Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter d/b/a myVidster.com, No. 10 C 6517, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2013) (Grady, Sen. J.).
Judge Shadur granted in part plaintiff Flava Works’ motion to compel responses to discovery requests. Of particular note, the Court held as follows:
- Neither Flava Work’s complaint nor the Seventh Circuit’s decision limited Flava Work’s claims to its backup functionality. Defendant’s therefore, could not limit their responses to the backup functionality.
- While the Court did not strike defendants’ general objections, it disregarded them as “impermissible.” Based upon their lack of specificity, they did “not accomplish anything useful.” Documents withheld based upon general objections were to be identified and produced.
- A present tense interrogatory seeking a user count was sufficiently answered with a present user count. The interrogatory was fully answered without historic user information.
- Defendants need not identify Bates ranges of responsive documents where the documents were produced as they were kept in the normal course of business, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i).
Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter d/b/a myVidster.com, No. 10 C 6571, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 3, 2013) (Grady, Sen. J.).
Judge Grady granted in part plaintiff Flava Works’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss defendants’ (collectively “myVidster”) tortious interference and Digital Millenium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) claims in this copyright infringement suit involving videos posted on websites. To the extent the tortious interference claim was based upon the alleged wrongful filing of this suit it was dismissed because Illinois does not recognize a tortious interference claim based upon wrongfully filed suits. The claim, however, survived to the extent it was based upon Flava Works allegedly misrepresenting myVidster’s intellectual property infringement with the intent of causing myVidster’s server suppliers to terminate contracts with myVidster.
With respect to its DMCA claim, myVidster pled that Flava Works knowingly misrepresented that allegedly infringing content was available on myVidster to “improperly exaggerate the actual amount of infringing content available” on the website. Those allegations were sufficient to meet the intent requirement.
Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter d/b/a myVidster.com, No. 10 C 6517, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2012) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Judge Shadur granted defendant LeaseWeb USA (“LeaseWeb”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) & (6) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Plaintiff Flava Works pointed largely to Lease Web’s interactive website. But that website was not enough for general or specific jurisdiction. And LeaseWeb’s single Illinois customer was similarly insufficient. FlavaWorks offered no argument or proof that the customer was related to the alleged copyright infringement in this case.
The Court also dismissed LeaseWeb because FlavaWork’s complaint alleged no facts that would make it liable for copyright infringement.