Path: news.media.mit.edu!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!olivea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!support.com!mail.processor Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Message-ID: <9503121555.0MDCQ01@support.com> Date: Sun, 12 Mar 95 15:55:27 -0800 Reply-To: mail.processor@support.com Sender: owner-LRH-L@cornell.edu From: mail.processor@support.com Subject: Kobrin ltr to renew injuct X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified) X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.25/PRIMP 1.56p X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.1 -- ListProcessor by CREN Lines: 113 HELENA K. KOBRIN Attorney at Law 7629 Fulton Avenue North Hollywood, California 91605 (213) 960-1933 March 9, 1995 VIA TELEFAX Hon. Ronald M. Whyte District Judge United States District Court for the Northern District of California 280 S. 1st Street, #2112 San Jose, California 95113-3008 Re: Religious Technology Center, et al. v. Netcom Qnline Communication Services, Inc., et al., No. C-95-20091 RMW Dear Judge Whyte: My letter is written to respond to the March 8, 1995 letter from Randolf Rice to you regarding the setting of the renewed preliminary injunction notion and motion to dismiss, as well as Netcom's ex parte application for leave to file a 40-page motion to dismiss. Netcom's ex parte application was served on March 6, 1995, and plaintiffs' attorney only received it on March 8, 1995. Mr. Rice has been informed that plaintiffs are available on April 14, 1995 for a hearing on his motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs do not agree, however, that the two motions should be heard simultaneously. An order shortening time on the preliminary injunction motion is necessary here because of the actions of defendant Dennis Erlich in contempt of the Court's TRO, and defendants KLemesrud's and Netcom's actions in forwarding Erlich's violation an to millions of potential Internet users, as well as making copies of the infringement available to their own paying subscribers. If a TRO were in place against them, this could not have happened. The lack of injunction covering defendants Klemesrud and Netcom facilitates Erlich's continued postings and means that the direct infringements by Klemesrud and Netcom -- by making copies of the postings and maintaining them on their disks for subscriber access for as much as several weeks discussed in the renewed notion for preliminary injunction, are continuing. Erlich's egregious February 26 violation of the TRO warranted filing of a motion for contempt. Following that action, plaintiffs also hastened to prepare and file the renewed action for preliminary injunction, which has now been filed on March 8. While plaintiffs put a hearing date of April 7 on the motion to ensure that it would at least be heard on the first possible noticed hearing date, they also applied for an order shortening time. The issue of how to prevent further violations and maintain the status quo pendente lite is not the same issue as whether plaintiffs' verified complaint on its face properly pleads claims for copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Rather, the injunction motion addresses the critical matter of preventing further violations by all of the defendants through injunctions against Klemesrud and Netcom. This issue should be addressed at the soonest possible time. Hearing on the notion for preliminary injunction should not be delayed. Netcom has asked the Court to consolidate the two hearing dates either on April 14, by continuing plaintiffs' motion, or on April 7, by moving its own motion forward to be heard three days short of 28 days after filing. Defendants' request is.'unfair, as it would either delay the hearing of the preliminary injunction notion or would require shortening of plaintiffs' time to respond to the motion to dismiss, even though Netcom has separately requested leave to file a 40-Rage brief. The true need for either relief is in question, since Netcom's latter and its ex parte application are also contradictory. The letter states Netcom cannot prepare its motion to dismiss by the March 13 deadline, yet its ex parte application is not requesting an extension of time, but asking for more pages. Plaintiffs also oppose the request for additional pages on the ground that Netcom has made a mere conclusory statement as to why additional pages are needed, but has offered no specific justification for its request. Plaintiffs therefore request that an order shortening time on the hearing of their renewed preliminary injunction motion be granted, and that Netcom's ex parte application for additional pages be denied. Should the Court not wish to grant the order shortening time, then plaintiffs request that the separate hearing dates of April 7 for the preliminary injunction and April 14 for the motion to dismiss be maintained. Respectfully yours, /s/ Helena K. Kobrin Counsel for Plaintiffs cc: Dennis Erlich Randolf J. Rice Richard Allen Horning Andrew R. Wilson Thomas M. Small -------------------