Despite a tough sanctions order last month, embattled porn troll Prenda Law and the attorneys linked to it—with one exception—are not giving up. They're doubling down and preparing for appeal, despite the fact they've had to post a bond of more than $100,000 in case they lose.

But that's not nearly enough, argues the defense lawyer who won that case, Morgan Pietz. In a motion filed earlier this week, he asked for the Prenda lawyers to be forced to pay more than twice that—a total of $237,583.66. That includes the $81,000 and change that Wright ordered Prenda to pay, as well as interest (calculated at 10 percent per year in California) as well as the costs of defending individual appeals filed by each of the various Prenda parties.

In copyright cases, it's fairly common for defendants to be able to collect attorneys' fees. As this week's motion shows, Pietz intends to get them, both at the district court level and on appeal.

Yesterday, Wright granted an order giving Pietz the exact fee structure he asked for, and adding some non-monetary conditions, as well. For example, the check must be payable to John Doe or The Pietz Law Firm; and the bond is to be made "joint and several," so that if any of the Prenda parties fail to pay, the bond can kick in.

Talk appeals costs ends up in Paul Duffy’s “spam” folder

One of the reasons why Pietz got exactly the increase he asked for this week may be Prenda's erratic communications.

As part of his motion asking for the increased bond, Pietz filed an e-mail chain between himself and Prenda lawyer Paul Duffy as an exhibit. On May 22, Pietz sent an e-mail to Paul Duffy, Paul Hansmeier, John Steele, and Brett Gibbs, asking, "[W]ere you planning on complying with the court's order, and, if so, when? ... [T]otal radio silence on your part suggests that perhaps you are not taking the Court's orders as to payment of the fee award very seriously." If they intended to comply, Pietz asked them to "please respond to my substantive points, below, ASAP." The points Pietz was referring to laid out his argument for why the more expensive bond was needed.

"You had no substantive points," responded Duffy. "If you think of some and can articulate them coherently I would be glad to consider them. Thanks for thinking of me."

"Mr. Duffy (I assume I am talking to Paul Duffy, anyway): Simply, that is not a helpful comment," responded Pietz.

To which Duffy wrote back almost an hour later with what appears to be a fake auto-reply:

Thanks for your message Sir/Madam! Unfortunately, due to your inappropriate language and messages, which are within the access of my young children, I must place you in my "spam" filter. Unfortunately, I delete such messages without reading them. I wish you a speedy recovery, and make it a GREAT day!

As Pietz noted in his filing, the reply includes all the cc'd addresses from the original e-mail, and was sent 45 minutes after Pietz wrote. Both suggest Duffy had to have written out the "spam filter" e-mail by hand.