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

The Word “Include” May Be A Word of Limitation As Opposed to a Word of Enlargement, Depending on the Context

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

Depositions: Improper to Object to Form to Straightforward Questions (Not Compound, Vague, Leading or Speculative) — Lack of Foundation Objection Improper in 30(b)(6) Deposition — Improper to “Educate” Witness During Breaks of 30(b)(6) Deposition Through Witness Calls to Knowledgeable Corporate Colleagues — Magistrate Judge May Impose Financial Sanctions

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

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