| Save 25% on a pre-paid one year subscription. |
|
|
 45 |
Filed: 3/29/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
Final Report on the Filing or Determination of an Action or Appeal Regarding a Copyright (drb) (Entered: 03/29/2012)
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 44 |
Filed: 3/27/2012, Entered: None |
 |
|
ORDER: This matter is before the Court on 43 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal brought by Plaintiff Openmind Solutions, Inc. ("Openmind"). Under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing... a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Rule 41(a) provides further that "[u]nless the notice... states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). A plaintiff's right to voluntary dismissal by notice before the filing of an answer or a motion for summary judgment is, with a limited exception not pertinent here, "absolute." Crook v. WMC Mortgage Corp., No. 06-cv-535-JPG, 2006 WL 2873439, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 5, 2006) (collecting cases). Moreover, a notice of dismissal "itself closes the file. There is nothing the defendant can do to fan the ashes of that action into life and the court has no role to play. This is a matter of right running to the plaintiff and may not be extinguished or circumscribed by adversary or court." Ward v. Gaetz, Civil No. 10-640-GPM, 2011 WL 977921, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2011) (quoting Scam Instrument Corp. v. Control Data Corp., 458 F.2d 885, 889 (7th Cir. 1972)). See also 9 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Mary Kay Kane & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2363 (3d ed. 1998 & Supp. 2011) (when a notice of dismissal is filed in an action, "[n]o order of the court is required" to dismiss the action and "the district judge may not impose conditions" on the dismissal, because "the notice terminates the action[.]") (collecting cases). In this case, Defendants Does 1-2925, individually and as representatives of a class, have served neither an answer nor a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Openmind's notice of voluntary dismissal is effective to dismiss this case without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this case on the Court's electronic docket. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 3/27/2012. (jhs) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 03/27/2012)
|
|
 Request |
|
|
|
| 43 |
Filed: 3/27/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Openmind Solutions, Inc. (Steele, John) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 42 |
Filed: 2/24/2012, Entered: None |
|
|
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams: Status Conference held on 2/24/2012, John Steele and JoDee Favre for Plaintiff. Discovery still stayed in case.( Status Conference set for 4/2/2012 at 11:00 AM in Telephone Conference before Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams. Instructions for placing the conference call are as follows: Call toll free 888-684-8852; when prompted enter Access Code 6049846; and when prompted enter Security Code 9467.). (Court Reporter n/a.) (anj)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 02/24/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 41 |
Filed: 1/18/2012, Entered: 1/18/2012 |
Notice of Hearing. |
|
NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 2/24/2012 11:30 AM via Telephone Conference before Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams. Instructions for placing the conference call are as follows: Call toll free 888-684-8852; when prompted enter Access Code 6049846; and when prompted enter Security Code 9467.(amv)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 01/18/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 40 |
Filed: 1/18/2012, Entered: 1/18/2012 |
Status Conference |
|
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams: Status Conference held on 1/18/2012. John Steele and JoDee Favre for Plaintiff. Due to the stay of discovery still being in effect, court does not enter scheduling order at this time. Case reset for status conference on 2/24/12 at 11:30 a.m. (Court Reporter n/a.) (amv) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 01/18/2012)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 39 |
Filed: 1/4/2012, Entered: 1/4/2012 |
Notice of Scheduling and Discovery Conference |
|
NOTICE of Scheduling and Discovery Conference: Scheduling/Discovery Conference set for 1/17/2012 at 9:30 AM via Telephone Conference before Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams. (amv) (Entered: 01/04/2012)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 38 |
Filed: 12/2/2011, Entered: 12/2/2011 |
CJRA Track |
|
CJRA TRACK D assigned: Jury Trial set for presumptive month of 7/2013 in East St. Louis Courthouse before Judge G. Patrick Murphy. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 12/2/2011. (lmm) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 37 |
Filed: 10/26/2011, Entered: 10/26/2011 |
Order on Motion to Quash |
|
