Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
The Dirty Opinion

The Dirty Opinion

Ratings: (0)|Views: 22 |Likes:
Published by Erin Fuchs

More info:

Published by: Erin Fuchs on Nov 20, 2013
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

11/22/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY  NORTHERN DIVISION  AT COVINGTON CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-219-WOB SARAH JONES PLAINTIFF  VS. MEMORANDUM OPINION DIRTY WORLD ENTERTAINMENT RECORDINGS, LLC, ET AL. DEFENDANTS Background
At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence in the second trial of this case, the defendants made a timely motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50.  The motion was primarily based on the argument that the defendants were immune under the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230. The Court denied the motion for the same reasons expressed in its earlier opinion addressing this issue.
See
 
Jones v. Dirty World Entm’t Recordings, LLC 
, 840 F.Supp.2d 1008 (E.D. Ky. 2012).  The jury hung in the first trial of this case, which necessitated a second trial. The evidence in both trials regarding the claimed immunity was essentially the same as that described in the Courts earlier opinion. The case was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict for the
Case: 2:09-cv-00219-WOB-CJS Doc #: 210 Filed: 08/12/13 Page: 1 of 12 - Page ID#: 3138
 
2
plaintiff for $38,000.00 compensatory damages and $300,000.00 punitive damages.
1
 (Doc. 207).  The Court now files this supplemental MemorandumOpinion to explain further its reasons for denying defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law.
 Analysis  A. The precedents support the proposition that the CDA  provides only a sort of qualified immunity that can be lost by the site’s intentionally developing and/or  materially contributing to the illegal or objectionable material.
  Throughout these proceedings, counsel for defendants has argued that no rational court could deny CDA immunity in this case, and that defendants’ claimfor immunity was required by all existing precedents.
1
 Defendants, apparently relying solely on their immunity defense, concede the propriety of these amounts since they chose not to file a motion for a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a).
See Young v.
Langley, 793 F.2d 792, 794 (6th Cir. 1986) (“This court may not review the alleged excessiveness of verdicts absent a timely motion for new trial and the trial courts ruling thereon.”). Failure to file such a motion also precludes appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence.
See Gruener v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.
, 510 F.3d 661, 665 (6th Cir. 2008);
Pennington v. Western Atlas, Inc.
, 202 F.3d 902, 911 (6th Cir. 2000);
Young 
, 793 F.2d at 794.
See generally 
 12
Moore’s Federal Practice
 § 59.55 (3d ed. 2013) (“Grounds for new trial that arise solely in the context of post trial proceedings must be presented to the trial court for consideration by a motion for new trial, and the failure to do so deprives the appellate court fromany record that is reviewable for error.).
Case: 2:09-cv-00219-WOB-CJS Doc #: 210 Filed: 08/12/13 Page: 2 of 12 - Page ID#: 3139
 
3
 This contention misrepresents the law, however. This Courts ruling on the immunity issue is supported by the decisions of several United States Circuit Courts of Appeals and district court cases and, in fact, represents the weight of authority.  The principal precedent is the en banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in
Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC 
, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
See
 Jones, 840 F. Supp.2d at 1000-11. There, the Ninth Circuit held that a website did not enjoy CDA immunity for posting a questionnaire and requiring answers to it which were alleged to violate federal and state housing discrimination laws, because such acts constituted the “creation or development of information” and thus made the site an “information content provider” within the scope of 47 U.S.C. § 2309(c) and (f)(3).
Roommates
, 521 F.3d at 1164-69. Following remand and a decision on the merits of the underlying statutory housing claims, another appeal was taken. In the resulting opinion, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged
and left undisturbed 
 its prior CDA ruling, although it held that the website had not violated the housing statutes in question.
See Fair Housing Council of
Case: 2:09-cv-00219-WOB-CJS Doc #: 210 Filed: 08/12/13 Page: 3 of 12 - Page ID#: 3140

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)//-->