Procedural Status Update
An update on the procedural status of the litigation is as follows:
January 8, 2010 — First case management conference. Court asked DocMagic to file a statement regarding DocMagic’s theories of antitrust liability and encouraged parties to consolidate state case action into federal court action.
February 11, 2010 — Parties participated in mediation, but were unable to settle their dispute at that time.
March 4, 2010 — DocMagic officially substituted counsel, relieving JMBM of Beverly Hills of their representation of DocMagic, and retaining Morrison & Forester LLP in San Francisco to take over.
March 11, 2010 — DocMagic submitted brief further detailing its antitrust claims.
April 9, 2010 — Parties voluntarily dismiss state court proceedings for purposes of consolidating claims in federal court action.
April 1, 2010 — Ellie Mae filed response to DocMagic’s antitrust submission.
April 19, 2010 — Second case management conference. Court sets schedule for filing of amended pleadings and motions to dismiss.
April 26, 2010 — Ellie Mae files an answer to complaint and an amended counterclaim. Significant amendments include (a) adding allegations regarding Reseller Agreement (this is carried over from state case), (b) adding a claim under the Calif. Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, based on the same allegations that support the Federal Computer Fraud Act Claim, and (c) adding claims for intentional interference with contractual relationship and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, which are based on the allegation that DocMagic improperly solicited Ellie Mae’s customers by promoting direct access to DocMagic.
May 10, 2010 — DocMagic files First Amended Complaint against Ellie Mae, significantly expanding on the allegations and claims initially made against Ellie Mae. Significant amendments include: (a) expansion of antitrust allegations and claims, including (i) explanation of market definitions, (ii) monopoly leveraging, (iii) attempted monopolization, (iv) refusal to deal, and (v) denial of access to essential facility (all federal violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act); (b) addition of claims under the Lanham Act for unfair competition and false advertising; (c) addition of claim for copyright infringement; (d) addition of claim for trade secret misappropriation and (e) a claim seeking a declaration that DSI didn’t infringe EM’s copyrights and ‘raw data’ ownership.
Upcoming dates:
June 14, 2010 — Deadline for both parties to file motions to dismiss, challenging the legal basis for claims in the amended pleadings.
July 12, 2010 — Deadline for both parties to file oppositions to motions to dismiss.
July 26, 2010 — Hearing on motions to dismiss.
