Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/275310/00708-Diebold-answer
Timestamp: 2018-10-15 14:07:59
Document Index: 537776992

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 1809', '§ 101', '§ 1331', '§ 2201', '§ 101', '§ 1331', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 512', '§ 2201', '§ 2201', '§ 512']

00708-Diebold answer | Declaratory Judgment | Cause Of Action
00708-Diebold answer
Ilano vs Hon. Español
Art 1809 Digested Cases
WaterSound Declaratory Judgement Secreted Inspections
Fluor Daniel vs e.b Villarosa
CTS Wholesale v. USPA Accessories
Bingham v. McCourt, Order of Dismissal, Suffolk, 2011
Datatreasury Corporation v. Wells Fargo & Company et al - Document No. 508
Ameritas Variable Life v. Susan L. Roach, 411 F.3d 1328, 11th Cir. (2005)
SANTOS v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY Complaint
Bunzl Processor Distribution, LLC
Brown v. Uphoff, 10th Cir. (1997)
30 Philcorp v CA
Parsons Government Services, Inc., A.S.B.C.A. (2017)
Hernandez v Dbp_1976_real or Personal Action
Justice Department response to Arquiett lawsuit
De Guzman v. Genato - effects of family relationship on legal disputes.doc
City Defendants Notice of Motion to Dismiss
(GR) Hernandez v DBP (1976)
DeLeon v. Wells Fargo Bank
LEonen Dissent RH BILL
Sample Complaint for Specific Performance in California
Robert A. Mittelstaedt (State Bar No. 060359) Tharan Gregory Lanier (State Bar No. 138784) Adam R. Sand (State Bar No. 217712) JONES DAY 555 California Street, 25th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 Facsimile: (415) 875-5700 Attorneys for Defendants DIEBOLD, INCORPORATED, AND DIEBOLD ELECTION SYSTEMS, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA / SAN JOSE
ONLINE POLICY GROUP, NELSON CHU PAVLOSKY, and LUKE THOMAS SMITH, Plaintiffs, v. DIEBOLD, INCORPORATED, and DIEBOLD ELECTION SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Defendants.
Case No. 03-4913 JF
DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
ANSWER AND DEFENSES Defendants Diebold Incorporated and Diebold Election Systems, Inc. respond to the first amended complaint for injunctive relief for intentional interference with contract; for copyright misuse; for damages for misrepresentation of copyright claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA); and for declaratory relief (Complaint) of Online Policy Group, Nelson Chu Pavlosky and Luke Thomas Smith (plaintiffs), and allege their affirmative defenses as follows: 1.
MPI-13673v1
Answering the averments of Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, defendants admit that
DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT -- C-03-4913 JF
plaintiffs have attempted to allege a civil action seeking injunctive relief for intentional interference with contract; for copyrights misuse; for damages for misrepresentation of copyright claims under the DMCA; and for declaratory relief. Defendants deny any further averments in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 2. 3. Defendants deny Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. Defendants deny Paragraph 3 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 4. Defendants deny Paragraph 4 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 5. Defendants deny Paragraph 5 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 6. 7. 8. Defendants admit Paragraph 6 of the Complaint. Defendants admit Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. Answering the averments of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, defendants admit that
plaintiffs have attempted to allege subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims pursuant to the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 and the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201). Defendants specifically deny that this Court has jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act. If there is no jurisdiction under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338, then this Court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state law claims. Defendants deny any further averments in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint. 9. 10. Defendants admit Paragraph 9 of the Complaint. Answering the averments of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Defendants deny that
a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims in the Complaint occurred in this district. Defendants admit any further averments in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 11. Defendants deny Paragraph 11 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 12.
Defendants deny Paragraph 12 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or 2
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 13. Defendants deny Paragraph 13 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 14. Answering the averments of Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, defendants admit that
on October 10, 2003 defendants’ attorney on behalf of defendants sent a notification pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512 to plaintiff Online Policy Group requesting that a link to the IndyMedia web site be removed. Defendants deny that the notification threatened copyright infringement litigation. Defendants further admit that the notification pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512 was attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B. Defendants deny any further averments in Paragraph 14. 15. Answering the averments of Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, defendants admit that
their October 10, 2003 notification pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512 states that Diebold is the owner of copyright rights in certain Diebold property relating to its electronic voting machines and that OPG is hosting a web site that links users to that Diebold property. Defendants further admit that the notification states that the web site OPG is hosting infringes Diebold's copyright rights in that property. Defendant deny any further averments in Paragraph 15. 16. 17. Defendants admit Paragraph 16 of the Complaint. Answering the averments of Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, defendants admit that
the October 10, 2003 notification expressly states that defendants "reserve their position insofar as costs and damages caused by the unauthorized provision of information locating tools with respect to online locations engaged in infringing activity with respect to the Diebold Property." Defendants further admit that the notification states that defendants "also reserve their right to seek injunctive relief to prevent further unauthorized provision of information locating tools with respect to online locations engaged in infringing activity with respect to Diebold Property, pending" OPG's response to the notification. Defendants deny that the notification included a threat of litigation against OPG. Defendants deny any further averments in Paragraph 17. 18. Answering the averments of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, defendants admit that
the October 10, 2003 notification states that defendants "await [OPG's] response within 24 hours." Defendants deny any further averments in Paragraph 18.
