ORIGINAL1 HAROLD J. McELHINNY CARLA B. OAKLEY 2 MATTHEW K. FAWCETT MORRISON & FOERSTER 345 California Street San Francisco, California 94104-2675 Telephone: (415) 677-7000 Facsimile: (415) 677-7522
6 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant DENNIS ERLICH 78 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a ) Civ. No. C-95-20091 RMW California non-profit ) 12 corporation; and BRIDGE ) PUBLICATIONS, INC., a ) 13 California non-profit ) corporation, ) DEFENDANT ERLICH'S 14 ) APPENDIX RE COPYRIGHT Plaintiffs, ) ISSUES 15 ) V. ) 16 ) NETCOM ON-LINE COMMUNICATION ) 17 SERVICES, INC., a Delaware ) Date: June 23, 1995 corporation; DENNIS ERLICH, ) Time: 9:00 a.m. 18 an individual; and TOM KLEMESRUD, ) The Hon. Ronald M. Whyte an individual, dba CLEARWOOD ) 19 DATA SERVICES, )
20 Defendants.
21 DENNIS ERLICH, 22 Counterclaimant, 23 V. 24 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, INC. 25 and BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, INC.,
26 Counterclaim Defendants. 27
28
DEFENDANT ERLICH'S APPENDIX RE COPYRIGHT ISSUES
1 Plaintiffs cannot establish a likelihood of success2 as to their copyright claims due to the many defects in the
3 claims themselves, the numerous inconsistencies that pervade
4 the registrations and the absence of an automatic presumption
5 of copyright validity or ownership. The chart attached hereto
6 as Exhibit 1 summarizes the issues as to each of the.-.documents
7 listed in Exhibits A and B to the complaint.1
8 1. Work in the Public Domain. As a result of a
9 1992 amendment to the Copyright Act, a copyright claimant is
10 not required to file an application for a renewal registration
11 for works in which copyright was secured between January 1,
12 1964 and December 31, 1977 because such renewals issue
13 automatically. Paul Goldstein, Copyright (1994 Supp.) SS 4.8
14 at Supp. pg- 99. For works in which copyright was secured
15 prior to 1964, however, a copyright claimant must have filed
16 an application for renewal registration prior to expiration of
17 the initial copyright term in order to prevent the work from
18 entering the public domain. Id.; see generally Lionel S.
19 Sobel, Copyright Renewal After the 1992 Amendments, Vol- 14,
20 No. 7 (Dec. 1992) Entertainment Law Reporter, at pg- 3.
21 Based on these rules, Item 4 of Exhibit A is not
22 entitled to copyright protection because it was first
23 published in 1961 and its initial 28-year copyright term
24 expired in 1989 upon the failure to renew the copyright.2 The
25
26 1 Since we do not have copies of the complete OT 1, OT 2 or NOTS works, additional defects may exist as to these Exhibit B 27 documents that are not readily apparent from the registration certificates themselves. 28 2 The "original work" (Exhibit 15B to McShane 2/24 Decl.) includes a copyright notice date of 1961. DEFENDANT ERLICH'S APPENDIX RE COPYRIGHT ISSUES 1
1 work automatically entered the public domain in 1989. New Era 2 Publications Int'l v. Carol Pub. Group, 729 F. Supp- 992, 995 3 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 904 F.2d 152 (2d Cir. 4 1990) (holding that Scientology's HCO Manual of Justice, with 5 copyright notice date of 1959, was not entitled to copyright 6 protection since the original 28-year term expired in-1987 and 7 no renewal was timely obtained). 8 2. Plaintiffs Not Entitled To Copyright Interest 9 for Renewal Period. With respect to Items 1, 5 and 7 of 10 Exhibit A, for which renewal was automatic, plaintiffs have 11 not established any right to the copyright interests because 12 the rights, if any, vested automatically in LRH's statutory 13 successors (his wife and children), not LRH's estate. 17 14 U.S.C. SS 304(a)(1)(c); 2 Nimmer on Copyright, SS 9.04 (1994). 15 Specifically, since these works were first published in 1965 16 and 1966 (as evidenced by the copyright notices on the 17 "original works" submitted as Exhibits 2B, 10B and 12B to the 18 McShane declaration), the initial 28-year term for each of 19 these works has expired.3 By statute, the rights to the 20 renewal term automatically vest in the author's widow and 21 children -- not in LRH's estate.4 17 U.S.C. SS 304(a)(2)(c); 22 23 3 Copyright terms expire on December 31 of the last year of 24 the term. 17 U.S.C. SS 305. Thus, the original terms for works first published in 1965 or 1966 expired as of 25 December 31, 1993 and 1994, respectively.26 4 Mr. McShane testified that Mr. Hubbard's wife and children survived him and are living today. McShane Depo. at 129:22- 27 130:11 (Exh. A to Declaration of Carla B. Oakley in Support of Motion to Dissolve or Amend the Amended TRO, filed herewith 28 ("Oakley Decl.")).
DEFENDANT ERLICH'S APPENDIX RE COPYRIGHT ISSUES 2
1 2 Nimmer on Copyright, SS 9.04 (1994). Moreover, the statutory 2 vesting of rights in the author's successors supersedes any 3 license or assignment previously made by a deceased author. 4 See Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 220-21 (1990); 2 Nimmer on 5 Copyright, 9.06[C] (1994). Similarly, the copyright 6 interest in Item 6 of Exhibit A, which was first published in 7 1967 according to the notice on the "original work" 8 (Exhibit 3B to McShane 2/24 Decl.), will vest in LRH's wife 9 and children at the end of 1995, or earlier if they file for a 10 renewal registration. 11 Plaintiffs have not, however, established that LRH's 12 wife and children transferred to either of them rights in 13 these various documents. No rights have been transferred to 14 RTC. McShane Depo. at 130:8-11 (Exh. A to Oakley Decl.). 15 Thus, it is unlikely that plaintiffs have the requisite 16 standing as to these works. 17 3. No Registrations of Infringed Works. A valid 18 copyright registration is a statutory prerequisite for filing 19 a claim of infringement. 17 U.S.C. 411. Where the 20 allegedly infringed work is incorporated into a compilation or 21 derivative work, it is not sufficient to have obtained a 22 registration simply for the compilation or derivative work. 23 2 Nimmer on Colpyright, 7.16[B][2] (1994). Rather, if only 24 the original work is infringed, as distinguished from the 25 compilation or a derivative of the work, registration of the 26 original work may be required before an infringement claim can 27 be stated. See Conan Properties, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc., 601 F. 28 DEFENDANT ERLICH'S APPENDIX RE COPYRIGHT ISSUES 31 Supp. 1179, 1182-83 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (dismissing action where 2 plaintiff provided registration of only the derivative comic 3 books, but failed to provide registration of CONAN character 4 that was claimed to have been infringed); Moritia v. Omni S Publications Intern., Ltd., 741 F. Supp. 1107, 1110-11 6 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), vacated by consent judgment, 760 F., -Supp. 45 7 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (denying copyright claim where plaintiff 8 failed to obtain registration for underlying work, but rather 9 had registered only the derivative work); see also Shaw v. 10 Lindheim, 809 F. Supp.2d 1393, 1404 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (use of 11 aspect of derivative work that was contained in underlying 12 protected work cannot be infringement of the derivative). 13 In this case, however, all of the registrations, with 14 the exception of the registrations for the first item on 15 Exhibit A and the first item on Exhibit B, are registrations 16 for collections of alleged LRH writings that were published or 17 authored years earlier. For example, Registration 18 No. A599651, dated November 11, 1974, is for a book composed 19 of several hundred different policy letters and bulletins, 20 each with a separate copyright notice. See, e.g., Oakley 21 Decl., Exh. D (Table of Contents, Organization Executive 22 Course, HCO Division 1). The years specified in these 23 individual notices span 1956 to 1970. The one document within 24 this work that Mr. Erlich allegedly infringed is at pages 552 25 to 557, and includes its own copyright notice, with a date of 26 1965. Id., Exh. E (copy of document). It was not, however, 27 28
1 separately registered. The other multi-part registered works
2 appear to be similar.5
3 Particularly since plaintiffs rely on each work
4 individually to evaluate what percentage was copied for their
5 "fair use" analysis, they cannot claim each work is not
6 separate for registration purposes.
