Correspondence from: Marc J. Randazza, Esq. [email protected]

Reply to Las Vegas Office MARC J. RANDAZZA via Email or Fax Licensed to practice in California Nevada April 28, 2014 Arizona Florida Via Email and U.S. Mail RONALD D. GREEN Licensed to practice in [email protected] Nevada

JASON A. FISCHER Senator Lawrence Farnese, Jr. Licensed to practice in Florida Pennsylvania State Senate California U.S. Patent Office 1802 S. Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19145 J. MALCOLM DEVOY Licensed to practice in Nevada Re: Senate Bill 1095 CHRISTOPHER A. HARVEY Licensed to practice in California Dear Senator Farnese:

A. JORDAN RUSHIE Licensed to practice in Pennsylvania I was recently able to attend the Pennsylvania Legislature’s meeting in New Jersey Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on April 24, 2014, and provide testimony regarding D. GILL SPERLEIN your proposed anti-SLAPP law, SB 1095. SLAPPs, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Licensed to practice in California Public Participation, are a problem I have seen not only in Pennsylvania, but throughout the nation. I practice First Amendment law nationally, and my firm ALEX J. SHEPARD Licensed to practice in and I have been active in defending SLAPP suits filed in Pennsylvania, California California, New York, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada. We use anti-SLAPP statutes when they are available, and found them to be to the decisive benefit of

defendants in spurious defamation actions.

www.randazza.com I have attached my curriculum vitae to expand upon my qualifications for discussing Pennsylvania’s proposed anti-SLAPP law. In the course of my firm’s Philadelphia work, we have seen numerous anti-SLAPP statutes that work exceptionally well 2424 East York Street Suite 316 and should be models for other states. Among them are the anti-SLAPP laws of Philadelphia, PA 19125 California, Washington, Oregon, and Nevada. In contrast, there are anti-SLAPP Tel: 215.385.5291 Fax: 215.525.0909 laws that are so narrow and rigid in application that they may as well not exist at all. Illinois’ anti-SLAPP law is an unfortunate example of this. Until October 1, Las Vegas 2013, so too was Nevada’s. I was able to assist Nevada in adopting a new anti- 3625 S. Town Center Dr. Suite 150 SLAPP law that incorporated the best elements of California and Washington’s Las Vegas, NV 89135 laws, and hope to assist Pennsylvania in doing the same. Tel: 702.420.2001 Fax: 305.437.7662 1. Immunity From Suit, Rather Than Mere Immunity From Liability Miami 2 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2600 While SB 1095 grants “immunity” to successful movants, the bill appears to Miami, FL 33131 provide immunity from liability, instead of immunity to suit. This issue was Tel: 888.667.1113 Fax: 305.397.2772 addressed in Englert v. MacDonnell, 551 F.3d 1099, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2009),

San Francisco 345 Grove Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Tele: 415.404.6615 Fax: 415.404.6616

Ltr. Re SB 1095 April 28, 2014 Page 2 of 5

where the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute provided immunity from liability, but not immunity from being sued – as a result, an unsuccessful anti-SLAPP motion could not be appealed until the end of trial. (Oregon has since amended its anti-SLAPP statute, Oregon Revised Statutes § 31.150, to remedy this problem.)

Requiring a case to proceed to the end of trial before a defendant can obtain appellate review is contrary to the purpose of any anti-SLAPP statute. Other states’ anti-SLAPP statutes, including California, Oregon, and Nevada, allow for an immediate appeal of any order denying an anti-SLAPP motion. This ensures that a movant will have appellate review of a trial court’s decision denying their anti-SLAPP motion before being subjected to the expenses of litigation. Adding language to SB 1095 that allows for an expedited interlocutory appeal of any order denying an anti-SLAPP motion will ensure that the law fulfills its true purpose and protects defendants from dubious lawsuits brought in retaliation to exercising their First Amendment rights.

2. Protection For All Speech About Matters of Public Concern – Not Just Petitioning the Government

SB 1095 protects speech “on issues of public interest in connection with enforcement or implementation of government action related to an issue of public interest.” The anti-SLAPP statutes for California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Texas, and the District of Columbia have all embraced broader definitions of the speech covered by the statute, with beneficial results. Restricting the application of SB 1095 to speech in connection with government action severely limits the reach of the proposed anti-SLAPP law, and prevents it from being used in the consumer realm where it is most needed. As written, SB 1095 would not protect an individual sued for posting a true – but critical – review of a restaurant that gave food poisoning to dozens of people on Yelp.1

Broadening the scope of protected speech will allow the anti-SLAPP law to reach its potential and offer protections where they are needed most. Providing protection to speech made to the government is important, but fails to encompass the full range of scope that needs protection from retaliatory and baseless litigation. Adopting a broad interpretation of what speech constitutes a matter of public concern, without limiting it to speech made to petition the government, will ensure that this proposed statute fulfills its intended purpose.

3. Avoid Making the Statute So Strict That it Becomes Unusable

Illinois’ current anti-SLAPP statute, the Citizen Participation Act (“CPA”) has been in effect since 2007, and is confoundingly useless. Like the proposed law in SB 1095, Illinois’ CPA is limited to speech made in connection with advocating to or petitioning the government. Among the CPA’s many shortcomings are its requirements that the speech at issue must be only “genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action,” and the Illinois Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law to not even apply absent evidence that plaintiff brought the suit with an improper intent. Sandholm v. Keuker, 962 N.E. 418 (Ill. 2012). The result of Illinois’ precedent in interpreting the CPA has been to

1 A similar situation recently arose in Las Vegas, where a popular restaurant served tainted meat to dozens of people. If Nevada lacked a robust anti-SLAPP statute, it is likely that the restaurant may have sued its critics without fear of legal consequence – a tactic I have seen used by other large companies and professionals, such as dentists and doctors. Ltr. Re SB 1095 April 28, 2014 Page 3 of 5

make the statute useless. The Illinois Supreme Court’s standards for applying the statute are impossible to meet and, worse, unsupported by the statute. The people of Illinois would be better off without any anti-SLAPP statute – at least then, they could lobby to have one created, rather than be saddled with the useless one they have.

SB 1095 seems to be on the right track in this regard. As mentioned elsewhere in this letter, it is important to make the standard for granting an anti-SLAPP motion as easy as possible, without any inquiry into the plaintiff or defendant’s intent. As seen in Illinois, any such inquiry can be used to render the anti-SLAPP statute completely useless. To ensure that the statute is useful, the inquiry should be kept as simple as possible: If the underlying conduct is a valid exercise of First Amendment freedoms, and the plaintiff cannot show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in the action, the anti- SLAPP motion is granted. This test is found in the anti-SLAPP statutes for California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and Texas. Such a standard dispenses with any subjective inquiries that can be used to significantly change and undermine the anti-SLAPP statute’s application. While SB 1095 comes close to this goal, an effective anti-SLAPP statute is dependent on simplicity and ease of implementation.

