Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 78 Filed 11/08/10 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)
DANIEL PARISI, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)

et
v. ) No. 1:10-cv-0897-RJL
)
LAWRENCE W. SINCLAIR a/k/a “Larry Sinclair”, )

.n
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)

or
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
at
Plaintiffs, Daniel Parisi (“Parisi”), Whitehouse.com Inc., Whitehouse Network LLC

(“WNL”), and White House Communications Inc. (“WCI”) (collectively referred to as

ul
“plaintiffs”), hereby oppose Amazon’s motion to strike portions of plaintiffs’ opposition to the
eg

motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”). (Dkt. No. 73).

Amazon seeks to strike relevant evidence of a website posting by defendant Lawrence Sinclair

dated July 19, 2009 pertaining, inter alia, to his communications with the legal department at
eR

Amazon. Evidence of such communications certainly hurts Amazon’s arguments in their

summary judgment briefing.

Th

The evidence should not be stricken. The declaration filed in opposition to Amazon’s

motion for summary judgment clearly avers that “[o]n or about July 19, 2009, Sinclair posted the

following message on a website, stating that he had been in contact with Amazon[.]”

(Declaration of Richard J. Oparil, Dkt. No. 61-1 (“Oparil Declaration”) ¶ 29). The affidavit then

quotes Sinclair’s post and provides an internet cite to where the post may be found. (See also

Dkt. No. 77 Decl. Ex. N p.71).

PDF processed with CutePDF evaluation edition www.CutePDF.com

 Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 78 Filed 11/08/10 Page 2 of 4

Amazon’s motion to strike also ignores the fact that it moved for summary judgment –

and forced plaintiffs to oppose it – before plaintiffs have had a scintilla of discovery from

Amazon, Sinclair or any of the parties to this litigation. Indeed, the Oparil Declaration

specifically states (¶ 30) that “Plaintiffs’ attempts to obtain discoverable information from

et
defendants Sinclair and SPI have been rebuffed. (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 45-47).” Sinclair would be

the obvious witness to authenticate his July 19, 2009 post, but he has refused to make documents

.n
– including electronic documents – available to plaintiffs. (Dkt. Nos. 45-47). He has, however,

made materials available to other defendants pursuant to an alleged joint defense agreement,

or
including at least defendant Jeffrey Rense. (Dkt. No. 77 Decl. Ex. S). Plaintiffs have not been

provided with those materials. at

Moreover, the Oparil Declaration specifically avers (¶¶ 27-28) that plaintiffs have not yet
ul
obtained any discovery from any party or non-party to this case. The declaration invokes Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(f):
eg

If a party opposing the motion shows by affidavit that, for

specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its
opposition, the court may:
eR

(1) deny the motion;

(2) order a continuance to enable affidavits to be obtained,

depositions to be taken, or other discovery to be undertaken; or
Th

(3) issue any other just order.

See, e.g., Woods v. City of Chicago, 234 F. 3d 979, 990 (7th Cir. 2000) (“Rule 56(f) authorizes a

district court to refuse to grant a motion for summary judgment or to continue its ruling on such a

motion pending further discovery if the nonmovant submits an affidavit demonstrating why it

cannot yet present facts sufficient to justify its opposition to the motion.”). Summary judgment

is proper only after the non-moving party has been given “adequate time for discovery.” 1443

-2-
 Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 78 Filed 11/08/10 Page 3 of 4

Chapin St., LP v. PNC Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 258 F.R.D. 186, 187 (D.D.C. 2009) (internal quotation

marks omitted).

Here, discovery from Sinclair or others would authenticate the Sinclair post that Amazon

seeks to have stricken. Pursuant to Rule 56(f), such discovery should be made available to

et
plaintiffs. Amazon itself presented no evidence suggesting that the post is not authentic. Nor

has Amazon denied that Sinclair had any contact with the company pertaining to his book.

.n
Therefore, Amazon’s motion to strike should be denied.

Dated: November 8, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

or
/s/ Richard J. Oparil
Richard J. Oparil (D.C. Bar No. 409723)
at PATTON BOGGS LLP
2550 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 457-6000
ul
(202) 457-6315 (fax)

Kevin M. Bell
eg

PATTON BOGGS LLP

8484 Westpark Drive
McLean, VA 22102
(703) 744-8000
(703) 744-8001 (fax)
eR

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Th

-3-
 Case 1:10-cv-00897-RJL Document 78 Filed 11/08/10 Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 8, 2010, a copy of the foregoing was served on counsel

for the parties that have appeared in the case by the Court’s ECF system and on the following by

email:

et
Lawrence W. Sinclair
Sinclair Publishing, Inc.
P.O. Box 1963

.n
Washington, DC 20013
lsinclair@sinclairpublishingllc.com

or
s/ Richard J. Oparil
Richard J. Oparil (DC Bar No. 409723)

at
ul
eg
eR
Th

-4-