7 4. Registration Certificate Inconsistencies. Aside
8 from various legal defects in plaintiffs' copyright claims,
9 there are numerous inconsistencies throughout the copyright
10 registrations relied upon by plaintiffs that support the
11 conclusion that plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on their
12 claims. For example:
13 9 Reg. No. TX 2-646-306, which was filed in September 1989, identifies LRH as the "copyright 14 claimant." Since LRH died in 1986, LRH cannot be the proper copyright claimant. James E. Hawes, 15 Copyright Registration Practice, SS 8.04 (1995).
16 0 Reg. No. TXu 303-384 is signed by Andy Zulieve, who is identified as an authorized agent of LRH's 17 estate. All other certificates, however, identify Norman Starkey as the authorized agent of LRH's 18 estate or family trust -- not Mr. Zulieve. Mr. McShane testified that he did know of 19 Mr. Zulieve, but thought Mr. Starkey was the sole executor and trustee. McShane Depo. at 146:13-23 20 (Exh. A to Oakley Decl.).
21 0 The titles of the allegedly infringed works identified on Exhibits A and B differ from the 22 titles of the works identified on the corresponding registrations. Thus, without reviewing a copy of 23 the deposit material on file for each registration in question, it is impossible to determine whether 24
25 5 Since RTC has not provided a complete copy of the works 26 covered by the registrations identified on Exhibit B, this conclusion is based on the reference in the registration to 27 series of works, as well as Mr. McShane's testimony describing various components to the OT and NOTS works. McShane Depo- 28 at 153:20-162:25 (Exh. A to Oakley Decl.).
DEFENDANT ERLICH'S APPENDIX RE COPYRIGHT ISSUES 5
the works listed are indeed covered by the registrations plaintiffs cite. 2 Although Item 3 of Exhibit A is claimed to be 3 confidential, the registration certificate cited for this work indicates that no procedures were 4 undertaken to maintain copies of the works deposited with the Copyright Office confidential. s 5. No Presumption of validity. While a copyright 6 registration may, in certain cases, constitute prima facie 7 evidence of the validity and ownership of the copyright 8 claimed therein, plaintiffs are not entitled to any such 9 presumption for a majority of the registrations relied upon 10 because more than five years elapsed between original 11 publication and registration. 17 U.S.C. 410(c); 2 Nimmer on 12 Copyright, 7.16[D] (1994). Rather, any presumption is at 13 the Court's discretion. 17 U.S.C. 410(c). 14 For example, the titles of the documents identified 15 as Items 9 and 10 of Exhibit A indicate first publication as 16 early as September 1983 and May 1982, respectively. These 17 works were not registered, however, until 1991 and 1990, 18 respectively.6 If a work was first published before 19 January 1, 1978 and thus obtained statutory copyright 20 protection under the 1909 Act, but was not registered until 21 after the 1976 Act became effective, and more than five years 2223
24 6 While the registration certificates list dates of first publication as 1991 and 1990, these dates are plainly 25 inconsistent with the titles of the documents themselves. Further, with respect to Item 10, the "original work" of LRH 26 (attached as 13B to McShane 2/24 Decl.) includes a copyright notice date of 1982. With respect to Item 9, neither 27 Mr. Erlich's purported copy nor the "original,, of this allegedly infringed work was provided with Mr. McShane's 28 declaration.
DEFENDANT ERLICH'S APPENDIX RE COPYRIGHT ISSUES 6
1 elapsed between its first publication and its registration 2 under the current Act, the weight accorded the certificate is 3 entirety within the discretion of the court. 2 Nimmer on 4 Copyright, 7.16[D] (1994); Dollcraft Industries, Ltd. v. 5 Well-Made Toy Mfg., 479 F. Supp. 1105, 1108, 1114 (E.D.N.Y. 6 1978); Eisenman Chem. Co. v. NL Indus., Inc., 7 595 F. Supp. 141, 144 (D. Nev. 1984). Therefore, the work 8 listed as Item 1 on Exhibit A is not entitled to the prima 9 facie evidence benefit as the registration indicates the work 10 was published in February 1966, but not registered until 11 September 1989.7 Likewise, Items 2 and 4 to 8 evidently were 12 first published more than five years earlier than these works 13 were registered as part of a larger compilation and, thus, are 14 not likely to give rise to any evidentiary presumptions.8 15 Further, Items 1, 3 and 4 on Exhibit B would not be 16 entitled to the evidentiary benefit as they were created in 17 18 7 Also, the "original" (Exhibit 12A to McShane) includes a 19 copyright notice date of 1966.
20 8 Item 2 was published in 1965 (copyright notice on Exhibit 5B to McShane 2/24 Decl.) and the registration 21 certificate identified by plaintiffs was obtained in 1974; Item 4 was published in 1961 (copyright notice on Exhibit 15B 22 to McShane 2/24 Decl.) and the registration certificate identified by plaintiffs was obtained in 1976; Item 5 was 23 published in 1965 (copyright notice on Exhibit 10B to McShane 2/24 Decl.) and the registration certificate identified by 24 plaintiffs was obtained in 1974; Item 6 was published in 1967 (copyright notice on Exhibit 3B to McShane 2/24 Decl.) and the 25 registration certificate identified by plaintiffs was obtained in 1987; Item 7 was published in 1965 (copyright notice on 26 Exhibit 2B to McShane 2/24 Decl.) and the registration certificate identified by plaintiffs was obtained in 1987; and 27 Item 8 was published in 1976 (copyright notice on Exhibit 4B to McShane 2/24 Decl.) and the registration certificate 28 identified by plaintiffs was obtained in 1987.