4. SB 1095 Should Include Mandatory Fee-Shifting and Statutory Minimum Damages

As written, SB 1095 provides trial courts with the discretion, but not the obligation, to award damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party. This is inconsistent with other anti-SLAPP statutes and does not go far enough. California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Texas, and the District of Columbia all require an award of attorneys’ fees and costs in favor of a successful movant. Some states go above and beyond mere fee-shifting: Washington requires an award of $10,000 in favor of a successful anti-SLAPP movant, R.C.W. 4.24.525(6)(a)(ii), while Nevada allows a court to award up to $10,000 in damages in favor of a successful movant under NRS 41.670(1)(b).

The reason for making these damages mandatory is twofold. First, requiring a plaintiff who files meritless litigation in order to suppress First Amendment-protected expression will discourage such undesirable lawsuits. By having an effective anti-SLAPP statute, the problem of abusive litigation in retaliation against public participation will cure itself – potential plaintiffs will fear the financial cost of having their own action dismissed. (To say nothing of the obloquy.) Second, requiring a plaintiff to pay the costs and fees for a successful motion will incentivize defendants to bring these motions, and incentivize attorneys to represent these defendants. In states such as California, where an award of costs and fees is mandatory, skilled attorneys compete to represent defendants in SLAPP suits. Such a result is a boon for the public, the courts, and the legal profession.

In contrast, refusing to require courts to award costs and attorney’s fees to a successful anti-SLAPP movant is a double disincentive. Plaintiffs who would file SLAPP suits will face no consequences for their action. Defendants with limited resources would have no chance of a meaningful victory in their case, and no chance of recovering the substantial costs and fees necessary to defend themselves. A lack of any expected remuneration certainly would dissuade counsel from making a significant time commitment to represent SLAPP defendants.

In short, an anti-SLAPP statute without mandatory fee shifting merely reinforces the status quo. SB 1095 requires only a small modification to make the shifting of costs and fees mandatory. By Ltr. Re SB 1095 April 28, 2014 Page 4 of 5

requiring the plaintiff to pay the costs and fees to a successful movant – and potentially other damages as well, as Washington and Nevada have allowed – Pennsylvania can pass an anti-SLAPP law with teeth.

5. SLAPP-Back Provisions Are Needed to Ensure the Anti-SLAPP Statute is Not Abused

Like the judicial system itself, anti-SLAPP statutes have a potential to be abused. States with robust anti-SLAPP statutes have protected against this potentiality by enacting “SLAPP-back” statutes that require an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against movants who bring frivolous or vexatious anti- SLAPP motions. The purpose of these SLAPP-back statutes is to prevent the abuse of anti-SLAPP statutes – a problem that, if ever realized, could lead to a state’s repeal of these indispensable laws.

States that have adopted SLAPP-back statutes have not had reason to repeal or amend their anti- SLAPP statutes. These states include California, Cal. Civ. P. Code § 425.17, Washington, R.C.W. 4.525(6)(b), and Nevada, NRS 41.670(2). Each SLAPP-back statute is particular to that state’s anti- SLAPP statute. However, the common factor among all of them is a mandatory award of attorney’s fees and costs to a plaintiff that must oppose a frivolous or vexatious anti-SLAPP motion. The fact that an anti-SLAPP motion fails is not enough to trigger a SLAPP-back provision. Instead, SLAPP- back statutes exist, and have been an effective check against, the abusive and unsupportable use of anti-SLAPP statutes simply to disrupt litigation. By setting forth a penalty for the law’s misuse, Pennsylvania can ensure its anti-SLAPP statute will be available, unabridged, when the public needs it.

6. Making the Statute Retroactively Effective Will Clear Court Dockets of Unsupportable Lawsuits

The passage of SB 1095 and adoption into law will not, on its own, remedy the number of SLAPP suits pending in Pennsylvania. However, adding language making the statute retroactively effective may allow for defendants to quickly dismiss SLAPP suits against them that were pending before SB 1095 went into effect. While the passage of SB 1095 as written will affect lawsuits filed after its passage, the bill will not address SLAPP suits currently on dockets throughout Pennsylvania. Making the law retroactive, however, will allow defendants to file anti-SLAPP motions in their cases regardless of their current stage. Because of the law’s requirements for speedy decisions on such motions, pending SLAPP suits would be quickly dismissed. Like most states where I am involved in litigation, Pennsylvania’s courts likely would breathe a collective sigh of relief upon being relieved of any portion of their caseload.

7. The Law and Its Legislative History Should Call for Courts to Examine the Case Law of California, Washington, and Oregon in Interpreting the Statute

Throughout this letter, I have made numerous references to the anti-SLAPP laws of California, Washington, Oregon, Texas, and Nevada. These states have some of the oldest (Washington, California) and most effective (Oregon, Texas, Nevada) anti-SLAPP statutes in the nation. There is no federal anti-SLAPP statute. Thus, the states must act as incubators for democratic ideals for their own citizens, which other states may adopt as they see fit.

Ltr. Re SB 1095 April 28, 2014 Page 5 of 5

In enacting an anti-SLAPP statute, Pennsylvania need not reinvent the wheel. While SB 1095 is not a carbon copy of any other state’s anti-SLAPP statute – and nor should it be – Pennsylvania’s courts may derive their interpretation of the statute by looking to other states that have successfully implemented robust anti-SLAPP statutes. The clearest way to guide Pennsylvania’s courts is to include language in SB 1095 that the law is enacted in the spirit of anti-SLAPP laws passed in these other states, and should be interpreted in the same manner those states’ courts have viewed their own anti-SLAPP statutes.

At minimum, the legislative history for SB 1095 should be clear that this law is intended to provide Pennsylvanians’ First Amendment rights with protections analogous to those available to Californians, Nevadans, Washingtonians and Oregonians. A clear expression of this intent would be useful in instructing Pennsylvania’s courts as to the anti-SLAPP statute’s purpose, and the proper lens for interpreting it. Without expressing this intent, Pennsylvania’s anti-SLAPP statute may end up of little value to those whom it was intended to protect, as is the case in Illinois.

This letter sets forth many suggestions for SB 1095. I believe that the bill, as written, would be of significant benefit to Pennsylvanians. Based on my experience, though, I believe that small, thoughtful changes can bring SB 1095 into line with the small minority of states with meaningful anti-SLAPP statutes. I believe it is not coincidental that states with strong anti-SLAPP statutes have strong and burgeoning technology and information economies. While such a law is not sufficient to grow an Internet-based economy, it is an indispensable part of protecting companies like Facebook, , Yelp, Avvo, and innumerable other start-ups from litigation designed to punish First Amendment-protected speech.

I would be happy to assist you in any way I can regarding SB 1095. Please contact me or my colleague, A. Jordan Rushie, if you have any questions. I would look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

Marc J. Randazza

cc: Sen. Stewart Greenleaf 711 York Road Willow Grove, PA 19090 [email protected]

Encl. Text of Nevada Senate Bill 286 as enrolled Curriculum Vitae

Senate Bill No. 286–Senators Jones, Segerblom, Kihuen; and Ford

CHAPTER......

