Mick Haig Productions, e.K. v. Does 1-670

MOTION Request for Judicial Notice

N.D. Tex.November 24, 2010

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MICK HAIG PRODUCTIONS, E.K., HATTINGER STR. 88 D-44789 BOCHUM, GERMANY Plaintiff, v. DOES 1-670 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CA. 3:10-cv-01900-N DEFENDANTS DOES 1-670’s REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Case 3:10-cv-01900-N Document 6 Filed 11/24/10 Page 1 of 5 PageID 131 2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 and the authorities cited below, Defendants Does 1-670 hereby request that this Court take judicial notice of the following materials: • General Order, In re cases filed by Recording Companies, filed in Fonovisa, Inc. et al. v. Does 1-41 (No. A-04-CA-550 LY), Atlantic Recording Corporation, et al. v. Does 1- 151 (No. A-04-CA-636 SS), Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc. et al. v. Does 1-11 (No. A-04-CA-703 LY); and UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. Does 1-51 (No. A-04-CA-704 LY) (W.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2004), available at http://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/rules/stdord/Austin/recording_111704.pdf and attached hereto as Exhibit A; • Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., et al., v. Does 1-12, No. C-04-04862 (N.D. Cal Nov. 16, 2004, appending In the Matter of DIRECTV, INC., Cases pending in the Northern District of California, Case No. C-02-5912-JW (July 26, 2004), attached hereto as Exhibit B; • Elektra Entm’t Group, Inc., et al. v. Does 1-6, No. 04-1241 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 2004), attached hereto as Exhibit C; • In Re: Copyright Infringement Cases With Doe Defendants Related to Civil Action Number 04-1239, Case No. 04-CV-650-CN, Dkt 17 (E.D. Pa. January 21, 2005), attached hereto as Exhibit D; This request is made in connection with Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference. A district court may take judicial notice of facts that are “not subject to reasonable dispute in that [they are] either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); see also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F. 2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989); In re Merck & Co. Sec. Litig., 432 F.3d 261, 264 n.3 (3d Cir. 2005) (“We can take judicial notice of Merck’s stock prices even on a motion to dismiss because these facts are ‘not subject to reasonable dispute [and are] capable of accurate and ready Case 3:10-cv-01900-N Document 6 Filed 11/24/10 Page 2 of 5 PageID 132 3 determination by resort to a source whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned.’”) (quoting Ieradi v. Mylan Lab. Inc., 230 F.3d 594, 600 n.3 (3d Cir. 2000)). Furthermore, the Federal Rules of Evidence require a court to take judicial notice of a matter “if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(d); see also U.S. ex rel. Lam v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 481 F. Supp. 2d 689, 695 (W.D. Tex. 2007). Exhibits A-D are all Orders from United States District Courts. It is well established that a court may take judicial notice of matters of public record. See, e.g., Gray ex rel. Rudd v. Beverly Enterprises-Mississippi, Inc., 390 F.3d 400, 412 (5th Cir. 2004) (holding that the fact that a judicial action was taken is indisputable and is therefore amenable to judicial notice); Colonial Penn Ins., 887 F. 2d at 1239 (noting “that ‘[t]he most frequent use of judicial notice of ascertainable facts is in noticing the content of court records.’” (citation omitted)). Specifically, federal courts may take judicial notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and outside of the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue. Allen v. City of Los Angeles, 92 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 1992). These documents are offered to show how courts around the nation have handled issues of jurisdiction, joinder, and free speech rights in analogous cases. Thus, they are appropriate subject for judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2). For the foregoing reasons, the Court may properly consider Exhibits A-D as it reviews Defendants’ Opposition. Case 3:10-cv-01900-N Document 6 Filed 11/24/10 Page 3 of 5 PageID 133 4 Dated: November 24, 2010 Respectfully submitted, s/Matthew Zimmerman___________ Matthew Zimmerman mattz@eff.org Cindy Cohn cindy@eff.org ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 T: (415) 436-9333 F: (415) 436-9993 www.eff.org Paul Alan Levy plevy@citizen.org Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 - 20th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 T: (202) 588-1000 http://www.citizen.org/litigation Case 3:10-cv-01900-N Document 6 Filed 11/24/10 Page 4 of 5 PageID 134 Certificate of Service On I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the clerk of court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system of the court. I hereby certify that I have served all counsel and/or pro se parties of record electronically or by another manner authorized by Federal rule of Civil Procedure 5 (b)(2). s/ Matthew Zimmerman November 24, 2010 Case 3:10-cv-01900-N Document 6 Filed 11/24/10 Page 5 of 5 PageID 135