DEFENDANT ERLICH'S APPENDIX RE COPYRIGHT ISSUES 7
1 1968, 1968 and 1966, respectively, but were not registered 2 until 1994, 1987 and 1987, respectively. 3 In addition, absent the renewal registrations for 4 works in their renewal copyright term (Items 1, 2, 5 and 7 on 5 Exhibit A), plaintiffs are not entitled to any evidentiary 6 presumptions for those works respecting validity or ownership. 7 17 U.S.C. SS 304; 2 Nimmer on Copyright, 9.05[DI[21 (1994). 8 Also, to the extent that information on supplemental 9 registrations (which can be used to correct information in an 10 original registration) contradicts original registrations, 11 plaintiffs are not entitled to a prima facie presumption as to 12 those elements. Id. 7.20. Supplemental corrective 13 registrations were filed for at least four of the 14 registrations plaintiffs cite in Exhibits A and B and attach 15 to the complaint. 16 Without the benefit of the prima facie presumption, 17 plaintiffs have the burden of proving likelihood of success on 18 the issues of the validity and ownership of the copyrights, 19 and, where necessary, that any published copies of the works 20 bore a proper copyright notice and thus did not fall into the 21 public domain. 3 Nimmer on Copyright 12.11[BI[21 (1994); 22 Dollcraft Industries, Ltd., 479 F. Supp. at 1115. 23 24 25 26 27 28EXHIBIT A DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT DEFECTS
1. HCOPL 25 Feb. 1966, * No right to renewal ATTACKS ON SCIENTOLOGY period after Dec. 31, 1994.
* No automatic presumption of validity due to (1) lack of renewal registration, and (2) more than 5 years before registration.
2. HCO PL 23 DEC. 1965, * No automatic presumption ETHICS, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, of validity due to SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, (1) lack of renewal SUPPRESSION OF registration, and SCIENTOLOGY AND (2) more than 5 years SCIENTOLOGISTS, THE FAIR before registration. GAME LAW * No presumption as to corrected information.
* Title discrepancy.
* No presumption as to corrected information in supplement.
* No presumption since in renewal term and no renewal registration.
* No registration for underlying work sued upon.
3. LRH ED 149 PROJECT * Title discrepancy. SQUIRREL * No registration for underlying work sued upon.* Claim in footnote 1 to Exh. A that this work is confidential is inconsistent with the certificate, which shows work was published and two copies deposited.
4. 20 Nov. 1961, ROUTINE * Copyright expired; work 3D COMMANDS in public domain.* Title discrepancy.
* No presumption due to lapse of more than 5 years before registration.
* No presumption as to corrected information.
* No registration for underlying work sued upon.
5. HCO PL 1 JULY 1965 * No right to renewal ETHICS CHITS period after Dec. 31, 1993.* Title discrepancy.
* No automatic presumption of validity due to (1) lack of renewal registration, and (2) more than 5 years before registration.
* No registration for underlying work sued upon.
26. HCO B 22 MARCH 1967, * No right to renewal ALTER-IS AND DEGRADED period after Dec. 31, BEINGS 1995.
* Title discrepancy.
* No automatic presumption of validity due to lapse of more than 5 years before registration.
* No presumption as to corrected information.
* No registration for underlying work sued upon.
7. HCO PL 1 May 1965 STAFF * No right to renewal MEMBER REPORTS period after Dec. 31, 1993.
* No automatic presumption of validity due to (1) lack of renewal registration, and (2) more than 5 years before registration.
* No presumption as to corrected information.
* Title discrepancy.
* No registration for underlying work sued upon.
8. HCO PL 6 December 1976 * Title discrepancy. ILLEGAL PCS, ACCEPTANCE OF * No presumption due to lapse of more than 5 years before registration.
* No registration for underlying work sued upon.
9. HCOB 10 September 1983 * Title discrepancy. PTSNESS AND DISCONNECTION * No presumption due to lapse of more than 5 years before registration.* No registration for underlying work sued upon.
10. HCOB 6 May 1982 I THE * Title discrepancy. CAUSE OF CRIME 8 No presumption due to lapse of more than 5 years before registration.8 No registration for underlying work sued upon.
EXHIBIT B DOCUMENTSDOCUMENT DEFECTS
1. CLASS VIII "ASSISTS" TAPE No presumption due to lapse of more than 5 years before registration.
2. NOTS ISSUE 24 "NOTS * No registration for CORRECTION LIST" underlying work sued upon.
* No presumption as to corrected information.
* Title discrepancy.
* No grant of special treatment for allegedly confidential works indicated on certificate.
3. OT1 * No presumption due to lapse of more than 5 years before registration.
* No registration for underlying work sued upon.
4. OT2 * No presumption due to lapse of more than 5 years before registration.* No registration for underlying work sued upon.
5. NOTS Issue 34 * No registration for underlying work sued upon.
* No presumption as to corrected information.
* Title discrepancy.
* No grant of special treatment for allegedly confidential works indicated on certificate.
6. NOTS Issue 35 * No registration for underlying work sued upon.
* Title discrepancy.
* No presumption as to corrected information.
* No grant of special treatment for allegedly confidential works indicated on certificate.
7. NOTS Issue 36 * No registration for underlying work sued upon.
* Title discrepancy.
* No presumption as to corrected information.
* No grant of special treatment for allegedly confidential works indicated on certificate.
8. NOTS Issue 1 * No registration for underlying work sued upon.* No presumption as to corrected information.
* Title discrepancy.
* No grant of special treatment for allegedly confidential works indicated on certificate.
9. NOTS Issue 42 * No registration for underlying work sued upon.* No presumption as to corrected information.
* Title discrepancy.---
* No grant of special treatment for allegedly confidential works indicated on certificate.
CSMGMT U.S. District Court U.S. District for the Northern District of California (San Jose)CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 95-CV-20091
Religious Technology, et al v. Netcom On-Line Comm., et al Filed: 02/08/95 Assigned to: Judge Ronald M. Whyte Jury demand: Defendant Referred to: Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante Demand: $0,000 Nature of Suit: 820 Lead Docket: None Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a Andrew H. Wilson California non-profit (COR LD NTC] corporation Wilson Ryan Blum & Campilongo Plaintiff 235 Montgomery St Ste 450 San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 39 1 - 3 9 0 0
Kendrick L. Moxon [COR LD NTC] Bowles & Moxon 6255 Sunset Blvd Ste 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90028 (213) 661-4030
Thomas M. Small [COR LD NTC] Small Larkin Kidde & Golant 10940 Wilshire Blvd Ste 400 Los Angeles, CA 90024 (310) 209-4400
Helena K. Kobrin [COR LD NTC] 7629 Fulton Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605 (213) 960-1933
Elliot J. Abelson [COR LD NTC] 2121 Avenue of the Stars Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-5010 310-282-8975
BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, INC., a Andrew H. Wilson California non-profit (See above) corporation [COR LD NTC]
Docket as of July 6, 1995 3:06 pm Page 1
Proceedings include all events. CSMGMT 5:95cv2OO9l Religious Technology, et al v. Netcom On-Line Comm., et alPlaintiff Kendrick L. Moxon (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Thomas M. Small (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Helena K. Kobrin (See above) [COR LD NTC]
Elliot J. Abelson (See above) [COR LD NTC]
V.
