Cross Motions for Summary Judgment

Having released everyone from the case except for Quinstreet, cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. Quinstreet filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Ferguson filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

MOTION for Summary Judgment

Here is Quinstreet's Motion for Summary Judgment.

RESPONSE to Motion for Summary Judgment

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

REPLY to RESPONSE to MOTION for Summary Judgment

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

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

Here is Ferguson's motion for partial summary judgment.

RESPONSE to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

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

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.

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.