UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Similar documents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiffs and Appellants, Defendants and Res ondents.

Case 2:14-cv WBS-EFB Document 14 Filed 08/07/14 Page 1 of 5

AS MODIFIED. Attorneys for Plaintiff, STERLING SAVINGS BANK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

1 The parties to this action, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to. 2 the following:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

the unverified First Amended Complaint (the Complaint ) of plaintiffs MIKE SPITZER and

Benjamin v. Google Inc. Doc. 45

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case3:11-cv WHA Document33 Filed01/06/12 Page1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Plaintiffs,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

copy 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff CALMAT CO. dba VTJLCAN MATERIALS COMPANY, WESTERN DIVISION 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:18-cv R-AGR Document 7 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:26

SAMPLE FORM F NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT GRANTING PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SACRAMENTO DIVISION } } } } } } } } } } } } } } /

HAROLD P. STURGEON, Plaintiff and Petitioner, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants and Respondents, and

December 10, Cohen v. DIRECTV, No. S177734

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (OAKLAND DIVISION)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

TAKE ACTION NOW TO PROTECT YOUR INTERESTS!

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. CINDY LEE GARCIA, an individual, Case No. CV MWF (VBKx) Plaintiff,

MOTION TO STRIKE OPENING BRIEF; PROPOSED ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. CINDY LEE GARCIA, an individual, Case No. CV MWF (VBKx) Plaintiff,

Case M:06-cv VRW Document 424 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 1 of 5

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

Case 5:12-cv EJD Document 1134 Filed 01/27/16 Page 1 of 8

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE SELF-HELP CENTER ANSWERING A BREACH OF CONTRACT COMPLAINT

DISTRICT COURT, FAMILY DIVISION CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO CITY ATTORNEY REPORT RE: COURT RULING

Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 1OCECGO2 116 The Honorable Jeffrey Y. Hamilton, Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Part Description 1 5 pages 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order to Motion for Summary Judgment

FAX. IN TUE SUPERIOR COURT OF TUE STATE OF caiafornia INANDFORTHLCQLNTYOELOSANELES. EAST l)i$trict

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE SELF-HELP CENTER

Case5:11-cv RMW Document72 Filed01/10/12 Page1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT (GLENDALE) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 5:08-cv RMW Document 7 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 1 of 7

s~! LED C/:A.teiD,C pi^ JUN ii afluffitii, C(«lE«c.01ter aft!k«,supeti!orccuili Attorneys for Plaintiff

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D.

Request for Publication

DEC 1 i1z ) FOR DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ) ) Time: 439-pm.3) C.D. Michel -

COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION 2. CALGUNS FOUNDATION INC., et al v. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

TO THE HONORABLE TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE, CHIEF JUSTICE, AND TO THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO

Case 2:12-cv PSG-RZ Document 1 Filed 10/10/12 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:00-cv GAF-RC Document 435 Filed 05/14/13 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:1893

CLAIM FOR MONEY OR DAMAGES r\eceiyeu WARNING liodesto CITY CLERK Be sure your claim is filed with the' -.. ment Code Section 910 et seq)

in furtherance of and in response to its Tentative Decision dated 1/4/2010 addressing various matters

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. Plaintiff{s),

REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF OPINION. Andre Torigian v. WT Capital Lender Services Case No. F (Fresno County Superior Court No.

Case 3:08-cv BEN-BLM Document 3 Filed 06/17/2008 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:09-cv DOC-RZ Document 72 Filed 08/31/10 Page 1 of 37 Page ID #:992

Case 2:15-cv MMD-GWF Document 50 Filed 09/19/16 Page 1 of 4

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN, NORTH KERN DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:08-cv VRW Document 9 Filed 07/23/2008 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 01/28/17 Page 1 of 7 SAN FRANCISCO

IIAR CONN )14)R1) toliv

Case 2:06-cv R-CW Document 437 Filed 10/12/12 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:7705

Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

LODGED. MHY p CLERK, QS DISTRICT COL VIRAL DISTRICT OF CA i, F,, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNI A

PARKER, et al., THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., STIPULATION FOR SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF PURSUANT TO RULES OF COURT, RULE 8.

Jonathan Arvizu v. City of Pasadena Request for Publication Second District Case No.: B Superior Court Case No.: BC550929

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDENT

a. Name of person served:

CON. KEhrlichjmbm.com. ECulleyjmbm.com. 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff CALMAT CO. dba VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY, WESTERN DIVISION 7

Case 2:15-cr SVW Document 173 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 61 Page ID #:2023

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

1 Justice, on January 9, A copy of the Proof of Service of Summons is attached hereto. 4 Dated: January 27, 2015 MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

vs. ) NOTICE OF RULING 14 )

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

CLASS ACTION. Attorneys for Defendant CHARLES W. MCCALL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Administrator (hereinafter collectively "TCERA") oppose the Motion to Reconsider filed by

RESPOND TO ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE. March 3, 2011

SEP Malta A. Ago. Responden ts/de fenthmts. VENTURA iuper1or COURT

Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

October 4, 2005 RE: APPLICATION /INVESTIGATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:04-cv ABC-Mc Document 171 Filed 05/01/06 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:126. UNITED STATES DISTRICT ( ClJIr1o;.~"';rj[~J!"";m1. Defendants.