Answering the averments of Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, defendants admit that
OPG sent a brief response to the October 10, 2003 notification indicating that it was consulting with counsel. Defendants deny any further averments in Paragraph 19. 20. 21. Defendants deny Paragraph 20 of the Complaint. Defendants deny Paragraph 21 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 22. Answering the averments of Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, defendants admit that
their attorney received a letter dated October 22, 2003 from OPG's counsel. Defendants further admit that the October 22, 2003 letter was attached as Exhibit C to the complaint. Defendants deny any further averments in Paragraph 22. 23. Defendants deny Paragraph 23 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 24. Answering the averments of Paragraph 24 of the Complaint, defendants admit that
on October 21, 2003 defendants’ attorney sent a notification pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512 to Mr. Benny Ng. Defendants further admit that the notification was attached to the Complaint as Exhibit D. Defendants deny any further averments in Paragraph 24. 25. Answering the averments of Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, defendants admit that
the October 21, 2003 notification sent to Mr. Ng requested that he "assist in removing the identified infringing material or act in accordance with your 17 U.S.C. 512(i)(1)(A) policy that 'provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the services provider's network who are repeat infringers.'" Defendants deny any further averments in Paragraph 25 as they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 26. 27. Defendants deny Paragraph 26 of the Complaint. Defendants deny Paragraph 27 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 28. Defendants deny Paragraph 28 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments.
Defendants deny Paragraph 29 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 30. Defendants deny Paragraph 30 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 31. Defendants deny Paragraph 31 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 32. Defendants deny Paragraph 32 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 33. Defendants deny Paragraph 33 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 34. Defendants deny Paragraph 34 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 35. Defendants deny Paragraph 35 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 36. Defendants deny Paragraph 36 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 37. Defendants deny Paragraph 37 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 38. Defendants deny Paragraph 38 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 39. Defendants deny Paragraph 39 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 40. Defendants deny Paragraph 40 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 41. Defendants deny Paragraph 41 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 42. Defendants deny Paragraph 42 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
Defendants deny Paragraph 43 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 44. Defendants deny Paragraph 44 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 45. Answering the averments of Paragraph 45 of the Complaint, defendants admit that
there has been public debate and media coverage about the security of Diebold electronic voting machines and that the State of Maryland commissioned a study on Diebold electronic voting machines. Defendants deny any further averments in Paragraph 45 as they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 46. Defendants deny Paragraph 46 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 47. Answering the averments of Paragraph 47 of the Complaint, defendants admit that
there has been public debate and media coverage about the security of Diebold electronic voting machines. Defendants deny any further averments in Paragraph 47 as they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 48. Answering the averments of Paragraph 48 of the Complaint, defendants admit that
internet web sites have posted reports and Diebold property. Defendants deny any further averments in Paragraph 48 as they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 49. Answering the averments of Paragraph 49 of the Complaint, defendants admit that
media outlets have reported on electronic voting machine security, including Diebold's electronic voting machines. Defendants deny any further averments in Paragraph 49 as they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 50. Answering the averments of Paragraph 50, defendants admit that web sites have
posted or linked to Diebold property. Defendants deny any further averments in Paragraph 50 as they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 51.
Defendants deny Paragraph 51 of the Complaint. 6
Answering the averments of Paragraph 52 of the Complaint, defendants admit that
ISPs have disabled access to Diebold property. Defendants deny any further averments in Paragraph 52. 53. Defendants deny Paragraph 53 of the Complaint. COUNT I: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT 54. In response to Paragraph 54 of the Complaint, defendants repeat and incorporate
the responses above to Paragraphs 1 to 53 of the Complaint. 55. Defendants deny Paragraph 55 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 56. 57. 58. Defendants deny Paragraph 56 of the Complaint. Defendants deny Paragraph 57 of the Complaint. Defendants deny Paragraph 58 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 59. 60. Defendants deny Paragraph 59 of the Complaint. Defendants deny Paragraph 60 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 61. Defendants deny Paragraph 61 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 62. 63. 64. Defendants deny Paragraph 62 of the Complaint. Defendants deny Paragraph 63 of the Complaint. Defendants deny Paragraph 64 of the Complaint as they are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 65. Defendants deny Paragraph 65 of the Complaint. COUNT II: MISUSE OF COPYRIGHT 66. In response to Paragraph 66 of the Complaint, defendants repeat and incorporate
