Dallas Buyers Club Objection To Amicus Brief

7/25/2019 Dallas Buyers Club Objection To Amicus Brief

1/3

Honorable Richard A. Jones

OBJECTION TO REQUEST TO SUBMIT

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT - 1

Civil Action No. 14-cv-1819RAJINIP-6-0010P18 RESP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC NYDAM, an individual; andDOE 6,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 14-cv-1819RAJ

OBJECTION TO REQUEST TO SUBMITRESPONSE TO MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff respectfully objects to Attorney Whitakers request to submit a response in the

Defendant Nydam default judgment proceeding. As admitted by Attorney Whitaker, neither he nor his

firm represent or have had any involvement with the defaulted defendant. It does not appear that Attorney

Whitaker is properly seeking to intervene pursuant to FRCP 24(b), and has provided no legal authority

supporting the proposition that a third party can or should be allowed to make submissions in a default

judgment proceeding under these circumstances. To the contrary, further filings made by Attorney

Whitaker could potentially prejudice the defaulted defendant through increased costs and fees should his

filing mandate a response; third party interference that might prolong or multiply these proceedings

should not be tolerated

Moreover, Attorneys Whitakers statement that Plaintiffs default judgment motion submission

is somewhat slanted with respect to the true state of the law regarding copyright actions like this one is

presumptuous as well as simply incorrect. Plaintiffs submission is supported by legal authority and

Case 2:14-cv-01819-RAJ Document 51 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 3


2/3



JUDGMENT - 2


substantiated evidence. While Attorney Whitaker may disagree with such authority and evidence, and

may even be able to provide contrary examples if given the chance, such does not support his sweeping

statement challenging Plaintiffs cited authority and evidence, nor should it give him license make

arguments in this case.

Finally, while true that The Department of Commerce Internet Policy Task Force just released

its White Paper on Remixes, First Sale, and Statutory Damages (available at

http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/copyrightwhitepaper.pdf), it is not law. It proposes

new language in Section 504(c) including nine nonexclusive factors to be considered by courts in

determining the appropriate amount of statutory damages, but noteworthy is the fact that the White Paper

does not recommend reducing statutory damages in these cases. (White Paper, pp. 94, 95) To the

contrary, the White Paper acknowledges the important rights of the copyright owners in these cases and

states:

With respect to file-sharing, statutory damages must take into account not merely thedefendants personal use, but his or her acts in uploading and distributing copies topotentially numerous recipients. And while statutory damage awards of $150,000 perwork are rare, there may be cases, including in the context addressed in theseproceedings, where such awards are justified due to the need to deter and punish willfulinfringement.

Id., p. 94.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29thday of January, 2016.

s/David A. Lowe, WSBA No. 24,[email protected] GRAHAM JONESPLLC

701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4800Seattle, WA 98104T: 206.381.3300F: 206.381.3301

Attorneys for Plaintiff Dallas Buyers Club, LLC



3/3



JUDGMENT - 3


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of theforegoing document has been served to all counsel or parties ofrecord who are deemed to have consented to electronic service via

the Courts CM/ECF system.

s/ David A. Lowe


Documents

Dallas Buyers Club Objection To Amicus Brief