The parties in the lawsuit in which four book publishers were granted summary judgment March 24 to thwart the Internet Archive from scanning print copies of physical books and lending the digital copies to users of IA’s website without the publishers’ permission (see 2303270006) need an extra week, to April 14, to submit a proposal for the appropriate procedure to determine the judgment to be entered in the case. So said their letter Wednesday (docket 1:20-cv-04160) to U.S. District Judge John Koeltl for the Southern District of New York. “The parties have engaged in multiple constructive conversations directed towards our shared goal of submitting a joint procedure to the Court but have not yet reached a resolution,” they told the judge. “In light of these continued discussions and given the religious holidays this week, the parties request a brief extension of the current deadline,” they said.

Chief U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly for Delaware ordered Nimitz Technologies’ outside counsel George Pazuniak to appear before him in person April 11 and be prepared to show cause why he and Nimitz shouldn’t be sanctioned for their failure to produce bank records, emails and other materials the judge demanded in November, said his memorandum order Tuesday (docket 1:21-cv-01247). Connolly ordered the production of the materials for his investigation into whatever third-party funding may have contributed to the filing of three Nimitz patent infringement lawsuits against Bloomberg, BuzzFeed, Cnet and Imagine Learning (see 2212060020). Nimitz and Pazuniak resisted Connolly’s order on grounds that the documents he was demanding would violate attorney-client privilege. The judge had several courtroom confrontations with Pazuniak before issuing his Nov. 10 order, but he maintained a low profile as Nimitz and Pazuniak unsuccessfully sought mandamus relief from the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit. It’s now nearly two months since the Federal Circuit's last mandate issued, denying Nimitz and Pazuniak relief, “thereby returning these cases” to Connolly’s jurisdiction, but still no compliance with his November instructions, said his order.

The record labels' opposition to Grande Communications Networks’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), and alternatively its request for a new trial (see 2303010018), “is full of red herrings and diversionary tactics” to try to persuade the court “that the issues identified in Grande’s motion are not appropriate for JMOL,” said Grande’s reply brief Monday (docket 1:17-cv-00365) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin. A jury awarded $46.77 million in statutory damages Nov. 3 to several record labels for Grande’s willful contributory infringement of 1,403 copyrighted works. The labels alleged internet service provider Grande turned a blind eye to the wrongdoing of its subscribers. Grande argues there wasn’t a “sufficient evidentiary basis” for the jury to find for the plaintiffs on any of the allegations, and that’s “the proper purpose” of a motion for JMOL, it said. In alternatively seeking a new trial, Grande said “prejudicial errors in the admission and exclusion of evidence resulted in an unfair trial, a verdict against the weight of the evidence, and excessive damages.” As a result of those prejudicial errors, including errors about the Digital Millennial Copyright Act and other legislation, the plaintiffs “accomplished exactly what they set out to do: make the jury believe that Grande had an affirmative obligation to have a viable DMCA policy and failure to do so meant Grande was liable,” it said. That strategy “is expressly forbidden by statute,” it said.

Pirate video site operator Joshua Streit of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, who was sentenced in March to three years in prison and ordered to pay $3 million in restitution and $500,000 in forfeiture, is appealing his conviction and sentence, per a notice of appeal filed Monday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (docket 1:22-cr-00350). Streit pleaded guilty to one count of computer fraud through unauthorized access for his pirating of MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL streaming content.

Best Buy and Target each “denies each and every allegation, matter, and statement” in Redoak Communications’ Jan. 4 complaint that they’re unlawfully selling unlicensed DVD and Blu-ray copies online of the 1981 horror film Just Before Dawn (see 2301060023), said Best Buy’s and Target's answers Friday (docket 9:23-cv-80008) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in West Palm Beach. The separately filed answers, from different law firms, asserted the same 11 affirmative defenses in the identical sequence. Chief among those defenses was that Redoak’s claims are barred by the first-sale doctrine, because once Redoak’s licensees sold products in commerce, Redoak “had no right to control subsequent disposition or sales of those products,” said their identically worded defenses. Both retailers also asserted that Redoak's claims against them are barred by Redoak's failure to provide "valid notices" of the alleged infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Walmart answered the allegations March 13 by asserting roughly the same affirmative defenses and demanding a jury trial, and Amazon previously answered March 1 with a first-sale countersuit (see 2303140048).

