Opinion
Civil No. 05-1454(PG).
April 28, 2005
ORDER
The presiding judge has requested our assistance in addressing the renewed motion for temporary restraining order, Docket Document No. 4, filed April 27, 2005. The judge's pressing criminal docket does not allow for his immediate attention to this matter before May 6, 2005. See Order entered April 27, 2005,Docket Document No. 3.
We look at this file from the perspective of Plaintiffs' new request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Defendants.
Having examined the record, the court affirms its earlier decision not to grant a temporary restraining order, and further denies Plaintiffs' request for an expedited preliminary injunction hearing before May 6.
Even assuming a willful violation of the copyright laws during the upcoming activity scheduled for the weekend ending on May 1, Plaintiffs' allegations fail to establish that an irreparable damage will occur. Any single discrete violation of the type alleged can be addressed by a trial on the merits, and any eventual monetary judgment can be executed following ordinary procedures. Therefore, the request for injunctive relief is denied. The parties are advised, however, that laws, as well as copyrights, are in place to be observed and followed, and willful violations to these laws eventually end in appropriate redress. The conduct of the parties in the next few days will indelibly mark their positions, for which they are accountable not only before organized law-abiding society, but also before this court.
The May 6 setting is VACATED. The presiding judge will determine the case's scheduling under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16. Any amendment to the pleadings to include natural persons in lieu of fictitious defendants shall be made within ten (10) days.
Finally, the court urges the parties to responsibly consider settling this matter, inasmuch as an amicable disposition seems to be a civilized alternative to this controversy.
IT IS SO ORDERED.