | Site Map | Affiliates | Directory | Volume Discounts 2003-2010 Intelius, Inc.
10 of 10
Exb. "A", pg. 18
4/11/2010 12:26 A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
19
EXHIBIT B
From: TalentWise <DoNotReply@intelius.com> Date: Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 10:40 PM Subject: TalentWise Purchase Receipt - Order #30897630 To: lisaliberi@gmail.com
Lisa, thank you for placing your order with TalentWise. We received your order April 10, 2010 at 9:36 PM Pacific time. Order Summary for Order #30897630 1 Nationwide Employment Background Check Order Total: $59.95 $59.95
Your credit card statement will show a charge for $59.95 from INTELIUS SCREENING. Questions about your order? Our Customer Service team is available from 5:00 AM to 4:30 PM Pacific time, Monday through Friday. Phone: 1.866.338.6739 Fax: 1.877.974.6150 Email: customerservicesolutions@intelius.com Please do not attempt to reply to this email message, as your reply will not be received. For information about volume discounts and custom screening packages, please call our Sales team at (877) 893-1665 or email sales@intelius.com. To view your reports, visit your TalentWise Dashboard Portal.
TalentWise
TalentWise
2003-2010 Intelius, Inc.
Exb. "B", pg. 20
Applicant Report: Lisa Liberi - TalentWise
https://www.intelius.com/screening/report.php?ApplicantID=45747986&dist=1&printer=1
Intelius Screening Customer Service P.O. Box 1048
| Bothell, WA 98041-1048 (866) 338-6739 | customerservicesolutions@intelius.com
Per California Civil Code 1786, Intelius Screening Solutions does not guarantee the accuracy or truthfulness of the information in this report as to the person who is the subject of the investigation, only that the information is accurately copied from public records. Information generated as a result of identity theft, including evidence of criminal activity, may be inaccurately associated with the person who is the subject of the report.
APPLICANT REPORT: Lisa Liberi

Report Status: Request Submitted: Pending Apr 10, 2010 9:36 pm
Requested by:
Lisa Liberi
LisaLIberi
(505) 424-9055
Package Title:
Nationwide Employment Background Check
Applicant ID:
45747986
Applicant Name:
Lisa Liberi
Date of Birth:
5/28/1965
Address:
1704b Llano Street #159 Santa Fe, NM 87505
Memo:
APPLICANT REPORT CONTENTS
Liberi
COMPLETE STATUS
SSN Verification
Success Review Below Pending Clear
Address History
Criminal Database Search
Nationwide Sex Offender Registry Check
1
xxx-xx-4312 California 2000
SSN VERIFICATION
SSN
State of Issue
1 of 3
Exb. "B", pg. 21
Date of Issue
4/11/2010 12:40 A
Name Searched Success: Full name matches SSN. No AKAs were found for this applicant.
Lisa Liberi
AKA Results
ADDRESS HISTORY
This report shows addresses associated with the SSN searched. Addresses are usually, but not always, listed from most to least recent. 2983 PLAZA BLANCA SANTA FE, NM 87507 11952 HUNTLEY DR RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739 4 BONITO SANTA FE, NM 87508 PO BOX 548 RIBERA, NM 87560 1537 GRANDVIEW UPLAND, CA 91784 7349 MILLIKEN #140 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
Address 1
Address 2
Address 3
Address 4
Address 5
Address 6
Intelius obtains address history information from public records and other third-party sources. Intelius cannot guarantee that this information is accurate or current.
CRIMINAL DATABASE SEARCH
This component of the Applicant Report is still pending.
NATIONWIDE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY CHECK

