UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. ELAINE SCOTT, Plaintiff, Case No. 4:09-cv-3039-MH v.

Similar documents
Case 7:15-cv Document 10 Filed in TXSD on 12/02/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MCALLEN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:10 cv 00071

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Case 5:16-cv CAR Document 19 Filed 05/25/17 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. Plaintiff, Case No. 2:09-CV Hon. Marianne O.

Case 3:15-cv WHA Document 31 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

Case: 2:15-cv MHW-NMK Doc #: 20 Filed: 07/01/15 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 143

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Case 1:13-cv WYD-MEH Document 28 Filed 02/20/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Case 6:01-cv MV-WPL Document Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Case 4:04-cv RAS Document 41 Filed 12/09/2004 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

Case 3:16-cv CRS-CHL Document 36 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 423

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Case 1:08-cv EGS Document 19 Filed 12/12/08 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:17-cv PBS Document 35-1 Filed 07/11/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

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

vs. OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS DISCOVERY AND DOCKET CONTROL PLAN FOR LEVEL 3 CASE ( PLAN )

Case 2:16-cv JAK-AS Document 29 Filed 10/15/16 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:190

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. District of Oregon. Plaintiff(s), vs. Case No: 6:07-CV-6149-HO. Defendant(s). Civil Case Assignment Order

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF (****) Case No. The Discovery Status Conference came before Discovery Referee on.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

CLEFL1 >' SO. DtT. OF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GENERAL ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 3:12-cv VC Document 119 Filed 05/09/17 Page 1 of 13 (Counsel listed on signature page)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 9:01-cv MHS-KFG Document 72 Filed 08/16/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1935

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION. Plaintiffs, Defendant.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT United States Courthouse 219 S Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois DOCKETING STATEMENT

Cislo & Thomas LLP Litigation Cost Control (LCC ) Stages of Litigation and Expected Fees and Costs

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS SIXTH DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. versus Civil Action 4:17 cv 02946

Case 5:18-cv DAE Document 9 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 7

Case3:12-cv VC Document28 Filed07/01/14 Page1 of 11

-SMS Owens v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc Doc. 19

Case: 5:14-cv JRA Doc #: 29 Filed: 01/28/15 1 of 6. PageID #: 284 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Doe v. Project Fair Bid, Inc. et al Doc. 1 Att. 1 EXHIBIT A. Dockets.Justia.com

FORM 4. RULE 26(f) REPORT (PATENT CASES) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. 5:07-CV-231

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case 1:13-cv RCL Document 89 Filed 10/29/18 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 2:05-cv TJW Document 212 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 5

Case 4:11-cv Document 102 Filed in TXSD on 09/11/12 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:18-cv KOB Document 49 Filed 02/12/19 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS [MARSHALL / TYLER / TEXARKANA] DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Case 1:11-cv JEM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2011 Page 1 of 8

PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT S ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION. vs. CAUSE NO. IP T/L

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DOCKET CONTROL ORDER STEP ACTION RULE DATE DUE 1

Case 1:04-cv EGS Document 9 Filed 01/21/2005 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) UNIFORM SCHEDULING ORDER

Case 1:12-cv GBL-JFA Document 67 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 748

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER

being preempted by the court's criminal calendar.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO THE COUNTERCLAIMS OF GOOGLE INC.

Case 4:14-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/08/14 Page 1 of 6

LOCAL RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE CALENDARING OF CIVIL CASES DISTRICT COURT DIVISION

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Case3:12-cv VC Document88 Filed06/09/15 Page1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No.: CIV-ALTONAGA/Turnoff

2:13-cv PDB-MKM Doc # 33 Filed 10/06/14 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 305 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 3. Present: Hon. EILEEN BRANSTEN MICHAEL SWEENEY, Index No.: /2017.