AN ACT relating to civil actions; providing immunity from civil action for certain claims based on the right to petition and the right to free speech under certain circumstances; establishing the burden of proof for a special motion to dismiss; providing for the interlocutory appeal from an order denying a special motion to dismiss; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

Legislative Counsel’s Digest: Existing law establishes certain provisions to deter frivolous or vexatious lawsuits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, commonly known as “SLAPP lawsuits”). (Chapter 387, Statutes of Nevada 1997, p. 1363; NRS 41.635- 41.670) A SLAPP lawsuit is characterized as a meritless suit filed primarily to discourage the named defendant’s exercise of First Amendment rights. “The hallmark of a SLAPP lawsuit is that it is filed to obtain a financial advantage over one’s adversary by increasing litigation costs until the adversary’s case is weakened or abandoned.” (Metabolic Research, Inc. v. Ferrell, 693 F.3d 795, 796 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012)) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the provisions of NRS concerning such lawsuits only protect communications made directly to a governmental agency. The Ninth Circuit also held that, as written, these provisions of NRS provide protection from liability but not from trial. That distinction, when coupled with the lack of an express statutory right to an interlocutory appeal, led the court to conclude that these provisions of NRS do not provide for an immediate appeal of an order denying a special motion to dismiss a SLAPP lawsuit. (Metabolic, at 802) Existing law provides that a person who engages in good faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition is immune from civil liability for claims based upon that communication. (NRS 41.650) Section 2 of this bill expands the scope of that immunity by providing that a person who exercises the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern is also immune from any civil action for claims based upon that communication. Existing law defines certain communications, for purposes of statutory provisions concerning SLAPP lawsuits, as communications made by a person in connection with certain governmental actions, officers, employees or entities. (NRS 41.637) Section 1 of this bill includes within the meaning of such communications those that are made in direct connection with an issue of public interest in a place open to the public or in a public forum. Section 3 of this bill establishes the burden of proof for a dismissal by special motion of a SLAPP lawsuit. Section 3 reduces from 30 days to 7 judicial days the time within which a court must rule on a special motion to dismiss. Existing law requires, under certain circumstances, an award of reasonable costs and attorney’s fees to the person against whom a SLAPP lawsuit was brought if a court grants a special motion to dismiss. (NRS 41.670) Section 4 of this bill authorizes, in addition to an award of costs and attorney’s fees, an award of up to $10,000 if a special motion to dismiss is granted. Section 4 also provides that if a court finds that a special motion to dismiss was frivolous or vexatious, the court shall award the prevailing party reasonable costs and attorney’s fees and may award

-

– 2 – an amount of up to $10,000 and any such additional relief as the court deems proper to punish and deter the filing of frivolous or vexatious motions.

EXPLANATION – Matter in bolded italics is new; matter between brackets [omitted material] is material to be omitted.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. NRS 41.637 is hereby amended to read as follows: 41.637 “Good faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition [”] or the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern” means any: 1. Communication that is aimed at procuring any governmental or electoral action, result or outcome; 2. Communication of information or a complaint to a Legislator, officer or employee of the Federal Government, this state or a political subdivision of this state, regarding a matter reasonably of concern to the respective governmental entity; [or] 3. Written or oral statement made in direct connection with an issue under consideration by a legislative, executive or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law [,] ; or 4. Communication made in direct connection with an issue of public interest in a place open to the public or in a public forum, which is truthful or is made without knowledge of its falsehood. Sec. 2. NRS 41.650 is hereby amended to read as follows: 41.650 A person who engages in a good faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition or the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern is immune from any civil [liability] action for claims based upon the communication. Sec. 3. NRS 41.660 is hereby amended to read as follows: 41.660 1. If an action is brought against a person based upon a good faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition [:] or the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern: (a) The person against whom the action is brought may file a special motion to dismiss; and (b) The Attorney General or the chief legal officer or attorney of a political subdivision of this State may defend or otherwise support the person against whom the action is brought. If the Attorney General or the chief legal officer or attorney of a political subdivision has a conflict of interest in, or is otherwise disqualified from, defending or otherwise supporting the person, the Attorney General or the chief legal officer or attorney of a political

-

– 3 – subdivision may employ special counsel to defend or otherwise support the person. 2. A special motion to dismiss must be filed within 60 days after service of the complaint, which period may be extended by the court for good cause shown. 3. If a special motion to dismiss is filed pursuant to subsection 2, the court shall: (a) [Treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment;] Determine whether the moving party has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claim is based upon a good faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition or the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern; (b) If the court determines that the moving party has met the burden pursuant to paragraph (a), determine whether the plaintiff has established by clear and convincing evidence a probability of prevailing on the claim; (c) If the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability of prevailing on the claim pursuant to paragraph (b), ensure that such determination will not: (1) Be admitted into evidence at any later stage of the underlying action or subsequent proceeding; or (2) Affect the burden of proof that is applied in the underlying action or subsequent proceeding; (d) Consider such evidence, written or oral, by witnesses or affidavits, as may be material in making a determination pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b); (e) Stay discovery pending: (1) A ruling by the court on the motion; and (2) The disposition of any appeal from the ruling on the motion; and [(c)] (f) Rule on the motion within [30] 7 judicial days after the motion is [filed.] served upon the plaintiff. 4. If the court dismisses the action pursuant to a special motion to dismiss filed pursuant to subsection 2, the dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits. Sec. 4. NRS 41.670 is hereby amended to read as follows: 41.670 1. If the court grants a special motion to dismiss filed pursuant to NRS 41.660: [1.] (a) The court shall award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees to the person against whom the action was brought, except that the court shall award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees to this State or to the appropriate political subdivision of this State if the

-

– 4 –

Attorney General, the chief legal officer or attorney of the political subdivision or special counsel provided the defense for the person pursuant to NRS 41.660. [2.] (b) The court may award, in addition to reasonable costs and attorney’s fees awarded pursuant to paragraph (a), an amount of up to $10,000 to the person against whom the action was brought. (c) The person against whom the action is brought may bring a separate action to recover: [(a)] (1) Compensatory damages; [(b)] (2) Punitive damages; and [(c)] (3) Attorney’s fees and costs of bringing the separate action. 2. If the court denies a special motion to dismiss filed pursuant to NRS 41.660 and finds that the motion was frivolous or vexatious, the court shall award to the prevailing party reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred in responding to the motion. 3. In addition to reasonable costs and attorney’s fees awarded pursuant to subsection 2, the court may award: (a) An amount of up to $10,000; and (b) Any such additional relief as the court deems proper to punish and deter the filing of frivolous or vexatious motions. 4. If the court denies the special motion to dismiss filed pursuant to NRS 41.660, an interlocutory appeal lies to the Supreme Court.

