DVD CCA v. McLaughlin, et al. TRO Opinion

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
DVD CCA v. McLaughlin, et al. temporary restraining order judgement  (1999) 
In December 1999 Weil, Gotshal & Manges, representing DVD Copy Control Association, filed a complaint in Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara requesting a temporary restraint order. On the 19th of December, the judge denied the restraining order. More information about the case can be found on the EFF website.

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint, Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction, the Supporting Declarations and Plaintiff's Supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities.


The Request for a Temporary Restraining Order is Denied.


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the named defendants and DOES 1-500, inclusive, and each of them, appear at Santa Clara Superior Court, Department 2, San Jose, California, on January 14, 2000 at 1:30 pm or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to show cause, if any they have, why the injunction and restraints sought in Plaintiff's proposed preliminary injunction should not be entered against defendants, their principals, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns, representatives and all persons acting in concert or participation with them, during the pendency of this action, together with any other injunctive relief as appropriate.


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order, Plaintiff's Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause, and all supporting papers, be served upon defendants not later than December 31, 1999. All defendants who reside in the United States, and as to whom Plaintiff has identified a street address or post office box, are to be served by return-receipt mail via the United States mail. Additionally, all defendants who reside outside of the United States shall be served under procedures applicable to such service. Plaintiff will also effect service of the above-mentioned papers on all defendants by sending the papers via e-mail to their web site addresses. Any defendants discovered after the date of this Order are to be served in the same manner.


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants serve by (i) personal delivery upon or transmittal of facsimiles to Jared B. Bobrow, Esq. at the offices of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, attorneys for Plaintiff, 2882 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025, telephone number 650-926-6200, facsimile number 650-854-3713, or (ii) by e-mail to the following address: decss@weil.com, all papers, documents, affidavits, declarations, records and pleadings which they intend to file in response to this Order to Show Cause no later than January 7, 2000. Plaintiff shall serve by personal delivery, transmittal of facsimiles or e-mail any papers, documents, affidavits, declarations, records and pleadings which it intends to file in reply to defendants' papers in response to this Order to Show Cause no later than January 12, 2000.

Dated: December 29, 1999

Judge of the Superior Court

This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 206.01 of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents."

These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium II § 206.03 and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).


Nuvola apps important.svg
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.