We have searched for the applicant in the sex offender registries of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Clear No records were found. Positive or false matches within a criminal search may not provide confirmation of a criminal background.
Search Description
Result
END OF REPORT
USERS OF THIS REPORT MUST COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/11/041119factaapph.pdf
APPLICANTS MAY VIEW THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT:
2 of 3
Exb. "B", pg. 22
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre35.pdf
4/11/2010 12:40 A
2003 - 2010 Intelius Screening Solutions DBA TalentWise
3 of 3
Exb. "B", pg. 23
4/11/2010 12:40 A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
24
EXHIBIT C
https://www.talentwise.com/screening/agreement.php?newaccount=1 Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390-4 Filed 09/24/11 Page 25 of 35 Page ID #:9287
Exb. "C", pg. 25
Terms and Conditions - TalentWise
https://www.talentwise.com/screening/agreement.php?newaccount=1
Sign In
| New Account
Customer Support: 1.866.338.6739
TalentWise Terms and Conditions

DUE TO THE SENSITIVE AND HIGHLY REGULATED NATURE OF THE DATA AND INFORMATION YOU AND YOUR ORGANIZATION WILL GAIN ACCESS TO THROUGH INTELIUS SCREENING SOLUTIONS LLC (d/b/a "TALENTWISE"), TALENTWISE WANTS TO ENSURE THAT YOU AND YOUR ORGANIZATION UNDERSTAND THEIR OBLIGATIONS REGARDING THEIR ACCESS TO AND USE OF TALENTWISE SERVICES AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THOSE OBLIGATIONS. BY CLICKING AND ACCEPTING, YOU AGREE THAT: 1. YOU ARE EMPLOYED BY YOUR ORGANIZATION AND ARE AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT WITH TALENTWISE, AND YOU UNDERSTAND THAT TALENTWISE IS RELYING ON THIS AUTHORIZATION; 2. YOU HAVE READ, UNDERSTOOD AND APPROVED THIS AGREEMENT AND YOUR ORGANIZATION'S OBLIGATIONS DESCRIBED HEREIN; YOU HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND OTHER EXPERTS OR ADVISORS AS DEEMED NECESSARY; AND, YOU HAVE HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS; AND, 3. YOU WILL NOT ALLOW ANY PERSON TO ACCESS THE TALENTWISE SITE UNLESS THAT PERSON IS A BONA FIDE EMPLOYEE AND HAS REVIEWED, UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED IN WRITING TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. I accept the TalentWise Terms and Conditions
TalentWise FCRA Subscriber Agreement

PLEASE CAREFULLY READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS BEFORE CLICKING THE "ACCEPT" BUTTON FOR THIS AGREEMENT. CLICKING AND ACCEPTING INDICATES THAT YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF YOUR EMPLOYER ("YOU" OR "YOUR"), AND YOU AND YOUR EMPLOYER HAVE READ THIS AGREEMENT, UNDERSTAND IT, AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. For purposes of this Agreement only, you understand that Intelius Screening Solutions LLC (d/b/a "TalentWise") is a consumer reporting agency and provides consumer reports and investigative consumer reports ("Screening Reports") as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). TalentWise will furnish you with Screening Reports for employment background screening of applicants ("Applicant"), conditioned upon your compliance with this Agreement and fulfillment of all your obligations (including payment) under this Agreement (and any other agreements you and TalentWise may have). YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROVISIONS IN THIS AGREEMENT (INCLUDING WARRANTY DISCLAIMERS AND LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY) REPRESENT AN AGREED UPON PRICE-RISK ALLOCATION. TALENTWISE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO OFFER YOU ITS CURRENT PRICING STRUCTURE BUT FOR THIS ALLOCATION. 1. You and your company shall:
I accept the terms and conditions of the TalentWise FCRA Subscriber Agreement
As an authorized representative of my Company, I accept the terms and conditions detailed above. Name Email Address
Company
Title
Please state your permissible purpose for accessing TalentWise services (examples: pre-employment screening, tenant screening, employee screening, etc.)
I Accept
I Decline
Privacy Policy
| 2003 - 2011 TalentWise Solutions LLC
Exb. "C", pg. 26

