Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 608 views

    Verizon v. OnlineNIC, Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Ben Sheffner
    Plaintiffs in a copyright infringement case submitted a notice of supplemental authority to the court. The notice referenced a recent decision, Verizon California Inc. v. OnlineNIC, that addressed the standards for evaluating a due process challenge to an award of statutory damages. Plaintiffs argued the Verizon decision supports their opposition to Defendant's motion for a new trial, which claimed the statutory damages award in the case violated due process. The notice informed the court of this supplemental legal authority relevant to issues raised in Defendant's post-trial motion.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Verizon v. OnlineNIC, Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Ben Sheffner
    608 views13 pages
    Plaintiffs in a copyright infringement case submitted a notice of supplemental authority to the court. The notice referenced a recent decision, Verizon California Inc. v. OnlineNIC, that addressed the standards for evaluating a due process challenge to an award of statutory damages. Plaintiffs argued the Verizon decision supports their opposition to Defendant's motion for a new trial, which claimed the statutory damages award in the case violated due process. The notice informed the court of this supplemental legal authority relevant to issues raised in Defendant's post-trial motion.

    Original Description:

    Notice of supplemental authority in Capitol v. Jammie Thomas-Rasset

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Plaintiffs in a copyright infringement case submitted a notice of supplemental authority to the court. The notice referenced a recent decision, Verizon California Inc. v. OnlineNIC, that addressed the standards for evaluating a due process challenge to an award of statutory damages. Plaintiffs argued the Verizon decision supports their opposition to Defendant's motion for a new trial, which claimed the statutory damages award in the case violated due process. The notice informed the court of this supplemental legal authority relevant to issues raised in Defendant's post-trial motion.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    608 views13 pages

    Verizon v. OnlineNIC, Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Ben Sheffner
    Plaintiffs in a copyright infringement case submitted a notice of supplemental authority to the court. The notice referenced a recent decision, Verizon California Inc. v. OnlineNIC, that addressed the standards for evaluating a due process challenge to an award of statutory damages. Plaintiffs argued the Verizon decision supports their opposition to Defendant's motion for a new trial, which claimed the statutory damages award in the case violated due process. The notice informed the court of this supplemental legal authority relevant to issues raised in Defendant's post-trial motion.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 13

    Case 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-RLE Document 364 Filed 10/01/09 Page 1 of 2

    IN THE UNITED STATES OF DISTRICT COURT


    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

    CAPITOL RECORDS, INC., et al.,

    Plaintiffs, Case No.: 06cv1497-MJD/RLE

    vs. PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF


    SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
    JAMMIE THOMAS-RASSET,

    Defendant.

    Plaintiffs respectfully submit the attached decision in Verizon California Inc., et al. v.

    OnlineNIC, No. C 08-2832 JF (RS), 2009 WL 2706393 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2009) (attached as

    Exhibit A hereto), as supplemental authority in support of Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to

    Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial, Remittitur, and to Alter or Amend the Judgment

    (“Opposition,” Doc. No. 353). The Verizon California decision addresses the standards

    applicable to a due process challenge to an award of statutory damages. See 2009 WL 2706393

    at *6-9.

    #1432087 v1 den
    Case 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-RLE Document 364 Filed 10/01/09 Page 2 of 2

    Respectfully submitted this 1st day of October 2009.

    /s/ Timothy M. Reynolds


    Timothy M. Reynolds (pro hac vice)
    Andrew B. Mohraz (pro hac vice)
    HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP
    1700 Lincoln, Suite 4100
    Denver, Colorado 80203
    Telephone: (303) 861-7000
    Facsimile: (303) 866-0200

    Matthew J. Oppenheim (pro hac vice)


    THE OPPENHEIM GROUP, LLP
    7304 River Falls Drive
    Potomac, Maryland 20854
    Telephone: (301) 299-4986
    Facsimile: (866) 766-1678

    Felicia J. Boyd (No. 186168)


    Leita Walker (No. 387095)
    FAEGRE & BENSON LLP
    2200 Wells Fargo Center
    90 South Seventh Street
    Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-3901
    Telephone: (612) 766-7000
    Facsimile: (612) 766-1600

    ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

    2
    #1432087 v1 den
    Case 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-RLE Document 364-1 Filed 10/01/09 Page 1 of 11
    Case 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-RLE Document 364-1 Filed 10/01/09 Page 2 of 11
    Case 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-RLE Document 364-1 Filed 10/01/09 Page 3 of 11
    Case 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-RLE Document 364-1 Filed 10/01/09 Page 4 of 11
    Case 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-RLE Document 364-1 Filed 10/01/09 Page 5 of 11
    Case 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-RLE Document 364-1 Filed 10/01/09 Page 6 of 11
    Case 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-RLE Document 364-1 Filed 10/01/09 Page 7 of 11
    Case 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-RLE Document 364-1 Filed 10/01/09 Page 8 of 11
    Case 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-RLE Document 364-1 Filed 10/01/09 Page 9 of 11
    Case 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-RLE Document 364-1 Filed 10/01/09 Page 10 of 11
    Case 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-RLE Document 364-1 Filed 10/01/09 Page 11 of 11

    You might also like