20 ~~~~~ 13

-

MARC JOHN RANDAZZA 3625 South Town Center Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89135 CURRICULUM VITAE 888.667.1113 [email protected]

Education LEGUM MAGISTER (LLM) UNIVERSITÀ DI TORINO FACOLTÀ DI GIURISPRUDENZA – 2014 International Intellectual Property Law

MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATION (MAMC) UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA - 2003 Focus on research in media studies, branding, public relations, and advertising as well as publication and teaching in First Amendment studies

JURIS DOCTOR (JD) GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER - 2000 Focus on First Amendment and media law

BACHELOR OF ARTS IN (BA) UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS - 1994 with honors Focus on media law studies

Legal Practice RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, Managing Partner Experience July 2009 to Present • Litigation and Appellate Responsibilities o First Amendment litigation in federal and state courts Trademark and copyright infringement litigation in federal court o o Defamation litigation in federal and state courts

o Appellate practice in state and federal appellate courts o Domain name disputes under the UDRP • Transactional Responsibilities o Providing advice to clients on First Amendment, copyright, trademark, domain name law, internet law, and entertainment law o Trademark registration practice o Negotiating and drafting intellectual property agreements including right of publicity transactions, non-competition agreements, and trade secret protection agreements

o Drafting online affiliate agreements, terms & conditions, and privacy policies

o Providing advice on state and federal regulatory matters

WESTON, GARROU, WALTERS & MOONEY, Partner July 2004 to July 2009 • Litigation and Appellate Responsibilities o First Amendment litigation in federal and state courts o Trademark and copyright infringement litigation in federal court o Defamation litigation in federal and state courts Appellate practice in state and federal appellate courts o o Domain name disputes under the UDRP

o Domain name disputes before international bodies outside of the UDRP

MARC JOHN RANDAZZA• 2

• Transactional Responsibilities o Trademark registration practice o Negotiating and drafting intellectual property agreements including right of publicity transactions, non-competition agreements, and trade secret protection agreements

o Drafting online affiliate agreements, terms & conditions, and privacy policies

o Drafting website reviews for clients to assist in intellectual property protection, litigation avoidance, and compliance with federal law

BECKER & POLIAKOFF, P.A., Associate January 2003 – June 2004 • Media/First Amendment practice o Provided pre-publication review, and libel defense counsel to publications o Handled zoning and First Amendment issues o Advised clients on FCC regulations o Advised clients on copyright issues • Real estate/corporate/community association practice o Corporate counsel to condominium, cooperative, and homeowners associations as well as country clubs and timeshare developments o Assisted clients with resolution of construction defect, maintenance, and covenant enforcement disputes

Clerkships RYDIN & CARLSTEN AVOKATBYRÅ AB, Summer Associate Stockholm, Sweden, Summer 1999 • Researched and wrote memoranda for the firm’s intellectual property law practice • Second-chaired a case in the International Court of Arbitration resulting in a $2.8 million verdict in a commercial dispute

SUPREME COURT OF VERMONT, Judicial Law Clerk Montpelier, Vermont, Summer 1998 • Wrote memoranda of law for Justice Denise Johnson • Wrote two draft opinions that were later adopted and published by the Supreme Court • Attended weekly meetings to discuss cases with the justices of the Supreme Court

Teaching Experience BARRY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Adjunct Professor of Law Orlando, Florida, August 2006 to May 2009

Courses Taught: • Trademark Law, 2006 – 2009 • Entertainment Law, 2007 – 2009 • First Amendment Law, 2007 – 2009 • Copyright Law, 2006 – 2007 • Sports Law, Summer 2007

Additional activities and Responsibilities: • Served as a supervised research advisor to multiple students for First Amendment and intellectual property research • Assisted with First Amendment moot court competition MARC JOHN RANDAZZA• 3

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, Research and Teaching Fellowship Gainesville, Florida, August 2000 - May 2002 • Taught classes on media law, including coverage of copyright, trademark, obscenity, libel, campaign finance, and constitutional law • Assisted in the production of a media law case book • Conducted legal research and writing for publication in various law journals

Admitted To Practice States Massachusetts (2002) Florida (2003) California (2010) Arizona (2010) Nevada (2012)

Federal Courts United States Supreme Court 1st Circuit Court of Appeals 6th Circuit Court of Appeals 7th Circuit Court of Appeals 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 10th Circuit Court of Appeals 11th Circuit Court of Appeals U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. District Court - District of Arizona U.S. District Court - Northern District of California U.S. District Court - Eastern District of California U.S. District Court - Central District of California U.S. District Court - Southern District of California U.S. District Court - District of Colorado U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida U.S. District Court - Northern District of Florida U.S. District Court - Southern District of Florida U.S. District Court - Northern District of Ohio U.S. District Court - District of Massachusetts U.S. District Court - Eastern District of Michigan U.S. District Court - District of Nevada U.S. District Court - Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court - Eastern District of Wisconsin

MARC JOHN RANDAZZA• 4

Law Review & Bar • Freedom of Expression and Morality-Based Impediments to the Enforcement of Journal Publications Intellectual Property Rights, PENDING PUBLICATION (2014) • Nevada’s New Anti-SLAPP Law: The Silver State Sets the Gold Standard, NEVADA LAWYER (OCT. 2013) • The Need for a Unified and Cohesive National Anti-SLAPP Law, OREGON LAW REVIEW, 91 OR. L. REV. 627 (2013) • Gambling in America’s Senior Communities, 8 MARQUETTE ELDER LAW ADVISOR 343 (2007) (co-authored with Daniel Russell) • The Florida Supreme Court Dulls the Edge of Rule 1.420(e), 80 FLA. BAR J. 39 (2006) • Condo Casino! Gambling in Florida Community Associations, 79 FLA. BAR J. 8 (2005) • The Other Election Controversy of Y2K: Core First Amendment Values and High-Tech Political Coalitions, 82 WASH. U. L. Q. 143 (2004) • Getting to Yes With Terrorists,2002 L. Rev. M.S.U.-D.C.L. 823. (Mich. State L. Rev) • Breaking Duverger's Law is not Illegal: Strategic Voting, the Internet and the 2000 Presidential Election, 2001 UCLA J. L. TECH. 6. (2001) • The Constitutionality of Online Vote Swapping, 34 Loyola L.A. L. Rev. 1297 (2001)

Other Legal • Copyright Ruling May have Implications for Adult Industry, XBiz, March 1, 2014 Publications • Reversal of Fortune in Taiwan for Porn Producers, XBiz, February 25, 2014 • The Case for Relocating Porn Production to Las Vegas, XBiz, August 6, 2012 • Chick-fil-A and Free Speech, CNN, July 31, 2012 • It’s Un-American to Silence Rush Limbaugh, CNN, March 12, 2012 • Malign Neglect, Adult Video News, January 2012 • Challenging the Copyrightability of Porn, XBiz, January 2012 • Are You Guilty If Pirates Use Your Internet? Lawyer says YES, TorrentFreak, Aug. 6, 2011 • XXX Revenue Reporting?, XBIZ WORLD, June 2010 • Standard Deviation: What’s Obscene in an Online World?, ADULT VIDEO NEWS, Feb. 2010 • A Domain by Any Other Name…, ADULT VIDEO NEWS, Dec. 2008 • 2257 Regs a Boon to Patriotic Adult Film Producers, ADULT VIDEO NEWS, Jun 2005 • Foreign Content and Section 2257, XBIZ, Jun. 2005 • Republicans Save US Jobs (unwittingly), XBIZ, May 2005 • Commentary for Congress, ADULT VIDEO NEWS, March 2005 • Kiffmeyer – Too Partisan for the Job? MINN. LAW & POLITICS, Summer 2004 • Copyright and the Clubhouse, CONDO MANAGEMENT, Nov. 2003 • Character Counts: Defamation Law for Community Associations, COMMUNITY UPDATE, Jan 2003 • Copyright Issues for Free Fall Photographers, SKYDIVING MAGAZINE, Oct. 2003 • Neither is a Fish or a Bird (the Prisco Decision), 25 ACTIONLINE 4 (2003) • Satellite Dishes and Community Associations, CONDO MANAGEMENT (2003) • The Forgotten Electoral Controversy, INTERMEDIA, April 2001

Television & Radio • Democracy Now!, Discussing the Steubenville Rape Case, February 2013 Guest Appearances • CNN, Discussing the Steubenville Rape Case, February 2013 • Reason TV, Discussing Steubenville Rape Case, February 2013 MARC JOHN RANDAZZA• 5

• MSNBC, Crime, Inc, Discussing Copyright Law, Aug. 29, 2012 • KSNV, NBC Las Vegas, Internet providers turn to attorneys to protect content, July 25, 2012 • NBC Bay Area, Porn Copyright Trolls, July 3, 2012 • National Public Radio, On the Media, Combating “Bad” Speech with More Speech, April 6, 2012 • KLAS-TV, Economic Diversity By Legalizing Marijuana, March 26, 2012 • Nevada Public Radio, State of Nevada, The End of Righthaven, March 22, 2012 • Michael Savage, First Amendment Attorney Speaks About , March 14, 2012 • Cyber Law and Business Report, Randazza, Righthaven and Roger Williams, Dec. 21, 2011 • National Public Radio, Congress Weighs Law Against Some Lawsuits, April 2, 2010 • National Public Radio, Cyber Harassment and the Law, March 3, 2009 • Fox 35 Orlando, Kids Can’t Play Outside Condos, March 3, 2009 • Fox 35 Orlando, New Year’s Festivities and the Law, Dec. 30, 2008 • Fox 35 Orlando, Teacher to Blame Hormones, Nov. 19, 2008 • Fox 35 Orlando, Target Mis-prices Car Seats, Nov. 18, 2008 • Lisa Macci’s The Justice Hour: Discussing new Sex Laws and the theory of Intentional Sex Torts, Jul. 14, 2008 • The Curtis Sliwa Show, WABC, New York, discussing the Bauer v. Wikipedia defamation case, and Section 230. Jul. 1, 2008 • Lisa Macci’s The Justice Hour: Discussing the Connection Distribution case and Section 2257, May 5, 2008 • , Fox and Friends: The First Amendment and the “Lyrical Terrorist,” Nov. 10, 2007 • Fox News, Fox and Friends: Discussing Bradenton High School “Body Painting” Issue, Oct. 18, 2007 • Lisa Macci’s The Justice Hour: SLAPP suits and attorney ethics, Jul. 2, 2007 • Fox News, Fox and Friends: Discussing Don Imus’ Comments about the Rutgers’ Basketball Team, Apr. 10, 2007 • Lisa Macci’s The Justice Hour: Restrictions on attorney speech, Jan. 22, 2007 • CNBC: On the Money, Discussing online gambling and prosecutions, Jan. 16, 2007 • Domain Masters: Discussing domain law, gaming law, and First Amendment law with Monte Cahn. Dec. 22, 2006 • Bess Kargman, “Blogsuits” What Effect will Libel Threat Have on the Blogosphere?, Oct. 23, 2006 • Fox News, The Lineup: Video Games and the First Amendment, Sept. 30, 2006 • Fox News, The Lineup: First Amendment and Prisons, Sept. 9, 2006 • Fox News, Heartland with John Kasich: First Amendment Issues and Public Schools, Dec. 30, 2005 • Fox News, Dayside: Commentary on Church-State Issues, Nov. 9, • Fox News, Heartland with John Kasich: Commentary on Separation of Church and State, Oct. 15, 2005 • Fox News, Live: Commentary and Debate on Online Vote Pairing, Oct. 17, 2004 • Bob Frantz Show: News/Talk 1370: Discussing Election Law Issues. Oct. 10, 2004

MARC JOHN RANDAZZA• 6

Quotes and • Revenge Porn Site Operators Ordered To Pay Woman $385k, C|Net, March 19, 2014 Interviews in • UGotPosted Operators Ordered to Pay $385k, XBiz Newswire, March 18, 2014 Newspapers, • 9th Circuit May Stay Youtube Takedown Decision, XBiz Newswire, March 10, 2014 Magazines, and other • Bloggers Get 1st Amendment Protections in Defamation Suits, XBiz Newswire, Publications January 17, 2014 • Randazza Completes IP Law Masters Program in Italy, XBiz Newswire, December 31, 2013 • BangBros Subpoenas Over Online Ad, XBiz Newswire, October 18, 2013 • UGotPosted Operators Hit With Another Lawsuit, XBiz Newswire July 30, 2013 • Craig Brittain Says He Is Retiring From Revenge Porn, Shutters 2 Sites, XBiz Newswire, June 10, 2013 • Revenge Porn Site UGotPosted.com Accused of Violating 2257, XBiz Newswire, May 31, 2013 • Copyright Troll Righthaven Finally, Completely Dead, Ars Technica, May 9, 2013 • $40M Suit Alleges BadBoyReport “Scraped” Content, XBiz Newswire, May 7, 2013 • FSC Panel Discussion Saturday in Las Vegas, XBiz Newswire, April 26, 2013 • AdultWoot.com Ordered Transferred to Amazon’s Woot.com Dvision, April 18, 2013 • Phoenix Forum Hums with Activity on Day 2, XBiz Newswire, April 5, 2013 • Revenge Porn Site Founder Loses $250k Defamation Suite, Ars Technica, March 10, 2013 • Remember Righthaven? On Appeal, Copyright Troll Looks Just As Bad, Ars Technica, February 6, 2013 • Corbin Fisher Sues Oron.com Cloud Storage Service, AVN Media Network, June 21, 2012 • The Righthaven Experiment: A Journalist Wonders If A Copyright Troll Was Right to Sue Him, ABA Journal, April 23, 2012 • Poll: Porn Industry Split Over Government Anti-Piracy Role, XBiz, March 15, 2012 • U.S. Judge Strips Interests From Copyright Enforcer, The Wausau Daily Herald, March 15, 2012 • R-J Copyrights to be Auctioned Following Righthaven’s Collapse, Vegas Inc., March 14, 2012 • Hushing Rush Isn’t a Good Idea, The Worcester Telegram and Gazette, March 13, 2012 • Call Off the Attacks, The Augusta Chronicle, March 13, 2012 • Industry Attorney Marc Randazza Defends Rush Limbaugh in CNN Op-Ed, XBiz, March 12, 2012 • Righthaven Criticized for Missing Hearing and Briefing Deadline, Vegas Inc., March 6, 2012 • Judge Strips Righthaven of Rights to 278 Copyrights and Its Trademark, Vegas Inc., March 5, 2012 • UMass Amherst: Alumni Spotlight, Feb. 19, 2012 • Yes! Yes! Yes! Could an LA Condom Ordinance Push Pornsters Out of SoCal and Drive Some Naughty Business Our Way?, Las Vegas City Life, Jan. 27, 2012 • Marc Randazza: First Amendment Attorney, Las Vegas City Life, Jan. 27, 2012 • Megaupload Shut Down, Operators Changed, XBiz, Jan. 20, 2012 MARC JOHN RANDAZZA• 7