1 of 1
9/20/2011 5:35 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
27
EXHIBIT D
Exb. "D", pg. 28
November 01, 2010 Intelius Consumer Affairs P.O. Box 808 Bothel, Washington 98041-0808
Sent via Priority Mail Delivery Confirmation required 0309 3220 0001 9214 5504 Three (3) pages total
Re:
My Intelius Report
To whom it may concern, I have purchased a copy of my report from your agency, which was run by my Social Security number. There is a lot of incorrect information you have on me under my Social Security number. Ironically, the incorrect and wrong information you maintain on me is the same as the incorrect information maintained by LexisNexis. Obviously, you pull my private information from LexisNexis for re-sale, which I have never authorized. The wrong information you maintain on me, that must be deleted immediately, includes but is not limited to: NAMES: - The following names have never been mine and have never been used by me: Liberi, Lisa A Courville-Richardson Lisa R Courvillerichar, Lisa R Courville, Lisa O. Corvillerichardson, Lisa Courviller, Lisa Courville, Richardson L Courville, Richardso L YEAR OF BIRTH: The following date of birth is not mine and has never been used by me: 1967 SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS The following Social Security numbers have never been mine and have never been used by me: 563-42-xxxx (CA: 1936-1951); 563-72-xxxx (CA: 1964) 1
Exb. "D", pg. 29
ADDRESSES: The following addresses are not mine and have never been used by me: 40 Bonito Ct Santa Fe, NM 87508-8311, 1704 Llano St Apt 159 Santa Fe, NM 87505-5415 1704 Llano St Ste B Santa Fe, NM 87505-5415 990 Cypress Station Dr Apt 303 Houston, Texas 77090-1546 6018 Spring Creek LN Spring, TX 77379-8805 8902 Arcadian Houston, Texas 77088 375 Bladwin PY Katy, TX 77449 13800 Ella Blvd. Apt A201 Houston, Texas 77014-3318 I am in need of a copy of my Intelius report from your company, which shows the information you maintain on me has been corrected and all person(s) or entities who have obtained my report in the last three (3) years. My correct information is as follows: Address for last five (5) years: Lisa Rene Liberi 2983 Plaza Blanca Santa Fe, NM 87507 (505) 473-9185 xxx-xx-4312 05/28/1965
Last 4 of SSN: Date of Birth
Exb. "D", pg. 30
Exb. "D", pg. 31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
32
EXHIBIT E
http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=8&qf=Lisa&qmi=&qn=Liberi&qa=&qtickler= Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390-4 Filed 09/24/11 Page 33 of 35 Page ID 1&qcs=NM&searchform=background&focusfirst=1#:9295
Exb. "E", pg. 33
Background Check & People Search Powered by Intelius
http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=8&qf=Lisa&qmi=&qn=...
Sign In | Register
People Search
Background Check
Background Check
Background Check by SSN
Criminal Records
Employee Screening
Reverse Lookup
Search results for Lisa Liberi in New Mexico

Expanded Search Results:
We We We We We We We We searched Lisa Liberi and found 0 records in NM searched Alisa Liberi and found 0 records in NM searched Alissa Liberi and found 0 records in NM searched Elesa Liberi and found 0 records in NM searched Elisa Liberi and found 0 records in NM searched Elysa Liberi and found 0 records in NM searched Liza Liberi and found 0 records in NM searched Lisa Liberi and found 2 records nationwide
We found 2 people that match Lisa Liberi in New Mexico.
1.
Name/Aliases
Lisa M Liberi, age 53

Has lived in DOB Phone Address
Get more details

Related to
Lisa M Liberi L M Liberi Lisa M Mangan
Prospect Park, PA King Of Prussia, PA Norristown, PA Glenolden, PA
Mary E Mangan Gerald D Mangan
2.
Name/Aliases
Lisa Marie Liberi, age 33

Has lived in DOB Phone Address
Get more details

Related to
Lisa Marie Liberi Lisa Liberi Laws
Miami, FL Raleigh, NC Charlotte, NC Pittsburgh, PA
Grace Mary Laws Fred R Laws Diane Marie Laws Christina L Joseph Jennifer Grace Barker
Not the right person? Search again:

First Name required M.I. Last Name required Current/Previous Address City/State state required
Lisa
Liberi
NM
Search
All Products & Services | Help | About | Careers | Contact Us | FAQ | Site Map | Directory | Affiliates | Volume Discounts | Intelius Blog 2003-2011 Intelius, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions
Exb. "E", pg. 34

