Lycos, Inc. v. Tivo, Inc. et al

Filing 44

Assented to MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Darryl M. Woo Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 1657875. by Netflix, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Repicky, Heather)

Download PDF
Lycos, Inc. v. Tivo, Inc. et al Doc. 44 Case 1:07-cv-11469-MLW Document 44 Filed 09/07/2007 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS LYCOS, INC., Plaint iff, v. TIVO, INC., NETFLIX, INC., and BLOCKBUSTER, INC. Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07cv11469 MLW MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF DARRYL M. WOO Defendant Netflix, Inc. ("Netflix"), by and through Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP, World Trade Center West, 155 Seaport Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts, hereby moves that Darryl M. Woo of Fenwick & West LLP be admitted pro hac vice in the above case. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5.3, this motion is accompanied by the Affidavit of Darryl M. Woo. Dated: September 7, 2007 NUTTER McCLENNEN & FISH LLP /s/ Heather B. Repicky Nelson G. Apjohn (BBO# 020373) Heather B. Repicky (BBO# 663347) World Trade Center West 155 Seaport Boulevard Boston, Massachusetts 02210 Telephone: (617) 439-2000 Fax: (617) 310-9000 Attorneys for Defendant NETFLIX, INC. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:07-cv-11469-MLW Document 44 Filed 09/07/2007 Page 2 of 2 LOCAL RULE 7.1 CERTIFICATE Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(A)(2), I hereby certify that counsel for Netflix conferred with counsel for Plaintiff and all Defendants on the subject of this motion, and was advised that they assent to this motion. /s/ Heather B. Repicky CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that, on September 7, 2007, this document (filed through the ECF system) will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants. /s/ Heather B. Repicky 1661838.1 2

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?