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

Case 2:15-cv JRG Document 1 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1

Case 2:15-cv MJP Document 21 Filed 02/11/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. District of Oregon. Plaintiff(s) vs. Case No: 3:09-CV-642-HU. Defendant(s). Civil Case Assignment Order

Case: 2:15-cv MHW-NMK Doc #: 19 Filed: 07/01/15 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 138

LegalFormsForTexas.Com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-SIMONTON CONSENT CASE

PlainSite. Legal Document. New York Southern District Court Case No. 1:10-cv Agence France Presse v. Morel. Document 259.

JOINT RULE 16(b)/26(f) REPORT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. Plaintiffs, Defendants.

Case: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 91 Filed: 03/25/14 Page: 1 of 26 PAGEID #: 2237

Defendants, 1:16CV425

CASE NO. 16-CV RS

The Tundra Docket: Western District Of Wisconsin

Case 4:07-cv CW Document 39 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case 4:15-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 05/20/15 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS JOINT PRELIMINARY STATUS REPORT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville Division ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:15-cv WHA Document 150 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 7

Case 8:13-cv JSM-TBM Document 42 Filed 02/05/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID 868 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH, TEXAS

Case4:12-cv JSW Document34 Filed09/19/14 Page1 of 11

Case 5:09-cv JLV Document 28 Filed 05/15/09 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE. Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks

Case 1:10-cv RMC Document 50 Filed 01/23/13 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 4:10-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/18/10 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Transcription:

Scott v. Scribd, Inc Doc. 12 Case 4:09-cv-03039 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 01/07/10 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ELAINE SCOTT, Plaintiff, Case No. 4:09-cv-3039-MH v. Jury Demanded SCRIBD INC., Defendant. JOINT DISCOVERY AND CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN K.A.D. Camara Texas Bar No. 24062646 Southern District Bar No. 870498 camara@camarasibley.com Attorney-in-Charge for the Plaintiff Kent Radford Texas Bar No. 24027640 radford@camarasibley.com Camara & Sibley LLP 2339 University Boulevard Houston, Texas 77005 713-893-7973 713-893-1131 (fax) Attorneys for the Plaintiff Dockets.Justia.com

Case 4:09-cv-03039 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 01/07/10 Page 2 of 13 Barry G. Flynn Texas Bar No. 07196560 bflynn@gordonrees.com Attorney-in-Charge for the Defendant Daniel Kistler Texas Bar No. 11540300 DKistler@gordonrees.com Gordon & Rees LLP 1900 W. Loop S., Ste. 1000 Houston, Texas 77027 713-961-3366 713-961-3938 (fax) Attorneys for the Defendant 2

Case 4:09-cv-03039 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 01/07/10 Page 3 of 13 1. State where and when the meeting of the parties required by Rule 26(f) was held, and identify the counsel who attended for each party. The meeting was held at Brian O Neal s restaurant on Thursday, December 10, 2009, at noon. K.A.D. Camara and Timothy Paul Nyberg attended for the plaintiff. Barry G. Flynn and Daniel D. Kistler attended for the defendant. The parties have had subsequent discussions by phone and email. 2. List the cases related to this one that are pending in any state or federal court wiht the case number and court. Plaintiff contends that the only related case is Larry Williams v. Scribd Inc. (and certain Doe defendants), pending as Case No. 09-cv-1836 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Mr. Williams alleges that his copyrighted works were also misappropriated by Scribd. Scribd denies this allegation. Mr. Williams did not plead his case as a class action. Defendant does not beleive the Larry Williams case is a related case. 3. Briefly describe what this case is about. This is a copyright-infringement case. Plaintiff conetends that Elaine Scott is a prolific author of children s books. She alleges that one of her books, Stocks and Bonds, was published on and repeatedly downloaded from Scribd s web site, www.scribd.com, without her permission, and 3

