2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-9-2005 

# V oice net C omm Inc v

. Atty Ge n P A P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2911

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" V o ic e ne t C omm Inc v

. Atty Ge n P

A" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1460. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1460NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT C as e N o. 04- 2911; C as e N o. 04- 3339 VO I CEN ET CO M M UN I CA TI ON S, I NC . , ON BEH ALF O F I TSEL F AN D I TS S UB SCRI BERS; OM NI TELECOM , I NC . , ON BEH ALF O F I TSEL F A N D I TS SU BSC RI BE RS,

v. GE RA L D J . P AP P E RT , AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE CO M M ONWE AL T H OF P E NNS YL VANI A, I N HI S OF F I CI AL CA P AC I T Y; M I CH E L E L . DE E RY , S P E CI AL AG ENT O F THE OFFI CE O F ATTOR NEY GEN ERA L OF THE C OM M ON W EALTH OF P E NNS YL VANI A, I N HE R I NDI VI DUAL CA P AC I T Y; G. M I CH AE L GR E E N, DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y OF DE L AWARE CO UNT Y, I N HI S I NDI VI DUAL AND OF F I CI AL CA P AC I T I E S ; DI ANE E . GI BB ONS , DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y OF BU CK S C O U N T Y , IN H E R IN D IV ID U A L A N D O F F IC IA L C A P A C IT IE S ; M A R T IN M CD ON OU GH , DETECTI VE, BU CK S COU NTY DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY ’ S OFF I CE, I N H I S I ND I VI DU AL A ND OFFI CI AL C APA CTI ES; THO M AS TH I EL, DETECTI VE, BU CK S CO UNT Y DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y’ S OF F I CE , I N HI S I NDI VI DUAL AND OFFI CI AL C APA CI TI ES V oi cene tC om m uni cat i ons , I nc. O m n i T e le c o m ., In c ., A p p e llan ts

_______________ O n a p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s tr i ctC our tC i v. N o. 04- 1318 D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . M a ryA . M c L a u g h lin

_______________ A r gued J anuary19, 2005

_______________2 B e f o re : A L IT O , M c K E E , a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: M ar ch 9, 2005 )

___________________ C ouns el : R i char d A . Spr ague

M ark B . Sheppar d ( A r gued) Spr ague & Spr ague Sui t e 400, T he W el l i ngt on 135 Sout h 19th St r eet Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19103 A t t or ney f

orAppel lant

s , V oi cene tC om m uni cat i ons , I nc. , and O m ni Tel ecom , I

nc. C laud ia M . T eso ro Sue A nn U nger( A r gued) C al vi n R . K oons O f f ice o f A tto rn e yG e n e ra l o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia 21 Sout h 12th St r eet , 3d Fl oor Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19107 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ees , A t t or ney G ener alof P enns ylvani a, G er ald J. P apper t; Speci alA gent of the O f f i ce of A t t or ney G ener alof

P enns ylvani a, Mi chele L. D eery A ndr ew B . A dai r( A r gued) H ol s t ei n & A s s oci at es O ne Sout h O l i ve Str eet M edi a, Penns y l vani a 19063 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ee, D is tr i ct

A t t or ney of

D elaw ar e C ount

y, P enns ylvani a, G
. Mi chael

G r een Fr ank A . C hernak ( A r gued) B a llard S p a h r A n d re w s & In g e rso ll 1735 M arketSt r eet , 51s tFl oor Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19103 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ee, D is tr i ct

A t t or ney of

B ucks C ount

y, P enns ylvani a, D ia n e E . G ib b o n s; D e tec tive , B u c k s C o u n ty, P e n n sy lva n ia , M a rtin McD onough; D et ect i ve, B ucks C ount y, P enns ylvani a, Thom as Thi el3 ____________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________________ S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . In th is ap p ea l, w e c o n side r w h ethe r th e U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g p re lim in a ryin ju n c tiv e re lief

to tw o aff i l i at ed t echnol ogycompani es pr ovi di ng acc es s t o art i cl es and i m ages on a s ect i on of the I nt ernet . I n l i ghtof the part i es ’ s t at ement s ator al ar gum entand w r i t t en su b m iss io n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. I . T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1331. T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l under28 U . S. C . § 1292( a) ( 1) , w hi ch pr ovi des j ur i s di ct i on o v e ri n t e r l o c u t o r yo r d e r s o f f e d e r a l d i s tr i c tc o u r t s d e n y i n g i n j u n c t i o n s . We r e v i e w a d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f a p re lim in a ry in

