Gotham City Online, LLC v. Art.com, Inc.

Filing 41

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR HEARING. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on March 11, 2014. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

GOTHAM CITY ONLINE, LLC,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,

No. C 14-00991 JSW

v.

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR
HEARING

ART.COM, INC.,
Defendant.
/

14
15

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

16

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

17

MARCH 12, 2014, AT 10:00 A.M.: The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does

18

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings.

19

If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to

20

notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing

21

and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities,

22

they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only, with reference to pin cites

23

and without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will

24

be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority. The Court

25

suggests that associates or of counsel attorneys who are working on this case be permitted to

26

address some or all of the Court’s questions contained herein.

27
28

1

1.

2
3

Does either party contend that the Court cannot, or should not, resolve the TRO until the
Court resolves the issue of whether BraunHagey should be disqualified?

2.

Gotham City relies on Neal v. Healthnet, Inc., 100 Cal. App. 4th 831 (2002), Fox

4

Searchlight v. Paladino, 89 Cal. App. 4th 294 (2001), and Bell v. 20th Century Ins. Co.,

5

212 Cal. App. 3d 184 (1989) for the proposition that it is not improper for a client to

6

disclose information to his or her counsel in the prosecution of his or her own lawsuit.

7

However, the Principals are not parties to this case, and, notwithstanding the allegations

8

set forth in paragraphs 32-52 of the Complaint, Gotham City’s claims against Art.com

9

do not relate to alleged whistleblowing activity.
a.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Why do those facts not distinguish this case from Neal, Fox Searchlight and
Bell?

12

b.

Similarly, although Gotham City argues that disqualification would not remedy

13

the situation, because the facts at issue are known to the Principals, why would

14

they need to disclose such information to new counsel to prosecute the claims in

15

this case?

16

3.

17

If the Court were to determine that it would need to review the documents to resolve the
disqualification issue, would Art.com be willing to produce them to the Court.

18

4.

Can Art.com attest that it has fully migrated its business from the Gotham Servers?

19

5.

Is Art.com willing and able to provide a declaration that any copies of Gotham City

20
21

property that Art.com copied from the Gotham Servers have been destroyed?
6.

indefinite length to share the space on the Gotham Servers?

22
23

What is Gotham City’s response to Art.com’s argument that the parties had a contract of

7.

In order to obtain a TRO, Gotham City has the burden of showing a “likelihood of

24

irreparable injury – not just a possibility – in order to obtain preliminary relief.” Winter.

25

v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). Gotham City

26

contends that its customers have been subjected to “potential misuse” of their

27

information, and that Art.com can use the information it took to compete with Gotham

28
2

1

City and can misuse the information it acquired. What is Gotham City’s best argument

2

that it has shown that irreparable injury is likely and not merely possible?

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: March 11, 2014
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3