ORDER denying 24 Motion to Quash. Plaintiff Openmind Solutions, Inc. ("Openmind"), a company that manufactures pornographic video materials and purveys them over the Internet, brings this action against approximately 2,925 "John Doe" Defendants who, Openmind alleges, have pirated Openmind's products online using BitTorrrent, an Internet file-sharing protocol. Openmind alleges that the anonymous Defendants, by pirating Openmind's products, have violated the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., to wit, 17 U.S.C. § 501, prohibiting the unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material. Openmind seeks certification of a defendant class of persons who allegedly have infringed Openmind's copyrights online. Openmind does not know the identities of the members of the proposed class, but seeks to direct subpoenas to various Internet service providers ("ISP"s) in order to discover the identities of the owners of Internet protocol ("IP") addresses for computers that Openmind believes have been involved in the infringement of Openmind's copyrights. It appears that the instant motion to quash is brought both anonymously and pro se by a member of the proposed class whose computer may have been involved in infringing activities. In general, of course, only the person to whom a subpoena has been directed may seek to quash the subpoena, with exceptions not pertinent here. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A); Vogue Instrument Corp. v. Lem Instruments Corp., 41 F.R.D. 346, 348 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (defendants who were neither the persons to whom subpoenas were directed nor in possession or control of the documents sought by subpoenas duces tecum lacked standing to move to quash the subpoenas). Accordingly, the motion to quash is DENIED. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 10/26/2011. (jhs) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 10/26/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 36 |
Filed: 10/26/2011, Entered: 10/26/2011 |
Order on Motion to Dismiss |
|
ORDER denying 23 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Plaintiff Openmind Solutions, Inc. ("Openmind"), a company that manufactures pornographic video materials and purveys them over the Internet, brings this action against approximately 2,925 "John Doe" Defendants who, Openmind alleges, have pirated Openmind's products online using BitTorrrent, an Internet file-sharing protocol. Openmind alleges that the anonymous Defendants, by pirating Openmind's products, have violated the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., to wit, 17 U.S.C. § 501, prohibiting the unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material. Openmind seeks certification of a defendant class of persons who allegedly have infringed Openmind's copyrights online. It appears that the instant motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is brought both anonymously and pro se by a member of the proposed class whose computer may have been involved in infringing activities. In general, of course, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires in a class action that "the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). It is well-settled that adequacy of representation is the quintessence of due process in a class action. See Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 42-43 (1940) ("It is familiar doctrine of the federal courts that members of a class not present as parties to the litigation may be bound by the judgment where they are in fact adequately represented by parties who are present[.]"). Adequate representation exists when a class representative with typical claims or defenses has no conflict of interest with other members of the class, and the court is satisfied that the class action will be vigorously prosecuted. See Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 403 (1975) ("[W]here it is unlikely that segments of the class appellant represents would have interests conflicting with those she has sought to advance, and where the interests of that class have been competently urged at each level of the proceeding, we believe that the test of Rule 23(a) is met."); Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 391 F.2d 555, 562-63 (2d Cir. 1968) (the ingredients of adequate representation in a class action include the existence of representation by an attorney qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the litigation, the elimination of the likelihood that litigants are involved in a collusive suit or that a plaintiff has interests antagonistic to those of the remainder of the class, and the existence in the plaintiff of a claim typical of the claims of the entire class). Thus, a class action may bind absent members of a plaintiff or defendant class with respect to the common issues, consistent with due process principles, if the class is adequately represented: personal jurisdiction is not required over all class members in order to reach a binding decision on the common issues involved when the class has been adequately represented. See Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979) (upholding a national class of recipients of federal government benefits, including persons outside the jurisdiction of the forum court, in a challenge to procedures used to