Earlier this month, Judge Cote entered a default judgment against Dmitry Starovikov and Alexander Filippov in Google’s action seeking a permanent injunction against them as the operators of a blockchain enabled “botnet.” Judge Cote had entered a Temporary Restraining Order against the Defendants on December 7, 2021, covered here.

Google first sought entry of a default judgment in February after the named Defendants failed to respond to the Complaint, despite service by the methods authorized in the TRO. The default was entered by the Clerk of Court on February 8, but vacated by Judge Cote on Defendants’ motion, which argued “that they had not been served, that the Court lacked jurisdiction over them, and that they had meritorious defenses, including that Google had failed to state a claim against them.”Continue Reading Judge Cote Grants Google Permanent Injunction Against “Botnet” Operators, Following Failure to Cooperate with Discovery

In an opinion yesterday in a trademark case, Magistrate Judge Parker was critical of both sides to a discovery dispute for having issued boilerplate discovery requests and responses, in violation of the specificity contemplated by Rule 34:
Continue Reading Magistrate Judge Parker Reminds Parties That Boilerplate Request for “All Documents” and Boilerplate Objections Are Not Allowed

On Friday, the Supreme Court, as expected, granted certiorari in the challenge pending before Judge Furman over the addition of a citizenship question to the census.  The question presented concerns whether it is appropriate to order discovery outside the administrative record (such as the deposition Judge Furman had earlier ordered of Commerce Secretary Wilbur

In an opinion today, Judge Cote denied a motion to compel brought by the defendants in an SEC enforcement action relating to one of the SEC’s witnesses.  The defendants claimed that the witness gave inaccurate deposition testimony about having been disciplined at work for having harassed a former romantic partner, and so wanted more documents about the incident, and an additional deposition.  Judge Cote, who chose not to identify the witness by name, emphatically denied the motion:
Continue Reading Judge Cote Rejects SEC Defendants’ Attempt to Delve Into Stale, Highly Personal Affairs of SEC Witness

In an Order Friday in a case in which an Italian fashion company accuses Ivanka Trump’s fashion label of creating copycat shoes (see our coverage of the complaint here), Judge Forrest ordered Ms. Trump to appear for a two-hour deposition, notwithstanding her claims to have had no personal involvement in the underlying issues:
Continue Reading Judge Forrest: Ivanka Trump Must Sit for Deposition in Suit Over Copycat Shoes

In an opinion yesterday, Judge Hellerstein authorized discovery from the law firm Cravath under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 relating to a claim that the petitioning party planned to file, but had not yet filed, in the Netherlands against a Cravath client.

Judge Hellerstein rejected Cravath’s argument that, since the Netherlands case hadn’t been filed, the discovery was not (in the words of the statute) “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal”:
Continue Reading Judge Hellerstein Authorizes § 1782 Discovery to Law Firm in Aid of Anticipated Dutch Suit Against Firm Client

In a decision yesterday, Judge Crotty denied a motion by a former People magazine editor, who claims that she was fired based on her race and that People magazine was only interested “in printing [articles] concerning . . . ‘White middle-class suburbia,’” to compel discovery concerning what stories People chose to publish.  He found the requests were “burdensome and disproportionate”:
Continue Reading Judge Crotty: People Magazine Editor Alleging Race Discrimination Cannot Get Discovery About What Stories People Chose to Publish

In an opinion Monday, resolving “the latest in a long, tedious series of discovery disputes,” Judge Hellerstein chided a patent plaintiff, Intellectual Ventures, for having disclosed infringement contentions that were “discursive, disorganized, and, at times, confusing” and for repeatedly shifting positions about what it believed was the infringing conduct of the defendant, JP Morgan:

Intellectual