Silvers v. Google, Inc.

Filing 137

RESPONSE in Opposition re 135 MOTION for Leave to File Two (2) Separate Motions for Summary Judgment Corrected Stelor Productions, LLC and Steven Esrig's Opposition to Google Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Two Separate Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Stelor Productions, LLC, Steven Esrig. (Zack, David)

Silvers v. Google, Inc.

Doc. 137

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 137

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2006

Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 05-80387 CIV RYSKAMP/VITUNAC STEVEN A. SILVERS, an individual, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. _______________________________________/ GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, Counterclaimant, v. STEVEN A. SILVERS, an individual; STELOR PRODUCTIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; STELOR PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and STEVEN ESRIG, an individual, Counterdefendants. ________________________________________/ CORRECTED 1 STELOR PRODUCTIONS, LLC AND STEVEN ESRIG'S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE INC.'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Stelor Productions, LLC and Steven Esrig, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submits their opposition to Google Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Two Separate Motions for Summary Judgment (the "motion") :

1

This filing corrects the certificate of service and a typo.

BURLI N G TO N · SCH WI EP · KAP LAN & BLO N SK Y, P A. .
O F F IC E
IN T H E

G R O V E P E N T H O USE EMAI L:

2699

S O U T H B AYSH O R E D R IV E M I AMI , F LO RI DA 3 3 I 3 3
WW . BSKBLAW CO M W .

T: 305 .8 58 .290 0 F: 305 .8 58 .526 I
IN FO @ BSKBLA . CO M W

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 137

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2006

Page 2 of 7

Google's motion should be denied because it has not shown good cause for the need to file two separate summary judgment motions. Google requests leave to file a summary judgment on the issue of "the invalidity of Steven Silvers' Googles trademark registration" and a second summary judgment motion "as to monetary relief." Google's motion should be denied because the Court's bifurcation Order limits the scope to Phase I of the litigation to issues related to Silver's ownership of the mark. Because damages and other relief are excluded from Phase I of the litigation, Google's motion for leave to file a separate summary judgment motion on the issue of monetary relief should be denied. The Southern District of Florida Local Rules, Rule 7.1.C.2 provides that the "practice of filing multiple motions for partial summary judgment shall be prohibited, absent prior permission from the Court." Google does not show good cause for their need to file multiple summary judgment motions. Google filed a motion to bifurcate these proceedings. Google's motion requested that the case be bifurcated into "separate validity/priority and liability/relief" phases. (D.E. 23 at 15) (emphasis added.) The Court granted that Motion on February 6, 2006. (D.E. 68.) As noted in the Order, Google moved to bifurcate both discovery and trial "to allow the court to first consider the extent and scope of rights, if any held by Silvers." (Id. at 5.) The Court's Order discussed several areas that Google requested to be determined in Phase I of the litigation. These were, "the purported assignment of trademark rights from GCW to Silvers," whether or not Silvers could "show that either he or [Google's Childrens Workshop] continuously use Google's trademarks," and the cross-claim between Silvers and Stelor. (Id. at 5 and 6.) In granting Google's Motion, the Court explicitly excluded the issue of damages from Phase I, "[i]n this 2

BURLI N G TO N · SCH WI EP · KAP LAN & BLO N SK Y, P A. .
O F F IC E
IN T H E

G R O V E P E N T H O USE EMAI L:

2699

S O U T H B AYSH O R E D R IV E M I AMI , F LO RI DA 3 3 I 3 3
WW . BSKBLAW CO M W .

T: 305 .8 58 .290 0 F: 305 .8 58 .526 I
IN FO @ BSKBLA . CO M W

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 137

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2006

Page 3 of 7

case, the question of ownership involves different factual and legal determinations, compared to the infringement damages issues." Id. at 8 (emphasis supplied.) The Court also ruled that there was no prejudice to the parties due to bifurcation because "the preliminary issue of ownership is relatively less complicated (and should require a shorter discovery period) than the infringement and damages issues." Id. at 11 (emphasis added.) On September 11, 2006 the Court entered its Order denying Silvers' Motion for Protective Order. (D.E. 119.) In that Order, the Court stated "the Bifurcation Order ruled that Phase I litigation will determine ownership of the trademarks." Id. Having succeeded in bifurcating the litigation and to limit discovery and the trial in Phase I to ownership of the trademarks (with "liability/relief" to be considered in Phase II), (D.E. 23 at 15), Google attempts to changes position and attempts to bring an improper summary judgment motion as to "monetary relief. " This attempt by Google contradicts its own motion to bifurcate and violates the Court's Bifurcation Order. Google's attempt to raise monetary relief in Phase I of the litigation is clearly inappropriate. Stelor has prepared its case and conducted discovery based on the issues properly raised in Phase I. Given the Bifurcation Order, Stelor has not had the

opportunity to take discovery on the monetary relief issue Google seeks to raise now. Permitting Google to change position, ignore the Court's Orders and file a summary judgment motion as to relief will prejudice Stelor, Steven Esrig and Steven Silvers greatly and should not be permitted. Google's summary judgment motion as to "mone tary relief" is at odds with Google's motion to bifurcate, the Bifurcation Order that Google requested, and Google's 3