• Condoms in Porn: Moving Industry Out of State Could Be Difficult, LA Times, Jan. 19, 2012 • Righthaven Actually Shows up to Court, Whines About “Scorched Earth” Tactics Against It, TechDirt, Jan. 13, 2012 • XBiz LA’s Day 1 Delivers Daily Seminar, Robust Speed Networking, XBiz, Jan. 11, 2012 • Hit By Defendant Judgment, Copyright Troll Righthaven Decries “Scorched Earth”’ Effort to Collect, ABA Journal, Jan. 10, 2012 • Righthaven Complains about ‘Scorched Earth’ Efforts to Enforce Judgment, Vegas Inc., Jan. 9, 2012 • Gay Fetish Filmmaker Found Not Guilty of Obscenity in UK, XBiz, Jan. 6, 2012 • Righthaven Defendant Frustrated Again in Debt Collection, Vegas Inc., Jan. 6, 2012 • PIPA is the New SOPA, San Diego City Beat, Jan. 4, 2012 • The Watch List, San Diego City Beat, Jan. 4, 2012 • Tube Site Operator Must Pay $990K, Judge Says, XBiz, Dec. 28, 2011 • Auction of Righthaven Domain Underway, Vegas Inc., Dec. 26, 2011 • Dismantling of Righthaven Seems Underway with Loss of Website, Vegas Inc., Dec. 22, 2011 • Twitter Stalker is Free to Tweet, Federal Judge Rules, Dec. 20, 2011 • XBiz Top 50 Industry Newsmakers of 2011, XBiz World Magazine, Dec. 20, 2011 • Court Asked to Step in after Righthaven Refuses to Comply with Auction, Vegas Inc., Dec. 20, 2011 • Online Criticism Sparks Real World Defamation Lawsuit, The Sarasota Herald- Tribune, Dec. 18, 2011 • Can Righthaven Survive Latest Legal Blow?, Las Vegas Sun, Dec. 13, 2011 • Music, Book Industries May Back Righthaven, Vegas Inc., Dec. 4, 2011 • Copyright Infringement Defendants Turn the Table on Righthaven, PBS MediaShift, Dec. 1, 2011 • Attorneys Seek to Auction Righthaven Copyrights, Vegas Inc., Nov. 14, 2011 • Attorneys Seek to Examine Righthaven CEO about Company Finances, Vegas Inc., Nov. 7, 2011 • Marshals Ordered to Seize Righthaven Assets, Vegas Inc., Nov. 1, 2011 • Defense Attorneys Hit Righthaven with Sanctions Motion, Vegas Inc., Oct. 26, 2011 • Invasion of the Body Searchers, The New Zealand Herald, Sept. 30, 2011 • Copyright Troll’s Assets Targeted for Seizure, Wired, Sept. 19, 2011 • Copyright Troll Righthaven Goes on Life Support, Wired, Sept. 7, 2011 • Miami Heat Minority Owner Ranaan Katz Sues an Anonymous Blogger, Miami NewTimes News, Aug. 25, 2011 • Corbin Fisher Awarded Porn BitTorrent Judgment, June 15, 2011 • Bloggers Mull Legal Action Against Righthaven, Wired, June 15, 2011 • Legal Sues Publisher to Invalidate Trademarks on “BigLaw” and “SmallLaw,” ABA Journal, March 22, 2011 • Corbin Fisher Identifies PornILove Pirate, XBiz, March 16, 2011 • Busting Campus Myths, The Massachusetts Daily Collegian, March 10, 2011 • National Bloggers’ Group Intervenes in Copyright Lawsuit Campaign, Las Vegas Sun, February 23, 2011 • Lampoontang Appeals Trademark Rejection, XBiz, February 16, 2011 MARC JOHN RANDAZZA• 8

• Righthaven Files First Judgment Motion, Demands Cash and Domain Name, Las Vegas Sun, February 12, 2011 • Congressmen Call for Aggressive Porn Prosecutions, XBiz, February 11, 2011 • The Geek Kings of Smut, New York Magazine, February 7, 2011 • Top Attorneys Focus on Legal Landscape at XBIZ LA, XBiz, February 7, 2011 • Corbin Fisher Sues Hotfile, John Does for Copyright Infringement, AVN, January 18, 2011 • Is Suing End Users a Good Idea?, AVN, January 10, 2011 • Record $250K Porn File-Sharing Settlement Reached, XBiz, January 5, 2011 • Legal Attack Dog Sicked on Websites Accused of Violating R-J Copyrights, Las Vegas Sun, August 4, 2010 • Some targets of Righthaven lawsuits fighting back, Las Vegas Sun, August 4, 2010 • Corbin Fisher receives $1.75 Million Judgment in eBay Piracy Case, AVN, June 10, 2010 • NORML Settles Copyright Case With Righthaven After Rare Strategic Maneuver, Online Media Daily, June 8, 2010 • Reposting Stories Is Like Grand Theft Auto? Really?, The Daily Online Examiner, June 3, 2010 • More and More Lawsuits Over Rants on the Web That Blast Businesses, ABA Law Journal, June 1, 2010 • Venting Online, Consumers Can Find Themselves in Court, The New York Times, May 31, 2010 • These Go To 11: Righthaven Files Yet More Copyright Lawsuits, Online Media Daily, May 7, 2010 • $29M Infringement Suit Waged by 3 Gay Adult Studios, XBiz, March 29, 2010 • Web Site Barred From Quick Release of New Ratings, Wall Street Journal, March 18, 2010 • SOB Stories, Business TN, Jan/Feb 2010 • Corbin Fisher wins $990,000 Judgment Against eBay Pirate, AVN, February 10, 2010 • Corbin Fisher Wins $990,000 Judgment Against Alleged Pirate, XBiz, February 9, 2010 • Ohio Scores Limited Victory In Attempts to Halt Web Porn, AVN, Jan. 28, 2010 • Fly, Meet Sledgehammer, San Diego CityBeat, Jan. 26, 2010 • DudeVu Disappears from Web After Piracy Suit Is Filed, XBiz, Jan. 8, 2010 • Attorney Representing Disgruntled Customer Fires Back in Twitter, Facebook Dispute, TC Palm, Dec. 28, 2009 • Corbin Fisher Takes a Stand with the FCC, AVN, Dec. 15, 2009 • Corbin Fisher Calls Out Religious Group Over Lambert Complaint, XBiz, Dec. 14, 2009 • Corbin Fisher Sues eBay Sellers for Content Piracy, AVN, Dec. 14, 2009 • Corbin Fisher Sues Alleged Pirates Who Sold DVDs on eBay, XBiz, Dec. 10, 2009 • Marc Randazza: his Profane, Pornographic, Anti-Glenn Beck World, Bitter Lawyer, December 7, 2009 • Corbin Fisher’s Steamy Offer to Levi Johnston Gets Close Look, XBiz, Dec. 4, 2009 • Lawyer Earns Fan Club For Exposing Glenn Beck as ‘The Idiot He Is’, The Hollywood Reporter Esq., Nov. 11, 2009 • WIPO Sides With “Glenn Beck and Murdered a Girl” Site, AVN, November 10, 2009 MARC JOHN RANDAZZA• 9