implement a statute authorizing recoupment procedures to recover monies paid in excess of legal entitlements); Hansberry, 311 U.S. at 41-42 ("Courts are not infrequently called upon to proceed with causes in which the number of those interested in the litigation is so great as to make difficult or impossible the joinder of all because some are not within the jurisdiction or because their whereabouts is unknown or where if all were made parties to the suit its continued abatement by the death of some would prevent or unduly delay a decree. In such cases where the interests of those not joined are of the same class as the interests of those who are, and where it is considered that the latter fairly represent the former in the prosecution of the litigation of the issues in which all have a common interest, the court will proceed to a decree."). Accordingly, in this case, assuming the existence of a member of the proposed defendant class who will represent the interests of the class adequately, the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is DENIED. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 10/26/2011. (jhs) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 10/26/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 35 |
Filed: 10/26/2011, Entered: 10/26/2011 |
Order on Motion to Quash |
|
ORDER denying 20 Motion to Quash Subpoena brought by Nancy Waddell. Plaintiff Openmind Solutions, Inc. ("Openmind"), a company that manufactures pornographic video materials and purveys them over the Internet, brings this action against approximately 2,925 "John Doe" Defendants who, Openmind alleges, have pirated Openmind's products online using BitTorrrent, an Internet file-sharing protocol. Openmind alleges that the anonymous Defendants, by pirating Openmind's products, have violated the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., to wit, 17 U.S.C. § 501, prohibiting the unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material. Openmind seeks certification of a defendant class of persons who allegedly have infringed Openmind's copyrights online. Openmind does not know the identities of the members of the proposed class, but seeks to direct subpoenas to various Internet service providers ("ISP"s) in order to discover the identities of the owners of Internet protocol ("IP") addresses for computers that Openmind believes have been involved in the infringement of Openmind's copyrights. It appears that Waddell has been contacted by her ISP about possible use of her computer in infringing activities. Waddell, who is proceeding pro se, has moved to quash the subpoena directed by Openmind to her ISP, arguing that any use of her computer to infringe Openmind's copyrights likely was the work of her son and was done without her knowledge. In general, of course, only the person to whom a subpoena has been directed may seek to quash the subpoena, with exceptions not pertinent here. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A); Vogue Instrument Corp. v. Lem Instruments Corp., 41 F.R.D. 346, 348 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (defendants who were neither the persons to whom subpoenas were directed nor in possession or control of the documents sought by subpoenas duces tecum lacked standing to move to quash the subpoenas). Accordingly, Waddell's motion to quash is DENIED. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 10/26/2011. (jhs) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 10/26/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 34 |
Filed: 10/4/2011, Entered: 10/4/2011 |
Order on Motion to Supplement |
|
ORDER granting 26 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief brought by amicus curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 10/4/2011. (jhs) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 10/04/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 33 |
Filed: 4/25/2011, Entered: 4/25/2011 |
Supplement |
|
SUPPLEMENT by Electronic Frontier Foundation. Regarding Proceeding as a Class Action. (Samuels, Julie) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 32 |
Filed: 4/25/2011, Entered: 4/25/2011 |
Supplement |
|
SUPPLEMENT by Openmind Solutions, Inc.. Supplement to 30 Motion Hearing. (Steele, John) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 31 |
Filed: 4/19/2011, Entered: 4/19/2011 |
Transcript |
|
Transcript of MOTIONS HEARING held on 4/11/2011, before Judge G. Patrick Murphy. Court Reporter Molly Clayton, Telephone number 618.482.9226. NOTICE: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. This policy is located on our website at www.ilsd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/10/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/20/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/18/2011. (mnc) (Entered: 04/19/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 30 |
Filed: 4/11/2011, Entered: 4/11/2011 |
Motion Hearing |
|
