Search for: "Unknown Does 1-10" Results 1 - 20 of 1,559
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 May 2019, 9:43 am by Daniel E. Cummins
Under the Rule, the Doe defendant’s actual name must be unknown to the plaintiff or the defendant joining party after the completion of a reasonable search for the person using due diligence.According to the Comment, an effort to list as parties, “Defendants John Doe 1-10 is frowned upon.The Rule also requires a specific allegation in the pleading confirming that the Doe designation is a designation of a fictitious person or entity. [read post]
29 Jul 2016, 4:37 pm by INFORRM
As in Brett Wilson, he considered the second defendant to be at least an ‘editor’ for the purpose of section 10(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013). [read post]
11 Aug 2012, 11:33 am by Ray Beckerman
Does 1-29, the Court quashed all subpoenas served, since the plaintiff had misleadingly represented that it had sued all of the 29 ISP subscribers, when in fact it could only have sued the unknown copyright infringers, not the subscribers.August 10 2012, Memorandum and Order Quashing All Subpoenas var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true}; Ray Beckerman, PC [read post]
20 Sep 2015, 5:03 pm by INFORRM
Although it was not alleged that the defendants were the authors or publishers under section 10 of the Defamation Act 2013, on the pleaded case the “persons unknown” were within the definition of “editor” in section 10(2) [23]. [read post]
11 Oct 2015, 6:56 am by INFORRM
Does Brett Wilson LLP v Persons Unknown highlight how courts should approach anonymity in online cases? [read post]
4 Apr 2010, 6:13 am by Ray Mullman
Huntington Health and Rehabilitation Administrator, Annica Stansberry, and John Does 1 through 10 were also named in the suit. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 12:02 am by Nick Robinson
This should immediately strike one as odd because one does not usually think of Kerala or Pondicherry as the most crime-ridden parts of India. [read post]
9 Jun 2015, 5:54 am
  The test requires that (1) the expert be qualified to testify competently regarding the matters he or she intends to address, (2) the methodology the expert uses to reach his or her conclusions is sufficiently reliable under the inquiry set forth in Daubert v. [read post]
6 May 2007, 5:01 pm
But then that hour was whittled down to 10 minutes. [read post]
1 Nov 2016, 11:13 am by Benjamin Justus
Does 1-30 Filed: 10/19/2016Case No. 2:16-cv-01071 LHF Productions, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2014, 5:36 am by DMLP Staff
(against Does 1-10) Contributory Copyright Infringement [17 U.S.C. [read post]