Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc.

Filing 63

Memorandum in Opposition re 62 MOTION for Leave to File Sur Reply and to Strike --DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY -- filed byGoDaddy.com, Inc.. (Slafsky, John) (Filed on 9/7/2010)

Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc.

Doc. 63

1 2 3 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

JOHN L. SLAFSKY, State Bar No. 195513 DAVID H. KRAMER, State Bar No. 168452 HOLLIS BETH HIRE, State Bar No. 203651 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant GODADDY.COM, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD, Plaintiff, vs. GODADDY.COM, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO: 09-CV-5939 PJH DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY DATE: September 8, 2010 TIME: 9:00 a.m. JUDGE: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton

4098536_2

DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 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

At the eleventh hour, Plaintiff Petroliam Nasional Berhad ("Plaintiff") has filed a Motion to Strike and for Leave to File Sur-Reply in opposition to Defendant GoDaddy.com's ("Go Daddy's") motion for judgment on the pleadings and for attorneys' fees ("Plaintiff's Motion," filed at 10:30 a.m. today, September 7, 2010). Plaintiff's Motion is without merit and should be denied. Plaintiff's Motion claims that Defendant GoDaddy.com, Inc. ("Go Daddy") made new arguments in its Reply, filed nearly two weeks ago on August 25, 2010. In fact, Go Daddy did not make any new arguments in its Reply, but rather responded to fundamental arguments that Plaintiff made in its opposition. Indeed, the very first sentence in Plaintiff's opposition states that Go Daddy's motion relies on the allegedly "incorrect assertion" that Plaintiff's claims are "based on GoDaddy's actions as the registrar of the cybersquatting domain name [sic]." See Plaintiff's Opposition at 1. Plaintiff's opposition re-states this argument repeatedly. Go Daddy's reply merely addresses this argument, and each of the underlying points, in turn. Such a response is the very purpose of a reply brief. In addition, Plaintiff's Motion is based on a false premise ­ that Go Daddy did not raise the argument in the first instance. On the contrary, Go Daddy argued in its Motion ­ on nearly every page ­ that Plaintiff has failed to state any claim against Go Daddy because Go Daddy was merely the registrar of the Domain Name. Go Daddy also argued in its opening brief that Plaintiff has not stated a claim for contributory cybersquatting. Plaintiff was hardly without notice of Go Daddy's basic position ­ that Go Daddy was merely performing the routing function of a registrar and therefore not liable for the claims in the Complaint ­ when it drafted its Opposition. For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion should be denied. Dated: September 7, 2010 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation By: /s/ John L. Slafsky John L. Slafsky David E. Kramer Hollis Beth Hire .

Attorneys for Defendant GODADDY.COM, INC. -2DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH
4098536_2