MOTION for Summary Judgment

Here is Quinstreet's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Attachment	Date	Size
MotSummaryJudgment.pdf	10/08/08 11:49 am	1.17 MB

RESPONSE to Motion for Summary Judgment

Here is Ferguson's response to Quinstreet's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Attachment	Date	Size
MotSummaryJudgmentResponse.pdf	10/08/08 11:57 am	161.39 KB

REPLY to RESPONSE to MOTION for Summary Judgment

Here is Quinstreet's reply to Ferguson's opposition to their Motion for Summary Judgment.

Attachment	Date	Size
MotSummaryJudgmentReply.pdf	10/08/08 11:56 am	793.45 KB

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

Here is Ferguson's motion for partial summary judgment.

Attachment	Date	Size
MotPartialSummaryJudgment.pdf	10/08/08 12:00 pm	115.08 KB

RESPONSE to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Here is Quinstreet's response to Ferguson's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Attachment	Date	Size
MotPartialSummaryJudgmentResponse.pdf	10/08/08 12:02 pm	638.51 KB

REPLY to RESPONSE to MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

Here is Ferguson's Reply to Quinstreet's Response in opposition to his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Attachment	Date	Size
MotPartialSummaryJudgmentReply.pdf	10/08/08 12:04 pm	106.2 KB

ORDERS on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment

The judge in this case has ruled for Quinstreet.

The determinations here were that Ferguson did qualify as an Interactive Service Provider for the purposes of CAN-SPAM, but did not suffer an "adverse effect" as contemplated by the statute. The Court also ruled that the Washington State anti-spam law is pre-empted by CAN-SPAM.

Attachment	Date	Size
MotSJOrders.pdf	10/08/08 12:08 pm	77.18 KB