ju n c tio n f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . H

ohe v. C as ey , 8 6 8 F .2 d 6 9 , 7 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ); B r adl ey v . P i t t s bur gh B d. of E duc . , 910 F. 2d 1172, 1175 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). I I . V oi cene tC om m uni cat i ons , I nc. and O m ni T el ecom, I nc. ( V oi cene t/ O T I ) pr ovi de
acc es s t o art i cl es and i m ages pos t ed on the I nt ernetbul l et i n boar d s y s t em cal l ed “U s enet . ” T he s oftw ar e V oi cene t/ O T I us e t o pr ovi de thatacc es s i s cal l ed “Q ui kvue. ” I n l at e 2003, upon r ece i vi ng a compl ai ntthatQ ui kvue w as bei ng us ed t o acc es s chi l d pornogr aphy , and4

su c c e ss f u llyu sin g th e so f

tw a re to th a t ef

f e c t, C o m m o n w e a lth a n d c o u n tyo f f icia ls
s ecur ed and e xecut ed a s ear ch w arr antforV oi cene t/ O T I ’ s fac i l i t i es . T he off i ci al s s ei zed
n u m e ro u s p iec e s o f

c o m p u ter h a rd w a re th a t late r a lleg e d lyw e re f o u n d to c o n tain c h ild p o rn o g r a p h y. I n M ar ch 2004, V oi cene t/ O T I fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n the East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of 42 U . S. C . §§ 1983 and 1985, and s eeki ng an in ju n c tio n re q u ir in g th e re tu rn o f its e q u ip m e n t. O f

f ic ia ls re tu rn e d m u c h o f

th e h a rd w a re . V oi cene t/ O T I per s i s t ed i n t hei rr eques tforpr el i m i naryi nj unct i ve r el i ef, how ever , s eeki ng re tu rn o f th e re st o f

th e ir e q u ip m e n t – n a m e lyse rv e rs, c a lled “ a rra y s,” u se d to o p e ra te Q ui kvue – and a n or derthatV oi cene t/ O T I be af for ded not i ce a nd an opportuni tyt o be heard b efore future s ei zures. W i tho ut s uch rel i ef, V oicenet/ O T I ar gu ed, theirF i rs t A m endmentr i ght s w er e chi l l ed al ong w i th thos e of thei rs ubs cr i ber s and otherI nt ernet Ser vi ce Pr ovi der s ( I SPs) . T hi s , theycl ai m ed, cons t i tut ed i rr epar abl e harm m er i t i ng an injun cti o n u n d er D om br ow s kiv. P f is t er , 3 8 0 U .S . 4 7 9 (1 9 6 5 ). O n J une 18, 2004, V oi cene t/ O T I s oughtj udgm entagai ns tthemsel ves under Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 58, a move w hi ch w oul d then al l ow them t o fi l e an appea l . O n J une 21, the D i s tr i ctC our tw r ot e t o couns el “expl ai ni ng thatthe C our tw as p lann ing to issue a d ec isi o n b yJu ly2 o n [V o icen et/ O T I’s] m o ti o n fo r a p reli m inary i nj unct i on. ” O n J ul y6, V oi cene t/ O T I fi l ed a not i ce of appea l ( N o. 04- 2911) al l egi ng t hat the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fai l ur e t o rul e on thei rm ot i on fora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on cons t i tut ed5

d en ial o f th at m o ti o n . O n Ju ly1 5 , w ith o u t an e v iden ti aryh ea ri n g , the D istri ct C o u rt deni ed V oi cene t/ O T I ’ s m ot i on fora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on i n a mem or andum and i s s ued
a n o rd e r t h e n e x t d a y . V o ic e n e t/O T I a p p e a le d th a t d e n ia l o n A u g u s t 1 2 (N o . 0 4 -3 3 3 9 ). T hi s C our tcons ol i dat ed V oi cene t/ O T I ’ s appea l s on A ugus t18, 2004. In its Ju ly1 6 m e m o ra n d u m , the D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t V o ice n e t/O T I f a iled to s h o w i rr e p a r a b l e h a r m a n d d e n i e d p r e l i mi n a ryr e l i e f wi th o u ta h e a r i n g . Voi c e n e t/ OTI
a p p e a l th e d e n ia l o f

