"A trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment." Orr v. StreamCast is now the only remaining Defendant in this action.įor reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to StreamCast's liability. After the motions were fully briefed, Defendant Sharman purportedly reached a tentative settlement agreement with Plaintiffs early in August 2006. Defendants filed opposition papers on April 7, 2006, along with motions for a Rule 56(f) continuance. On February 14, 2006, Plaintiffs filed motions for summary judgment as to the liability of Defendants StreamCast and Sharman.
at 2782.ĭefendant Grokster settled with Plaintiffs shortly after the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court remanded the case for renewed consideration of Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the grant of summary judgment for Grokster and StreamCast in a decision issued on June 27, 2005. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Court's ruling in August 2004.
STREAMCAST MORPHEUS SOFTWARE
Because Plaintiffs sought primarily injunctive relief, the Court considered only the then-current versions of Defendants' software, and did not address Grokster and StreamCast's alleged liability for past versions of their software or services. On April 25, 2003, the Court granted summary judgment for Defendants StreamCast and Grokster, and denied Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment. On July 12, 2002, Plaintiffs filed the first amended complaint, which dropped Consumer Empowerment By, replaced StreamCast's corporate predecessors with StreamCast, and also joined a host of Defendants associated with the Kazaa file-sharing network, most notably Sharman Networks ("Sharman"). The complaint alleged that Defendants' file-sharing software contributed to massive infringement of copyrighted works owned by Plaintiffs. ("Grokster"), Consumer Empowerment By, and the corporate predecessors of StreamCast Networks, Inc.
STREAMCAST MORPHEUS MOVIE
In October 2001, Plaintiffs - a group of record companies, movie studios, and music publishers - filed a single-count complaint against Defendants Grokster Ltd.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT STREAMCAST NETWORK, INC.'S, MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE PURSUANT TO RULE 56(f) WILSON, District Judge. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AGAINST DEFENDANT STREAMCAST NETWORKS, INC. 454 F.Supp.2d 966 (2006) METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,ĬONSUMER EMPOWERMENT BV, et al., Defendants.
0 kommentar(er)
