From: Paul Sieminski

Subject: Response to Subpoena to Automattic, Inc. Date: March 8, 2013 2:39:47 PM PST

To: paduffy@wefightpiracy.com Re: Prenda Law, Inc. v. Paul A. Godfread, Alan Cooper, et al.

Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, Case No. 13-L-75 Mr. Duffy: I write in response to Prenda Law, Inc.’s subpoena to Automattic, Inc. (“Automattic”) (relating to the WordPress.com sites dietrolldie.com and fightcopyrighttrolls.com). Your subpoena is legally deficient and objectionable for numerous reasons, enumerated below, and Automattic will not produce any documents in response to this subpoena. First, the subpoena purports to relate to an action pending in Illinois, but in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) Sections 2029.350 and 2029.390, it is not on the proper form for a subpoena for production of business records in action pending outside of California and it fails to attach a true and correct copy of the Illinois subpoena. Indeed, the form served on Automattic is for appearance at a trial or hearing, and in violation of the instructions of the subpoena, you direct Automattic to serve documents to your office and not to the clerk of the court as required.

Second, the subpoena purports to require production of business records in Chicago, Illinois, in violation of CCP Section 2025.250.

Third, the subpoena was issued in Marin County, when the discovery is to be conducted in San Francisco County, in violation of CCP Section 2029.350(b)(4).

Fourth, the subpoena was issued on February 22, 2013, yet you demand compliance by March 4, 2013, in violation of CCP Section 2020.410, which requires a minimum of 20 days to respond following the issuance of the subpoena.

Fifth, the subpoena improperly asks Automattic to create a document and to supply information, rather than properly asking for documents from a nonparty. In addition to the numerous legal deficiencies that render the subpoena invalid, it is also objectionable on numerous fronts. First, it seeks information protected by the First Amendment, including rights under the First Amendment to anonymous speech.

Second, it violates the right to privacy under the California Constitution and common law, in that it seeks information relating to the websites that consumers visited.

Third, it is facially (and outrageously) overly broad, in that it is not limited to information related to any alleged defamatory posts, but instead seeks the identity of any person who ever read the blogs in question.

Finally, it seeks information that is not likely to lead to discoverable information, for the reasons enumerated above. Please contact me should you have any questions or concerns. A copy of this message will also follow by US Mail. Paul Sieminski

General Counsel

Automattic Inc. | WordPress.com