NETCOM ON-LINE COMMUNICATION Randolf J. Rice SERVICES, INC., a Delaware [COR LD NTC] corporation Pillsbury Madison & Sutro defendant Ten Almaden Blvd Ste 800 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 947-4000
DENNIS ERLICH, an individual Carla B. Oakley defendant [COR LD NTC] Morrison & Foerster 345 California St San Francisco, CA 94104-2675 (415) 677 - 7000
TOM KLEMESRUD, an individual Daniel A. Leipold defendant [COR LD NTC] Cathy L. Shipe [COR LD NTC] Hagenbaugh & Murphy 701 S Parker St Ste 8200 Orange, CA 92668 (714) 835-5406
Docket as of July 6, 1995 3:06 pm Page 2
Proceedings include all events. CSMGMT 5:95cv2OO9l Religious Technology, et al v. Netcom On-Line Comm., et al2/8/95 1 VERIFIED COMPLAINT yes Summons(es) issued; Fee status pd entered on 2/8/95 'in the amount of $ 120.00 ( Receipt No. 94350) (5:95-sc-200911 (scu) (Entry date 02/13/951 -
2/8/95 2 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications to seal the court file [5:95-sc-20091] (scu) [Entry date 02/13/951
2/8/95 3 DECLARATION by Andrew H. Wilson on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications re motion to seal the court file [2-11 [5:95-sc-200911 (scu) (Entry date 02/13/951
2/8/95 -- RECEIVED Order ( Plaintiff Religious Technology ) re sealing file [5:95-sc-200911 (scu) [Entry date 02/13/951
2/8/95 4 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications for issuance of writ of seizure [5:95-sc-200911 (scu) [Entry date 02/13/951
2/8/95 RECEIVED Order to clerk to issue writ submitted by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications [5:95-sc-200911 (scu) [Entry date 02/13/951
2/8/95 RECEIVED writ of seizure submitted by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications (5:95-sc-200911 (scu) (Entry date 02/13/951
2/8/95 5 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications for protective order [5:95-sc-200911 (scu) [Entry date 02/13 951
2/8/95 -- RECEIVED Proposed protective order (5:95-sc-200911 (scu) [Entry date 02/13/951
2/8/95 6 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications for temporary restraining order, for order to show cause re preliminary injunction and for order of impoundment; and memo of points and authorities (5:95-sc-200911 (scu) [Entry date 02/13/951
2/8/95 -- RECEIVED Proposed order for TRO submitted by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications (5:95-sc-200911 (scu) [Entry date 02/13/951
Docket as of July 6, 1995 3:06 pm Page 3
Proceedings include all events. CSMGMT 5:95cv2OO9l Religious Technology, et al v. Netcom On-Line Comm., et al2/8/95 7 DECLARATION by Marilyn Pisani on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications re motion for temporary restraining order [6-1], re motion for order to show cause re preliminary injunction and for order of impoundment; and memo of points and authorities (6-21 (5:95-sc-200911 (scu) [Entry date 02/13/951
2/8/95 8 DECLARATION by Thomas M. Small, Warren McShane and Helena Kobrin on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications in support of verified complaint (5:95-sc-200911 (scu) (Entry date 02/13/951
2/8/95 9 EXHIBITS E to declaration [8-11 (5:95-sc-200911 (scu) [Entry date 02/13/951
2/8/95 10 ORDER RE COURT PROCEDURE and SCHEDULE by Judge Ronald M. Whyte : Proof of service to be filed by 3/27/95 counsels' case management statement to be filed by 5/30/95 initial case management conference will be held 10:30 6/9/95 (cc: all counsel) (scu) [Entry date 02/13/951
2/10/95 11 ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte granting motion for temporary restraining order (6-11, @rantinv motion for order to show cause re preliminary injunction and for order of impoundment; and memo of points and authorities [6-21, grant lng motion for protective order [5-11 ( Date Entered: 2/13 /9 5) (cc: all counsel) [5:95-sc-200911 (scu) [Entry date 02/13/951
2/10/95 12 ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte granting motion for issuance of writ of seizure [4-11 ( Date Entered: 2/13/95) (cc: all counsel) (5:95-sc-200911 (scu) [Entry date 02/13/951
2/10/95 -- WRIT of seizure is issued. [5:95-sc-200911 (scu) [Entry date 02/14/951
2/14/95 13 ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte unsealing ( Date Entered: 2/17/95) (cc: all counsel) [5:95-cv-200911 (scu) [Entry date 02/17/951
2/17/95 14 MEMORANDUM by defendant Netcom On-Line Com. in opposition to plaintiff's request for injunctive relief (5:95-cv-200911 (cgb) (Entry date 02/27/951
2/17/95 15 DECLARATION by Rick Francis on behalf of defendant Netcom On-Line Com. re opposition memorandum [14-11 (5:95-cv-200911 (cgb) [Entry date 02/27/951
2/17/95 16 DECLARATION by Randolf J. Rice on behalf of defendant Netcom On-Line Com. re opposition memorandum [14-11 [5:95-cv-200911 (cgb) (Entry date 02/27/951
Docket as of July 6, 1995 3:06 pm Page 4
Proceedings include all events. CSMGMT 5:95cv2OO9l Religious Technology, et al v. Netcom On-Line Comm., et al2/21/95 17 DECLARATION by Warren McShane, Thomas M. Small, Helena K. Kobrin, Edward Eccles, Stephan E. Bevan on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications in support of report on seizure executed (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) (Entry date 02/27/95)
2/21/95 18 LETTER dated 2/21/95 from Dennis Erlich addressed to Judge Whyte (5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 02/27/95)
2/21/95 19 DECLARATION by Tom Theo Klemesrud on behalf of defendant himself in opposition to request for preliminary injunction (5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 02727/95]
2/21/95 31 MINUTES: ( C/R Shelly Coffey) order to show cause re preliminary injunction held. Court denied the OSC without prejudice. [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/13/95]
2/23/95 32 AMENDED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte [2-11 (cc: all counsel) [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/13/95]
2/27/95 20 Report on seizure executed pursuant to the court's writ of seizure (5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
2/27/95 21 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications in support of preliminary injunction filed in compliance with the court's verbal order of 2/21/95 [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
2/27/95 22 ERRATA for appendices filed by Plaintiff Religious Technology , Plaintiff Bridge Publications to [21-1] in support of No. 21 [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
2/27/95 23 DECLARATION by Warren McShane on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications and exhibits in support of No. 21 [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
2/27/95 24 APPENDIX filed by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications re declaration [23-1] Volume 1 [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
2/27/95 25 APPENDIX filed by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications re declaration [23-1] Volume II [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
2/27/95 26 APPENDIX filed by Plaintiff Religious Technology re declaration [23-1] Volume III (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb)
2/27/95 27 APPENDIX filed by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications re declaration [23-1] Volume IV [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
2/27/95 28 APPENDIX filed by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications Volume V [5:95-cv-20091) (cgb)
Docket as of July 6, 1995 3:06 pm Page 5
Proceedings include all events. CSMGMT 5:95cv2OO9l Religious Technology, et al v. Netcom On-Line Comm., et al2/27/95 29 LETTER dated 2/27/95 from Helena K. Kobrin addressed to Judge Whyte (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) [Entry date 03/03/95]
2/27/95 30 DECLARATION by Warren McShane on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications re violation of temporary restraining order (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) (Entry date 03/03/95)
2/28/95 33 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications to shorten time on motion [33-1] for to show cause re contempt against deft Dennis Erlich (5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 03/13/95)
2/28/95 34 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications for order to show cause why he should not be held in civil disobedience [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/13/95]
2/28/95 35 DECLARATION by Warren McShane on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications re violation of TRO [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/13/95]
2/28/95 36 DECLARATION by Warren McShane on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications re violation of TRO [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 03/13/95]
2/28/95 -- RECEIVED Order ( Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications ) re shortening time (5:95-cv-20091} (cgb) (Entry date 03/13/95)