Petition for Relief Packet

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

TO BE FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Transcription:

JOSEPH M. BURTON (SB No. 142105) STEPHEN H. SUTRO (SB No. 172168) DUANE MORRIS LLP 100 Spear Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 371-2200 Facsimile: (415)371-2201 Attorneys for Defendant ELCOMSOFT COMPANY, LTD. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. ELCOM LTD., a/k/a ELCOMSOFT CO., LTD., Defendant. Case No.: CR 01-20138 RMW DECLARATION OF JOSEPH M. BURTON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FOR VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS Date: April 1, 2002 Time: 9:00 a.m. Judge: The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte

I, JOSEPH M. BURTON, declare : 1. I am a partner at the law firm of Duane Morris LLP, counsel of record for defendant Elcomsoft Co. Ltd ( Elcomsoft ) in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the following facts, and if called upon to do so, could and would competently testify to them. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a document titled Adobe Solutions for the ebook Market that was produced by the government to Elcomsoft in this matter. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a printout dated July 4, 2001 from the portion of Elcomsoft s website that described AEPBR (http://www.elcomsoft.com/ aebpr.html) that was produced by the government to Elcomsoft in this matter. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the July 16, 2001 Statement of Elcomsoft Employee Dmitry Sklyarov to the FBI that was produced by the government to Elcomsoft in this matter. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the September 5, 2001 FBI Interview of Aaron Mathieson that was produced by the government to Elcomsoft in this matter. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct redacted copy of an August 28, 2001 E- mail that Aaron Mathieson sent to me. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the August 31, 2001 FBI Interview of Stephen Richard Levine that was produced by the government to Elcomsoft in this matter. 8. Following the complaints by Adobe that AEBPR violated United States law, and Elcomsoft s termination of the sale of AEBPR, Elcomsoft received several e-mails from potential users of AEBPR requesting a full version of the software. In some cases, the potential purchasers described why they needed AEBPR. The e-mails identified in subparagraphs (a.) through (e.) below are true and correct copies of such e-mails received by Elcomsoft. a. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of a July 5, 2001 E-mail from a potential user of AEBPR. 1

b. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of a July 6, 2001 E-Mail from State of Wisconsin. c. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct redacted copy of a July 5, 2001 E-Mail from SunGard esourcing. d. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of a July 5, 2001 E-Mail from Time Warner Communications. e. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of a July 14, 2001 E-Mail from Daniel Bailey. 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of a facsimile dated July 23, 2001 from RegNow to the FBI regarding Advanced ebook Processor sales information that was produced by the government to Elcomsoft in this matter. The page bates numbered 000101 reflects that on July 3, 2001, Lori Mullen of Los Alamos, New Mexico, e:mail: ggg@lanl.gov, purchased AEBPR. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of the August 30, 2001 FBI Interview of Gary Garrett, an employee at Los Alamos Nuclear Labratory, and a Government Card Services credit card statement for the period June 28, 2001 through July 12, 2001. The documents attached at Exhibit M were produced by the government to Elcomsoft in this matter. 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of H. Rept. 105-551 (Part I), Report of the House Judiciary Committee on H.R. 2281, WIPO Copyright Treaty Implementation Act (May 22, 1998). 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a true and correct copy of H. Rept. 105-551 (Part II), Report of House Commerce Committee on H.R. 2281, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (July 22, 1998). 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of S. Rept. 105-190, Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee on S. 2037, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (May 6, 1998). I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed in San Francisco, California on January 28, 2002. 2

Joseph M. Burton SF\28589.1 3

United States of America v. Elcom Ltd., a/k/a Elcomsoft Co., Ltd. Case No.: CR 01-20138 RMW PROOF OF SERVICE I am a resident of the state of California, I am over the age of 18 years, and I am not a party to this lawsuit. My business address is Duane Morris LLP, 100 Spear Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco, California 94105. On the date listed below, I served the following document(s): DECLARATION OF JOSEPH M. BURTON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FOR VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS _ by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date during normal business hours. Our facsimile machine reported the "send" as successful. _ by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at San Francisco, California, addressed as set forth below. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. According to that practice, items are deposited with the United States mail on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am aware that, on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing stated in the affidavit. John Keker Keker & Van Nest 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 _ by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, deposited with Federal Express Corporation on the same date set out below in the ordinary course of business; to the person at the address set forth below, I caused to be served a true copy of the attached document(s). Scott H. Frewing Assistant United States Attorney United States District Court Northern District of California 280 South First Street San Jose, CA 95113 _ by causing personal delivery of the document(s) listed above to the person at the address set forth below. _ by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person at the address set forth below. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Dated: January, 2002 4

SF-28589 Lea A. Chase 5