A California federal judge has sanctioned Texas attorney Bill Ramey for violating a protective order by sharing Netflix Inc.’s confidential information with litigation funder AiPi LLC. However, the judge declined to hold him in contempt.
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found Ramey’s justification for disclosing information to attorneys at AiPi unpersuasive. The judge determined that Ramey violated the protective order by sharing sensitive information, including source code, with AiPi and indicated that he would award monetary sanctions to compensate Netflix.
Netflix’s attorney, Sarah Piepmeier of Perkins Coie, expressed concern that individuals at AiPi had access to Netflix’s confidential information before the company was aware of the litigation funder’s involvement in the case. She noted that AiPi continues to seek new lawsuits to underwrite and possesses confidential information about Netflix’s financials, technical information, and source code, which could influence their decisions to underwrite new cases or inspire them to bring new cases.
Ramey argued that the protective order allowed him to share sensitive documents with “affiliates” and that the four patent lawyers at AiPi fit that definition. He also contended that no harm had been shown, as the AiPi lawyers assured him they hadn’t used any of the Netflix materials in a manner barred by the protective order.
Judge Tigar was skeptical of Ramey’s arguments, stating, “I don’t think having people affiliated with a litigation funder looking at Netflix’s source code is a situation of no harm.” The judge indicated that attorneys’ fees as a sanction would be appropriate and substantial. He also mentioned considering whether to refer Ramey to the California State Bar or another disciplinary body.
Ramey LLP, known for filing numerous patent infringement lawsuits, and its clients have faced admonitions and sanctions across the country for their litigation conduct. In April, Judge Tigar denied Ramey’s pro hac vice admission application in a case for a different client, ruling that the Texas attorney regularly practices law in California without a state bar license.
In January, Judge Tigar dismissed Valjakka’s patent claims against Netflix, stating that Valjakka didn’t own the patent he was asserting when he filed his lawsuit. Netflix continues to assert that Valjakka fraudulently hid money earned from patent suits against other tech companies that ended with quick settlements.
Ramey argued in a March brief opposing the sanctions and discovery motion that he is being persecuted by “Big Tech” in an attempt to gain leverage in their dispute with AiPi and its executives. He stated that Netflix’s lawyer “attempted all trickery to get dirt” on AiPi and its founder, Eric Morehouse.
Ramey is representing himself and his law firm. Perkins Coie and Baker Botts represent Netflix.
The case is Valjakka v. Netflix Inc., N.D. Cal., 4:22-cv-1490.
For more information, see the original article on Bloomberg Law.
A California federal judge has sanctioned Texas attorney Bill Ramey for violating a protective order by sharing Netflix Inc.’s confidential information with litigation funder AiPi LLC. However, the judge declined to hold him in contempt.
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found Ramey’s justification for disclosing information to attorneys at AiPi unpersuasive. The judge determined that Ramey violated the protective order by sharing sensitive information, including source code, with AiPi and indicated that he would award monetary sanctions to compensate Netflix.
Netflix’s attorney, Sarah Piepmeier of Perkins Coie, expressed concern that individuals at AiPi had access to Netflix’s confidential information before the company was aware of the litigation funder’s involvement in the case. She noted that AiPi continues to seek new lawsuits to underwrite and possesses confidential information about Netflix’s financials, technical information, and source code, which could influence their decisions to underwrite new cases or inspire them to bring new cases.
Ramey argued that the protective order allowed him to share sensitive documents with “affiliates” and that the four patent lawyers at AiPi fit that definition. He also contended that no harm had been shown, as the AiPi lawyers assured him they hadn’t used any of the Netflix materials in a manner barred by the protective order.
Judge Tigar was skeptical of Ramey’s arguments, stating, “I don’t think having people affiliated with a litigation funder looking at Netflix’s source code is a situation of no harm.” The judge indicated that attorneys’ fees as a sanction would be appropriate and substantial. He also mentioned considering whether to refer Ramey to the California State Bar or another disciplinary body.
Ramey LLP, known for filing numerous patent infringement lawsuits, and its clients have faced admonitions and sanctions across the country for their litigation conduct. In April, Judge Tigar denied Ramey’s pro hac vice admission application in a case for a different client, ruling that the Texas attorney regularly practices law in California without a state bar license.
In January, Judge Tigar dismissed Valjakka’s patent claims against Netflix, stating that Valjakka didn’t own the patent he was asserting when he filed his lawsuit. Netflix continues to assert that Valjakka fraudulently hid money earned from patent suits against other tech companies that ended with quick settlements.
Ramey argued in a March brief opposing the sanctions and discovery motion that he is being persecuted by “Big Tech” in an attempt to gain leverage in their dispute with AiPi and its executives. He stated that Netflix’s lawyer “attempted all trickery to get dirt” on AiPi and its founder, Eric Morehouse.
Ramey is representing himself and his law firm. Perkins Coie and Baker Botts represent Netflix.
The case is Valjakka v. Netflix Inc., N.D. Cal., 4:22-cv-1490.
For more information, see the original article on Bloomberg Law.