FTC versus Innovative Marketing et al - developments re Sam Jain
Regular readers of this blog will know that Sam Jain filed a motion for protective order requiring deposition to proceed by written questions, a motion which was DENIED on 22 July 2009.
Sam Jain has now refused to be deposed, even refusing an offer from the FTC to be deposed by video-conference from a location of his choosing (an offer that was made by the FTC to allay any fears held by Jain that a deposition would lead to his arrest).
Jain has a history in the courts that is less than complimentary. As has been mentioned on this blog (and elsewhere) before, Jain was sued by Symantec in 2004 for pirating Symantec’s computer security software. He evaded service during those proceedings, and basically ignored the whole thing until judgment was entered in default. Then he tried to have the default judgment overturned. As noted by the FTC in its latest motion, the Court at that time described Jain's action as a “cynical and intentional manipulation of the[] proceedings”, and rejected the application. I have tried to find out if Jain ever paid the default judgment in the Symantec case but have been unable to find out for sure, one way or the other.
Also, let's not forget that Jain is a fugitive. He had a bench warrant issued against him in the United States District Court for the Central District of California early this year - a warrant that remains in effect.
The FTC now seeks sanctions against Jain (that sanction being default judgment), and has filed a MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 37(d). Any responses must be filed by 17 August 2009.