NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

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

DEFS’ MOTION TO FILE AN OVER-LENGTH BRIEF

CASE NO. CV06-0204C - 1

The Honorable John C. Coughenour

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JAMES S. GORDON, Jr., a married

individual, d/b/a ‘GORDONWORKS.COM';

OMNI INNOVATIONS, LLC., a

Washington limited liability company,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VIRTUMUNDO, INC, a Delaware

corporation d/b/a

ADNOWLEDGEMAIL.COM;

ADKNOWLEDGE, INC., a Delaware

corporation, d/b/a

ADKNOWLEDGEMAIL.COM; SCOTT

LYNN, an individual; and JOHN DOES,

1-X,

Defendants.

NO. CV06-0204JCC

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

FILE AN OVER-LENGTH BRIEF

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:

January 22, 2007

Pursuant to Local Rule 7(f), Defendants Scott Lynn, Virtumundo, Inc.

("Virtumundo") and Adknowledge, Inc. ("Adknowledge") (collectively, "Defendants"),

hereby request that the Court grant leave to file a brief in excess of the twenty-four (24)

page limit imposed by LR 7(e)(3), in support of the Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment (the “Motion”).

Plaintiffs James S. Gordon ("Gordon") and Omni Innovations, LLC ("Omni")

(collectively, "Plaintiffs") brought the instant lawsuit alleging that Virtumundo and

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 97 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 1 of 3

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 97

Dockets.Justia.com
NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

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

DEFS’ MOTION TO FILE AN OVER-LENGTH BRIEF

CASE NO. CV06-0204C - 2

Adknowledge transmitted thousands of commercial email messages in violation of the

federal CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, 15 U.S.C. § 7701 et seq. ("CAN-SPAM") and the

Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act (RCW 19.190) ("CEMA"). Plaintiffs’

allege that Defendants violated nearly each technical statutory provision of CAN-SPAM

and CEMA. (See Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 15) at ¶¶ 4.1 & 4.2). 

Defendants have, through motion practice and discovery, sought to cause Plaintiffs to

narrow their claims to the colorable alleged violations of CAN-SPAM and CEMA. (See

e.g., Dkt. # 30 (Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for failure to plead with particularity);

Dkt. # 69 (Defendants Motion to Compel Interrogatory responses regarding alleged

violations). Those motions are either pending or were granted by the Court. 

Nonetheless, Plaintiffs theories still encompass the majority of possible violations of the

state and federal email statutes and, therefore, must be addressed in the Motion. 

Accordingly, the Motion cannot reasonably be filed within the constraints of the twentyfour (24) page limit.

For comparison purposes, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

regarding a single theory regarding a single alleged violation of CAN-SPAM used all of

the twenty-four (24) page limit imposed by LR 7(e)(3). (Dkt. # 53) Plaintiffs’ motion

practice reflects the complicated nature of the Motion and the necessity for extended

briefing. In contrast to Plaintiffs’ single theory of relief, the Motion seeks dismissal of

more than a dozen alleged violations of CAN-SPAM and CEMA. 

Defendants could have, consistent with LR 7(e)(3) filed separate motions on

behalf of different Defendants and relating to different causes of action. However, for the

convenience of the Court and the parties, Defendants request a modest leave from the 24

page limit to file an over-length brief. 

This case involves complex and technical subject matter, and preparation of the

Motion consumed a great deal of attorney time; accordingly, Defendants’ counsel was

unable to file this motion three days before the dispositive motion cutoff, and request a

waiver of the requirement in LR 7(f)(1) that motions for over-length briefs be filed three

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 97 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 2 of 3
NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

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

DEFS’ MOTION TO FILE AN OVER-LENGTH BRIEF

CASE NO. CV06-0204C - 3

days in advance.

In light of these factors, Defendants respectfully request the Court’s leave to file a

brief in support of their Motion with six (6) additional pages, for a total of thirty (30)

pages.

DATED this 22nd day of January, 2007.

NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

By:

Derek A. Newman, WSBA No. 26967

Roger M. Townsend, WSBA No. 25525

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 97 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 3 of 3