Archive Message - 1995
---

From braintree!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!news-m01.ny.us.ibm.net!usenet Fri Sep 29 09:34:31 1995 Path: braintree!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!news-m01.ny.us.ibm.net!usenet From: referen@ibm.net (Diane Richardson) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: RTC v. Netcom /14 Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 17:04:36 GMT Lines: 128 Message-ID: <44ekt4$33uo@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.72.251.106 X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 VI. PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST CARLA OAKLEY The court is disturbed by the parties' seemingly endless applications to the court, consolidated oppositions, sur-replies, objections to sur-replies, and other such inappropriate pleadings. In their objections to Erlich's "Consolidated Opposition to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Applications," plaintiffs request that Erlich's counsel, Ms. Carla Oakley, be sanctioned under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. sec. 1927 for filing "frivolous" pleadings which multiply the proceedings "unreasonably and vexatiously." To the extent that the Consolidated Opposition contains new arguments, the court finds that these arguments are necessary to address plaintiffs' multiple ex parte applications alleging three different instances of contempt. Erlich's sur-reply to the motion to expand the TRO was arguably justified by plaintiffs' mention of a new instance of alleged contempt for the first time in their Reply [41]. The court therefore denies plaintiffs' requests for sanctions. Plaintiffs' request that the court strike the arguments in the Consolidated Opposition because they are merely repetitive arguments that were "cut and past[ed]" from previous briefs is unnecessary to the extent that the briefs add nothing new. However, the court orders that the parties not file any further post-Reply briefing, which only wastes the court's and parties' resources, without first seeking leave of the court. See Civil L.R. 7-3[e]. The court further rejects plaintiffs' claim that Erlich's "Consolidated Opposition" reveals alleged trade secrets from plaintiffs' Advanced Technology works, and should have been filed under seal. Nothing in the "Consolidated Opposition" reveals information not already publicized in the popular press. See supra part IV.C. VII. ORDER For the reasons set forth above, the court orders as follows: 1. Defendant Dennis Erlich and his agents, servants, and employees, all persons acting or purporting to act under his authority, direction or control, and all persons acting in concert or in participation with any of them who receive notice of this Order, shall be and are restrained and enjoined pending further court order: a. From all unauthorized reproduction, transmission, and publication of any of the works of L. Ron Hubbard that are protected under the Copyright Act of 1976, as codified in its amended form at 17 U.S.C. sec. 101 et seq. Such works are found, for the purposes of this order only, to be those works identified in Exhibits A and B to the complaint, except for item 4 of Exhibit A. A copy of said exhibits are attached hereto with item 4 of Exhibit A redacted. i. Unauthorized reproduction, transmission, or publication includes placement of a copyrighted work into a computer's hard drive or other storage device; "browsing" the text of a copyrighted work resident on another computer through on-screen examination; scanning a copyrighted work into a digital file; "uploading" a digital file containing a copyrighted work from the computer to a bulletin board system or other server; "downloading" a digital file containing a copyrighted work from a bulletin board system or other server on the computer; and "quoting" a copyrighted work that is cited in an on-line message in sending, responding to or forwarding that message. ii. Nothing in this section of the order shall be construed to prohibit fair use of such works, as set forth in 17 U.S.C. sec. 107 and interpreted by applicable case law. Fair use of the copyrighted material for the purposes of this order includes use of the copyrighted work for the purpose of criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research but does not include: (1) use of the material for a commercial purpose where the user stands to profit from exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying the customary price or giving the usual consideration or use that would have a significant effect on the potential market value of the copyrighted work; or (3) use of the heart of the work -- no more of a work may be taken than is necessary to make any accompanying comment understandable. With respect to unpublished materials, the amount of copied material must comprise only a very small percentage of the copyrighted works both from a quantitative and a qualitative standpoint. iii. The prior postings by defendant Erlich that form the basis of this order do not qualify as fair use primarily because of the quantity of the material posted and the very limited transformative use made of those materials. Identical or similar postings are therefore enjoined. b. From destroying, altering, concealing or removing from the district in which defendant Erlich resides, any reproduction, copy, facsimile, excerpt or derivative or any work of L. Ron Hubbard that is described in Exhibit A or B including all such works returned pursuant to this order. Defendant Erlich or his counsel shall safely retain possession of any such items. c. A condition of this preliminary injunction is that a $25,000 bond shall be posted (or continued in place) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). 2. Plaintiffs' application to expand the TRO is denied without prejudice. 3. Plaintiffs' motion for a finding of contempt against defendant Erlich is denied. 4. Plaintiffs are ordered to return within ten (10) days of the date of this order to defendant Erlich through his counsel all items seized pursuant to the writ or seizure issued February 10, 1995. 5. Plaintiffs' request for sanctions against defendant Erlich's counsel, Ms. Carla Oakley, is denied. RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge _________________________________________ 41. The court notes that plaintiffs are not alone in placing new arguments in their [missing text] Reply -- Erlich's Reply in support of his motion to dissolve the TRO contained several new arguments. The proper response to such new arguments, however, would be to object to the new arguments, not to endlessly continue the arguments back and forth.

---

Return to The Skeptic Tank Alt.Religion.Scientology Archives Master List
Go to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank