Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Opposition to MtQ (2012!09!19) Guava, LLC v. Case

Opposition to MtQ (2012!09!19) Guava, LLC v. Case

Ratings: (0)|Views: 153|Likes:
Published by J Doe

More info:

Published by: J Doe on Sep 26, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/07/2015

pdf

text

original

 
IN
THECIRCUIT
COURT
OF
COOK
COUNTY
ILLINOIS
COUNTYDEPARTMENT
-
LAW
DIVIS
ON
GUAVA
LLC,Plaintiff,
V.
SKYLER
CASE,)
))
)
)))))
No.2012
L
363
_-)
0PPOSTTTON
TOMOTTONOF
NON-PARTY
MOTTON
TO
QUAS
Defendant.
RSONAL
CTION ANION
FOR A
Defendanthavealready
filed
andanswered
the
complaint,
respectively.
and
Defendant
agreed,
in
the
Joint
Motion
thatthey
presented
to
thiscou
An
attorney,
purporting
to
represent
two
"Movants,,
whom
she
identified
only
by
quasha
subpoena
heir IntemetProtocol
("IP")
address,
has
filed
a
motion
askingthisserved
onMovants'
InternetService
Provider ("ISp,,),RCN
Telecom
Se
ces
(Lehigh)LLC,which
sought
theiridentifyinginformation.
Motion
to
euash
subpoena,
iection
to
Personal
Jurisdiction
and
Motionfor
a Protective
order,
Entered
Aug.
2r,
2or}
inafter"Motion").
The
Motion
posits
severaiarguments
for
which
theMovants
haveno
ing
to
assert;
which
are
illogical;
and
which
have
norelation
to
claimsactually
asserted
in
thisshould
deny
the
Motion.
itigation.
The
Court
The
fatal
error
in
the
Movants'Motion,which
permeates
every
ar
mentthey
make,is
The
Plaintiff
and
hatthey
lack
standing
to
make
the
arguments
set
forth
in
the
Motio
OBJECTION
TO
E
both
the
Plaintiff
thatthe
identities
of
the
Movants,
and
other
IP
address
ownersreferenced
in
the
complaint,
are
ighly
relevant
to
the
claims
and
defenses
at issue
in
this
litigation.while
the
Movants'voices
objectionsto
 
the
claims
and
allegation
at issue
here,the
objections
arethose
of
disint
have
no
right
to interferein
the
litigation.
ARGUMENT
The
Courl
shoulddenythe
Motionfor
severai
reasons.
The
Mov
any
valid
basis
to
proceedanonyffrously,
and
theCourt
should
strike
the
Their
argumentsthat
the
court
lackspersonal
jurisdiction
overthem
are
iare
not
parties
and
the
Court
need
not
exercise personal
jurisdiction
ov
have
established
no
valid
basis
to
seek
a
protectiveorder;
those
bases,
limitedto
avoiding
the
productionof
privileged
communications
andtrade
undue
burden.
There
is
no burdenon the
Movants
respond
to
the
su
are
the
ones
responding,
and
the
Movants
are
required
to
do
nothing.
Thebasis
to
assefta
privilege
or
the
existence
of
a trade
secret;
they
have
identities
to
the
third-party
ISPs,and
to
other
Ip
address
owners,
andthei
FirstAmendment
right
against
the disclosure
of
their identities
is
a
frivoltheMovants'
argument
that
courts
in
"similar
cases,,
have
quashed
identities
of
IP
addresses
isinapplicable
because
they reference
only
Feder
infringement,
whichis not
an issue
in
this matter,
andbecause
avast num
cases
have
denied
motions
such
as
the
Movants'.
People
are
often
surprised
to
leamthat
they
can
be
identified
in
thecrimes
over theIntemet.
whether
thecrime
ischild
exploitation,fraud,orultimately
associated
with
an
IP
address.
when
presented
with
an
Ip
a
subscriber's
identifying
information.
It
is
natural
that
Movants-as
associated
with
criminal
activity-would
preferto remainhidden.
But
that
is not
how
our
legaled
third-parlies
who
s
have
failedto
assert
otion
on
that
ground.evant
because
they
them.
TheMovants
for
a
non-party,
aresecrets,and
avoiding
s,
because
their
ISPsvantshave
no
valid
y
disclosedtheir
attempt
to invoke
a
argument.
Finally,
poenasseeking
the
cases
for
copyright
of
courts
in
such
urse
of
committinging,thecrime
is
an
ISP
can
produce
ith
anyone
who
is
 
system
functions.Imagine
a
bankrobber
filing
a
motionto
prevent
the
pol
ski
mask,
or
agetaway
driver
challenging
a
subpoenaissued
to
hismotions
would instantly
be
recognrzed
as
frivolous.
Movants'
counsel
is
among
agrowing
number
of
attorneysthat
livingby
filing
form
motions
to
quash
in
Internet
cases.
Movants'
cou
"Federal
Subpoena
Defense."
SeeThe
Russell
Firm,
http://www.trgatt
similar
attorneys
typically
charge
anyr,vhere
from
$75-$500
forthis
se
when
these
attomeys
are
presented
with
a
case
that
is
outside
the
scope
o
Here,
for
example,
Movants'
counsel
has
presented
a
motion
that
is
crib
wouldtypically
be
filed
in
a
federalcopyrightinfringement
action.
This
is
theclaims
are
for
violations
of
the
Computer
Fraud
andAbuse Act.claims
alleged.
Thus,
as
described
herein,substantially
all
of Movants'
m
to
the
relief
he
or
she
seeks.
There is
nothingwrong
with
an
attorney
trying
representingseveral
individualsfor
a
low
price.
As
an
officerof
the
coufi,is
sti1l
obligatedto
perfotm
at least
a
minimum
levelof
diligencebefore
fili
It
is
always
problematicwhen
a
disinterested
third-party
attemptsto
between
two
parties.
Plaintiffwould
note
that
it
has
a
strong interest
in
efficiently
andexpeditiously.
It
is
hard
to
see
why
the
court
would
feel
believes
that
Defendant
is
guilty
of
serious computer
crime
violations.
disputes
Plaintiff
s
claims. The
only wayto
resolve
the
dispute
is
throughobtainable
from
the other
suspect
IP
addresses.
T.
MOVANTSHAVE
NO
RIGHT
TO
PROCEED
ANO
As
an
initial
matter,the
Court
should strikethe
Motion
becausethe
the
optionof
proceedinganonymously
without
the leave
of
theCourt.
3
from removing
his
car
provider.
These
to
make their
's
website
advertises
com/?page
id:247..
A
problem
arises
their form
pleadings.
from
a
motion
that
such
action. Here,
are
no
copyrightion
bears
no relationto
amass
business
by
wever,an attomey
a
motion.interfere
in
litigation
lving
this
matter
differently.
Plaintiff
fendant
vehementlyfacts
which
are
onlyOUSLY.
ants
do not have

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->