12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728- 3 -
I.Scope of the Injunction.
Injunctive relief “is historically ‘designed to deter, not punish[.]’”
Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp.
, 422 U.S. 49, 62 (1975) (citation omitted). In issuing a permanentinjunction, “a district court should only include injunctive terms that have a common senserelationship to the needs of the specific case, and the conduct for which a defendant hasbeen held liable.”
MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
, 518 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1126-27 (C.D.Cal. 2007) (citing
NLRB v. Express Publ’g Co.
, 312 U.S. 426, 435 (1941)). “‘[B]lanketinjunctions to obey the law are disfavored.’”
at 1226 (citation omitted).MDY has been found liable for tortious interference with the contract betweenBlizzard and WoW users, contributory and vicarious infringement of Blizzard’s copyrightsin WoW, and violations of the DMCA.
Dkt. ##82, 108. The Court will enjoin MDYfrom engaging in acts “which are the same type and class as [the] unlawful acts which the[C]ourt has found to have been committed” by MDY.
Express Publ’g Co.
, 312 U.S. at 435;
422 U.S. at 62 (injunctive relief was designed “to permit the court ‘to mouldeach decree to the necessities of the particular case’”) (citation omitted);
Aluminum Workers Int’l Union v. Consol. Aluminum Corp.
, 696 F.2d 437, 446 (6th Cir. 1982) (“the scope of relief should be strictly tailored to accomplish only that which the situation specificallyrequires”). To ensure that the injunctions are specifically tailored, separate injunctions areset forth at the end of this order for (1) the copyright and DMCA claims and (2) the tortiousinterference claim.
II.Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal.
MDY seeks a stay of the injunctions pending appeal. Dkt. #111. The Court hasdiscretion to grant a stay pursuant to Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.Such a stay “is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly.”
Ariz. Contractors Ass’n, Inc. v. Candelaria
, No. CV07-02496-PHX-NVW, 2008 WL 486002, at *1 (D. Ariz.Feb. 19, 2008) (citations omitted);
see In re GTI Capital Holdings, LLC
, No. 03-07923-SSC,2008 WL 961112, at *6 (D. Ariz. Bankr. Apr. 4, 2008). MDY “carries a heavy burden todemonstrate that the stay is warranted.”
McCammon v. United States
, 584 F. Supp. 2d 193,