1 of 2
9/20/2011 5:24 PM
Background Check & People Search Powered by Intelius
http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=8&qf=Lisa&qmi=&qn=...
Exb. "E", pg. 35

2 of 2
9/20/2011 5:24 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Attorney for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION : : : Plaintiffs, : : : : : : : : : : Defendants. : : : :
LISA LIBERI, et al,
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW) DECLARATION OF LISA OSTELLA Date of Hearing: October 17, 2011 Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m. Location: Courtroom 10D
vs.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,
Declaration of Lisa Ostella I, Lisa Ostella, am over the age of 18 and am a party to the within action. I have personal knowledge of the facts herein, and if called to do, I could and would competently testify. I am making this Declaration under the penalty of perjury of the Laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746. 1. I am shocked, appalled and mortified with the unprofessional actions
of Intelius and their law firm, Jones Day.

1
Declaration of Lisa Ostella
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2.
As per the advice of a law firm, I submitted a professional request for
data I was entitled to about searches that had been conducted on me. My reports were important as they contained incorrect information about me and I wanted to properly dispute it. 3. I took the required actions of making law enforcement reports,
because of the Reed Defendants and Defendant Intelius breach of my private information to the Defendants in this suit. I wrote to Intelius and provided the necessary data per the FCRA [Fair Credit Reporting Act] requirements of receiving my Intelius Reports and who had conducted searches on me. 4. My letter stated in a professional fashion why the data was requested.
I supplied further confidential information, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Agents name of who I was working with, law enforcement report numbers, my new home address, and other private data demanded by Intelius in order for me to obtain my reports. 5. Yet, with no other reason I can fathom but for malicious reasons,
Intelius and Jones Day filed my letters unredacted. Jones Day comes to the table of this case with a high reputation of professionalism. performed with a school yard bully mentality. 6. Intelius was brought into this suit by actions and statements of the Yet, they have just
Defendants Taitz and Sankey. Taitz and Sankey have published every bit of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
private identifying information about me, that they obtained from the Reed Defendants and Intelius. 7. And, Intelius and their Attorneys with Jones Day do not have the
required, procedural decency to redact personal identifying information in a correspondence I was required procedurally to make. Intelius and their Attorneys with Jones Day's unprofessional, nonprocedural actions have left me overwhelmed with disbelief. 8. Contrary to the statements made in Intelius's Motion to Dismiss
(MTD), I was a customer since December 2008. See my account details attached hereto as EXHIBIT 1. 9. After Intelius was put on notice that their databases and terms and
conditions of use were being violated by their clients, they deleted my account. I attempted to access my account in September 2011, but my account had been deleted by Intelius. With the deletion of my account, Intelius also erased all searches I had conducted. 10. Contrary to Intelius's statements, searches were run on me, my
husband and my children. Neil Sankey stated multiple times he ran searches on me using Intelius as outlined in our First Amended Complaint (FAC).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
11.
Orly Taitz gave sworn testimony to the Orange County Sheriffs
Department she had searches run on me. See Exhibit 16 filed May 20, 2011, Docket No. (DN) 190-4, and in Court filings located in the dockets in this case. 12. I, myself, ran searches on me under my maiden name and my married
name. See EXHIBIT 2. 13. According to Intelius own Terms and Conditions filed as Exhibit
4 of Benjamin Nelsons Declaration, Intelius was required to notify authorities of the misuse by Orly Taitz and Neil Sankey. See Intelius's MTD Docket #380-7 Exhibit 4 paragraph 5 user agreement about contacting authorities for notification of abuse. However, Intelius chose to delete account data instead. 14. Mr. Nelson states in his Declaration that only public information is
provided. As shown by my EXHIBIT 2, my Social Security number appears on my report and my report is specific to me, contrary to Mr. Nelson and Intelius statements that searches are only generic. 15. Mr. Nelson and Intelius also stated they are not consumer reporting
agencies bound by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). I was conducting searches with the United States Security Exchange (SEC) and located Intelius Form S-1 dated October 19, 2009 at the SECs website at
