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
Righthaven v. Democratic Underground Order on Request to Unseal

Righthaven v. Democratic Underground Order on Request to Unseal

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4 |Likes:
Published by rhvictims

More info:

Published by: rhvictims on Jun 21, 2011
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

09/24/2014

pdf

text

original

 
23RequesttoUnsealExhibitAtoPulgramDeclarationandRelatedFilings[dkt##74,79](#85,24filedMarch29,2011).PlaintiffRighthavenfiledaResponseandRequestforOrdertoShowCause25(#88)onMarch30,2011.Defendantfiledanoppositiontothenextmotiontobediscussedwhichthe26CourtconsiderstoalsobeareplyinsupportofthisRequest(see#90).
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
Case2:10-cv-01356-RLH-GWFDocument93Filed04/14/11Page1of5
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTDISTRICTOFNEVADA
***
BeforetheCourtisDefendantsDemocraticUnderground,LLCandDavidAllen's
 
1ContemporaneoustoitResponseandRequestidentifiedabove,andinthesame2document,Counter-DefendantStephensMediafiledaMotiontoStrikeDefendants'Requestto3Unseal(#87,filedMarch30,2011).PlaintiffRighthavenfiledaJoindertotheMotion(#89)on4March30,2011.DefendantsfiledanOppositiontotheMotiontoStrikeandaResponse(Reply)to5itsRequesttoUnseal(#90)onMarch31,2011.StephensMediafiledaReply(#91)onApril11,62011,whichwasJoined(#92)byRighthaven.7Defendant'sRequesttoUnsealisbasedonthefactthatwhentheCourtpermittedthe8Defendants'SupplementalMemorandumtobefiledunderseal,itdirectedtheparties,within
14
days,9toeitherfileastipulationastowhichportionswouldremainundersealorStephensMediaand10Righthavenwillfiletheirjustificationforretainingthedocumentsinquestionunderseal.Defendants11immediatelymadeoverturestoobtainastipulation,butwereimmediatelyrebuffedbyRighthavenand12StephensMedia.Defendantwaited21days,aweeklongerthantheCourt'sOrderrequired,andthen,13havingreceivednojustificationforkeepingthedocumentsundersealmadetheRequestpresently
14
beforetheCourt.15RighthavenandStephensMedia'sResponse,andthebasisfortheirMotiontoStrike,
16
isthattheprocedurerequiredinthisCourt'sOrder"subvertedthetermsoftheStipulatedProtective17Order"becauseitprovidedforadifferentprocedureforrequestingthatconfidentialdocumentsbe18unsealed.19201.
21
22232.
243.
25
26Case2:10-cv-01356-RLH-GWFDocument93Filed04/14/11Page2of5
TheyarguethatParagraph
19
oftheStipulatedProtectiveOrderrequire:Ifthepartiesdisagreeoverthedesignation,theyaretonegotiateingoodfaithregardingtheDesignatedMaterial.
TheuncontestedfactsarethatDefendantstriedtonegotiateingoodfaith,butRighthavenandStevensMediarefusedtodoso.
TheChallengingPartythenobjectstothedesignation.TheDesignatingPartythenmodifiesorrefusestomodifythedesignation.
Itisnotedthatarefusaltomodifywasmade,suggestingthattherewasan"objection"tothedesignationasrequired.
2
 
14.TheChallengingPartythenmakesamotionseekingadeterminationofwhetherthedesignated2materialisentitledtoprotection,withtheDesignatingPartybearingtheultimateburdenof3provingthatthematerialwasentitledtoprotection,withthedocumentsbeingtreatedas4designateduntilthemotionisdecided.
Infact,thedocumentshavecontinuedtobetreatedas5designatedtothepresent.
6
It
appearsthatRighthavenandStephensMedia'sobjectionisthatthedesignated7documentswerefiled,albeitinasealedcondition,withamotionwhereDefendantshad"slip[ped]a8paragraphintotheproposedorder,"beforeanyattemptatnegotiationorformalobjection,andwas9followedthreeweekslaterbyarequesttounseal,doesnotconstituteamotionasrequiredbythe10ProtectiveOrder.Theirargumentputsformoversubstance,chronologyoverobligation.11RighthavenandStephensMediaaccuseDefendantsofbeingunderhandedby12proposingthe14-dayresponseperiodintheCourt'sOrderpermittingthefilingunderseal.Therewas13nothingunderhandeddoneatall.Theproposedorderwasfiled.TheCourt'sOrderwasalsoserved14onRighthavenandStephensMedia.Unlesstheyconfesstonotreading,orignoring,thisCourt's15Order,theirlamentisnotpersuasive.16RighthavenandStephensMediaalsoaccuseDefendants'counsel(who,theymakea17pointofremindingtheCourt,arefromout-of-town)ofdisingenuousgamesmanship.Theydemand18theCourtissueanOrdertoShowCausewhyDefendantsshouldnotbeheldincontemptforviolating19theProtectiveOrder.
It
isthisdemandthatisdisingenuous.ThisCourtenteredtheProtectiveOrder.20ThisCourtcertainlyhastheauthoritytomodifyitsproceduresasitseesfit,whichitdidinestablish-21ingprovisionforthefilingoftheSupplementalMemorandum,becauseofthelatenessofthe22disclosurebyRighthavenandStephensMedia,andthepotentialimminentdecisionontheMotionto23DismissandtheMotionforSummaryJudgment.25"blatantlyignored,""brazenattempt,""fumblingattempt,""purposefullymuddle,"and"Defendants'26complaintreeksofhypocrisy,"isaveryunprofessionalattempttoattackcounselratherthanaddress
24Case2:10-cv-01356-RLH-GWFDocument93Filed04/14/11Page3of5
Theuseofphrases,intheMotiontoStrike,suchas"underhanded,""aruse,"3

You're Reading a Free Preview

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