« Trafficking in Counterfeit Labels Renders Alien Inadmissible to Stay in United States | Main | Lawsuit Alleges Joint Trademark Ownership Indicates Band's Partnership »

Mind the Requirements Contained in Routine Orders

On August 14, Western District Judge Robert Lasnik on his own initiative ordered the defendant in a trademark and cybersquatting case to show cause why it should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with two court orders.

The orders? The court’s scheduling order and its order regarding initial disclosures, joint status report, and early settlement.

Both contained identical language:

“The following alterations to the Electronic Filing Procedures apply in all cases pending before Judge Lasnik: 

- Section III, Paragraph F - when the aggregate submittal to the court (i.e., the motion, any declarations and exhibits, the proposed order and the certificate of service) exceeds 50 pages in length, a paper copy of the documents (with tabs or other organizing aids as necessary) shall be delivered to the Clerk’s Office for chambers by 10:30 am the morning after filing. The chambers copy must be clearly marked with the words ‘Courtesy Copy of Electronic Filing for Chambers.’”

Defendant Kook’s Custom Headers, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff Global DNS, LLC’s claims. Its motion, taken as a whole, exceeded 50 pages. But it did not provide the requisite courtesy copy for chambers.

The court was not pleased.

The case cite is Global DNS, LLC v. Kook’s Custom Headers, Inc., No. 08-268 (Lasnik, J.).

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    Response: Blawg Review #173
    Last week's Olympic edition Blawg Review focused on the medals. Building on that, this week I discuss the elements of a world record swim. If you were watching last week, instead of blogging, you saw 20 of them in the Olympic pool; seven by Mr. Phelps.PracticeNothing is more critical then preparation. ...

Reader Comments (2)

That's a good (but often overlooked) tip!
August 15, 2008 | Unregistered Commentervenkat
A nice point, and in a way it would be a relief -- I have a case in the SDNY where the judge enforces no rules at all, and my client wants to know why we're always the "good guys." Having said that: Why not just have the judge's clerk pick up the phone and tell the guy he has 24 hours to comply instead of making a "federal case" out of it?
August 18, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterRon Coleman

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.