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-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?