http://ipo.nasdaq.com/edgar_conv_html%5C2009%5C10%5C19%5C000095012309-051082.html. Intelius states on pages 24 and 25 in their report to the SEC:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Because we use personal information in providing our information services, we are subject to government regulation and vulnerable to adverse publicity. We provide many types of data and services that already are subject to regulation under the FCRA, Gramm-LeachBliley Act, Drivers Privacy Protection Act and, to a lesser extent, various other federal, state and local laws and regulations. Violation of these laws or regulations may result in substantial fines, judgments and other penalties. These laws and regulations are designed to protect the privacy of the public and to prevent the misuse of personal information in the marketplace.
16.
Also during my searches, I came across Intelius enterprise agreement
at http://www.intelius.com/enterpriseagreement.php. In this agreement, Intelius states numerous times they are a consumer reporting agency government by the FCRA. 17. Intelius also has that they are a consumer reporting agency in their
Security and compliance located at http://www.intelius.com/corp/security which states: Intelius recognizes the sensitivity surrounding many of its applications and the data they rely on. As such, Intelius' information security policy addresses security at all levels: personnel, technology and operations. Intelius is a certified credit reporting agency. 18. In Intelius TalentWise Agreement located at:
https://www.talentwise.com/terms.html, Intelius states:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DUE TO THE SENSITIVE AND HIGHLY REGULATED NATURE OF THE DATA AND INFORMATION YOU AND YOUR ORGANIZATION WILL GAIN ACCESS TO THROUGH INTELIUS SCREENING SOLUTIONS LLC (d/b/a "TALENTWISE") Intelius Screening Solutions LLC (d/b/a "TalentWise") is a consumer reporting agency and provides consumer reports and investigative consumer reports ("Screening Reports") as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") 19. As can be seen by my attached report, my report contains my Social
Security number and Social Security numbers are not public information or general information for those who share the same name. 20. Mr. Nelson states I was sent a letter in December 2010 informing me
that I would need a Subpoena or Court Order to obtain the individuals who performed searches on me. To date, I have never received a letter from Intelius. And, if a Subpoena or Court Order is required, why did Intelius and Mr. Nelson offer account details pertaining to me and Lisa Liberi ?
I declare under the penalty of perjury of the Laws of the United States and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 23rd day of September, 2011 in the State of New Jersey.
Lisa Ostella, Declarant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT 1
Member Status: Basic lisaostella@hotmail.com [ Sign Out] | My Intelius Help: (888) 445-2727 | View My Reports
Verification Services
Background Check Reverse Phone Lookup Property & Neighborhood
Information Services
People Search Email Search Social Net Search
Protection Services
Reverse Cell Phone Directory Identity Protect Criminal & Sex Offender
Business Services
Employee Screening Tenant Screening All Products & Services
My Intelius
Reports Purchases Account Club Intelius Alerts Help Review your Intelius customer account profile on this secure page. Update payment info, change your pasword, edit your billing address and more below.
Account
Personal Profile
Email Address: lisaostella@hotmail.com Name: Lisa Ostella Company: Member Since: 12-29-2008 Address: 622 Remsen Avenue North Brunswick, NJ 08902
Exb. "1", pg. 8
08902 Phone: (732) 846-2875
Personal Profile
Email Address lisaostella@hotmail.comFirst Name Last Name Phone Number Optional
Company Optional
Address City State Country Zip Code
Edit Personal Profile
Payment Info
Pay By: Credit Card Cardholder Name: Lisa Ostella CC Number: XXXXXXXXXXXX5031 CC Expiration: 08-2009 Billing Address: 622 Remsen Avenue North Brunswick, NJ 08902 United States
Payment Info
Exb. "1", pg. 9
Pay By Cardholder Name First and last name as shown on card
Billing Address Billing City Billing State Billing Zip/Postal Code Billing Country Credit Card Number No spaces or punctuation Credit Card Expiration We accept Visa, MasterCard, Card Security Code (CVV) Discover and American Express What is this? Edit Payment Info
User Preferences
Subscribe to newsletter: Yes | No
Please send me exclusive discounts, coupons, and updates via the e-newsletter.
User Preferences
Change Password
Change Password
Old / Temporary Password
Exb. "1", pg. 10
New Password
Must be at least 8 characters and contain a letter and a number
Re-type New Password Type password again to verify
Change Password Bookmark Intelius | Help | About | Careers | Privacy | Contact Us | FAQ | Terms & Conditions | Site Map | Affiliates | Directory | Volume Discounts 2003-2010 Intelius, Inc.
Exb. "1", pg. 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
EXHIBIT 2
12
Sign In My Intelius View My Reports
<< Return to Home

