Historical Commentary

June 28, 2004:

Well, the long awaited ruling on the PI is here. The judge wrote 20 pages on why she denied it. There are a couple interesting things in the ruling. The judge appears to have done significant homework in researching the issues. She also does not appear to be amused with OPTIN's submission of supplemental information and has reminded OPTIN and their counsel that ignoring court procedures in the future may result in sanctions.

In addition to the ruling on the PI, OPTIN submitted an amended complaint. This complaint asks for the same injunctions the judge denied in her order.

June 24, 2004:

According to the case management schedule, Optin should have filed a opposition motion on June 22. There has been no activity in PACER, however. The rules state that any failure to oppose a motion is consent to grant the motion (Scheduling Order, bottom of page 3). This means that Optin has consented to the SLAPP motion and will pay all Ironport's legal fees????

June 4, 2004:

Judge published a schedule for the next case management conference in the Optin case.

I am checking the Buckeye case, but there hasn't been any interesting activity there. Ironport's attorney's filed, and received, permission to appear pro hac vice in Ohio court, but I didn't pull the docs because I didn't think that level of court-minutiae was really interesting to the readers.

June 1, 2004:

Posted a letter in support of Ironport and Optin has filed for a change of lawyers. Still waiting for the Judge's ruling.

May 26, 2004:

Late last night, Optin filed supplemental information to support their preliminary injunction. Today, Ironport filed a motion to have that supplemental info struck on the grounds that these are new arguments that were not introduced at the hearing on 5/18. Oh, and they're hearsay.

I'm going to start adding in dates to the filenames. As we have people sending in multiple declarations, I don't want to accidently delete a file due to a new file having the same name as an old file.

May 25, 2004:

Ironport filed Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

May 21, 2004:

Julian and Scott will be debating one another next month in San Francisco at the Email Technology Conference in San Francisco.

May 19, 2004:

Added HTML versions of the filings and full text search.

Added links to index page and slapp page on sidebar.

Added orders from both courts. SBA is Saundra B. Armstrong, the judge in the Richter case. JGC is James G. Carr the judge in the Buckeye case. Depending on how big this monster gets, we may have to rearrange stuff and label the cases better, but we'll see where it goes. We are looking at adding a search engine soon so that the .pdfs can be searched.

May 18, 2004:

First cut of the site up and released publicly.

There are currently two cases being archived on the following pages. Buckeye vs. Ironport and Richter vs. SpamCop dba Ironport. I've tried to note in the PDF names who is doing what pleadings. For SpamCop I've also included a tag about the plaintiff in the case (so SC_OPTIN or SC_BUCKEYE). I've also tried to be somewhat descriptive in file names.

Today was the Richter vs. Ironport hearing in Oakland. We didn't make it up there, although my understanding is the judge has taken the pleadings under advisement and will rule by the end of the month. Ironport also filed a SLAPP motion against Richter.

Yesterday was a phone conference in the Buckeye vs. Ironport case, but no notes are up on PACER, yet.