WideOpenWest's motion to dismiss secondary copyright infringement claims brought by holders of rights to a variety of movies has been partially denied. In a docket 1:21-cv-01901 order Friday, U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico for the District of Colorado rejected WOW's motion with respect to claims alleging copyright infringement and violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act but granted it regarding the plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief. He said dismissing the injunctive relief claim doesn't preclude the copyright holders from seeking injunctive relief as a remedy if they prevail on any of their claims about WOW supposedly being lax in addressing BitTorrent piracy by its subscribers.

Independent film company Redoak Communications should be granted its motion for “enhanced statutory infringement” of $150,000 each against defendants Grindhouse Video and Ronin Entertainment for willful copyright infringement and because both have been determined “be in default” for failure to answer Redoak’s complaint, said Redoak’s brief Wednesday (docket 9:23-cv-80008) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in West Palm Beach in support of its motion. Redoak’s Jan. 4 complaint alleges Amazon, Best Buy, Target, Walmart and others are unlawfully selling unlicensed DVD and Blu-ray copies online of the 1981 horror film Just Before Dawn (see 2301060023). Neither defendant is “new to the movie business,” and each has “an extensive catalog of titles being offered to the public,” said the brief. Both are “assumed to have full knowledge of the entertainment industry and its licensing and distribution practices,” it said. Yet neither did due diligence to confirm that the physical discs of Just Before Dawn they sold online still had valid distribution licenses, it said. Ronin and Grindhouse “have refused to participate in this litigation, went into default and have thereby admitted the allegations of willful behavior,” it said. Amazon countersued Redoak March 1, alleging that under the Supreme Court’s 2013 first-sale doctrine decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons and other case law, “once a unit of a product embodying copyrighted expression is lawfully made, it can be resold in the U.S. without requiring any further authorization from the copyright holder” (see 2303100001). Walmart answered Redoak’s complaint March 13 with a jury demand, also on first-sale grounds (see 2303140048). Best Buy and Target are due to answer Redoak’s complaint on Friday.

DirecTV and four defendants in its telemarketing impersonator trademark lawsuit agreed on the choice of U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy Payne as the mediator in the case, they said in a joint notice Monday (docket 6:22-cv-00423) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Tyler. DirecTV alleges the defendants are the culprits in an ongoing fraud scheme in which DirecTV telemarketing impersonators steal money from existing DirecTV account holders through manipulation of gift cards (see 2211010049).

Internet service provider Grande Communications Networks seeks an order “staying the execution” of the judgment against it, pending all appeals, and for waiver of bond or other security requirements, said its motion Thursday (docket 1:17-cv-00365) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin. There’s “no question” Grande “has the present ability to pay the judgment and will continue to have that ability until after all appeals are complete,” said the motion. With annual revenue exceeding $1.5 billion, Grande “qualifies for the exception to the security requirement,” it said. It shouldn’t be required to post bond, it said. The parties “met and conferred on the subject of this motion,” and the plaintiff record labels “indicated they oppose the relief sought,” it said. The labels filed notice March 13 of a conditional cross-appeal at the 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court of the final judgment entered Jan. 30 in their favor by U.S. District Judge David Ezra (see 2303140028). Ezra’s judgment mirrored a jury’s Nov. 3 verdict awarding the labels $46.77 million in statutory damages for Grande’s willful contributory infringement of 1,403 copyrighted works. Grande filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively a new trial, and also is appealing Ezra’s judgment and the verdict to the 5th Circuit. The labels’ cross-appeal is conditional on Grande’s appeal resulting in any portion of the final judgment “being reversed or remanded” to the district court, said their notice.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Kernodle for Eastern Texas in Tyler signed an order Wednesday (docket 6:22-cv-00423) striking the defendants’ March 11 affidavit in opposition to DirecTV’s motion to strike the defendants’ affirmative defenses because the declaration “does not conform to the requirements” of local rules. He ordered the defendants to file a response by March 29 to DirecTV’s pending motion to strike. The defendants’ failure to do so under local rules may result in a “presumption” they don’t “controvert the facts” set out by movant and have no evidence to offer in opposition to the motion to strike, said the order. DirecTV’s trademark infringement lawsuit alleges defendants WNK Associates, the Great Mile, Waleed Iqbal and Khalid Iqbal, impersonating DirecTV telemarketers, typically contact existing or potential DirecTV customers to offer them nonexistent free or significantly discounted services or products, and then they take the consumer’s money (see 2301310041).