You have selected the following package
Background Report
Learn more about SSN XXX-XX-2308 & Last Name Ostella with a comprehensive Background Report.
LOCATIONS FOR OSTELLA: RELATIVES OF 2 Addresses in North Brunswick, NJOSTELLA: 1 Address in Belleville, NJ 3 Relatives found 1 Address in Elizabeth City, NC Report includes: (when available) Statewide Criminal Check Sex Offender Check Bankruptcies & Liens Small Claims & Judgments Address History Relatives & Roommates Neighbors Home Value & Details Neighborhood Info Satellite & Map Images Alias Names Much more... View Sample Regular Price
$49.95
Bookmark Intelius | Help | About | Careers | Privacy | Contact Us | FAQ | Terms & Conditions | Site Map | Affiliates | Directory | Volume Discounts 2003-2010 Intelius, Inc.
Exb. "2", pg. 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION : : : Plaintiffs, : : : : : : : Defendants. : : : :
LISA LIBERI, et al, vs. ORLY TAITZ, et al,
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW) PROPOSED ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT INTELIUS, INC.S MOTION TO DISMISS Date of Hearing: October 17, 2011 Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m. Location: Courtroom 10D
ORDER On October ______, 2011, Defendant, Intelius, Inc.s Motion to Dismiss came on for Hearing. The Court having reviewed and considered the moving papers, any Opposition thereto, the records on file with this Court, having heard Oral Argument and for GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED: Defendant, Intelius, Inc.s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED: Dated: October ___, 2011 ______________________________ Andrew J. Guilford Judge of the United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Respectfully submitted by: Philip J. Berg, Esquire E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com Pennsylvania I.D. 9867 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Philip J. Berg, Esquire (PA I.D. 9867) E-mail: philjberg@gmail.com LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Telephone: (610) 825-3134 Fax: (610) 834-7659 Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION LISA LIBERI, et al, vs. ORLY TAITZ, et al, : : : Plaintiffs, : : : : : : Defendants. : :
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 8:11-cv-00485-AG (AJW) PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, hereby certify a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs
Response in Opposition; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declarations of Philip J. Berg, Esquire; Lisa Ostella; Lisa Liberi; Proposed Order; and Certificate of Service to Defendant Intelius, Inc.s Motion to Dismiss were served through the ECF filing system this 24th day of September 2011 upon the following:
Orly Taitz 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suite 100 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Email: orly.taitz@gmail.com and Email: dr_taitz@yahoo.com Served via the ECF Filing System Attorney for Defendant Defend our Freedoms Foundation, Inc.
Liberi, et al Plaintiffs Cert of Svc re Opp to Intelius MTD
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Kim Schumann, Esquire Jeffrey P. Cunningham, Esquire Peter Cook, Esquire SCHUMANN, RALLO & ROSENBERG, LLP 3100 Bristol Street, Suite 400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Email: pcookA@srrlawfirm.com Served via the ECF Filing System Attorney for Defendants Orly Taitz; Orly Taitz, Inc.; and Law Offices of Orly Taitz James F McCabe Morrison & Foerster 425 Market St San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Email: jmccabe@mofo.com Served via the ECF Filing System Attorney for Defendants: Reed Elsevier, Inc. LexisNexis Group, Inc LexisNexis, Inc. LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. LexisNexis Seisint, Inc. LexisNexis Choicepoint, Inc. John A Vogt, Jr., Esquire Edward San Chang, Esquire Jones Day 3161 Michelson Drive Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Email: javogt@jonesday.com Email: echang@jonesday.com Served via the ECF Filing System Attorney for Defendant Intelius, Inc.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Marc Steven Colen, Esq. Law Offices of Marc Steven Colen 5737 Kanan Road, Ste. 347 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Email: mcolen@colenlaw.com Served via the ECF Filing System Attorney for Defendants: Neil Sankey; Todd Sankey; Sankey Investigations, Inc. and The Sankey Firm, Inc. Michael J Niborski, Esquire Pryor Cashman LLP 1801 Century Park East 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Email: mniborski@pryorcashman.com Attorney for Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc.
/s/ Philip J. Berg Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Liberi V Taitz - Plaintiffs Opposition To Intelius MTD Doc 390

