Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01321/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01321-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

 At the hearing, Member Source indicated that its third-party discovery would likely be

restricted to Postini (ASIS’s spam filter provider) and ASIS’s outsource service administrator.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASIS INTERNET SERVICES,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEMBER SOURCE MEDIA, LLC,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-08-1321 EMC

ORDER RE HEARING AND BRIEFING

SCHEDULE RE STAY

Previously, the parties submitted a joint letter to the Court addressing the issue as to whether

there should be a stay in the instant case pending the resolution of the appeal of ASIS Internet

Services v. Optin Global, Inc., No. C-05-5124 JCS (N.D. Cal.). See Docket No. 28 (joint letter). 

The Court held a hearing on the joint letter and the parties’ proposed discovery plan on July 25,

2008. See Docket No. 35 (civil minutes). 

At the hearing, the Court stated that it would temporarily stay the case pending the decision

of Judge Henderson in ASIS Internet Services v. Active Response Group, Inc., No. C-07-6211 TEH

(N.D. Cal.), and, after Judge Henderson ruled, then the Court would decide whether it should stay

the case pending the appeal of the Optin Global case. In the meantime, the Court allowed for one

exception to the stay -- i.e., reasonable third-party discovery for the purpose of preserving evidence.1

The parties were instructed to meet and confer to discuss the specifics of any contemplated thirdCase 3:08-cv-01321-EMC Document 36 Filed 08/05/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

party discovery prior to the issuance of such discovery to ensure that it would be reasonable (e.g., in

terms of number, scope, and so forth).

On July 30, 2008, Judge Henderson issued his order denying the defendant’s motion to

dismiss. In the order, Judge Henderson disagreed with the holding of Judge Spero in the Optin

Global case and concluded that the allegations in ASIS’s amended complaint were sufficient to

establish standing. Thus, the Court must now address the issue of whether there should be a stay of

the instant case pending the Optin Global appeal.

Because the issue of a stay is an important one, and because the parties previously submitted

their positions by joint letter only, the Court hereby orders that there be a hearing and full briefing

on the question. The Court shall put the hearing and briefing on an expedited schedule in the

interest of moving the case forward expeditiously. 

Member Source shall file its motion to stay by August 12, 2008. Any opposition shall be

filed by August 19, 2008, and any reply by August 22, 2008. Courtesy copies shall be provided to

chambers by 4:00 p.m. on each respective date. The hearing on Member Source’s motion shall be

held on August 27, 2008, at 10:30 a.m. 

The Court notes that, in deciding the issue, it must, inter alia, weigh the parties’ competing

interests -- i.e., any possible damage to ASIS which may result from the granting of a stay and any

hardship or inequity which Member Source may suffer in being required to go forward. See

Bechhold v. Bogner, No. C 07-0870 SBA, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6824, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17,

2008). The Court advises the parties that they must submit any and all evidence in their possession,

custody, or control to support any claimed hardship.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01321-EMC Document 36 Filed 08/05/08 Page 2 of 2