• Breaking: Jones v. Minkin Dismissed!!!, Above The Law, November 4, 2009 • Law graduates settle suit, Yale Daily News, October 23, 2009 • Corbin Fisher, Hunkfest Settle Copyright-Infringement Lawsuit, AVN, October 9, 2009 • Corbin Fisher Settles Infringement Suit With Hunkfest, XBiz, October 9, 2009 • Corbin Fisher Taps Marc Randazza to Lead Anti-Piracy Efforts, AVN, July 23, 2009 • Critics say bill denies some sexual freedom, Boston Globe, April 26, 2009 • Slimed Online, Conde Nast Portfolio, March 2009 • 22-Year-Old Sells Virginity Online — and Feds Can’t Do a Thing to Stop Her, Fox News Online, January 15, 2009 • Absurd Links Lawsuit Could Unravel Web, Daily Online Examiner, October 7, 2008 • Who’s to Blame for Bill O’Reilly Hack?, Datamation, Sept. 24, 2008 • California seeks compensation for posting laws online, Washington Times, Sept. 15, 2008 • Experts: SIUE shooting threat case will test First Amendment, St. Clair County Journal, Sep. 10, 2008 • Juicy Campus Web site faces opposition from UF officials, Florida Alligator, Aug. 7, 2008 • Lawyers to name defendants in AutoAdmit case, Yale Daily News, Jul. 31, 2008 • Yale Students’ Lawsuit Unmasks Anonymous Trolls, Opens Pandora’s Box, WIRED, Jul. 30, 2008 • Oregon claims state law copyrighted, The Washington Times, Apr. 19, 2008 • Lawyers, artists the world over are captivated by case, Fort Myers News-Press, Apr. 12, 2008 • Operation MBI Shame, Orlando Weekly, Oct. 18, 2007 • Classic hustler caught in net scam, Las Vegas Sun, Sept. 12, 2007 • SLAPP Happy, Orlando Weekly, Aug. 9, 2007 • Towering Rage, Luxury condo developers up the ante with critics, Broward New Times, Jul. 26, 2007 • Case Dismissed, Bay Windows, Jul. 12, 2007 • Kink.com Appeals URL Deemed ‘Obscene’, XBiz World, Jul. 2007 at 16. • The F-Bomb, Orlando Weekly, Jun. 7, 2007 • Dredging opponent claims developer sent him intimidation letter, Naples News, Apr. 20, 2007 • Resident turns tables on developer with countersuit, Orlando Sentinel, Apr. 7, 2007 • Lawsuit Seeks to Block Blogger: Orlando Sentinel, Sep. 5, 2006 • Morality Battle Carries On: Tampa Tribune, Aug. 17, 2006 • ‘Intelligent design’ case to undergo 2-pronged test: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Oct. 2, 2005 • Plan for ‘Adult’ Store Draws Residents’ Fire: Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville) Jan. 8, 2005 • Swap the Vote: Orlando Weekly, Oct. 24, 2004 • I’ll Vote Nader If You Vote Kerry: East Bay Express (California), Sep. 29, 2004 • BACK NEWS: Network World, Sep. 27, 2004 • Kerry backers seek Nader vote exchange: Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee), Sep. 22, 2004

MARC JOHN RANDAZZA• 10

Online Only Sources • Miami Heat Owner Sues Blogger and Google Over ‘Unflattering’ Photo, TechDirt, June 25, 2012 • What Gives Them the Right to Frisk Henry Kissinger?, Huffington Post, May 21, 2012 • The Practice: A Lawyer to Emulate, Marc Randazza, Above the Law, March 19, 2012 • Can You Be Sued for Simply Watching and Illegal Video Stream?, TorrentFreak, March 17, 2012 • Marc Randazza Driving the White Caddy, Unwashed Advocate, March 16, 2012 • Rick Santorum vs. Marc Randazza: A Dichotomy of Zealotry, Nobody’s Business, March 15, 2012 • The Time I Unleashed Marc Randazza on the ABA, Corporate Tool, March 15, 2012 • Marc Randazza, Hero, Simple Justice, March 15, 2012 • Marc Randazza: Why I Went to Law School, Philly Law Blog, March 15, 2012 • Marc Randazza: The Mark of Excellence, Declarations and Exclusions, March 15, 2012 • Marc Randazza: It’s UnAmerican to Silence Rush Limbaugh, MensNewsDaily.com, March 15, 2012 • Righthaven is No More! It has Gone to Its Maker!, Citizen Media Law Project, March 15, 2012 • Marc Randazza: 1st Amendment Lawyer Exemplar, Associate’s Mind, March 15, 2012 • Marc Randazza’s Fun, Effective, Entertaining Legal Writing, Lawyerist.com, March 15, 2012 • Marc Randazza: First Amendment Bad Ass, Popehat, March 15, 2012 • Marc Randazza: Super Lawyer, Super Blogger?, New York Personal Injury Blog, March 15, 2012 • Marc Randazza Would Support Me, Right?, Defrosting Cold Cases, March 15, 2012 • Rush Limbaugh: Gaining Support After Libs Go Too Far, Gather.com, March 13, 2012 • Judge Orders Failed Copyright Troll to Forfeit All Copyrights, Wired, March 13, 2012 • Should Sandra Fluke Sue Rush Limbaugh?, Huffington Post, March 5, 2012 • Copyright Lawsuit Targets Owners of Non-Secure Wireless Networks, ComputerWorld, Feb. 6, 2012 • Righthaven Now Pays Tribute to Content Creators, WebProNews, Jan. 26, 2012 • New Righthaven to Offer Hosting with a Backbone, TechDirt, Jan. 26, 2012 • New Righthaven Offer Hosting with a Spine, BoingBoing, Jan. 23, 2012 • Righthaven Actually Shows up to Court, Whines About “Scorched Earth” Tactics Against It, TechDirt, Jan. 13, 2012 • Righthaven Fails to Show Up as Ordered, TechDirt, Jan. 6, 2012 • Randazza Files for Contempt of Court Against Righthaven, TechDirt, Jan. 3, 2012 • Righthaven Files Emergency Motion to Keep Its Assets, TechDirt, Dec. 30, 2011 • Copyright Troll’s Domain Name Auction to Pay Legal Fees, Wired.com, Dec. 27, 2011 • Private Actors are Biggest Threat to Free Speech, Crime & Federalism, Dec. 26, 2011 • Who Want to Own Righthaven.com?, TechDirt, Dec. 22, 2011 • Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He’ll Go Away, TechDirt, Dec. 22, 2011 • Standing Up for Eroding Civil Liberties, Pravada, Dec. 21, 2011 • Defendant Asks U.S. Marshal to Drag Defeated Righthaven to Court, Ars Technica, MARC JOHN RANDAZZA• 11

