Lightspeed Media Corp. v. Smith

In action seeking damages against Internet user and others who improperly gained access to plaintiff’s pornographic videos on its website without paying to see videos, Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-Internet viewer’s motion for attorney fees against plaintiff’s three attorneys as sanction under Rule 54(d)(2) and 28 USC section 1927, and in assessing additional costs when said attorneys failed to pay said fees within deadline set by Dist. Ct., after Dist. Ct. had granted plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal and after Dist. Ct. found that said attorneys had been abusive in attempting to obtain personal information about 6,600 other Internet users who plaintiff claimed had also improperly accessed its website. Ct. rejected two of plaintiff’s attorneys’ claims that they never received proper notice of sanctions motion, where record showed that notice was given to third attorney, and where record showed that other two attorneys were affiliated with said attorney. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in granting similar motion for sanctions filed by defendants-ISPs where plaintiff’s claim, that ISPs violated Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by failing to prevent its customers from accessing plaintiff’s website and for resisting plaintiff’s attempt to obtain customers’ personal information, was frivolous.