re lie f a n d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s re f u s a l to h o ld a h e a ri n g . C . D i s t ri ct C ourt D eci s i on 1. O rderfor I m m ediat e R eturn or R eplacem ent of A rr ay s T h e D i s tr i c tC o u r td e c l i n e d t o o r d e ri m m e d i a t e r e tu rn o rr e p l a c e m e n to f th e a rr a ys beca us e V oi cene t/ O T I s how ed no r i s k of i rr epar abl e harm caus ed bydepr i vat i on of the
arr ay s . T he C our tnot ed thatV oi cene t/ O T I admi t t ed thattheycoul d r epl ace the arr ay s for $20, 000. 2. Pr ohi bi t i on A gai ns tA ppel l ees ’ A cce s s i ng Subsc r i berI nform at i on T he D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed thatthe governm entoffi ci al s “agr eed nott o acc es s the
s ubs cr i beri nform at i on w i thoutpr ovi di ng not i ce t o the pl ai nt i ffs s o thatthe pl ai nt i ffs can s e e k a n i n

j u n c t i o n a g a i n s ts u c h a c c e s s . ” Con s e q u e n t l y , th e Cou r tru l e d , Voi c e n e t/ OTI sh o w e d n o irre p a ra b le h a rm to th e su b sc rib e rs th e yc laim e d to re p re se n t.

3. I nj unct i on R equi r i ng T hatV oi cene t/ O T I M us tB e A ffor ded N ot i ce a nd an O ppor tuni tyT o B e H ear d B efor e Futur e Sei zur es A ccor di ng t o t he D i s tr i ctC our t , underthe rubr i c of D o m b r o w s k i, 380 U . S. at487,6

V oicenet/ O T I “cont end that theirF i rs tA m end m ent r i gh t s ar e chil l ed b yseveral fact ors, inclu d ing the p o ssibil ityo f c ri m inal p rose cu ti o n an d the u n ce rt aintyo f w h ethe r th eyare pr ot ect ed” bys t at e and f eder al s t atut es . T he C our trul ed that , i n the Thi r d C i r cui t , “the
as s ert i on of Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s does notaut om at i cal l yr equi r e a f i ndi ng of i rr epar abl e i nj ury . ” The C our texpl ai ned that , i ns t ead, i rr epar abl e i nj uryi n the pr es ent cont exti s the “purpos eful uncons t i tut i onal [governm ent ] s uppr es s i on of s peec h” and “di r ectpenal i zat i on, as oppos ed t o i nci dent al i nhi bi t i on, of Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s . ” A n yh a rm in th is c a se is s p e c u lativ e , the C o u rt re a so n e d , b e c a u se th e u n re p lac e a b le Q ui kvue equi pm enthas been r eturned, and ther e i s no “def i ni t e orcont i nued thr eatof ei therpr os ecut i on orfutur e s ei zur es of equi pm ent . ” III . Th e Di s tr i c tCou r td i d n o ta b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g Voi c e n e t/ OTI pr el i m i naryi nj unct i ve r el i ef be caus e V oi cene t/ O T I di d notm ake a “cl ears how i ng of i m m edi at e, i r r epar abl e i nj ury . ” See H ohe , 868 F. 2d at72 ( quot i ng E C R I v . M c G ra w -Hill

, I nc . , 809 F. 2d 223, 226 ( 3d C i r . 1987) ) . M or eover , none of V oi cene t/ O T I ’ s al l egat i ons of i nj uryi nvol ved di s put ed ques t i ons of fa ct , and thus a hea r i ng w as notr equi r ed. A. O r de r f

o r I mm e di a t e Ret ur n o r Rep l a c e men t o f Arr a ys 1. Pr el i m i naryr el i ef V oi cene t/ O T I m ake no c l ears how i ng of i m m edi at e i rr epar abl e i nj uryas a r es ul tof the off i cer s ’ fai l ur e t o r eturn t he arr ay s . B ythei row n admi s s i on, V oi cene t/ O T I can7

r epl ace the arr ay s and r es t artQ ui kvue for$20, 000. A s “i rr epar abl e i nj uryi s s uffe r ed
w her e monet arydamages ar e di ffi cul tt o as cert ai n orar e i nadequa t e, ” H ohe , 868 F. 2d at 7 3 , p r e l i mi n a r ye q u i t a b l e r e l i e f i s u n n e c e s s a ry . M o r e o v e r , Vo i c e n e t/ OT I d o n o ts h o w a chi l l on fr ee e xpr es s i on caus ed by“di r ectpenal i zat i on, as oppos ed t o i nci dent al i nhi bi t i on, of Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s . . . . ” Id . at 72 -73 . T h e o ff icals’ r ef u sal t o return th e a rra y s d o e s n o t re n d e r Q u ik v u e in o p e ra tiv e ; th a t d e p riv a tio n m a yb e re m e d ied w ith
m o n e yd a m a g e s. A s s u c h , V o ice n e t/O T I’s F irst A m e n d m e n t rig h ts m a yb e in c id e n tally i n h i b i t e d , b u tth e y a r e n o ta tr i s k o f i rr e p a r a b l e i n

