Plaintiffs' have not cited any contrary authority to support their position that Rule 65 is inapplicable to injunctions under the Lanham Act. Although the Lanham Act does not eliminate the requirements of Rule 65, Plaintiffs are not without a vehicle to secure a take-down order in this case. In fact, Congress has anticipated that domain name registries like PIR are beyond the reach of the Rule.

Dated this 6th day of June, 2017. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. By: s/Timothy S. DeJong Timothy S. DeJong, OSB No. 940662 Email: tdejong@stollberne.com 209 SW Oak Street, 5th Floor Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 Facsimile: (503) 227--6840 Case 3:17-cv-00886-MO Document 2 Filed 06/06/17 Page 26 of 27 STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. 209 S.W. OAK STREET PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 TEL. (503) 227-1600 FAX (503) 227-6840 Page 23 - PLAINTIFF BAIRD’S EMERGENCY FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 65 AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION -And- Michael S. Taaffe, Esq. Email: mtaaffe@slk-law.com SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP 240 S. Pineapple Ave, 10th Floor Sarasota, FL 34236 Telephone: (941) 364-2720 Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.

describe in reasonable detail – without referring to the complaint or other documents – the acts retrained (FRCP 65(d)(1)(C)); and 6. provide for Plaintiff to give security in an amount proper to pay the costs and damages associated with an improvidently granted injunction (FRCP 65(c)). The court’s Order meets none of these requirements.

Oppenheimer will consent to the Order remaining in effect through the conclusion of the FINRA hearing to determine permanent injunctive relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2); FINRA Rule 13804(b)(1). Because the FINRA hearing begins the day after the Order would expire and because Oppenheimer will consent to extending the Order under Rule 65(b), the Court should deny Euro Pacific’s request for expedited discovery.

See In re Baldwin-United Corp. (Single Premium Deferred Annuities Ins. Litigation), 770 F.2d 328, 338 (2d Cir. 1985) ("Preliminary injunctions under Rule 65 are designed to preserve the status quo between the parties before the court pending a decision on the merits of the case at hand."); Comprehensive Cmty. Dev. Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30623, at *25 (S.D.N.Y. March 7, 2012) (stating that Rule 65 "empowers courts to act to maintain the, status quo.") Indeed, granting Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief freezing Defendants' assets would be entirely in line with this Circuit's well-settled case law.

(E) Documents to be filed and (unless impossible) served on affected parties/counsel: G (1) Complaint G (2) Motion for TRO G (3) Brief on all legal issued presented by the motion G (4) Affidavit detailing notice, or efforts to effect notice, or showing why it should not be given G (5) Affidavit in support of existence of irreparable harm G (6) Proposed order with provision for bond G (7) Proposed order with blanks for fixing: G Time and date of hearing for motion for preliminary injunction G Date for filing responsive papers G Amount of bond, if any G Date and hour of issuance G (8) For TROs requested ex parte, proposed order shall notify affected parties they can apply to the court for modification/dissolution on 2 days notice or such shorter notice as the court may allow. See Local Rule 65-231 and FRCP 65(b) Case 2:15-cv-02502-KJM-CKD Document 42-6 Filed 05/22/17 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:15-cv-03701-AJN Document 42 Filed 05/28/15 Page 20 of 22 16 CONCLUSION Defendants’ alleged conduct, no matter how unsavory, cannot justify an attempt to “enjoin the world.” Thus, the Court should find that the TRO of May 13, 2015, does not apply to CloudFlare, and that any further injunction against CloudFlare sought by Plaintiffs in this action must be shown to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d). DATED: May 28, 2015 Respectfully submitted, /s/William J. Harrington William J. Harrington (WH-6376) Grant Fondo* GOODWIN PROCTER LLP Mitchell L. Stoltz* Corynne McSherry* ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION (*pro hac vice application to be submitted) Counsel for Non-Party CloudFlare, Inc.

Patton Boggs relies on Agnew v. Alicanto S.A., 125 F.R.D. 355 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), and Merck & Co., Inc. v. Technoquimicas S.A., No. 01 Civ. 5345 (NRB), 2001 WL 963977 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2001). Dkt. 55 at 9–10. In both of these decisions, however, the injunctions issued under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64, which, in stark contrast to Rule 65, incorporates attachment and other remedies available “under the law of the state where the court is located.” Case 1:12-cv-09176-LAK-JCF Document 57 Filed 04/11/13 Page 21 of 26 -16- Fed. R. Civ. P. 64(a).12 Thus, as Judge Franc-is observed, Bulova Watch Co. v. Rogers-Kent, Inc. stands alone against the weight of authority that applies federal law to recovery of attorneys’ fees from bonds issued under Rule 65.

3(k) as it currently stands, purports to impose obligations upon Defendants not to “transfer[] or redirect[] users of the Isohunt System to any other service that, directly or indirectly, provides access to unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works” (emphasis added). How Defendants could be expected to monitor whether unnamed other services are “directly or indirectly” providing access to Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Works is unknown, and this provision violates the Ninth Circuit Order’s requirement for specificity. Fung, 710 F.3d at 1048-49 (finding language that fails to give notice “too imprecise”). (6) Defendants Propose Removing “Without Limitation” from 3 and 5(a) as Unnecessary and Vague Defendants also propose removing the superfluous and confusing phrase “without limitation” from 3 and 5(a), as of course there are limitations—the injunction is required to provide notice of the scope. These terms are unnecessary and only contradict the very purpose of Rule 65.

This Rule provides, in relevant part: The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained . . . . Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). On its face, Rule 65(c) admits no exceptions; in other words, the bond is a condition of the injunction.