3/2/95 42 ORDER by Senior Judge Spencer Williams extending time to respond to complaint and the information filed by plaintiff on 2/24/95 ( Date Entered: 3/16/95) (cc: all counsel) [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 03/16/95}
3/3/95 37 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by defendant Tom Klemesrud to extend time to respond to complaint (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) (Entry date O3/13/951
3/3/95 38 DECLARATION by Richard Allan Horning on behalf of defendant Tom Klemesrud in support of exparte application for extension of time [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/13/95]
3/3/95 -- RECEIVED Order ( defendant Tom Klemesrud ) re extension of time to respond to complaint (5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 03/13/95]
Docket as of July 6, 1995 3:06 pm Page 6
Proceedings include all events. CSMGMT 5:95cv2OO9l Religious Technology, et al v. Netcom On-Line Comm., et al2/27/95 29 LETTER dated 2/27/95 from Helena K. Kobrin addressed to Judge Whyte [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 03/03/95)
2/27/95 30 DECLARATION by Warren McShane on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications re violation of temporary restraining order [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/03/95]
2/28/95 33 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications to shorten time on motion [33-1] for to show cause re contempt against deft Dennis Erlich [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/13/95]
2/28/95 34 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications for order to show cause why he should not be held in civil disobedience [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/13/95]
2/28/95 35 DECLARATION by Warren McShane on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications re violation of TRO (5:95-cv-20091} (cgb) [Entry date 03/13/95]
2/28/95 36 DECLARATION by Warren McShane on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications re violation of TRO (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) (Entry date 03/13/95)
2/28/95 -- RECEIVED Order ( Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications ) re shortening time (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) [Entry date 03/13/95]
3/2/95 42 ORDER by Senior Judge Spencer Williams extending time to respond to complaint and the information filed by plaintiff on 2/24/95 ( Date Entered: 3/16/95) (cc: all counsel) (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) (Entry date 03/16/95)
3/3/95 37 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by defendant Tom Klemesrud to extend time to respond to complaint [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/13/95]
3/3/95 38 DECLARATION by Richard Allan Horning on behalf of defendant Tom Klemesrud in support of exparte application for extension of time (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) (Entry date 03/13/95)
3/3/95 -- RECEIVED Order ( defendant Tom Klemesrud ) re extension of time to respond to complaint (5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/13/95]
Docket as of July 6, 1995 3:06 pm Page 6
Proceedings include all events. CSMGMT 5:95cv2OO9l Religious Technology, et al v. Netcom On-Line Comm., et al3/3/95 39 VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [1-1] by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications [5:95-cv-200911 (cgb) [Entry date 03/13/95]
3/6/95 43 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by defendant Netcom On-Line Com. for leave to file a memorandum in excess ofpage limitation [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/16/95]
3/6/95 -- RECEIVED Order ( defendant Netcom On-Line Com. ) re: [43-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/16/95]
3/6/95 73 ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte granting motion to extend time to respond to complaint [37-1] by defendant Klemesrud ( Date Entered: 3/28/95) (cc: all counsel) [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/28/95]
3/7/95 40 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications to motion to extend time to respond to complaint (37-1) (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) (Entry date 03/13/95)
3/8/95 41 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications to shorten time on motion for preliminary injunction (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) [Entry date 03/13/95]
3/8/95 -- RECEIVED Renewed motion for prel inj against NetCom; memo in support thereof; declaration and proposed orders submitted by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 03/13/95]
3/10/95 -- RECEIVED order granting extension time to respond to amended complaint submitted by defendant Tom Klemesrud (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) (Entry date 03/16/95)
3/10/95 49 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by defendant Tom Klemesrud to extend time to respond to first amended complaint [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 03/16/95)
3/10/95 50 DECLARATION by Richard Allan Horning on behalf of defendant Tom Klemesrud re motion to extend time to respond to first amended complaint (49-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/16/95]
3/13/95 44 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by defendant Netcom On-Line Com. to dismiss complaint with Notice set for 4/14/95 at 9 am (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) [Entry date 03/16/95]
Docket as of July 6, 1995 3:06 pm Page 7
Proceedings include all events. CSMGMT 5:95cv2OO9l Religious Technology, et al v. Netcom On-Line Comm., et al3/13/95 45 ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte granting motion to shorten time on motion for order to show cause re contempt against deft Dennis Erlich (41-1) ( Date Entered: 3/16/95) (cc: all counsel) [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 03/16/95)
3/13/95 46 MEMORANDUM by defendant Netcom On-Line Com. in support of motion to dismiss complaint (44-1) [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 03/16/95)
3/13/95 47 STATEMENT of facts by defendant Netcom On-Line Com. in support of motion to dismiss complaint (44-1] (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) [Entry date 03/16/95]
3/13/95 -- RECEIVED Proposed order form submitted by defendant Netcom On-Line Com. re: [44-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 03/16/95)
3/13/95 48 DECLARATION by Rick Francis on behalf of defendant Netcom On-Line Com. re motion to dismiss complaint [44-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/i6/95]
3/13/95 51 AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by defendant Netcom On-Line Com. to dismiss complaint, or in the alternative for summary judgment with Notice set for 4/14/95 at 9:00 [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/16/95] [Edit date 03/16/95]
3/13/95 52 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by defendant Dennis Erlich to extend time and for production of seized documents (5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 03/16/95]
3/13/95 53 DECLARATION by Carla B. Oakley on behalf of defendant Dennis Erlich re motion to extend time and for production of seized documents (52-1) [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/16/95]
3/14/95 54 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by defendant Dennis Erlich to continue hearing on order to show cause [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 03/16/95)
3/14/95 55 DECLARATION by Carla B Oakley on behalf of defendant Dennis Erlich re motion to continue hearing on order to show cause [54-1] (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) [Entry date 03/16/95]
3/14/95 56 LETTER dated 3/14/95 from Helena K. Kobrin addressed to Judge Whyte re continuance of contempt hearing [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/16/95]
3/14/95 57 LETTER dated 3/14/95 from Helena K. Kobrin addressed to Judge Whyte (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) [Entry date 03/16/95]
Docket as of July 6, 1995 3:06 pm Page 8
Proceedings include all events. CSMGMT 5:95cv2OO9l Religious Technology, et al v. Netcom On-Line Comm., et al3/14/95 58 LETTER dated 3/14/95 from Helena K. Kobrin addressed to Judge Whyte [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 03/16/95]
3/15/95 59 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Dennis Erlich of Nos. 52 and 53 [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 03/16/95]
3/15/95 60 OPPOSITION by defendant Dennis Erlich to plaintiffs, motion for an order to show cause re civil contempt [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 03/16/95]
3/15/95 61 DECLARATION by Dennis Erlich on behalf of defendant in support of opposition to motion for osc re contempt [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/16/95]
3/15/95 62 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Dennis Erlich of 60 and 61 (5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/16/95]