Case 4:09-cv-03039 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 01/07/10 Page 4 of 13 that this constitutes copyright infringement. Moreover, she alleges that Scribd knows that copyright infringement is rampant on its web site and that Scribd profits directly from this infringement through advertising, so that Scribd does not qualify for the safe harbor set out in 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(1). Scribd denies these allegations, claiming that it actively polices its web site for copyright infringement and, in any event, qualifies for the 512(c)(1) safe harbor. 4. Specify the allegation of federal jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question) because Mrs. Scott is suing for copyright infringement, a federal cause of action. 5. Name the parties who disagree and the reasons. No party disagrees that federal jurisdiction exists. 6. List anticipated additional parties that should be included, when they can be added, and by whom they are wanted. The parties do not presently expect to join additional parties, although Mrs. Scott may seek to join additional defendants if, in discovery, she discovers that others collaborated in the acts over which she is suing. Defendant may seek to join additional parties as may be identified through subsequent investigation and discovery. 7. List anticipated interventions. 4

Case 4:09-cv-03039 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 01/07/10 Page 5 of 13 No interventions are anticipated. 8. Describe class-action issues. The case is pled as a class action. Scribd has filed a motion to strike the class-action allegations. Mrs. Scott has responded to this motion. Scribd may seek leave to reply. The motion is now pending before this Court. The parties propose proceeding with merits discovery on an expedited six-month basis, allowing the parties to file motions for summary judgment, and deferring until then any class discovery and any motion to certify. 9. State whether each party represents that it has made the initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a). If not, describe the arrangements that have been made to complete the disclosures. The parties agree that they will complete initial disclosures by January 30, 2010. 10. Describe the proposed agreed discovery plan, including: (a) Responses to all the matters raised in Rule 26(f). Initial disclosures. The parties agree that they will complete initial disclosures by January 30, 2010. Subjects, duration, and phasing of discovery. The parties agree that merits discovery should take place on an expedited (but 5

Case 4:09-cv-03039 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 01/07/10 Page 6 of 13 individual) basis and will be completed no later than June 30, 2010. The parties then propose that they have an opportunity to prepare and file motions for summary judgment no later than July 30, 2010, and that the Court have an opportunity to rule on these motions. If the case is not disposed of on summary judgment, then the parties propose that they proceed with class discovery subject to the Court s ruling on Scribd s Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations. The subjects of discovery to be propounded by Plaintiff will include the manner in which Scribd s web site, ipaper, and advertising operate, Scribd s financial relationships with advertisers and advertising intermediaries such as Google, and Scribd s knowledge of copyright infringement on its web site. The subjects of discovery to be propounded by Defendant will include Plaintiff s copyright, Plaintiff s claims of infringement, and Plaintiff s damages, if any. Electronically stored information. The parties agree that they will provide electronically stored information electronically, in native file format, and, upon request, in Bates-stamped paper also. Privilege. The parties anticipate no special questions of privilege. Changes to discovery rules. The parties do not request any changes to the discovery rules, other than the phased discovery 6

Case 4:09-cv-03039 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 01/07/10 Page 7 of 13 requested in this joint discovery plan. (b) When and to whom the plaintiff anticipates it may send interrogatories. The plaintiff anticipates sending interrogatories to the defendant during the expedited merits discovery period. The plaintiff may send further interrogatories during the class discovery period, if applicable. (c) When and to whom the defendant anticipates it may send interrogatories. The defendant anticipates sending interrogatories to the plaintiff during the expedited merits discovery period. The defendant may send further interrogatories during the class discovery period, if applicable. (d) Of whom and by when the plaintiff anticipates taking oral depositions. The plaintiff anticipates deposing Scribd s senior business executive, Trip Adler, and the persons at Scribd most knowledgeable about the technical operation of its web site and ipaper, its efforts to combat copyright infringement, and its business plan. The plaintiff may also depose other persons who discovery reveals to have relevant knowledge. The plaintiff will also depose any experts on which Scribd intends to rely. 7

Case 4:09-cv-03039 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 01/07/10 Page 8 of 13 (e) Of whom and by when the defendant anticipates taking oral depositions. The defendant anticipates deposing the plaintiff and any experts on which she intends to rely. The defendant may depose such other individuals who discovery discloses have knowledge of relevant facts. (f) When the plaintiff (or the party with the burden of proof on an issue) will be able to designate experts and provide the reports required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B), and when the opposing party will be able to designate responsive experts and provide their reports. The parties agree that opening expert reports will be due June 1, 2010, response reports will be due July 1, 2010, and reply reports, if any, will be due July 15, 2010. The parties will make their experts readily available for depositions during this period. (g) List expert depositions the plaintiff (or the party with the burden of proof on an issue) anticipates taking and their anticipated completion date. The plaintiff will depose response experts between June 30, 2010, and July 31, 2010. (h) List expert depositions the opposing party anticipates taking and their anticipated completion date. 8

Case 4:09-cv-03039 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 01/07/10 Page 9 of 13 The defendant will depose opening experts between June 1 and June 30, 2010. 11. If the parties are not agreed on a part of the discovery plan, describe the separate views and proposals of each party. The parties are in agreement. 12. Specify the discovery beynd initial disclosures that has been undertaken to date. None. 13. State the date the planned discovery can reasonably be completed. Merits discovery can be completed by July 31, 2010. 14. Describe the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case that were discussed in your Rule 26(f) meeting. The parties believe that mediation may be productive after some discovery into Scribd s asserted 512(c)(1) defense has been completed. 15. Describe what each party has done or agreed to do to bring about a prompt resolution. The parties have agreed to conduct expedited discovery into the merits of Scribd s 512(c)(1) defense in hope of achieving a quick resolution. 9

Case 4:09-cv-03039 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 01/07/10 Page 10 of 13 16. From the attorneys discussion with the client, state the alternative dispute resolution techniques that are reasonably suitable, and state when such a technique may be effectively used in this case. Mediation would be most effective. It would be most effective after merits discovery is complete and while motions for summary judgment are pending. 17. Magistrate judges may now hear jury and non-jury trials. Indicate the parties joint position on a trial before a magistrate judge. The parties are opposed to trial before a magistrate judge. 18. State whether a jury demand has been made and if it was made on time. The plaintiff demanded jury trial on all issues in her original complaint. This demand was timely. 19. Specify the number of hours it will take to present the evidence in this case. 30 court hours. 20. List pending motions that could be ruled on at the initial pretrial and scheduling conference. 10

Case 4:09-cv-03039 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 01/07/10 Page 11 of 13 The pending motions are Defendant s motion to strike the class allegations and Plaintiff s motion to strike the affirmative defenses. 21. List other motions pending. None. 22. Indicate other matters peculiar to this case, including discovery, that deserve the special attention of the court at the conference. The only matter requiring special attention is the parties proposed phased discovery plan. 23. List the names, bar numbers, addresses, and telephone numbers of all counsel. For the plaintiff: K.A.D. Camara (No. 24062646) and Kent Radford (No. 24027640), Camara & Sibley LLP, 2339 University Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77005, 713-893-7973. For the defendant: Barry G. Flynn (No. 7196560) and Daniel D. Kistler (No. 11540300), Gordon & Rees, 1900 West Loop South, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77027, 713-961-3366. 11

Case 4:09-cv-03039 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 01/07/10 Page 12 of 13 DATED: January 7, 2009 Respectfully submitted, /s/ K.A.D. Camara K.A.D. Camara Texas Bar No. 24062646 Southern District Bar No. 870498 camara@camarasibley.com Attorney-in-Charge for the Plaintiff Kent Radford Texas Bar No. 24027640 radford@camarasibley.com Camara & Sibley LLP 2339 University Boulevard Houston, Texas 77005 713-893-7973 713-893-1131 (fax) Attorneys for the Plaintiff /s/ Barry G. Flynn Barry G. Flynn Texas Bar No. 07196560 bflynn@gordonrees.com Attorney-in-Charge for the Defendant Daniel Kistler Texas Bar No. 11540300 DKistler@gordonrees.com Gordon & Rees LLP 1900 W. Loop S., Ste. 1000 Houston, Texas 77027 713-961-3366 713-961-3938 (fax) Attorneys for the Defendant 12

Case 4:09-cv-03039 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 01/07/10 Page 13 of 13 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that I served this document on counsel of record as listed on the Court s CM/ECF system by CM/ECF on January 7, 2010. /s/ K.A.D. Camara K.A.D. Camara 13