the responses above to Paragraphs 1 to 65 of the Complaint. 67. Answering the averments of Paragraph 67 of the Complaint, plaintiffs' statement
that "publication of the e-mail archive is fair use" is a legal conclusion not subject to denial or
admission and, alternatively, defendants deny that it was fair use. Defendants deny the averment in subparagraph 67a that the character of the use is to inform public discussion and political debate. Defendants deny the averment in subparagraph 67a regarding the purpose of the use as they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of that averment. Defendants deny subparagraphs 67b through 67d. 68. 69. Defendants deny Paragraph 68 of the Complaint. Answering the averments of Paragraph 69 of the Complaint, defendants admit they
used the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 512, because it provides copyright owners, like Diebold, with an expeditious method of taking down infringing materials. Defendants deny any further averments in Paragraph 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. Defendants deny Paragraph 70 of the Complaint. Defendants deny Paragraph 71 of the Complaint. Defendants deny Paragraph 72 of the Complaint. Defendants deny Paragraph 73 of the Complaint. COUNT III: 17 U.S.C. 512(f) MISREPRESENTATION 74. In response to Paragraph 74 of the Complaint, defendants repeat and incorporate
the responses above to Paragraphs 1 to 73 of the Complaint. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. Defendants deny Paragraph 75 of the Complaint. Defendants deny Paragraph 76 of the Complaint. Defendants deny Paragraph 77 of the Complaint. Defendants deny Paragraph 78 of the Complaint. Defendants deny Paragraph 79 of the Complaint. Defendants deny Paragraph 80 of the Complaint. Defendants deny Paragraph 81 of the Complaint. COUNT IV: DECLARATORY RELIEF 82. In response to Paragraph 82 of the Complaint, defendants repeat and incorporate
the responses above to Paragraphs 1 to 81 of the Complaint. 83.
Answering the averments of Paragraph 83 of the Complaint and without waiving 8
defendants' position that the notifications sent pursuant to the DMCA were appropriate, defendants deny that there is an ongoing case or controversy sufficient to support the alleged claim for declaratory relief. Defendants deny any further averments in Paragraph 83. 84. Answering the averments of Paragraph 84 of the Complaint and without waiving
defendants' position that the notifications sent pursuant to the DMCA were appropriate, defendants deny that there is an ongoing case or controversy sufficient to support the alleged claim for declaratory relief. Defendants deny any further averments in Paragraph 84. 85. Answering the averments of Paragraph 85 of the Complaint and without waiving
defendants' position that the notifications sent pursuant to the DMCA were appropriate, defendants deny that there is an ongoing case or controversy sufficient to support the alleged claim for declaratory relief. Defendants deny any further averments in Paragraph 85. 86. Answering the averments of Paragraph 86 of the Complaint, defendants admit that
plaintiffs have attempted to invoke this Court's jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57. Defendants deny that this Court has jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act as there is no ongoing case or controversy sufficient to support the alleged claim for declaratory relief. 87. Answering the averments of Paragraph 87 of the Complaint, defendants admit that
Paragraph 87 is a statement of plaintiffs' legal contentions, but defendants deny that there is an ongoing case or controversy sufficient to support the alleged claim for declaratory relief. 88. Answering the averments of Paragraph 88 of the Complaint and without waiving
defendants' position that the notifications sent pursuant to the DMCA were appropriate, defendants deny Paragraph 88 as there is no ongoing case or controversy giving rise to the alleged claim for declaratory relief. 89. Answering the averments of Paragraph 89 of the Complaint, defendants admit that
plaintiffs have requested this Court to determine and adjudge their propositions in the Complaint as stating the law applicable to the facts involved in this action. Defendants deny that this Court should do so. Defendants deny any further averments in Paragraph 89. 90.
Answering the Prayer for Relief, defendants deny that plaintiffs or all others 9
similarly situated are entitled to any of the relief sought in the Complaint or to any relief whatsoever. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST DEFENSE (Failure to State a Claim) 91. The Complaint and each cause of action stated therein fail to state facts sufficient
to state a cause of action against defendants, and further fail to allege any facts sufficient to entitle plaintiffs to the relief and other remedies sought in the Complaint. SECOND DEFENSE (Case or Controversy) 92. The Complaint fails to raise a justiciable case or controversy as required by Article
III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. THIRD DEFENSE (Mootness) 93. The issues raised in the Complaint are moot. FOURTH DEFENSE (First Amendment) 94. Constitution. FIFTH DEFENSE (Justification) 95. The notifications pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512 were justified. SIXTH DEFENSE (Mitigation of Damages) 96. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages by timely pursuing their remedies The Complaint is barred by the First Amendment of the United States
SEVENTH DEFENSE (Federal Preemption) 97. The alleged state law claims in the Complaint are preempted by federal law. EIGHTH DEFENSE (Right to Assert Additional Defenses) 98. Defendants reserve the right to assert additional affirmative defenses at such time
and to such extent as warranted by discovery and the factual developments in this case. Dated: December 5, 2003 JONES DAY
By:/s/ Tharan Gregory Lanier Tharan Gregory Lanier Attorney for Defendant DIEBOLD, INCORPORATED, AND DIEBOLD ELECTION SYSTEMS, INC.
Documents Similar To 00708-Diebold answer
Vicbekiempis
Christian Gigante