Dec. 20, 2011 • It’s Official: RIAA Trying to Join Righthaven Lawsuit, TechDirt, Dec. 5, 2011 • Fail: RIAA Plans to Join Righthaven Copyright Trolls, TorrentFreak, Dec. 5, 2011 • If At First You Fail In Suing A Blogger For Defamation Over His Description Of You Shooting Two Dogs, Try, Try Again, TechDirt, Nov. 21, 2011 • Randazza seeking sanctions against Righthaven lawyer for going through charade yet again, TechDirt, Nov. 16, 2011 • District Court Permits Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Claim to Proceed Despite National Arbitration Decision Ordering Transfer of Domain to Defendant, Pattishall IP Blog, Nov. 3, 2011 • District Court Denies Motion to Dismiss on Reverse Hijacking Claim, The Technology & Marketing Blog, Oct. 31, 2011 • Judge Administers Another Beatdown to P2P Lawyer, Severs Cases, Ars Technica, April 4, 2011 • Porn Producer Fights “Biased” Trademark Rejection, YNOT, February 18, 2011 • Gay Porn Studio ‘Takes a Pounding’ From Pirates, Offers Second Amnesty Deal, South Florida Gay News, February 15, 2011 • Pirates Accepting Corbin Fischer’s “Amnesty” Offer, YNOT, January 28, 2011 • Gay Porn’s P2P “Amnesty”: Cough Up $1,000 And You Won’t Be Sued, Ars Technica, January 2011 • The Good War: Porn v. Piracy, YNOT, December 7, 2010 • A Domain by Any Other Name…, AVN Online, December 1, 2008 • Absurd Links Lawsuit Could Unravel Web, Daily Online Examiner, Oct. 7, 2008 • Woman Sentenced for Web Site With ‘obscene’ Stories, PC World, Aug. 7, 2008 • 3rd Circuit won’t create new category of unprotected speech, Freedom Forum First Amendment Center, Aug. 1, 2008 • Supreme’s Nod to Guns Could be a Boon to Free Speech, XBiz, Jul. 1, 2008 • US Law Aims to Catch Up With Tech - and Misses, eCommerce Times, Jun. 23, 2008 • Kink.com Appeals URL Deemed ‘Obscene’, XBiz, Jun. 11, 2007 • Patent Office Refuses Porn Site Trademark Due To ‘Obscenity’, AVNOnline, Jun. 11, 2007 • Microsoft Sues Cybersquatters, Raises Awareness, Xbiz, Mar. 14, 2007 • Legal Experts Look Closely at New 2257 Regs, Xbiz, May 25, 2005

Speaking • Above The Law Attorney@Blog Conference. Lectured on copyright, trademark, Engagements defamation, and general Internet issues to numerous attorneys and members, March 2014, New York, NY. • First Amendment Lawyers’ Association. Lectured on updates in defamation law and related litigation in prominent cases across the country, July 2013, Philadelphia, PA. • Nevada Legislative Session 2013. Drafted, lobbied, and successfully argued for the passage of a revised anti-SLAPP statute in Nevada and revision to proposed human trafficking law with potential First Amendment implications for production of adult entertainment, May 2013, Carson City, NV. • Libertarian Party of Nevada Convention. Lectured on freedom of expression and First Amendment matters, including the rights of the adult entertainment industry, April 2013, Las Vegas, NV. • First Amendment Lawyers’ Association. Lectured on updates, development, and MARC JOHN RANDAZZA• 12

application on Anti-SLAPP statutes and defamation cases across the country, February 2013, New Orleans, LA. • First Amendment Lawyers’ Association. Lectured on updates, development, and application on Anti-SLAPP statutes across the country, July 2012, Chicago, IL. • CineKink Film Festival. Lectured on First Amendment and intellectual property issues in the adult entertainment industry, June 2012, Las Vegas, NV. • American Intellectual Property Law Association. Lectured on updates, development, and application on Anti-SLAPP statutes across the country, Spring Meeting 2012, Austin, TX. • First Amendment Lawyers’ Association. Lectured on updates, development, and application on Anti-SLAPP statutes across the country, February 2012, San Diego, CA. • First Amendment Lawyers’ Association. Lectured on issues in BitTorrent litigation, July 2011, Minneapolis, MN. • First Amendment Lawyers’ Association. Lectured on copyright litigation and the errors present in current anti-piracy litigation models, February 2011, Washington, D.C. • XBIZ LA Conference. Lectured on intellectual property law and piracy litigation issues, February 2011, Los Angeles, CA • InterNext Conference. Participated in panel discussion concerning online adult entertainment issues, focusing on antipiracy litigation trends and strategies, January 2011, Las Vegas, NV • First Amendment Lawyers’ Association. Lectured on the intersection of intellectual property law and free speech, February 2010, San Antonio, TX • International Trademark Association. Table topics leader, May 2010, Boston, MA • First Amendment Lawyers’ Association. Lectured on the intersection of intellectual property law and free speech, July 2009, Vancouver, BC • First Amendment Lawyers’ Association. Lectured on the intersection of intellectual property law and free speech, February 2009, New Orleans, LA • Adult Entertainment Expo. Lectured on intellectual property, brand management, free speech issues and section 2257, January 2009, Las Vegas, NV • First Amendment Lawyers’ Association. Lectured on U.S. trademark law and domain name disputes, July 2008, San Francisco, CA • Seminole County Inns of Court. Lectured judges and lawyers on defamation law issues, February 10, 2008, Orlando, FL • The International Institute of Communications Annual Meeting. Lectured on US media law to an audience of international businesspeople, government officials, and academics. October 1-4, 2001, Singapore • Friedrich Ebert Stiftung and Nanyang Technological University Conference on “Media, Civil Society and Good Governance in Southeast Asia.” Lectured on media law in the post-September 11th United States. November 7-9, 2001, Singapore • Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) southeast colloquium. Lectured on Internet law. March 8-10, 2001, Columbia, SC

Professional First Amendment Lawyers Association Organizations International Trademark Association