Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05203/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05203-2/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HYPERTOUCH, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KENNEDY-WESTERN UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-05203 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

On August 12, 2005, the Court heard oral argument on various discovery motions brought by

defendant. The parties have now agreed on a protective order, and thus defendant’s motion for protective

order is moot. Additionally, plaintiff has agreed to strike fromthe complaint all claims forrecovery of personal

monetary damages. The parties also agreed that any informationproduced in discovery will be within the time

period from January 1, 2000 to the present.

Defendant requested two categories of materials in the motions to compel production of documents

and answers to interrogatories. First, defendant requested that plaintiff produce documents that explain

plaintiff’s prior civil actions against alleged spammers. Plaintiff has agreed to produce records of all civil cases

filed and all demand letters sent to alleged spammers. Beyond the agreement made between the parties, the

Court ORDERS plaintiff to produce all records of settlement agreements with any alleged spammers. 

Defendant argues that in order to prove its standing as a “provider of Internet access service,”U.S.C.

§ 7706(g), plaintiffshould produce records reflecting the sources of income both derived from actions against

alleged spammers and derived from all other sources. Plaintiff argues that such information about its income

is not relevant to the issue of standing under the CAN-SPAM Act. 

The issue appears to be a new one, arising from this relatively new statute. Defendant contends that

Case 3:04-cv-05203-SI Document 69 Filed 09/06/05 Page 1 of 4
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

if plaintiff’s only real activity is pursuing lawsuits under the CAN-SPAM act, it does not qualify as a “provider

of Internet access service” under the Act. Plaintiff contends that the Act does not limit the definitions in such

a way. Neither side has briefed this issue in any detail.

The Court believes that information concerning whether all or most of plaintiff’s income and activities

stem from actions related to the CAN-SPAM act may be relevant to the issue of standing. Accordingly, the

Court issuesthe following order: If plaintiff wishes to contend that it is a “provider of Internet access service”

which has any activities other than pressing claims under the CAN-SPAM act, then plaintiff must respond to

the discovery requests concerning amount and source of income, subject to all the protective orders currently

in place and without prejudice to argument at a later point that the information is irrelevant or otherwise

inadmissible at trial. If plaintiff does not provide such discovery, the Court will proceed under the assumption

that plaintiff derives no income from sources other than actions taken against alleged spammers and that his

status as a “provider of Internet access service” under the Act may be evaluated accordingly.

Responses must be provided on or before September 15, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05203-SI Document 69 Filed 09/06/05 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HYPERTOUCH, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KENNEDY-WESTERN UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-05203 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

On August 12, 2005, the Court heard oral argument on various discovery motions brought by

defendant. The parties have now agreed on a protective order, and thus defendant’s motion for protective

order is moot. Additionally, plaintiff has agreed to strike fromthe complaint all claims forrecovery of personal

monetary damages. The parties also agreed that any informationproduced in discovery will be within the time

period from January 1, 2000 to the present.

Defendant requested two categories of materials in the motions to compel production of documents

and answers to interrogatories. First, defendant requested that plaintiff produce documents that explain

plaintiff’s prior civil actions against alleged spammers. Plaintiff has agreed to produce records of all civil cases

filed and all demand letters sent to alleged spammers. Beyond the agreement made between the parties, the

Court ORDERS plaintiff to produce all records of settlement agreements with any alleged spammers. 

Defendant argues that in order to prove its standing as a “provider of Internet access service,”U.S.C.

§ 7706(g), plaintiffshould produce records reflecting the sources of income both derived from actions against

alleged spammers and derived from all other sources. Plaintiff argues that such information about its income

is not relevant to the issue of standing under the CAN-SPAM Act. 

The issue appears to be a new one, arising from this relatively new statute. Defendant contends that

Case 3:04-cv-05203-SI Document 69 Filed 09/06/05 Page 3 of 4
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

if plaintiff’s only real activity is pursuing lawsuits under the CAN-SPAM act, it does not qualify as a “provider

of Internet access service” under the Act. Plaintiff contends that the Act does not limit the definitions in such

a way. Neither side has briefed this issue in any detail.

The Court believes that information concerning whether all or most of plaintiff’s income and activities

stem from actions related to the CAN-SPAM act may be relevant to the issue of standing. Accordingly, the

Court issuesthe following order: If plaintiff wishes to contend that it is a “provider of Internet access service”

which has any activities other than pressing claims under the CAN-SPAM act, then plaintiff must respond to

the discovery requests concerning amount and source of income, subject to all the protective orders currently

in place and without prejudice to argument at a later point that the information is irrelevant or otherwise

inadmissible at trial. If plaintiff does not provide such discovery, the Court will proceed under the assumption

that plaintiff derives no income from sources other than actions taken against alleged spammers and that his

status as a “provider of Internet access service” under the Act may be evaluated accordingly.

Responses must be provided on or before September 15, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05203-SI Document 69 Filed 09/06/05 Page 4 of 4