AF Holdings LLC v. Harris

Filing 69

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 40 Motion to Compel; denying 44 Motion to Stay; Motion to Quash; Motion for Protective Order; granting 45 Motion to Strike ; denying 46 Motion for Ruling; striking 50 Motion for Sanctions and Show Cause Order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike this Motion; denying 58 Motion to Strike ; granting 61 Motion for Leave to File (please see attached order for complete information). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 6/11/13.(TLJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

AF Holdings, LLC, a St. Kitts and Nevis
limited liability company,

No. CV-12-02144-PHX-GMS
ORDER

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

David Harris,

13

Defendant.

14
15

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas, (Doc.

16

39), Motion to Compel Production of Initial Disclosures from Defendant, (Doc. 40), and

17

Motion to Strike Declaration of John Doe, (Doc. 45); Defendant’s Motion for

18

Sanctions and Show Cause Order, (Doc. 50), and Motion to Strike Response to Order to

19

Show Cause, (Doc. 58); and Non Party Movants’ Motion to Stay Litigation or Discovery,

20

Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum, and Motion for Protective Order, (Doc. 44),

21

Motion for Ruling on Motion to Stay Litigation or Discovery, (Doc. 46), and Motion for

22

Leave to File Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause, (Doc. 61). The Court

23

rules on these Motions as discussed below.

24

As to Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas, (Doc. 39), the Court stated in

25

its previous Order, (Doc. 51), that Plaintiff is required to appear before the Court to show

26

cause why it should not dismiss the case. The Court will defer ruling on Plaintiff’s

27

Motion until such a determination is made. The Court notes that it has provided further

28

questions to which Plaintiff shall be required to respond at the continued hearing.

1

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Initial Disclosures from Defendant

2

Harris, (Doc. 40), is granted as to the requested initial disclosures. Defendant Harris must

3

produce initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The Court denies the

4

requested sanctions but will grant such sanctions up to and including the striking of

5

Defendant’s pleadings and entering default against the Defendant if Defendant further

6

fails to comply with the schedule set out in the Case Management Order, (Doc. 32),

7

and/or to provide the disclosures to Plaintiff.

8

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Declaration of John Doe, (Doc. 45), is granted.

9

As to Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions and Show Cause Order, (Doc. 50), the

10

Motion is stricken for its lack of civility. As this Court previously advised Defendant

11

“this Court requires that Defendant treat it and opposing counsel in a civil manner even if

12

Defendant disagrees with this Court or opposing counsel. Defendant may state the

13

substance of his disagreement without engaging in sarcasm or demeaning terms. To the

14

extent Defendant engages in such motion practice in the future, his motions are subject to

15

being stricken.” (Doc. 38.) While the Court appreciates that there may be derogatory

16

nicknames common in the digital world for those engaged in strategic copyright

17

enforcement like that in which Plaintiff may be engaged, Defendant may not use such

18

derogatory terms in referring to Plaintiff’s Counsel in its motion practice in this Court.

19

Defendant also describes Plaintiff’s activities in terms that are needlessly vulgar. To be

20

sure, the Defendant has a right to be heard in this matter, and the Court desires to allow

21

Defendant to be heard. The Defendant thus may refile his Motion if he wishes to do so,

22

so long as he expurgates the derision, disrespect, and crudity that it currently contains.

23

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Response to Order to Show Cause, (Doc. 58), is also

24

denied. The Court notes that it will not reconsider its holding, (see Doc. 38 at 1), that a

25

copyright assignment that grants “all claims and causes of action of respect to any of the

26

foregoing, whether now known or hereafter to become known,” (see Doc. 1, Ex. B),

27

allows an assignee to sue for past infringement even if that assignee did not hold the

28

copyright at the time of infringement. Further, Defendant’s concerns regarding the
-2-

1

validity of the assignee’s signature on Plaintiff’s copyright assignment shall be

2

considered at the hearing on the Order to Show Cause.

3

As to Non Party Movants’ Motion to Stay Litigation or Discovery, Motion to

4

Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum, and Motion for Protective Order, (Doc. 44), and Motion

5

for Ruling on Motion to Stay Litigation or Discovery, (Doc. 46), the Court will address

6

generally the concerns described therein at the hearing on the Order to Show Cause.

7

Further, the Court has stayed this action pending the determinations made at that hearing.

8

(See Doc. 51 at 2.) Therefore, the Motions are denied as moot. Finally, the Motion for

9

Leave to File Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause, (Doc. 61), is granted.

10

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production

11

of Initial Disclosures from Defendant Harris, (Doc. 40), is granted in part and denied in

12

part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Declaration of

13
14

John Doe, (Doc. 45), is granted.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions and Show

16

Cause Order, (Doc. 50), is stricken. The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike this

17

Motion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike Response to

18
19

Order to Show Cause, (Doc. 58), is denied.

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Non Party Movants’ Motion to

21

Stay Litigation or Discovery, Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum, and Motion for

22

Protective Order, (Doc. 44), is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Non Party Movants’ Motion for Ruling on

23
24

Motion to Stay Litigation or Discovery, (Doc. 46), is denied.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
-3-

1
2
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Non Party Movants’ Motion for Leave to
File Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause, (Doc. 61), is granted.
Dated this 11th day of June, 2013.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-