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Liberi V Taitz - Plaintiffs Opposition To Intelius MTD Doc 390

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390 #:9217

Filed 09/24/11 Page 1 of 7 Page ID

Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs

vs. ORLY TAITZ, et al,

Liberi, et al, Plaintiffs Opp. To Intelius MTD 09.23.2011

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390 #:9218

Filed 09/24/11 Page 2 of 7 Page ID

Liberi, et al, Plaintiffs Opp. To Intelius MTD 09.23.2011

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390 #:9219

Filed 09/24/11 Page 3 of 7 Page ID

Liberi, et al, Plaintiffs Opp. To Intelius MTD 09.23.2011

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390 #:9220

Filed 09/24/11 Page 4 of 7 Page ID

Defendant Yosef Taitz is the hands-on CEO of Daylight. Mr. Taitz

Liberi, et al, Plaintiffs Opp. To Intelius MTD 09.23.2011

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390 #:9221

Filed 09/24/11 Page 5 of 7 Page ID

Liberi, et al, Plaintiffs Opp. To Intelius MTD 09.23.2011

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390 #:9222

Filed 09/24/11 Page 6 of 7 Page ID

Liberi, et al, Plaintiffs Opp. To Intelius MTD 09.23.2011

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390 #:9223

Filed 09/24/11 Page 7 of 7 Page ID

Plaintiffs Opposition is based upon their Opposition, the attached

Dated: September 23, 2011

/s/ Philip J. Berg Philip J. Berg, Esquire Pennsylvania I.D. 9867

Liberi, et al, Plaintiffs Opp. To Intelius MTD 09.23.2011

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390-1 #:9224

Filed 09/24/11 Page 1 of 8 Page ID

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390-1 #:9225

Filed 09/24/11 Page 2 of 8 Page ID

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390-1 #:9226

Filed 09/24/11 Page 3 of 8 Page ID

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s)

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390-1 #:9227

Filed 09/24/11 Page 4 of 8 Page ID

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued CASES Page(s)

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390-1 #:9228

Filed 09/24/11 Page 5 of 8 Page ID

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued CASES Page(s)

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390-1 #:9229

Filed 09/24/11 Page 6 of 8 Page ID

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued CASES Page(s)

15 U.S.C. 1681g14 15 U.S.C. 1681(h).14

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390-1 #:9230

Filed 09/24/11 Page 7 of 8 Page ID

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued FEDERAL STATUTES Page(s)

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390-1 #:9231

Filed 09/24/11 Page 8 of 8 Page ID

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued MISC. Page(s)

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390-2 #:9232 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Filed 09/24/11 Page 1 of 25 Page ID

Attorney in pro se and for Plaintiffs

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390-2 #:9233 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Filed 09/24/11 Page 2 of 25 Page ID

Benjamin Nelson [Nelson] states he is the Custodian of Records for

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390-2 #:9234 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Filed 09/24/11 Page 3 of 25 Page ID

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390-2 #:9235 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Filed 09/24/11 Page 4 of 25 Page ID

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 390-2 #:9236 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Filed 09/24/11 Page 5 of 25 Page ID

information; and they pertained solely to Liberi herself.