j u ry. 2. H ear i ng V oi cene t/ O T I cl ai m s fac t s ar e i n di s put e, buti t s ow n l ett eres t i m at i ng thatthe
a rra y s c o u ld b e re p lac e d f o r $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 b e lies th is a ss e rtio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt p e rm iss ib ly decl i ned t o hol d a hea r i ng beca us e V oi cene t/ O T I di d “notpr es ent [] a col or abl e fa ctual bas i s t o s uppor tthe cl ai m on the mer i t s orthe cont ent i on of i rr epar abl e harm . ” B r adl ey , 910 F. 2d at1176. B. Pro hi bi t i on Agai ns t A ppe l l e e s ’ A c c e s s i ng Sub s c r i be r R e c or ds 1. Pr el i m i naryR el i ef V oi cene t/ O T I ar gue thatthei rs ubs cr i ber s ’ Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s ar e chi l l ed by the governm ent ’ s pr om i s e nott o vi ew s ubs cr i berr ecor ds , w hi ch r es i de on the s ei zed array s. V o icen et/ O T I co n tend that the re co rds s h o u ld b e re turn ed u n d er A C LU v. R eno , 9 2 9 F . S u p p . 8 2 4 (E .D . P a . 1 9 9 6 ), a ff’d , 521 U . S. 844 ( 1997) , the s peci al , thr ee- j udgeV oi cene t/ O T I cl ai m thatthe fe der al E l ectr oni c C om m uni cat i ons Pr i vacyA ct , 18 1 U .S .C . § 2 7 0 3 , et

s eq ., “ p ro h ib its th e C o m m o n w e a lth f ro m re v iew in g a n yp riv a te su b sc rib e r in f

o rm a tio n .” H o w e v e r, “[ t]h e re is n o v io latio n o f § 2 7 0 3 (a ), (b ), o r (c ) if acc es s i s pur s uantt o a w arr ant , and the off i ci al s i n thi s cas e had a val i d w arr ant . ” G uest v . L e is , 2 5 5 F . 3 d 3 2 5 , 3 3 9 (6th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). 8 courtopi ni on enj oi ni ng enfor cementof ce r t ai n pr ovi s i ons of the C om m uni cat i ons D ece ncyA ct( C D A ) . I n R eno , the p anel gr anted the p rel i m i naryi njunct i on becau se pl ai nt i ffs w er e l i kel yt o pr evai l on the mer i t s of thei rar gum entchal l engi ng the
cons t i tut i onal i tyof por t i ons of the C D A . T he pane l decl i ned t o as s um e thatthe g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld e n f

o rc e th e C D A “ in a re a so n a b le f a sh io n th a t w o u ld a v o id pr os ecut i on forpl aci ng on the I nt ernetw or ks of s er i ous l i t er aryorart i s t i c mer i t . ” Id . at 8 5 7 . T h e p an el ex p lai n ed that “the F ir st A m en d m en t sho u ld n o t be in terpreted to req u ir e us t o entrus tthe pr ot ect i on i taff or ds t o the j udgm entof pr os ecut or s . ” Id . T hi s cas e does notr es embl e R eno . H er e, the off i cer s ’ as s ur ance s ar e abs ol ut e; theypr om i s e nott o acc es s s ubs cr i berr ecor ds w i thoutnot i fy i ng V oi cene t/ O T I , w hi ch may then s eek a n i nj unct i on. U nl i ke R eno , no pr os ecut or i al di s cr et i on r emai ns . T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt th u s d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in a c c e p tin g th e o f f ice rs’ a ss u ra n c e th a t th e yw o u ld
n o t m isu se e v id e n c e se ize d u n d e r a v a lid w a rra n t. 1

2. H ear i ng T he D i s tr i ctC our tperm i s s i bl ydecl i ned t o hol d a hea r i ng on the s ubs cr i berr ecor ds i s s ue bec aus e V oi cene t/ O T I di d “notpr es ent [] a col or abl e fa ctual bas i s t o s uppor tthe cl ai m on the mer i t s orthe cont ent i on of i rr epar abl e harm . ” B r adl ey , 910 F. 2d at1176.9