3/15/95 63 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications to motion to continue hearing on order to show cause [54-1] (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) (Entry date 03/16/95)
3/15/95 64 LETTER dated 3/15/95 from Helena K. Kobrin addressed to Judge Whyte re oppotion to contempt motion (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) [Entry date 03/16/95]
3/16/95 65 REPLY by Plaintiff Religious Technology in support of order to show cause re civil contempt [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/21/95]
3/16/95 66 DECLARATION by Warren McShane and Rosa Erlich Munsey on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications in support of No. 65 [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 03/21/95)
3/16/95 67 RENEWED MOTION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications for preliminary injunction against defendants Communications Services and Tom Klemesrud with Notice set for 4/7/95 [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/21/95]
3/16/95 68 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications in support of motion for preliminary injunction against defendants Communications Services and Tom Klemesrud [67-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 03/21/95)
3/16/95 69 DECLARATION by Dr. Kenneth Castleman, Dr. Alfonso F. Cardenas, David H. Elrod, Lynn R. Farney, Andrew H. Wilson and Helena K. Kobrin on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications re motion for preliminary injunction against defendants Communications Services and Tom Klemesrud [67-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/21/95]
Docket as of July 6, 1995 3:06 pm Page 9
Proceedings include all events. CSMGMT 5:95cv2OO9l Religious Technology, et al v. Netcom On-Line Comm., et al3/16/95 -- RECEIVED Order ( Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications ) granting prel injunction [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/21/95]
3/16/95 70 LETTER dated 3/16/95 from Helena K. Kobrin addressed to Judge Whyte [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 03/21/95)
3/16/95 72 ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte All motions will be heard by 10:30 4/14/95 ; Case Management Conference set for 10:30 4 7/95 ; ( Date Entered: 3/28/95) (cc: all counsel) [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/28/95]
3/17/95 71 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications to exparte application for continuance of hearing on order to show cause [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/21/95]
3/23/95 74 AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Netcom On-Line Com. of declaration of Randolf J. Rice [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/28/95]
3/27/95 75 LETTER dated 3/25/95 from Helena K. Kobrin addressed to Judge Whyte [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 03/28/95]
4/4/95 76 ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte regarding seized documents ( Date Entered: 4/10/95) (cc: all counsel) (5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 04/10/95)
4/6/95 77 JOINT REPORT by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications, defendant Netcom On-Line Com. re meet and confers held [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 04/10/95]
4/7/95 78 NOTICE by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications of association of attorney Elliot J. Abelson (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) [Entry date 04/10@95]
4/7/95 79 MINUTES: ( C/R not reported) INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE HELD. Further case management conference set for 10:30 7/14/95 ; All motions hearing date 9:00 6/23/95 (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) [Entry date 04/10/95]
4/7/95 RECEIVED Proposed schedule for future events submitted by defendant Tom Klemesrud (5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 04/10/95]
4/7/95 RECEIVED Proposed substitution of attorney submitted by defendant Tom Klemesrud [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 04/10/95)
4/11/95 80 ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte withdrawing and substituting attorney Daniel A. Leipold ( Date Entered: 4/27/95) (cc: all counsel) (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) (Entry date 04/27/95)
Docket as of July 6, 1995 3:06 pm Page 10
Proceedings include all events. CSMGMT 5:95cv2OO9l Religious Technology, et al v. Netcom On-Line Comm., et al4/14/95 81 ANSWER by defendant Tom Klemesrud to complaint [39-1]; [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 04/27/95]
4/14/95 83 JOINT STATEMENT concerning discovery plan by defendant Netcom On-Line Com. [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 04/27/95]
4/14/95 84 ANSWER by defendant Dennis Erlich to first amended complaint [39-1]; jury demand [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 04/27/95]
4/17/95 82 LETTER dated 4/17/95 from Helena K. Kobrin addressed to Judge Whyte re seized documents [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 04/27/95]
4/17/95 85 ANSWER by defendant Tom Klemesrud to first amended complaint [39-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 04/27/95]
4/18/95 86 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications to shorten time on motion hearing re contempt [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 04/27/95]
4/18/95 87 DECLARATION by Laurie J. Bartilson on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications re motion to shorten time on motion hearing re contempt [86-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 04/27/95]
4/19/95 -- RECEIVED Order ( Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications ) setting hearing on motion for contempt against deft Erlich [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 04/27/95]
4/20/95 88 OPPOSITION by defendant Dennis Erlich to motion to shorten time on motion hearing re contempt [86-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 04/27/95]
4/20/95 89 LETTER dated 4/20/95 from Helena K. Kobrin from Religious Technology, Bridge Publications addressed to Judge Whyte [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 04/27/95]
4/25/95 90 REPLY by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications re motion to shorten time on motion hearing re contempt [86-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 04/27/95]
4/25/95 91 DECLARATION by Laurie J. Bartilson on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications re reply to motion to shorten time on motion hearing re contempt [86-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 04/27/95]
4/25/95 92 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte . (cc: all counsel) [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
Docket as of July 6, 1995 3:06 pm Page 11
Proceedings include all events. CSMGMT 5:95cv2OO9l Religious Technology, et al v. Netcom On-Line Comm., et al[Entry date 05/04/95]
5/3/95 93 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 2/21/95 ( C/R: Shelly Coffey) [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/04/95]
5/3/95 94 ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte re discovery plan ( Date Entered: 5/15795) [cc: all counsel) [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/15/95]
5/5/95 95 ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte denying motion to shorten time on motion hearing re contempt [86-1] ( Date Entered: 5/15/95) (cc: all counsel) [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/15/95]
5/8/95 98 REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIM of defendant Dennis Erlich [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 05/15/95]
5/9/95 96 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by defendant Dennis Erlich for order to file oversized brief [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/15/95]
5/9/95 97 CERTIFICATION OF Carla B. Oakley on behalf of defendant Dennis Erlich in support of ex parte application to file oversized brief [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/15/95]
5/9/95 -- RECEIVED Order ( defendant Dennis Erlich ) re oversized brief [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/15/95]
5/10/95 99 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications to motion for order to file oversized brief [96-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 05/15/95]
5/12/95 100 DECLARATION by Timothy J. Stryker on behalf of defendant Tom Klemesrud [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/15/95]
5/12/95 101 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by defendant Dennis Erlich to vacate writ of seizure, for return of seized articles and for increase in amount of bond with Notice set for 6/23/95 at 9 am [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 05/15/95]
