The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert J. Bryan United States District Judge
ORDER ON QUINSTREET INC.'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND VARIOUS OTHER MOTIONS BY DEFENDANT
This matter comes before the Court on QuinStreet Inc.'s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 8), Defendant's Motion to Strike Defendant's Response to Request for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 28), Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting Motion to Strike (Dkt. 27), and Defendant's Motion to Strike materials submitted in favor of a motion for sanctions (Dkt. 29). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, and the remainder of the file herein.
The relevant facts are in this Court's November 11, 2008, Order on Defendant's Motion to Extend Time for Answers and to Dismiss Williams, Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC, Ropers, Majeski, Kohn, & Bentley, John A. Knox, Todd Sorenson, and Stephan A. Barber, on QuinStreet Inc.'s Motion for Sanctions and on QuinStreet Inc.'s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 17) ("November 11, 2008, Order"), and are adopted here by reference.
Although this case is in the early stages of litigation, there have been several motions, so for the sake of clarity, in so far as it is possible, this Opinion will refer to documents in the record by either their caption name or by their docket number.
In any event, the November 11, 2008, Order denied Defendant's motion to disqualify counsel and QuinStreet Inc.'s (QuinStreet") Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. 12) was denied on November 25, 2008. Dkts. 17 and 23. QuinStreet's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction was renoted for November 28, 2008 to give parties an opportunity to fully brief the question of whether the requested preliminary injunction would constitute an impermissible prior restraint on speech in violation of the First Amendment. Dkt. 17.
To review, QuinStreet's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction requests an order directing Defendant remove the following statements from his whew.com website:
* Quinstreet is still spamming for DeVry University and now their attorney Stephan Barber compounds this with threats against me because he was caught lying to the court.
* In fact Barber, opposing counsel actually lied on a couple of occasions to the Court in his declarations to the court ...
* The Judge in Ferguson v. Active Response Group excused the use of fraudulent addresses by stating that "It could have been a typo." This was done without any prompting or input from the Quinstreet.
* With this type of blatant bias in the favor of the spammer, and then without a single Judge defining "adverse," and the two federal judges not wanting these "types of cases in their courts" there is no way that a company can stop spam.
* The spammer's attorney Steve Barber of RMK in California continues to lie to the court and the court does nothing.
* Steve Barber has to lie to defend his client and since the court is not holding his feet to the fire they are using his lies to they don't have to hear the case.
* He has lied to the judge about my deposition about what I said. This was easily shown to be false, yet the judge did nothing.
* So in the end I have a dishonest attorney Steve Barber that lies to defend his client Quinstreet, I have a judge that thinks these cases are something he doesn't want to hear and I have business slowly being ruined by so much spam that I am unable to mitigate the damages any further.
* Quinstreet is still spamming me for DeVry University, ...
* I have many more spam from these clowns and have many more archived redirects back to Quinstreet but I needed a ...