Corrected Second Amended Complaint ![rw-book-cover](https://readwise-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/media/reader/parsed_document_assets/377752569/9mNhaFfUvzJ9txpJZHzR8JehF5DOhbSIgq1GRjMuNiQ-cove_JfYZo2c.png) ## Metadata - Author: [[WPEngine, Inc.]] - Full Title: Corrected Second Amended Complaint - Category: #articles - Document Note: --- tags: [#legal, #court, #document_review, #obsidian] source: "Uploaded PDF/Article" date: 2025-10-14 ---------------- # 🧾 Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Amended Motion for Contempt ## 📝 1. Overview * Pro se filer replies to Defendants’ opposition to an amended contempt motion. [p.1; ECF #188] * Venue: U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., San Francisco Division; Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín. Hearing set for November 6, 2025, 2:00 PM, Courtroom 10. [p.1] * Theme: alleged willful evasion of a preliminary injunction; request for sanctions and potential criminal referral. [p.2, p.15–18] ## 🔍 2. Detailed Analysis ### 🧪 2.1 Evidence Authenticity & Completeness * Exhibits are screenshots and web content (e.g., WordPress Incident Response page; ACF Pro install). The filing does not include hashes or metadata. [Ex. E; Ex. H] * Exhibit A is a LinkedIn post reproduction by a third party author; link provenance not shown in the exhibit index. [Ex. A] * The reply references prior docket materials (e.g., Dkt. 64; Dkt. 99 Ex. B; Dkt. 176) but does not attach them; completeness depends on court docket access. [p.15–16] ### ⚖️ 2.2 Legal Citations & Precedents * Cites Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authority on contempt standards and injunction compliance (Taggart; Vertex; McComb; Reno Air; Dual-Deck; Sea Shepherd). [p.2] * Addresses speech vs. conduct using NetChoice and HomeAway; invokes PruneYard. [p.2, p.15] * Statutory basis for criminal contempt power: 18 U.S.C. § 401. [p.2, p.16] ### 🧠 2.3 Argument Structure & Logical Flow * Premise: filer is a “Related Entity” protected by the injunction. [p.2 (TOC heading §A.1)] * Premise: Defendants willfully attempted to narrow or evade injunction scope via post-order communications and platform changes. [p.2 (TOC §A.2), p.16–17] * Inference: disabling or interfering with Related Entities’ access is regulated conduct, not protected speech. [p.15] * Conclusion: court should impose coercive measures, including non-monetary sanctions and consider a criminal referral. [p.17] * Labeled gap: proof that filer is a “Related Entity” relies on filer’s characterization; the reply identifies but does not include corporate records here. [p.2 (TOC §A.1)] ### 🗂️ 2.4 Procedural Compliance & Formatting * Contains caption, case number, judge, hearing date/time, TOC, and Table of Authorities. [p.1–2] * Cites Fed. R. Civ. P. 71 for nonparty enforcement of injunctions. [p.2] * Pagination displays “Filed 10/14/25 Page 1–18 of 18.” [p.1, p.18] ### 🧭 2.5 DARVO & Judicial Considerations * Reply frames Defendants as minimizing obligations and shifting blame to content moderation; labels conduct as “blocking, disabling, or interfering.” [p.15] * Notes “bleak picture” of compliance and a checkbox change (“Pineapple is delicious on pizza.”) suggesting mockery. [p.17] ## 🧮 3. Evaluation Expectations & Comparative Feedback * Judicial lens: identifies willfulness, adequacy of notice, and fit of sanctions under § 401 and civil contempt standards. [p.15–16; Table of Authorities] * Opposing view: speech-regulation defense via moderation; reply counters as conduct-based. [p.15] * Answers: * Improve authenticity analysis: add source files, hashes, and live/archived links for each exhibit. [Ex. A–H] * Address DARVO risk: keep focus on order text and specific “blocking/disabling” acts, avoid motive claims. [p.15] * Additional precedents: pinpoint controlling Ninth Circuit contempt cases already cited; bolster with district applications if available in the record. [p.2] ## 🔧 4. Recommendations * Attach authenticated copies or sworn declarations linking exhibits to the conduct dates and accounts. [Ex. A–H] * Include declarant evidence on “Related Entity” status and scope of affected accounts. [p.2 (TOC §A.1)] * Provide side-by-side chronology mapping acts to specific injunction clauses. [p.15–16] * Quantify harm or compliance failures if seeking compensatory sanctions. [p.17] ## 🎯 5. Final Thoughts * The reply