BURLI N G TO N · SCH WI EP · KAP LAN & BLO N SK Y, P A. .
O F F IC E
IN T H E

G R O V E P E N T H O USE EMAI L:

2699

S O U T H B AYSH O R E D R IV E M I AMI , F LO RI DA 3 3 I 3 3
WW . BSKBLAW CO M W .

T: 305 .8 58 .290 0 F: 305 .8 58 .526 I
IN FO @ BSKBLA . CO M W

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 137

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2006

Page 4 of 7

counsel's representations as to the issues on Phase I. Furthermore, Google will have ample opportunity to raise the Phase I issues in the twenty pages provided by the Local Rule. Google's motion should, therefore, be denied. WHEREFORE, Stelor respectfully requests that this Court deny Google's Motion to File Separate Summary Judgment Motions.

Respectfully submitted, Kevin C. Kaplan - Florida Bar No. 933848 s/David J. Zack - Florida Bar No. 641685 Email: [e-mail] [e-mail] BURLINGTON, SCHWIEP, KAPLAN & BLONSKY, P.A. Office in the Grove, Penthouse A 2699 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Counsel for STELOR PRODUCTIONS, LLC and STEVEN ESRIG

4

BURLI N G TO N · SCH WI EP · KAP LAN & BLO N SK Y, P A. .
O F F IC E
IN T H E

G R O V E P E N T H O USE EMAI L:

2699

S O U T H B AYSH O R E D R IV E M I AMI , F LO RI DA 3 3 I 3 3
WW . BSKBLAW CO M W .

T: 305 .8 58 .290 0 F: 305 .8 58 .526 I
IN FO @ BSKBLA . CO M W

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 137

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2006

Page 5 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 16, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. s/David J. Zack

5

BURLI N G TO N · SCH WI EP · KAP LAN & BLO N SK Y, P A. .
O F F IC E
IN T H E

G R O V E P E N T H O USE EMAI L:

2699

S O U T H B AYSH O R E D R IV E M I AMI , F LO RI DA 3 3 I 3 3
WW . BSKBLAW CO M W .

T: 305 .8 58 .290 0 F: 305 .8 58 .526 I
IN FO @ BSKBLA . CO M W

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 137

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2006

Page 6 of 7

SERVICE LIST STEVEN A. SILVERS, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC. CASE NO. 05-80387 CIV RYSKAMP/VITUNAC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Steven A. Silvers, pro se [e-mail] Suite 202 ­ PMB 203 8983 Okeechobee Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33411 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Method of Service: Facsimile & U.S. Mail

Robert H. Cooper, Esq. [e-mail] ROBERT COOPER, P.A. Concorde Centre II, Suite 704 2999 N.E. 191 Street Aventura, Florida 33180 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorney for Plaintiff Steven A. Silvers Method of Service: Facsimile and U.S. Mail Jan Dougla s Atlas, Esq. [e-mail] ADORNO & YOSS LLP Suite 1700 350 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Tel: [phone] Fax. [phone] Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc. Method of Service: Facsimile and U.S. Mail

Ramsey Al-Salam, Esq. [e-mail] William C. Rava, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP Suite 4800 1201 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc. Method of Service: Facsimile and U.S. Mail

Johanna Calabria, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP Suite 2400 Four Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] E- mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc. Method of Service: Facsimile and U.S. Mail 6

BURLI N G TO N · SCH WI EP · KAP LAN & BLO N SK Y, P A. .
O F F IC E
IN T H E

G R O V E P E N T H O USE EMAI L:

2699

S O U T H B AYSH O R E D R IV E M I AMI , F LO RI DA 3 3 I 3 3
WW . BSKBLAW CO M W .

T: 305 .8 58 .290 0 F: 305 .8 58 .526 I
IN FO @ BSKBLA . CO M W

Case 9:05-cv-80387-KLR

Document 137

Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2006

Page 7 of 7

7

BURLI N G TO N · SCH WI EP · KAP LAN & BLO N SK Y, P A. .
O F F IC E
IN T H E

G R O V E P E N T H O USE EMAI L:

2699

S O U T H B AYSH O R E D R IV E M I AMI , F LO RI DA 3 3 I 3 3
WW . BSKBLAW CO M W .

T: 305 .8 58 .290 0 F: 305 .8 58 .526 I
IN FO @ BSKBLA . CO M W