5/12/95 102 MEMORANDUM by defendant Dennis Erlich in support of motion to vacate writ of seizure, for return of seized articles and for increase in amount of bond [101-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/15/95]
5/12/95 103 DECLARATION by Carla B. Oakley on behalf of defendant Dennis Erlich re motion to vacate writ of seizure, for return of seized articles and for increase in amount of bond (101-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 05/15/95]
5/12/95 -- RECEIVED Order ( defendant Dennis Erlich ) re No. 101 [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/15/95]
Docket as of July 6, 1995 3:06 pm Page 12
Proceedings include all events. CSMGMR 5:95cv2OO9l Religious Technology, et al v. Netcom On-Line Comm., et al5/12/95 104 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications for amended temporary restraining order; memorandum of points and authorities [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/l9/95]
5/12/95 105 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications in support of motion for amended temporary restraining order; memorandum of points and authorities [104-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/15/95]
5/12/95 106 DECLARATION by Warren McShane on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications re motion for amended temporary restraining order; memorandum of points and authorities [104-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 05/15/95]
5/12/95 107 DECLARATION by Warren McShane on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications re memorandum in support of application for preliminary injunction against defendant Dennis Erlich [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 05/15/95]
5/12/95 RECEIVED Order ( Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications ) re second amended TRO [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 05/15/95]
5/12/95 RECEIVED Stipulation regarding deposition submitted by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb) [Entry date 05/15/95]
5/12/95 108 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by defendant Tom Klemesrud for judgment on the pleadings, or, alternatively, for summary judgment with Notice set for 6/23/95 at 9 am (5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/15/95]
5/12/95 109 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tom Klemesrud in support of motion for judgment on the pleadings [108-1], of motion for summary judgment [108-2] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/15/95]
5/12/95 110 SEPARATE STATEMENT of undisputed facts by defendant Tom Klemesrud [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 05/15/95]
5/12/95 111 DECLARATION by Robert Hartman on behalf of defendant Tom Klemesrud in support of opposition to plaintiffs, request for preliminary injunction [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/15/95]
5/12/95 112 DECLARATION by Cathly L. Shipe on behalf of defendant Tom Klemesrud re motion for judgment on the pleadings [108-1], re motion for summary judgment [108-2] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
Docket as of July 6, 1995 3:06 pm Page 13
Proceedings include all events. CSMGMT 5:95cv2OO9l Religious Technology, et al v. Netcom On-Line Comm., et al(Entry date 05/15/95)
5/12/95 113 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by defendant Dennis Erlich to dissolve or amend the amended TRO with Notice set for 6/23/95 at 9 am [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/15/95]
5/12/95 114 MEMORANDUM by defendant Dennis Erlich in support of motion to dissolve or amend the amended TRO [113-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 05/15/95]
5/12/95 115 DECLARATION by Carla B. Oakley on behalf of defendant Dennis Erlich re motion to dissolve or amend the amended TRO [113-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/15/95]
5/12/95 116 APPENDIX filed by defendant Dennis Erlich re motion to dissolve or amend the amended TRO [113-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/15/95]
5/12/95 117 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by defendant Dennis Erlich in support of motion to dissolve or amend the amended TRO [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 05/15/95]
5/12/95 118 APPENDIX filed by defendant Dennis Erlich re copyright issues [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/15/95]
5/15/95 119 OPPOSITION by defendant Dennis Erlich to plaintiffs' exparte application for amended TRO [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 05/18/95]
5/15/95 -- RECEIVED Order ( defendant Dennis Erlich ) re No. 119 [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/18/95]
5/15/95 120 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by defendant Tom Klemesrud for judgment on the pleadings with Notice set for 6/23/95 at 9 am [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/18/95]
5/15/95 121 SEPARATE STATEMENT of undisputed facts by defendant Tom Klemesrud [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 05/18/95]
5/15/95 122 ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte granting motion for order to file oversized brief [96-1] ( Date Entered: 5/25/95) (cc: all counsel) [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 05/25/95]
5/16/95 123 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte regarding deposition (cc: all counsel) [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 05/25/95]
5/17/95 124 REPLY by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications in support of exparte application for amended TRO; memo attached [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/25/95]
Docket as of July 6, 1995 3:06 pm Page 14
Proceedings include all events. CSMGMT 5:95cv2OO9l Religious Technology, et al v. Netcom On-Line Comm., et al5/17/95 125 DECLARATION by Helena K. Kobrin on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications in support of No. 124 [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 05/25/95]
5/17/95 126 DECLARATION by Warren McShane on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications re protective order (UNDER SEAL) [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 05/25/95]
5/19/95 127 SUR-REPLY by defendant Dennis Erlich to plaintiffs' exparte application for amended TRO [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 05/25/95]
5/22/95 128 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Dennis Erlich of Order No. 122 [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/25/95]
5/22/95 129 NOTICE by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications of association of attorne Kendrick L. Moxon [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/25/95]
5/23/95 132 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Netcom On-Line Com. of stipulations re depositions [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/30/95]
5/24/95 130 LETTER dated 5/24/95 from Helena K. Kobrin addressed to Judge Whyte [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 05/25/95]
5/24/95 131 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications to filing of Defendant Dennis Erlich sur-reply to exparte application for amended TRO [5:95-cv-200911 (cgb) [Entry date 05/25/95]
5/24/95 147 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Dennis Erlich of motion to dissolve or amend TRO and supporting papers [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 06/02/95]
5/26/95 133 EX-PARTE APPLICATION before Judge Ronald M. Whyte by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications for order to file oversized brief [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 05/30/95]
5/30/95 156 ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte granting motion for order to file oversized brief [133-1] ( Date Entered: 6/12/95) [cc: all counsel) [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 06/12/95]
5/30/95 157 ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte continuing motion for summary judgment on the pleadings ( Date Entered: 6/12/95) (cc: all counsel) [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 06/12/95]
Docket as of July 6, 1995 3:06 pm Page 15
Proceedings include all events. CSMGMT 5:95cv2OO9l Religious Technology, et al v. Netcom On-Line Comm., et al5/31/95 134 OPPOSITION by defendant Dennis Erlich to plaintiffs, exparte applications [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
5/31/95 135 DECLARATION by Carla B. Oakley on behalf of defendant Dennis Erlich re opposition [134-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
5/31/95 136 OBJECTIONS by defendant Netcom On-Line Com. to plaintiffs' declarations in support of renewed motion for preliminary injunction (5:95-cv-20091) (cgb)
5/31/95 137 MEMORANDUM by defendant Netcom On-Line Com. in opposition to renewed motion for preliminary injunction [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
5/31/95 138 DECLARATION by Melissa A. Burke on behalf of defendant Netcom On-Line Com. in support of No. 136 [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
