Case 3:14-cv-03088-BF Document 149 Filed 03/02/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID 3177

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

DAVID TYLER MOSS

AND
BRANDON KEATING
CIVIL ACTION NO.
Plaintiffs,
Vs. 3:14-CV-03088-M

MARKO PRINCIP,
AND
BRIAN MARTIN

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANT MARTINS RESPONSE

TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL
______________ __AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS____________________

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COME DAVID TYLER MOSS and BRANDON KEATING,

PLAINTIFFS in the above-referenced matter and Movants herein, and bring this

Reply to Defendants Response in Opposition of Motion to Compel Discovery

Responses and Motion for Sanctions, respectively. Plaintiffs bring this motion in

good faith and would show the Court the following:

I. Defendants transfer of the login credentials of the VideoGames

YouTube Channel (Channel) in May of 2016 was necessary and proper to return

Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants Response To Plaintiffs Second Motion to Compel PostJudgment

Discover and Motion for Sanctions.
Page 1
 Case 3:14-cv-03088-BF Document 149 Filed 03/02/17 Page 2 of 8 PageID 3178

control to the rightful majority owners, Plaintiffs. In addition, the Defendants did

so to avoid a second motion for contempt by causing all of the hundreds, if not

thousands of videos uploaded to the Channel being hidden from the public and

violating this Courts admonishment at the end of the trial to not do anything to

harm the Channel.

Post-judgment discovery was served upon Defendant Martin in June 2016

where he not only failed to respond to Plaintiffs discovery requests within 90

days, but failed to respond at all. See Plaintiffs Request for First and Second

Request for Production to Martin, Exhibit A and Plaintiffs Motion to Compel

Discovery and for Sanctions Exhibit B. This court held a hearing on December

7, 2016 on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Post-judgment Request for Production of

Documents and ordered Defendant Martin to answer lawfully requested discovery

on or before December 19th, 2016. [DE No. 137]. Defendant Martins answers

were inadequate, vague and demonstrative of bad faith. See Exhibits C and D.

Plaintiffs have the right to conduct post-judgment discovery and have done

everything pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Defendant Martin continues to engage

in contumacious conduct to impede Plaintiffs lawful attempts to discover relevant

information by refusing to answer honestly and completely to delay lawful

collection upon the judgment entered by this Court. If a party completely fails to

serve answers, objections, or a written response to interrogatories, the court may

Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants Response To Plaintiffs Second Motion to Compel PostJudgment

Discover and Motion for Sanctions.
Page 2
 Case 3:14-cv-03088-BF Document 149 Filed 03/02/17 Page 3 of 8 PageID 3179

order more severe sanctions. Some courts allow for sanctions when the response is

so evasive or misleading that it amounts to no response at all pursuant to FRCP

Rule 37.01 and Coane v. Ferrara Pan Candy Co., 898 F.2d. 1030, 1031 (5th Cir.

1990). Plaintiffs have proven this is the case with Defendant Martin; and, it

continues in his Declaration accompanying his latest response. Martin continues

to imply he was railroaded by this Court and jury only to buy time to hide other

assets, including other YouTube channels, namely FuturisticHub.Com and

TopTrends.com, whose revenue could be used to satisfy this Courts judgment.

II. Martins declaration is a last ditch effort to this Court to willfully refuse

to answer post-judgment discovery. He has not provided the basic financial

information, refusing to provide tax returns, W-2s, 1099s or financial institution(s)

account(s) documents. Martins Declaration is in no way a legitimate response

and his reasons are not based in law nor any defense to not complying with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding discovery.

III. Martin claims his contracts were merely personal service contracts

and he does not own any channels. Further, he insults the Courts intelligence by

claiming he simply accesses the Channel and gets money for it. This is another

falsehood among many proffered by Martin to this Court.

Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants Response To Plaintiffs Second Motion to Compel PostJudgment

Discover and Motion for Sanctions.
Page 3
 Case 3:14-cv-03088-BF Document 149 Filed 03/02/17 Page 4 of 8 PageID 3180

Youtubes Basics about your channel page specifically refers to you as

a channel owner and refers to the channel as your channel over ten times. See

Exhibit E.

Defendant Martin is well known within the YouTube community and uses

PayPal for his transactions. PayPal allows anyone with an email address to

electronically send and/or receive money online for goods or services. One can do

this by using their credit card, bank account or PayPal balance as Mr. Martin does.

This is no different than other debit accounts that Plaintiffs are entitled to receive

discovery responses. PayPal even offers debit cards where users can add multiple

email addresses, debit or credit cards, and bank accounts to their account. To send

and withdraw money, one must add a financial instrument. Martin is adamant

about not opening up a bank account and will not divulge statements from the

accounts and revenue he derives from any Channels, including Futuristichub.com

and TopTrends.com. Therefore, Plaintiffs have had to resort to subpoenaing

PayPals custodian of records to try and uncover what Mr. Martin refuses to

disclose.

When a person truly has no assets and no money to turn over, it makes sense

that they would show the opposing parties everything, to prove there is nothing to

give. However, Martin claims he does not have accounts and does not want to

Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants Response To Plaintiffs Second Motion to Compel PostJudgment

Discover and Motion for Sanctions.
Page 4
 Case 3:14-cv-03088-BF Document 149 Filed 03/02/17 Page 5 of 8 PageID 3181

maintain or produce tax documents for the simple reason that he is hiding his

assets and income sources.

