Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al

Filing 97

MOTION for Leave to File Overlength Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Virtumundo Inc, Adknowledge Inc, Scott Lynn. Noting Date 1/22/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Newman, Derek) Modified duplicative text on 1/23/2007 (ECS, ).

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al

Doc. 97

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC

Document 97

Filed 01/22/2007

Page 1 of 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 26 27 28 v. VIRTUMUNDO, INC, a Delaware corporation d/b/a ADNOWLEDGEMAIL.COM; ADKNOWLEDGE, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a ADKNOWLEDGEMAIL.COM; SCOTT LYNN, an individual; and JOHN DOES, 1-X, Defendants. JAMES S. GORDON, Jr., a married individual, d/b/a `GORDONWORKS.COM'; OMNI INNOVATIONS, LLC., a Washington limited liability company, Plaintiffs,

The Honorable John C. Coughenour

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE NO. CV06-0204JCC DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO FILE AN OVER-LENGTH BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: January 22, 2007

Pursuant to Local Rule 7(f), Defendants Scott Lynn, Virtumundo, Inc. ("Virtumundo") and Adknowledge, Inc. ("Adknowledge") (collectively, "Defendants"), hereby request that the Court grant leave to file a brief in excess of the twenty-four (24) page limit imposed by LR 7(e)(3), in support of the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Motion"). Plaintiffs James S. Gordon ("Gordon") and Omni Innovations, LLC ("Omni") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") brought the instant lawsuit alleging that Virtumundo and
DEFS' MOTION TO FILE AN OVER-LENGTH BRIEF CASE NO. CV06-0204C - 1
NEWMAN & NEWMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610 Seattle, Washington 98104 [phone]

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC

Document 97

Filed 01/22/2007

Page 2 of 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 26 27 28

Adknowledge transmitted thousands of commercial email messages in violation of the federal CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, 15 U.S.C. § 7701 et seq. ("CAN-SPAM") and the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act (RCW 19.190) ("CEMA"). Plaintiffs' allege that Defendants violated nearly each technical statutory provision of CAN-SPAM and CEMA. (See Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 15) at ¶¶ 4.1 & 4.2). Defendants have, through motion practice and discovery, sought to cause Plaintiffs to narrow their claims to the colorable alleged violations of CAN-SPAM and CEMA. (See e.g., Dkt. # 30 (Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for failure to plead with particularity); Dkt. # 69 (Defendants Motion to Compel Interrogatory responses regarding alleged violations). Those motions are either pending or were granted by the Court. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs theories still encompass the majority of possible violations of the state and federal email statutes and, therefore, must be addressed in the Motion. Accordingly, the Motion cannot reasonably be filed within the constraints of the twentyfour (24) page limit. For comparison purposes, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding a single theory regarding a single alleged violation of CAN-SPAM used all of the twenty-four (24) page limit imposed by LR 7(e)(3). (Dkt. # 53) Plaintiffs' motion practice reflects the complicated nature of the Motion and the necessity for extended briefing. In contrast to Plaintiffs' single theory of relief, the Motion seeks dismissal of more than a dozen alleged violations of CAN-SPAM and CEMA. Defendants could have, consistent with LR 7(e)(3) filed separate motions on behalf of different Defendants and relating to different causes of action. However, for the convenience of the Court and the parties, Defendants request a modest leave from the 24 page limit to file an over-length brief. This case involves complex and technical subject matter, and preparation of the Motion consumed a great deal of attorney time; accordingly, Defendants' counsel was unable to file this motion three days before the dispositive motion cutoff, and request a waiver of the requirement in LR 7(f)(1) that motions for over-length briefs be filed three
DEFS' MOTION TO FILE AN OVER-LENGTH BRIEF CASE NO. CV06-0204C - 2
NEWMAN & NEWMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610 Seattle, Washington 98104 [phone]

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC

Document 97

Filed 01/22/2007

Page 3 of 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 26 27 28

days in advance. In light of these factors, Defendants respectfully request the Court's leave to file a brief in support of their Motion with six (6) additional pages, for a total of thirty (30) pages. DATED this 22nd day of January, 2007.

NEWMAN & NEWMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

By:

Derek A. Newman, WSBA No. 26967 Roger M. Townsend, WSBA No. 25525 Attorneys for Defendants

DEFS' MOTION TO FILE AN OVER-LENGTH BRIEF CASE NO. CV06-0204C - 3

NEWMAN & NEWMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610 Seattle, Washington 98104 [phone]