Jones Day v. BlockShopper.com et al
Filing
47
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 08/19/08 before the Honorable John W. Darrah. Court Reporter Contact Information: Mary M. Hacker, (312) 435-5564, Mary_Hacker@ilnd.uscourts.gov.
IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.
Redaction Request due 10/16/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/27/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/24/2008. (Hacker, Mary)
Jones Day v. BlockShopper.com et al
Doc. 47
1
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
APPEARANCES: -vs-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JONES DAY, a General Partnership, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. 08 C 4572 Chicago, Illinois August 19, 2008 9:00 o'clock a.m.
BRIAN TIMPONE, an individual doing business as BlockShopper.com, EDWARD WEINHAUS, an individual doing business as BlockShopper.com, and BLOCKSHOPPER LLC, doing business as BlockShopper.com, Defendants.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOHN W. DARRAH
For the Plaintiff:
JONES DAY BY: MR. PAUL W. SCHROEDER MS. IRENE SAVANIS FIORENTINOS 77 West Wacker Drive Suite 3500 Chicago, Illinois 60601 FOX HEFTER SWIBEL LEVIN & CARROLL MR. MARTIN B. CARROLL 200 West Madison Street Suite 3000 Chicago, Illinois 60606
For the Defendants:
Court Reporter:
Mary M. Hacker Official Court Reporter United States District Court 219 South Dearborn Street, Suite 1426 Chicago, Illinois 60604 Telephone: (312) 435-5564
Dockets.Justia.com
2
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
THE CLERK: 08 C 4572, Jones Day versus BlockShopper.com. MR. CARROLL: Good morning, your Honor. Martin Carroll on behalf of the defendants. THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Carroll. MR. SCHROEDER: Paul Schroeder and Irene Fiorentinos on behalf of the plaintiff, your Honor. THE COURT: Good morning, Counsel. This matter comes on for hearing on a motion for temporary restraining order. Have you discussed this at all? MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, your Honor, we have, and forwarded to your Honor's clerk yesterday a stipulation. We have signed copies today. It requires the defendants to avoid doing certain things over a 60-day period, which brings us through October 17th. We would like to tender to your Honor signed copies of that. If your Honor is agreeable to that, we would like that entered as an order. However, there is one blank, and the blank has to do with a mutual request for an early pretrial conference. We were trying between ourselves to figure out what we would do within the 60 days. We have differing views. We would like some expedited action. We would like to discuss that some more, and if your Honor is agreeable, we would like an early pretrial
3
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
conference next week, if at all possible. THE COURT: Mel? MS. FIORENTINOS: Your Honor, would you like a copy of the order? THE COURT: Yes. Would you hand that up? (Document tendered.) THE CLERK: August 26th at 2:00 o'clock p.m. THE COURT: Would that be convenient? MR. SCHROEDER: Yes. THE COURT: Shall we continue the motion for temporary restraining order to that date as well and then just keep it tracking along? MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Mel, what was that date? THE CLERK: August 26th at 2:00 o'clock p.m. MR. CARROLL: Your Honor, we can do that. One thing, though. I think the parties are anticipating trying to discuss among themselves the best way of setting this case up going forward. One of the reasons that we entered into this stipulation order was to avoid having to litigate this on a temporary restraining order basis, on a hurried basis. We think this is a -- there's some various issues in this case that really affect the entire internet industry. We want to make sure that this Court would have ample time to review the
4
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
case law in this case. So whether that's a preliminary injunction hearing or whether that's a summary judgment motion is something that I think we're going to discuss among the parties. So I don't think that we -- you know, we enter and continue the TRO motion. I think it's our understanding that we will not be appearing before your Honor on a TRO hearing next week. I think we would like to set up a scheduling order, including one of the things that we need to talk about today -- or two things. One is the -- I have talked to the other side about the fact that they have the wrong defendant in this case. It should be BlockShopper LLC, it's not dot com. I am going to send them a letter to that effect so they can amend their pleadings to that effect. We also need some guidance as far as when we can file our answer or otherwise plead in this case. We are asking for 30 days in which to do so. I'm not sure if the plaintiffs object to that or not, but they wanted me to bring that up in front of you this morning. THE COURT: Why don't we discuss that at the conference next week as well. And why don't we show on the docket sheet that the motion for temporary restraining order is withdrawn without prejudice to refile it, and we can decide procedurally what the next step should be. I agree, that to proceed on a
5
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
matter that does have some novel or complex issues in the format of a preliminary injunction hearing or a temporary restraining order might not be the most efficient way to resolve the issues. And on many occasions you go with less information than you otherwise would want if the case were to be a full trial, and sometimes you don't get a resolution that's as complete as it should be. So I agree, that would be an appropriate way to approach this. But you have an agreement that will effectively protect the parties for the next 60 days, is that correct? MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I filled those dates in, so I'll see you next week. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you. MR. CARROLL: Thank you, your Honor. MS. FIORENTINOS: Your Honor, if I may ask, do we need to submit revised orders to the clerk, or are we revising our order already? THE COURT: I'll sign that order as it is, but the docket sheet will reflect that the motion for temporary restraining order has been withdrawn without prejudice to refile it. MS. FIORENTINOS: Very well. MR. CARROLL: Thank you, your Honor. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, your Honor.
6
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
THE COURT: You're welcome. (Which were all the proceedings heard.) CERTIFICATE I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
/s/ Mary M. Hacker Mary M. Hacker Official Court Reporter Date
September 19, 2008
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?