IV. Plaintiffs did not avail themselves of this Courts judicial process to

merely gain access to the logins and passwords. They did so in hopes of

reclaiming their rightful ownership interests and exercising their property rights

and the money that belongs to them. As this Court recalls the trial testimony

Defendant Princip brought Martin into the Channel to reclaim the Channel from

Drew Lovinger, who held the Channel until he was properly compensated for the

work he provided on behalf of the Channel. In return, Princip gave Mr. Martin an

ownership stake in the Channel; and thereafter both Defendants tried to cheat the

Plaintiffs out of their majority interests in the Channel. But for the Defendants

conduct, this litigation would not have ensued. Martin states in his Declaration

that he was acting in good faith and was unaware of the Plaintiffs involvement.

Once Martin learned about the Plaintiffs involvement, he tried to oust both of them

and pretend written documentation showing ownership was fabricated.

Again, recalling the testimony at trial of both Defendants, this Court knows that the

Defendants denied the existence of written and signed partnership agreements and

even attempted to lie to the jury about the authentication and truthfulness of their

own email, Skype chats and text messages to the Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants Response To Plaintiffs Second Motion to Compel PostJudgment

Discover and Motion for Sanctions.
Page 5
 Case 3:14-cv-03088-BF Document 149 Filed 03/02/17 Page 6 of 8 PageID 3182

V. Martin also testified at trial that FuturisticHub.com was his animation

channel and not his wifes. See Exhibit F. Martins wife never created

FuturisticHub.com and never owned the channel prior to the Court entering its

judgment. It is an outright fabrication when he says his wife had any Channel

before their marriage. Thus, any Channels Martin or his wife may have any

interests in are considered community property pursuant to the laws of Texas.

FuturisticHub.com was Martins creation and he could not wait to blend the

Channel with other minecraft channels. FuturisticHub.com was fraudulently

signed over to Martins wife and put into the StyleHaul network after the verdict

to give Martin more time to continue avoiding paying the judgment. See Exhibit

G. The first Channel Agreement for FuturiticHub.com is signed by Brian

Martin and is dated February 2, 2015 with the network Fullscreen, Inc. The second

Channel agreement is signed by Chrissie Martin on July 22, 2016, a month after

Plaintiffs served post-judgment discovery upon Martin. Both reiterate Your

Channel and Your Ownership and Control. Id. Martin lied to Stylehaul by

claiming his wife owned FuturisticHub.com, after realizing that the channel and its

revenue could be seized.

VI. Finally, Martin and his wife have been scamming and causing havoc

in the YouTube world for quite some time as evidenced in a 2012 DailyDot news

article claiming they are the Bonnie and Clyde of YouTube. See Exhibit H.

Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants Response To Plaintiffs Second Motion to Compel PostJudgment

Discover and Motion for Sanctions.
Page 6
 Case 3:14-cv-03088-BF Document 149 Filed 03/02/17 Page 7 of 8 PageID 3183

Plaintiffs ask this Court to hold Respondent Martin in civil contempt,

including incarceration until he is coerced into providing the lawfully requested

post-judgment discovery to either the Plaintiffs counsel or a court appointed

receiver of Martins assets. Martin continues to threaten efficient administration

of justice and appointment of receiver is necessary for Martin to comply with the

federal rules of procedure as well as Plaintiffs rights as judgment creditors. If the

Court declines to hold Martin in contempt and appoint a receiver, the entire

litigation process loses its purpose of resolving legal disputes in an orderly manner.

VII. Movants pray that this Court-

a. grant this motion without the need of any hearing; or in the

alternative set this matter for hearing;

b. issue a capias for the arrest of the Judgment Debtor Martin;

c. ordered the Judgment Debtor Martin to fully, accurately and

completely respond to each and every one of Movants requests for

production and to forward the requested documents, including all

personal and business accounts associated with PayPal, to Movants

attorney of record and the court appointed receiver;

c. Movants be granted reasonable attorney's fees of at least

$3,500.00 incurred in obtaining this Order;

d. Movants be granted a receivership for all separate property and

Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants Response To Plaintiffs Second Motion to Compel PostJudgment

Discover and Motion for Sanctions.
Page 7
 Case 3:14-cv-03088-BF Document 149 Filed 03/02/17 Page 8 of 8 PageID 3184

income that Defendant Martin has any interest in, including but not

limited to his community property interests in property that Martin

claims belongs to his wife; and

e. Movants be granted all further relief to which Movant may be

entitled, including sanctions levied on the Defendant/Respondents or

counsel for same;

Respectfully submitted,

WYDE & ASSOCIATES

By: /s/ Dan L. Wyde

Dan L. Wyde
Texas Bar No. 22095500
E-mail: wydelaw@gmail.com
10100 North Central Expressway, Suite 590
Dallas, Texas 75231
Tel: (214) 521-9100
Fax: (214) 521-9130

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants Response To Plaintiffs Second Motion to Compel PostJudgment

Discover and Motion for Sanctions.
Page 8