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge G. Patrick Murphy: Motion Hearing held on 4/11/2011 re 20 MOTION to Quash filed by Nancy Waddell, 23 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Does 1-2925, 24 MOTION to Quash filed by Does 1-2925, 15 MOTION for Reconsideration re 7 Order on Motion for Discovery. The parties are granted leave to file briefs re proceeding as a class action by 4/25/2011. (Court Reporter Molly Clayton.) (lmm)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 04/11/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 29 |
Filed: 4/11/2011, Entered: 4/11/2011 |
Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice |
|
ORDER granting 28 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Julie P. Samuels on behalf of Electronic Frontier Foundation. (slj) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 04/11/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 28 |
Filed: 4/11/2011, Entered: 4/11/2011 |
Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice |
|
MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Julie P. Samuels by on behalf of Electronic Frontier Foundation. (Fee paid, $100.00, receipt #34625025351) (Samuels, Julie) Modified on 4/11/2011 (slj). (Entered: 04/11/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 27 |
Filed: 4/3/2011, Entered: 4/3/2011 |
Objection |
|
OBJECTION to 26 Motion to Supplement, by Openmind Solutions, Inc.. (Steele, John) (Entered: 04/03/2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 26 |
Filed: 4/1/2011, Entered: 4/1/2011 |
Motion to Supplement |
|
MOTION to Supplement AMICUS CURIAE THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATIONS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF AND PETITION TO TEMPORARILY ENJOIN PLAINTIFF FROM SETTLING WITH DOE DEFENDANTS UNTIL THE COURT HAS RESOLVED THE OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE by Electronic Frontier Foundation. (Mudd, Charles) (Entered: 04/01/2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 25 |
Filed: 3/29/2011, Entered: 3/29/2011 |
Notice of Hearing on Motion |
|
NOTICE of Hearing on 24 MOTION to Quash, 23 MOTION to Dismiss: Motion Hearing set for 4/11/2011 at 02:00 PM in East St. Louis Courthouse before Judge G. Patrick Murphy. (lmm)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 03/29/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 24 |
Filed: 3/28/2011, Entered: 3/29/2011 |
Motion to Quash |
|
MOTION to Quash and/or Vacate Subpoena and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by Does 1-2925. (jdh) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 23 |
Filed: 3/28/2011, Entered: 3/29/2011 |
Motion to Dismiss |
|
MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by Does 1-2925. Responses due by 5/2/2011. (jdh) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 22 |
Filed: 3/25/2011, Entered: 3/25/2011 |
Order |
|
ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY: It is hereby ORDERED that all discovery in this case is STAYED pending resolution of 15 Motion to Reconsider Order on Motion on Discovery brought by Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF") as amicus curiae and 20 Motion to Quash Subpoena brought by Nancy Waddell. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Openmind Solutions, Inc. ("OS"), shall immediately cease to conduct discovery in this case, including issuance of subpoenas to the Internet service providers of members of the proposed class in this case and any other discovery in this case, until such time as EFF's motion and Mrs. Waddell's motion are resolved. Failure by OS or persons acting in concert with OS to comply with this Order shall be punishable by contempt. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 3/25/2011. (jhs) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 03/25/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 21 |
Filed: 3/25/2011, Entered: 3/25/2011 |
Notice of Hearing on Motion |
|
NOTICE of Hearing on 20 MOTION to Quash: Motion Hearing set for 4/11/2011 at 02:00 PM in East St. Louis Courthouse before Judge G. Patrick Murphy. (lmm)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 03/25/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 20 |
Filed: 3/24/2011, Entered: 3/25/2011 |
Motion to Quash |
|
MOTION to Quash Subpoena by Nancy Waddell. (myz) (Entered: 03/25/2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 19 |
Filed: 3/25/2011, Entered: 3/25/2011 |
Notice of Hearing on Motion |
|
NOTICE of Hearing on 15 MOTION for Reconsideration: Motion Hearing SET for 4/11/2011 at 02:00 PM in East St. Louis Courthouse before Judge G. Patrick Murphy. Electronic Frontier Foundation is invited to appear and to argue as a friend of the court amicus curiae.(lmm)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 03/25/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 18 |
Filed: 3/23/2011, Entered: 3/23/2011 |
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion |
|
MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 15 MOTION for Reconsideration re 7 Order on Motion for Discovery BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURTS ORDER GRANTING EARLY DISCOVERY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, OF QUASHING PLAINTIFFS PRE-COMP MOTION for Reconsideration re 7 Order on Motion for Discovery BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURTS ORDER GRANTING EARLY DISCOVERY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, OF QUASHING PLAINTIFFS PRE-COMP filed by Openmind Solutions, Inc.. (Steele, John) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
Filed: 3/23/2011, Entered: 3/23/2011 |
Notice of Deficiencies |
|
NOTICE OF ERRORS AND/OR DEFICIENCIES re 16 Pretrial Memorandum filed by Openmind Solutions, Inc.. See attached document for specifics. (lmt) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 16 |
Filed: 3/22/2011, Entered: 3/22/2011 |
Pretrial Memorandum |
|
Response in Opposition to 12 Notice by Openmind Solutions, Inc.. (Steele, John) Modified on 3/23/2011 (lmt). (Entered: 03/22/2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
Filed: 3/22/2011, Entered: 3/22/2011 |
Motion for Reconsideration |
|
MOTION for Reconsideration re 7 Order on Motion for Discovery BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURTS ORDER GRANTING EARLY DISCOVERY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, OF QUASHING PLAINTIFFS PRE-COMPLAINT SUBPOENAS by Electronic Frontier Foundation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed ISP Notice, # 2 Exhibit Schoen Declaration)(Mudd, Charles) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
Filed: 3/21/2011, Entered: 3/21/2011 |
Order on Motion For Leave to File. |
|
ORDER granting 11 Motion for Leave to Appear as Amicus Curiae brought by Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF"). EFF shall file its proposed brief amicus curiae not later than two (2) days from the date of entry of this Order. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 3/21/2011. (jhs) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 03/21/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 13 |
Filed: 3/16/2011, Entered: 3/16/2011 |
Notice of Deficiencies |
|
NOTICE OF ERRORS AND/OR DEFICIENCIES re 11 Motion for Leave to File, filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation. See attached document for specifics. (lmt) (Entered: 03/16/2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
Filed: 3/15/2011, Entered: 3/15/2011 |
~Notice (other) |
|
NOTICE by Electronic Frontier Foundation AMICUS CURIAE THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATIONS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G)(Mudd, Charles) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
Filed: 3/15/2011, Entered: 3/15/2011 |
Motion for Leave to File |
|
MOTION for Leave to File The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Motion for Leave to Appear as Amicus Curiae by Electronic Frontier Foundation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amicus Brief, # 2 Exhibit ISP Notice, # 3 Exhibit Schoen Declaration)(Mudd, Charles) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
Filed: 3/15/2011, Entered: 3/15/2011 |
Notice of Appearance |
|
NOTICE of Appearance by Charles Lee Mudd, Jr on behalf of Electronic Frontier Foundation (Mudd, Charles) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 9 |
Filed: 2/16/2011, Entered: 2/16/2011 |
~Notice (other) |
|
Report on the Filing of an Action Regarding a Copyright (slj) (Entered: 02/16/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 8 |
Filed: 2/14/2011, Entered: 2/14/2011 |
~Notice (other) |
|
NOTICE by Openmind Solutions, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Attachment, # 2 Exhibit A)(Steele, John) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
Filed: 2/11/2011, Entered: 2/11/2011 |
Order on Motion for Discovery |
|
ORDER granting 3 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on 2/10/11. (amv) (Entered: 02/11/2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
Filed: 2/9/2011, Entered: 2/9/2011 |
Order of Recusal |
|
ORDER OF RECUSAL. Judge William D. Stiehl recused. Case reassigned to Judge G. Patrick Murphy for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge William D. Stiehl on 02/09/11. (jkb) (Entered: 02/09/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 5 |
Filed: 2/7/2011, Entered: 2/7/2011 |
Notice of Appearance |
|
NOTICE of Appearance by John L. Steele on behalf of Openmind Solutions, Inc. (Steele, John) (Entered: 02/07/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 4 |
Filed: 2/2/2011, Entered: 2/2/2011 |
Memorandum in Support of Motion |
|
MEMORANDUM in Support re 3 Ex Parte MOTION for Discovery filed by Openmind Solutions, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Pfister Declaration)(Steele, John) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
Filed: 2/2/2011, Entered: 2/2/2011 |
Motion for Discovery |
|
Ex Parte MOTION for Discovery by Openmind Solutions, Inc.. (Steele, John) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
|
|
| 2 |
Filed: 2/2/2011, Entered: 2/2/2011 |
Complaint |
|
COMPLAINT against Does 1-2925 ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0754-1325211.), filed by Openmind Solutions, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Steele, John) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
Filed: 2/2/2011, Entered: 2/2/2011 |
Case Opened |
|
Case Opened. Documents may now be electronically filed. Case number 11-cv-00092-WDS-SCW must be placed on all documents prior to filing them electronically. (Attachments: # 1 Consent to US Magistrate Judge)(drb) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
|
|
Request |
|
Update
Alerts
Jump