Blockowicz v. Williams

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiffs' request, pursuant to Rule 65(d)(2)(C), to enforce terms of injunction that required defendants in underlying case to remove defamatory comments about plaintiffs from certain websites, including website involved in instant request. While operators of instant website refused to remove said comments, plaintiffs failed to show that operators, who were not parties in underlying lawsuit, took any action to aid or abet defendants in underlying action to violate terms of injunction after it had been issued. Fact that instant operators were technologically capable of removing subject postings did not establish that their failure to do so constituted aiding and abetting underlying defendants, where record showed that operators had no contact with underlying defendants after injunction had been entered.