Coupons, Inc. v. Stottlemire

Filing 136

ORDER by Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting #125 Motion to Stay (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2009)

Download PDF
Coupons, Inc. v. Stottlemire Doc. 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION COUPONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. JOHN STOTTLEMIRE, Defendant. / Plaintiff Coupons, Inc. ("Coupons") offers online, printable coupons to consumers. The coupons are protected by a security feature that places a registry key on each computer when a coupon is printed. The key limits the number of coupons that computer can print. In the instant case, plaintiff alleges that defendant (1) discovered how to remove the registry key, (2) created software that removed the key, and (3) provided the method and the software to others. This permitted printing of an unlimited number of coupons, and allegedly, violated 17 U.S.C. §1201(a) and §1201(b) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and various state laws. Pro se defendant John Stottlemire moved to dismiss the complaint three times. After this court denied his third motion to dismiss, the parties attended an Early Neutral Evaluation ("ENE") session, which culminated in a written agreement to settle the case. Plaintiff sent a letter to the court the following day, stating that the parties had signed a "Memorandum of * E-filed 1/27/09* United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. CV 07-03457 HRL ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Settlement" and would file a "more detailed settlement agreement shortly." (Docket No. 109.) Before the more detailed agreement could be executed, the agreement fell apart. Days after the settlement agreement was signed, but before the dismissal was filed, Stottlemire posted an entry on his personal web page that stated, among other things, that the case would be "dismissed with prejudice" as a result of a confidential settlement. He was then contacted by a number of reporters, and made a statement that, in his opinion, he had "kicked ass" representing himself. Deciding that these comments breached the confidentiality provision of the settlement agreement, Coupons purported to rescind the agreement, and refused to execute the Mutual Release or the stipulated dismissal. Coupons next propounded written discovery, and noticed depositions of defendant and his wife. Coupons also moved for an order directing the parties to return to ENE. Defendant later filed this motion for a protective order to stay the discovery pending the resolution of his (at that time, not-yet filed) motion to enforce the settlement agreement. In light of the pending motion to enforce the settlement agreement, the court now GRANTS defendant's motion to stay discovery. The hearing on plaintiff's motion to direct the parties to return to ENE is CONTINUED to February 24, 2009, and will be heard concurrently with defendant's motion to enforce. Discovery in this matter is STAYED pending resolution of these two motions. In addition, the case management conference, currently set for February 17, 2009 is VACATED. A new case management conference date will be set at the February 24, 2009 motions hearing. Finally, the deadline for defendant to answer the Third Amended Complaint, currently January 30, 2009, is EXTENDED to March 13, 2009. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 1/27/09 HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5:07-cv-3457 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Dennis M. Cusack dcusack@fbm.com John Allan Stottlemire jstottl@comcast.net * Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel. Dated: 1/27/09 mpk Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?