Search for: "John Doe Defendants 1-5"
Results 1 - 20
of 2,198
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Nov 2012, 6:10 pm
John Does 1-5 Court Case Number: 1:12-cv-01680-SEB-TABFile Date: Thursday, November 15, 2012Plaintiff: Malibu Media LLCPlaintiff Counsel: Paul J. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 1:08 pm
Does 1-5, a BitTorrent download case pending in Manhattan before Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, John Doe #4 filed his reply memo today, further supporting his motion to quash the subpoena, and to sever and dismiss the claim against him. [read post]
1 Dec 2007, 10:28 am
Does 1-9, the Columbus, Ohio, case targeting Ohio State University, where three defendants --John Does #1, 5, and #9 -- have made motions, the Court has stayed enforcement of its ex parte order.Also we have obtained copies of the motion papers served on behalf of John Does #5 and 9. [read post]
2 Jul 2011, 8:30 am
John Does 1-5U.S. [read post]
7 Jul 2012, 10:21 am
Does 1-5, a BitTorrent downloading case, the plaintiff has filed papers opposing defendant John Doe #4's motion to dismiss, sever, and quash.The motion papers include a declaration by a "forensic investigator", employed by a company in Germany, who makes claims about the technology he uses.Plaintiff's memorandum of law in oppositionDeclaration of Tobias FieserExhibit AExhibit B Commentary & discussion:Slashdot var… [read post]
6 Dec 2008, 5:29 pm
Does 1-5, a case in the Western District of Michigan targeting students at Northern Michigan University, the Magistrate Judge has denied reconsideration of his decision denying the motion by pro se defendant John Doe #5 to quash the RIAA's subpoena.December 2, 2008, Order of Magistrate Judge denying motion for reconsideration*-->* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation-->Commentary &… [read post]
27 Feb 2008, 11:18 am
Does 1-5, the case targeting 5 Northern Michigan University students, the judge has denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and quash the subpoena.February 22, 2008, order denying motion to dismiss and to quash** Document published online at Internet Law & RegulationCommentary & discussion:[]-->--> -->-->[][][][]-->Keywords: digital copyright law online internet law legal download… [read post]
14 Feb 2008, 2:37 am
Does 1-5, where the District Judge -- Hon. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 6:41 am
Does 1–65, 2010 WL 4055667 (U.S. [read post]
10 Jan 2008, 1:59 am
The motion of Ohio State University students "John Does 5 and 9", in Arista v. [read post]
2 Jun 2012, 12:12 pm
What's with this Kolaveri about John Doe Injunctions? [read post]
21 Aug 2021, 5:40 am
Fictitious Names In An Illinois Divorce Illinois law allows any litigant to request to use a pseudonym like John Doe or Jane Doe. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 8:36 am
John Does 1-50United States District Court for N.D. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 8:23 am
The now searchable list of defendants in an infringement action brought by Burberry (SDNY 1:12-cv-00479-TPG) (complaint not on ECF) John Doe 1 QIAO RENFENG A/KA QIU YANYANG AIKIA LIN RUI A/K/A CHEN DERONG A/K/ A XUE BINXUAN A/K/A YONGBO LI A/KIA XIAO JINGJING A/KIA JIANG AI A/KIA XUZHEYE XUZHEYE A/KIA XU ZHEYE A/KIA ZHOUMINMIN AIKIA ZHAO LI AIKIA ZHENG LINTIAN A/K/A LINTIAN ZHENG AIKIA John Doe 2 A/K/A LIUQING WU A/K/A WU LIUQI G… [read post]
7 May 2012, 11:59 am
Does 1–3757, 2011 U.S. [read post]
16 Sep 2009, 10:09 am
GERALD PAQUIN, RONALD NEDENS, and JOHN DOES, 1-5, Defendants and Appellees. [read post]
14 Jun 2016, 8:16 am
.; BURNS AUCTION & APPRAISAL, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants and Appellants. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 10:38 am
The post Does a No Contact Order Apply While the Defendant Is in Jail? [read post]
26 Sep 2007, 7:38 pm
DISTRICT ATTORNEY et al.CALKINS, J.[ ¶1] John Doe appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Studstrup, J.) granting Evert Fowle, Craig Poulin, and Everett Flannery's motions to dismiss, and dismissing Doe's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. [read post]
17 May 2012, 8:42 am
Does 1-13, a subpoena addressed to Verizon, calling for the identities and addresses of John Doe defendants, was returnable May 12th.On May 10th the Court stayed enforcement of the subpoena, and directed plaintiff's counsel to immediately notify Verizon of the stay.Unfortunately, as it turns out, Verizon had responded to the subpoena FIVE (5) DAYS BEFORE THE SUBPOENA'S RETURN DATE, on May 7th.Plaintiff's "motion for… [read post]
