Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground, LLC et al

Filing 92

JOINDER to 91 Reply to Response to Motion ; Stephens Media, LLC's Motion to Strike Request to Unseal Exhibit A to Pulgram Declaration And Related Filings filed by Plaintiff Righthaven LLC. (Mangano, Shawn)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6730 shawn@manganolaw.com SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. 9960 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 170 Las Vegas, Nevada 89129-7701 (702) 304-0432 – telephone (702) 922-3851 – facsimile Attorney for Righthaven LLC 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 11 12 RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limitedliability company, 13 14 15 16 17 Case No.: 2:10-cv-01356-RLH-GWF RIGHTHAVEN LLC’S JOINDER IN STEPHENS MEDIA LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO UNSEAL EXHIBIT “A” TO PULGRAM DECLARATION AND RELATED FILINGS Plaintiff, v. DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, a District of Columbia limited-liability company; and DAVID ALLEN, an individual, Defendants. 18 19 20 21 DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, a District of Columbia limited-liability company, 22 23 24 25 26 27 Counterclaimant, v. RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limitedliability company; and STEPHENS MEDIA LLC, a Nevada limited-liability company, Counterdefendants. 28 1 1 Righthaven LLC (“Righthaven”) hereby joins in Stephens Media LLC’s (“Stephens 2 Media”) Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Defendants’ Request to Unseal Exhibit A to 3 Pulgram Declaration And Related Filings And Clifford C. Webb’s Supporting Declaration or, in 4 The Alternative, Response Thereto (the “Motion to Strike Reply”, Doc. # 91). 5 Righthaven agrees with Stephens Media’s assertions that Defendants Democratic 6 Underground, LLC and David Allen (the “Defendants”) have clearly attempted to subvert the 7 provisions of the Stipulated Protective Order (the “SPO”) entered by this Court in a blatant 8 attempt to make confidential business information publicly available. (Id. at 2-5.) In this regard, 9 Righthaven additionally wishes to highlight that Defendants have taken this approach in a case 10 where the Plaintiff has moved the Court for permission to voluntarily dismiss its Complaint with 11 prejudice. While Defendants may contend, contrary to the agreed upon terms of the SPO, that 12 the public has an interest in seeing that litigation-related materials are made available, such a 13 request has not been made by a disinterested member of the public who seeks to pierce the 14 protections of the SPO entered by this Court. Rather, the request to unseal has been made by a 15 party that is fully aware of the contents of the materials at issue in an action that is on the 16 precipice of resolution through the Court’s adjudication of the motions presently pending before 17 it. With these circumstances in mind, Defendants’ goal of making the highly confidential 18 business information between Righthaven and Stephens Media publicly available so that the 19 contents of same can used by others adverse to Righthaven and/or Stephens Media without the 20 protections of an agreed upon protective order becomes readily apparent. 21 Righthaven’s concerns in this regard are certainly meritorious. To begin with, the Court 22 could undoubtedly take judicial notice of the fact that virtually every material development in 23 any pending Righthaven case, whether in this judicial district or elsewhere, is reported on by the 24 Las Vegas Sun, a publication which is in direct competition with Stephens Media’s Las Vegas 25 Review-Journal. Permitting disclosure of the confidential materials at issue would undoubtedly 26 result in their contents being replicated in and/or reported on in the Las Vegas Sun. Moreover, 27 unsealing the confidential materials at issue would also result in their contents being made 28 available to direct competitors of Righthaven. For instance, one of the defendants in another 2 1 pending Righthaven action in this judicial district has formed a copyright enforcement company, 2 which certainly appears to be based upon the Righthaven’s business model. See Righthaven v. 3 Hush-Hush Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No.: 2:10-cv-01404-LRH-LRL (Doc. # 20-21). 4 While the confidential materials at issue in this case may potentially be discoverable in other 5 actions, such as the Hush-Hush Entertainment, Inc. case, doing so by granting Defendants’ 6 request to unseal in an action where voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the Complaint has 7 been sought and in view of the alleged subversion of the SPO’s procedures would necessarily 8 result in denying Righthaven (and Stephens Media) the right to maintain the confidentiality of 9 such materials in other pending actions through designation under any stipulated protective 10 orders applicable to such other cases. Moreover, unsealing the confidential materials at issue 11 will undoubtedly result in their global dissemination through Internet republication. This result 12 is clearly justified by the widespread mainstream and tangential media coverage of Righthaven’s 13 currently pending copyright enforcement actions. 14 15 16 Based on the foregoing, Righthaven joins in Stephens Media’s Motion to Strike Reply. Accordingly, Righthaven respectfully requests the Court grant Stephens Media’s requested relief. Dated this 13th day of April, 2011. 17 SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. 18 By: /s/ Shawn A. Mangano SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6730 shawn@manganolaw.com 9960 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 170 Las Vegas, Nevada 89129-7701 Tel: (702) 304-0432 Fax: (702) 922-3851 19 20 21 22 Attorney for Righthaven LLC 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b), I hereby certify that I on this 13th day of 3 April, 2011, I caused the foregoing document to be served by the Court’s CM/ECF system. 4 5 SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. 6 By: /s/ Shawn A. Mangano SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 6730 shawn@manganolaw.com 9960 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 170 Las Vegas, Nevada 89129-7701 Tel: (702) 304-0432 Fax: (702) 922-3851 7 8 9 10 11 Attorney for Righthaven LLC 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?