SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (2341)1/23/2002 11:53:17 PM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell  Read Replies (3) of 12465
 
Re: 1/23/02 - [Marchese vs. Dobry] Infospace Files Objection to Dobry Subpoena

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

RICHARD MARCHESE,
Plaintiff

v.

GARY DOBRY,
Defendant.

NO. 00 C 5606 (Northern District of Illinois

OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE

InfoSpace, Inc. hereby objects to the subpoena served on it in the above matter on the ground that it is premature and the defendant lacks standing to serve it. Pursuant to Doe v. 2TheMart.com, Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (W. D. Wash. 2001), a party may not issue a subpoena seeking to identify anonymous Internet users until such time as the party has satisfied a four-factor test and obtained a court order permitting such a subpoena. Because defendant has not satisfied the four-factor test and obtained a court order, defendant lacks standing to serve the subject subpoena, which is premature. InfoSpace, Inc. will comply with any court order issued on this subject and will not oppose any effort by defendant to obtain such a court order.

---------

January 23, 2002

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL

Tobin M. Richter, Esq.
53 West jackson Boulevard, Suite 560
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Re: Marchese v. Dobry

Dear Mr. Richter:

This firm represents Infospace, Inc. and has been asked to respond to your subpoena to silicon Investor in the above matter. Enclosed please find InfoSpace Inc.’s objection to your subpoena.

It is the law of this district that no subpoena seeking to identify anonymous Internet users can be served unless the subpoenaing party has obtained a court order authorizing such a subpoena. This was the recent holding in Doe v. 2TheMart.com, Inc., 140 F. Supp.2nd 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2001). In this case, you apparently have not obtained such a court order nor have you provided InfoSpace, Inc. with information that would satisfy 2TheMart.com’s four-part test for entitlement to such information. As a result, InfoSpace, Inc. is not in a position to assess your entitlement to the requested information and is unable to provide the requested information in the absence of a court order directing it to do so.

Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.

Very truly yours,

[signed] Brent Snyder

Enclosure

Cc: Laraine M. Ward
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext