`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`AT CAMDEN
`
`
`
`
`DEBORAH BLISSICK
`
`
`BRIAN F. MCBRIDE
`
`
`(HUSBAND & WIFE)
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`NJ PEN MEDIA GROUP, LLC
`GOOGLE, LLC
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO
`DEFENDANT NJ PEN MEDIA GROUP
`OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
`CROSS MOTION FOR MORE
`DEFINITE STATEMENT
`Docket 1:23-cv-02044
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`SUMMARY:
`
`Plaintiffs reply herein to ECF31, Defendant’s Opposition to
`Plaintiffs’ request for a more definite statement. Defendant’s
`Opposition is evasive and as such the Defendant comes before the
`Court with unclean hands. In fact, Defendant’s opposition
`actually supports Plaintiffs’ view that the pleading attached to
`Defendant’s moving papers is vague and ambiguous. The court is
`asked two questions here:
`
`1. “Why does the Defendant restrict access to all of
`its stories except those about the Plainitffs?”
`2. “Why did the Defendant not explain that in its
`certification from Matthew Skoufalos?”
`
`
`
`
`
`RELEVANT FACTS
`1. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to R 12(b)(6)
`in lieu of an answer.
`2. Defendant also filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion
`for a Preliminary Injuction.
`3. In support of the same, Defendant submitted a certification
`from Matthew Skoufalos.
`4. Defendant’s certification, even though attached to a
`motion, is a pleading that raised certain defenses of
`Defendant NJ Pen.
`5. Plaintiffs allege that certification is a pleading and
`lacks clarity. Plaintiffs made motion (ECF 30) to compel a
`more definite answer.
`6. Defendant NJ Pen maintains a website njpen.com
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-02044-CPO-AMD Document 32 Filed 06/07/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 875
`
`7. Defendant’s business model is to restrict access to
`articles.
`8. Access is restricted to paying subscribers.
`9. The articles written by Defendant concerning the Plaintiffs
`are the only ones on NJpen.com that do not require a
`subscription.
`10.
`The Defendant did not explain in its opposition to the
`preliminary injunction or certification why Defendant
`treats Plaintiffs differently.
`11.
`Plaintiffs believe this disparate treatment goes to
`the malicious elements of libel and tortious interference
`claims.
`12.
`
`
`LEGAL ARGUMENT
`
`1. Under Rule 12 (e), Plainitffs may move for a more definite
`statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is
`allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party
`cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`12(e).
`a. Plaintiffs are entitled to reply to Defendant’s
`opposition to the Plaintiffs opposition for a
`preliminary injunction and the certification of
`Matthew Skoufalos submitted therein.
`b. Plaintiffs are also entitled to leave to amend their
`complaint.
`c. However, Defendant’s certification is vague and
`ambiguous.
`2. Plainitffs’ motion is directed to the insufficiency
`Defendant’s certification and not the Defendant’s motion or
`opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. See Rannels v. S. E.
`Nichols, Inc., 591 F.2d 242, 247 (3d Cir. 1979)
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF:
`1. Plaintiffs’ restate their request for leave to
`amend their complaint to add claims of Tortious
`Interference.
`2. Plaintiffs’ request that Defendant’s Motion to
`Dismiss the claim for copyright infringement be
`denied.
`3. Plaintiffs’ request an order compelling a more
`definite certification from Skoufalos vagaries
`contained therein.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-02044-CPO-AMD Document 32 Filed 06/07/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 876
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Brian F. McBride
`Plaintiff Pro se
`(on behalf of Plaintiffs McBride and Blissick)
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