presents a conduct-not-speech theory and argues willful evasion. Relief sought is broad and includes non-monetary governance mechanisms. [p.15–17] ## 📎 6. Supplemental Materials & Appendices * Exhibits A–H (screenshots, web pages, plugin state) support narrative; authenticity details are minimal in this filing. [Ex. A; Ex. E; Ex. H] ## 🧩 7. Core Legal Extracts (Master Schema) ### 🧷 7.1 Document Metadata * Title: “Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Amended Motion for Contempt.” [p.1] * Author/Filing party: Michael Willman, Pro Se, with address, phone, and email provided. [p.1] * Date filed: 2025-10-14. [p.1] * Jurisdiction/Venue: N.D. Cal., San Francisco Division. [p.1] * Docket/ECF: Case No. 3:24-cv-06917-AMO; ECF #188. [p.1] * Procedural posture: Reply in support of an amended motion for contempt. [p.1–2] * Confidentiality status: Not specified in header; appears as public filing. [p.1] ### 👥 7.2 Parties & Roles * Plaintiff: WPENGINE, INC. [p.1] * Defendants: Automattic Inc.; Matthew Charles Mullenweg. [p.1] * Filer’s asserted role: “Related Entity of WPEngine” (issue argued). [p.2 (TOC §A.1)] * Counsel: Not specified in this reply. [p.1–2] ### 📌 7.3 Claims, Defenses, Relief * Legal bases: Fed. R. Civ. P. 71; 18 U.S.C. § 401; cited Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court cases. [p.2, p.16] * Defense addressed: moderation as protected speech; reply characterizes prohibition as conduct regulation. [p.15] * Requested relief: grant contempt; compensatory and coercive monetary sanctions; coercive non-monetary sanctions; establish a “WordPress Governance Board”; make a criminal contempt referral to the U.S. Attorney. [p.17] ### 🧾 7.4 Key Facts & Evidence * Alleged post-injunction email sought to narrow scope; reply labels it “extraordinary” and “impossible.” [p.16] * Platform actions: pausing account registrations and directory submissions; statement that changes do not apply to WPE. [p.16] * Login checkbox change to “Pineapple is delicious on pizza.” [Ex. G referenced; p.17] * Exhibits: * Ex. A: LinkedIn article by Sé Reed, dated August 26, 2025. [Ex. A] * Ex. E: Incident Response Process screenshots; URL: [https://make.wordpress.org/community/handbook/irt/process/](https://make.wordpress.org/community/handbook/irt/process/). [Ex. E] * Ex. H: Screenshot of ACF Pro plugin on websiteredev.com. [Ex. H] * Exs. B–D, F–G: Not specified (exhibit indexes not shown in provided pages). [Exs. B–D, F–G] ### 📚 7.5 Issues, Standards, Authorities * Civil contempt standard and injunction clarity/breadth (Taggart; Vertex; McComb; Reno Air; Dual-Deck; Sea Shepherd). [p.2] * Conduct vs. speech: NetChoice; HomeAway; PruneYard. [p.2, p.15] * Criminal contempt authority: § 401; referral process described. [p.16] ### 🔎 7.6 Analysis Snapshot * Premises: platform changes and account actions targeted Related Entities despite injunction. [p.15–16] * Inference: actions lack “significant expressive element;” thus not protected speech. [p.15] * Conclusion: court should issue monetary and non-monetary sanctions; consider criminal referral. [p.17] * Fallacy flags: risk of over-generalization from selected screenshots; reply mitigates with docket references but lacks full record attachments here. [Exs.; p.15–16] ### 🗣️ 7.7 Rhetoric, Tone, Bias * Tone: assertive, occasionally emotive (“bleak picture,” “humbly request”). [p.17] * Framing: emphasizes willfulness and insufficiency of monetary sanctions (“post-economic” claim citing Ex. F). [p.16] ### 🚩 7.8 Red Flags & Ambiguities * “Related Entity” status proof not attached here. [p.2 (TOC §A.1)] * Exhibits rely on screenshots; truncation or edit history not provided. [Ex. E; Ex. H] ### 🗓️ 7.9 Deadlines & Obligations * Hearing: November 6, 2025 at 2:00 PM, Courtroom 10. [p.1] * Time zone: Not specified (would appear in hearing notice header). [p.1] * Ongoing obligation: do not “block, disable, or interfere” with Related Entities’ access per cited order reference (Dkt. 64 at 41). [p.15] ### 🧱 7.10 Practical Implications * Platform operations may need policy and UI changes to avoid account-level - URL: https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/377752569 Full text of this document omitted because this document is a PDF [Download original file →](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/377752569), Corrected Second Amended Complaint, WPEngine, Inc., 01k828129vf8byykm8gar62avg.