A federal judge in Los Angeles has suggested serious penalties for Brett Gibbs, an attorney at porn copyright trolling firm Prenda Law. Facing allegations of fraud and identity theft, Gibbs will be required to explain himself at a March 11 hearing. And if Judge Otis Wright isn't satisfied with his answers, he may face fines and even jail time.

The identity theft allegations emerged late last year, when a Minnesota man named Alan Cooper told a Minnesota court he suspected Prenda Law named him as the CEO of two litigious offshore holding companies without his permission. Worried about exposing himself to potential liability for the firms' misconduct, Cooper asked the court to investigate the situation. Cooper's letter was spotted by Morgan Pietz, an attorney who represents "John Doe" defendants in California. He notified Judge Wright of the allegations.

Rather than addressing Cooper's concerns, Prenda stonewalled. When Judge Wright became interested in the identity theft issue, the firm tried to get him taken off the case. That request was rebuffed by the courts, and now Prenda is running out of options.

Under the heading "Fraud on the Court," Judge Wright notes in a Thursday order that Prenda "faces a few problems" if the identity theft allegations are true. "First, with an invalid assignment, Plaintiff has no standing in these cases. Second, by bringing these cases, Plaintiff’s conduct can be considered vexatious, as these cases were filed for a facially improper purpose. And third, the Court will not idle while Plaintiff defrauds this institution."

The March 11 hearing in Wright's courtroom will effectively be a miniature trial on Prenda's conduct. Judge Wright has invited Pietz to "present evidence concerning the conduct outlined in this order." Prenda's Brett Gibbs will then be given an "opportunity to justify his conduct." Judge Wright will also "welcome the appearance of Alan Cooper—to either confirm or refute the fraud allegations."

Once all the evidence is in, Judge Wright will decide what kind of punishment, if any, is appropriate. The options include "a monetary fine, incarceration, or other sanctions sufficient to deter future misconduct. Failure by Mr. Gibbs to appear will result in the automatic imposition of sanctions along with the immediate issuance of a bench warrant for contempt," Judge Wright writes.

Is there a "pubescent male in the house?"

In addition to the Alan Cooper issue, Judge Wright is concerned about the slipshod way Prenda identifies defendants. When a household has multiple members, Prenda evidently decides who to sue based on statistical guesswork. "For example," Prenda wrote in one court filing, "if the subscriber is 75 years old, or the subscriber is female, it is statistically quite unlikely that the subscriber was the infringer."

Judge Wright is unimpressed by this methodology: "The Court interprets this to mean: if the subscriber is 75 years old or female, then Plaintiff looks to see if there is a pubescent male in the house; and if so, he is named as the defendant. Plaintiff’s 'factual analysis' cannot be characterized as anything more than a hunch."

According to Judge Wright, Prenda has failed to provide any hard evidence that the individual defendants it has named were responsible for the illicit downloads. The firm did nothing to rule out "other members of the household; family guests; or, the next door neighbor who may be leeching from the [defendant's] Internet access."

In Judge Wright's view, Prenda should have done more to establish the defendant's identity. For example, Prenda could have sent someone to visit the defendant's house to observe whether it has an open Wi-Fi connection. It could have checked whether the same IP address downloaded infringing videos on other days to rule out a transient houseguest. And "an old-fashioned stakeout may be in order: the presence of persons within the subscriber’s home may be correlated with tracking data."

But Prenda didn't do any of that. Judge Wright concludes that filing a lawsuit based on such flimsy "evidence" is a violation of the court's rules. Plaintiffs are expected to have "evidentiary support" for their charges; a "rumor or hunch" doesn't cut it. Yet in Wright's view, Prenda's practice of assuming that teenage boys are always responsible for infringing downloads amounts to just that.

Gibbs has an opportunity to submit a written brief defending himself on February 19. Then, in early March, he'll have to hop on a plane to appear in Judge Wright's Los Angeles courtroom to explain his actions.