C . I nj unct i on R equi ri ng T hat V oi cenet / O T I B e A f f orded N ot i ce and an O pport uni t y t o B e H eard B ef ore Future Sei zures 1. Pr el i m i naryR el i ef T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatther e w as no “def i ni t e orcont i nued thr eatof ei therpr os ecut i on orfutur e s ei zur es of equi pm ent , ” and ther efor e fe der al i nt ervent i on w as unm er i t ed. W e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthat“the as s ert i on of Fi r s tA m endment
r i ght s does notaut om at i cal l yr equi r e a f i ndi ng of i rr epar abl e i nj ury , ” and that V o icen et/ O T I m ad e n o clea r sho w ing o f im m ed iat e o r i rrep ara b le i n juryb ec au se “ [t]he re h a s b e e n n o d e f

in ite o r c o n tin u e d th re a t o f e ith e r p ro s e c u tio n o r f

u tu re s e iz u re s .” C as es r equi r i ng an i nj unct i on typi cal l yi nvol ve r epet i t i ve, bad fa i th s ei zur es or expr es s thr eat s of s uch s ei zur es . I n D om br ow s kiv. P f is t er , f o r e x a m p le , th e p lain tiff

s o f f e re d to p ro v e th a t th e p ro se c u to ria l au th o rities th re a ten e d to e n f o rc e sta tu tes a g a in st th e p lain tiff s w ith o u t an ye x p e c tatio n o f se c u rin g v a lid c o n v i c t i o n s , th a td e s p i t e a s u m m a ry v a c a t i o n o f s e a r c h a n d a rr e s tw a rr a n t s b y a s t at e j udge forl ack of

pr obabl e ca us e the pr os ecut or i al author i t i es w er e cont i nui ng t o thr eat en new i ndi ctm ent s and pr os ecut i ons bas ed on the evi dence or der ed s uppr es s ed bythe s t at e j udge, and thatthe pr os ecut or i al author i t i es w er e enga gi ng i n a pl an of a rr es t s , s ei zur es , and thr eat s of pr os ecut i on forthe s ol e purpos e of har as s i ng pl ai nt i ffs i n or dert o di s cour age them from at t empt i ng t o vi ndi cat e the con st i tuti on al ri gh t s of black ci t i zens. Lew is v. Kugl er , 446 F. 2d 1343, 1349 ( 3d C i r . 1971) ( des cr i bi ng D om br ow s ki ). Si m i l ar l y , i n Kr ahm v. G r aham , s t at e author i t i es fi l ed over100 cr i m i nal char ges fort he
s al e of a l l egedl yobs cene books and magazi nes ; 11 cas es w entt o tr i al ; and none r es ul t ed i n convi ct i ons . 461 F. 2d 703, 705 ( 9th C i r . 1972) . “[A ] ft er6 fi ndi ngs of N otG ui l tyi n a 2- w eek pe r i od, 14 new pr os ecut i ons w er e i ns t i tut ed. ” Id . T her eaf t er , author i t i es10

l aun ched an an t i -pornog raphycam paign “spearhead ed b ythe m ay or, ” w ho w as a c a n d id a te f

o r r e -e le c tio n s e v e ra l m o n th s la te r. Id . at705- 06. T he N i nth C i r cui thel d t hat the pl ai nt i ffs ’ Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s w er e vi ol at ed bybad fa i th pr os ecut i ons , and up held the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s i njunct i on enjoi ning pen ding prosecuti on s. U nl i ke the off

i ci al s i n D om br ow s kiand Kr ahm , itd o e s n o t ap p e a r th a t th e o f f icia ls i n thi s appea l ar e i nvoki ng the cr i m i nal pr oces s “w i th no hope of ul t i m at e s ucce s s , ” and
m er el y“t o di s cour age [ V oi cene t/ O T I ’ s ] ci vi l r i ght s act i vi t i es . ” O ffi ci al s have r eturned V oi cene t/ O T I ’ s equi pm ent , no char ges have be en fi l ed, and no expr es s thr eat s of pr os ecut i on have be en made. A s a r es ul t , the D i s tr i ctC ourtdi d notcomm i tan obvi ous erro r i n ap p ly ing the law in d ec li n ing to o rde r an ad v ersa ri al he aring b ef o re f u ture s ei zur es . T her efor e, w e uphol d the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of the i nj unct i on.

2. H ear i ng “[A ] deci s i on [t o denya pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on] m aybe bas ed on af fi davi t s and
o ther d o cu m en taryev iden ce if th e f ac ts are u n d ispu ted a n d the re leva n t fac tual issue s are r es ol ved. ” B r adl ey , 910 F. 2d at1176. H er e, the r el evantfac t s w er e undi s put ed; the q u e stio n f

o r th e D istric t C o u rt w a s w h e th e r a th re a t o f im m e d iate , irrep a ra b le
c o n s titu tio n a l h a rm c a lle d f o r a p re lim in a ry in

ju n c tio n . A h e a ri n g w a s n o t r e q u ir e d . V I . C oncl usi on Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tdeny i ng a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on w i l l be uphel d. T her e w as no abus e of di s cr et i on, and a he ar i ng11

w as notr equi r ed.