5/31/95 139 Proposed form of order attached. [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
5/31/95 140 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tom Klemesrud, in opposition to plaintiffs, renewed motion for preliminary injunction [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
5/31/95 141 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications to Dennis Erlich's motion to dissolve or amend the amended TRO [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
5/31/95 142 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications to Dennis Elrich's motion to vacate writ of seizure [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
5/31/95 143 DECLARATION by plaintiffs on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications in support of No. 141 [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
5/31/95 144 DECLARATION by Warren McShane, Robert Shovlin and Helena Kobrin on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology in support of No. 142 [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
5/31/95 145 DECLARATION by Warren McShane, Janet A. Kobrin on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications in support of No. 141 [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
5/31/95 146 DECLARATION by Ryland Hawkins on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications in support of No. 141 [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
6/2/95 148 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications in opposition to defendant Klemesrud's motion for judgment on the pleadings [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
Docket as of July 6, 1995 3:06 pm Page 16
Proceedings include all events. CSMGMT 5:95cv2OO9l Religious Technology, et al v. Netcom On-Line Comm., et al6/2/95 149 EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS by defendant Tom Klemesrud to the declarations of Alfonso Cardenas and David Elrod [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
6/2/95 150 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by defendant Tom Klemesrud in support of opposition to request for injunctive relief [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
6/2/95 151 MEMORANDUM by defendant Tom Klemesrud. in opposition to plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary injunction [5:95-cv-20091) (cgb)
6/7/95 152 MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications in opposition to Netcom's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
6/7/95 153 SEPARATE STATEMENT of disputed facts by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications in support of No. 152 [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
6/7/95 154 DECLARATION by Helena K. Kobrin on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications re opposition memorandum [152-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
6/9/95 155 REPLY by defendant Tom Klemesrud to opposition to motion for judgment on the pleadings [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
6/9/95 158 REPLY memorandum by defendant Dennis Erlich in support of motion to dissolve or amend the amended TRO [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 06/12/95]
6/9/95 159 REPLY declaration of Carla B. Oakley by defendant Dennis Erlich in support of motion to vacate writ of seizure, for return of seized articles and for increase in amount of bond (5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 06/12/95]
6/9/95 160 REPLY memorandum by defendant Dennis Erlich in support of motion to vacate writ of seizure [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 06/12/95]
6/9/95 161 DECLARATION by Matthew K. Fawcett on behalf of defendant Dennis Erlich in re seized documents (UNDER SEAL) [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 06/12/95]
6/9/95 162 DECLARATION by Carla B. Oakley on behalf of defendant Dennis Erlich in reply to motion to dissolve or amend the TRO [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 06/12/95]
6/9/95 163 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Dennis Erlich of Nos. 158 to 152 [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 06/12/95]
6/9/95 164 REPLY by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications to Netcom's opposition to plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary injunction [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
Docket as of July 6, 1995 3:06 pm Page 17
Proceedings include all events. CSMGMT 5:95cv2OO9l Religious Technology, et al v. Netcom On-Line Comm., et al[Entry date 06/12/95]
6/9/95 165 DECLARATION by Helena K. Kobrin on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications and exhibits in support of reply to Netcom's opposition to renewed motion for prelim inj. [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 06/12/95]
6/9/95 166 REPLY by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications to Tom Klemesrud's opposition to renewed motion for prelim injunction [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 06/12/95]
6/9/95 167 DECLARATION by Vicki J. Aznaran and Helena K. Kobrin on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications and exhibits in support of plaintiffs, reply to Klemesrud's opposition to renewed motion for perlim inj. [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 06/12/95]
6/9/95 168 OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications to requests for judicial notice and objections to evidence submitted by defts Erlich and Klemesrud [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 06/12/95]
6/9/95 169 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications to evidentiary objections filed by deft Netcom [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 06/12/95]
6/9/95 -- RECEIVED proposed order granting prelim injunction submitted by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 06/12/95]
6/9/95 170 OBJECTIONS by Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications and request to strike deft Erlich consolidated oppositions to ex parte applications, request for sanctions [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 06/12/95]
6/9/95 171 DECLARATION by Kennth L. Wilton on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications re objection [170-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 06/12/95]
6/12/95 172 REPLY by defendant Tom Klemesrud to opposition to motion for judgment on the pleadings [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb)
6/13/95 173 DECLARATION by Helena K. Korbrin on behalf of Plaintiff Religious Technology, Plaintiff Bridge Publications in support of its response to evidentiary objections filed by Netcom and Klemesrud [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 06/14/95]
Docket as of July 6, 1995 3:06 pm Page 18
Proceedings include all events. CSMGMT 5:95cv2OO9l Religious Technology, et al v. Netcom On-Line Comm., et al
6/16/95 174 REPLY by defendant Netcom On-Line Com. in support of motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 06/20/95]
6/16/95 175 DECLARATION by Randolf J. Rice on behalf of defendant Netcom On-Line Com. re reply [174-1] [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) [Entry date 06/20/95]
6/16/95 176 DECLARATION by Melissa A. Burke on behalf of defendant Netcom On-Line Com. in support of motion to dismiss [5:95-cv-20091] (cgb) (Entry date 06/20/95]
Docket as of July 6, 1995 3.06 PM Page 19 -End of affidavit-
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speake
If the Borg were to breed with the Ferengi you'd get Scientology!
The only real product of Scientology is More Scientologists That is the etiology of cancer.
The only thing that works in scientology are its lawyers
The internet is the Liberty Tree
http://www.lermanet.com/faqs.html
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/hubbard-the-hypnotist.htm
http://www.lermanet.com/scientology/altreligionscientology-killfile-settings.htm
http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/crowley-hubbard-666.htm
http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/flint-suicides-in-scientology-040383.htm
both with IMAGES!!
"Scientologists believe that most human problems
can be traced to lingering spirits of an extraterrestrial
people massacred by their ruler, Xenu, over 75 million
years ago. These spirits attach themselves by "clusters"
to individuals in the contemporary world, causing
spiritual harm and negatively influencing the lives
of their hosts"
[Judge Leonie Brinkema 4 Oct 96 Memorandum Opinion]
What do we get from getting people out of scientology? We create an individual who has become a Houdini of all mind traps.. folks who won't be fooled again. People who can DE-program, People who can spring mental traps..
We create, by freeing someone of scientology, a being who has the ability to break the strongest slave chains of all.
Those forged of lies. (c) Arnaldo Lerma
Go Back
to Shy David's Scientology Page.