New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Wayback Machine — If Judicial Notice Independently Taken by Court, Need to Give Parties Notice Per Rule 201(e)

Download PDF

DistributorsOutlet.com LLC v. Glasstree, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76248 (E.D.N.Y. June 10, 2016):

Plaintiff DistributorsOutlet.com, LLC, an online merchant, brought this action in December 2011 against Glasstree, Inc., a web hosting and design company; two Glasstree principals; and Glasstree Racing LLC (collectively, "Defendants").1 Plaintiff is based in Staten Island and alleges that Defendants, based in Michigan, provided slipshod and incomplete website design services to Plaintiff. Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens and improper venue. (See Dkts. 67, 68; 5/19/16 Order.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is DENIED, subject to Defendants filing an objection by June 17, 2016, to the Court's taking of judicial notice as to certain information relating to [*2]  this dispute.

 

1   In its March 31, 2016 Order, however, this Court dismissed Defendants Carl Brown and Glasstree Racing from the action with prejudice. (See Dkt. 65 at ECF 16, 18.)

 

DISCUSSION

I. Forum Non Conveniens

The Court previously found potentially dispositive the fact that the Terms of Usage policy submitted by Defendants (Dkt. 59-3) contained a forum selection clause providing that "Customer [DistributorsOutlet.com LLC] consents and agrees that venue shall be in Kalamazoo County, Michigan for any action brought with regard to this Agreement." (Dkt. 59-3 at ECF 7; see Dkt. 65 at ECF 18.) Defendants represented that Dkt. 59-3 was "a true and correct copy of the Terms of Usage which were incorporated by reference into both the First Contract and the Second Contract" (i.e., the two contracts executed by Plaintiff that are at issue in this litigation). (Dkt. 59 ¶ 9.) Accordingly, on May 9, 2016, the Court sought additional briefing on whether the Martinez-Starkey factors were met so as to warrant enforcement of the forum selection clause under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. See Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W Dist. of Tex., 134 S. Ct. 568, 580 (2013) ("[T]he appropriate way to enforce a forum-selection clause pointing to a [state forum] is through the doctrine [*3]  of forum non conveniens."); Starkey v. G Adventures, Inc., 796 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2015) (setting forth framework for evaluating enforcement of forum selection clauses); Martinez v. Bloomberg LP, 740 F.3d 211, 218 (2d Cir. 2014).

In its opposition, however, Plaintiff asserts that "the terms of service that the defendants rely on did not even exist when the contracts were entered into. They are dated March 23, 2012--some 6 years after the contracts were executed." (Dkt. 68 at ECF 2.) Although Plaintiff offers no evidence of the Terms of Usage that existed in 2006, the Court notes that the Terms of Usage submitted by Defendants is indeed dated "3/23/2012." The Court took the additional step of searching for historical versions of the Terms of Usage used by Defendants at the URL "http://glasstree.com/hosting_terms.asp " using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (https://archive.org/web/ ). That search reveals that snapshots of the Terms of Usage contract as of July 19, 2006 and August 13, 2006--roughly around the time that the two contracts in question were executed--did not, in fact, contain a forum selection clause. Rather, it appears to the Court that the clause was not added until some time between March 14, 2008 and May 9, 2008.

With respect to its reliance on the Wayback Machine, the Court notes that courts have taken judicial notice of the contents of web pages [*4]  available through the Wayback Machine as facts that can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned under Federal Rule of Evidence 201. See, e.g., Hepp v. Ultra Green Energy Servs., LLC, No. 13-cv-4692, 2016 WL 1073070, at *2 & n.1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2016); Erickson v. Nebraska Mach. Co., No. 15-cv-1147, 2015 WL 4089849, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2015); Pond Guy, Inc. v. Aquascape Designs, Inc., No. 13-cv-13229, 2014 WL 2863871, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 24, 2014); In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1358, 2013 WL 6869410, at *4 n.65 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2013); Martins v. 3PD, Inc., No. 11-cv-11313, 2013 WL 1320454, at *16 n.8 (D. Mass. Mar. 28, 2013) (taking judicial notice of "the various historical versions of [a website] available on the Internet Archive at Archive.org as facts readily determinable by resort to a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned"). However, because under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(e), Defendants are entitled to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice of the Wayback Machine, Defendants may submit a letter by June 17, 2016 on this issue. In the absence of such a letter, the Court finds that the 2006 versions of the Terms of Usage that Plaintiff executed did not contain a forum selection clause, and therefore denies Defendants' motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.2

2   The Court additionally notes that to the extent Defendants rely on the Terms of Usage language that "Glasstree may [*5]  amend, modify or update this agreement or The Terms of Usage Policy at our sole discretion [without notice to the customer], and customer shall be bound by any such amendment, modification or update" to argue that the later-added forum selection clause applies, the Court rejects that language as insufficient to establish that the forum selection clause was "reasonably communicated" to the end-user. See Martinez, 740 F.3d at 218.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Criminal Spoliation Can Be A Due Process Violation — Defendant Must Show That (1) The Evidence Had Exculpatory Value Before It Was Destroyed, (2) Defendant Is Unable to Obtain Comparable Evidence by Reasonable Means, and (3) Bad Faith Failure to Preserve

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

Inherent Power Sanctions — Untimeliness as Laches — Laches Properly Applied to Deny Sanctions Motion — Note Waived Defenses to Laches

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Substantial Justification or Harmless Error (Ninth Circuit Factors) — Erie: When State Supreme Court Has Not Squarely Addressed an Issue, Circuit Must Predict How It Would Rule, Using Intermediate Appellate Decisions, Decisions from Other Jurisdictions, Statutes, Treatises And Restatements for Guidance

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

(1) Spoliation: Sanctions Are Warranted Only If the Movant Establishes That A Reasonable Trier of Fact Could Find That The Destroyed Evidence Would Support A Claim Or Defense — § 1927 Sanctions: “Courts Often Refuse to Award Sanctions When Both Parties Contributed to the Waste of Judicial Resources” (Good Quote)

No Sanctions Imposed on Counsel Who Submitted A.I.-Generated Phony Cases Without Checking Them in Good Faith on The Mistaken Assumption They Had Been Provided by Highly Respected Co-Counsel Rather Than His Criminally-Convicted, Disbarred Client — No Sanctions on Client Who Had No Access to LEXIS or Westlaw to Check the Phony Cases and Submitted Them in Good Faith: “It Would Have Been Downright Irrational For Him To Provide Fake Cases For [His Lawyer] To Include In The Motion Knowing They Were Fake —

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice