Defendants' Request For Judicial Notice ![rw-book-cover](https://readwise-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/media/reader/parsed_document_assets/377751669/UShy3pz-ueNf7wHMK168EPDNHbCrWZEFyKDCC9u7qV0-cove_jyIFTwU.png) ## Metadata - Author: [[Joseph R. Rose, Michael H. Dore, Ilissa A. Samplin, Josh A. Krevitt, Orin Snyder, Matthew Charles Mullenweg]] - Full Title: Defendants' Request For Judicial Notice - Category: #articles - Document Note: --- tags: [#legal, #court, #document_review, #obsidian] source: "Uploaded PDF/Article" date: 2025-10-20 ---------------- # 🧾 Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice (ISO MTD CSAC) ## 📝 1. Overview * Defendants seek judicial notice of two web pages supporting their Motion to Dismiss the CSAC. [p.1–2], [ECF #191] * Hearing is January 8, 2026, 2:00 p.m., Courtroom 10, before Judge Martínez-Olguín. [p.1], [ECF #191] * Exhibits: WordPress.org Plugin Developer FAQ (archived 2024-09-24) and W3Techs market share page (dated 2025-10-17). [p.2], [Ex. 1–2], [ECF #191] * Strategy: Use FRE 201 and incorporation-by-reference to place public web facts before the Court. [p.2–3], [ECF #191] ## 🔍 2. Detailed Analysis ### 🧪 2.1 Evidence Authenticity & Completeness * Exhibit 1 prints an archived Wayback snapshot; it shows “Last Updated: 25 August 2024.” [p.5–6], [Ex. 1], [ECF #191] * Exhibit 1 lists numerous internal links and contact details, consistent with a full handbook page. [p.5–16], [Ex. 1], [ECF #191] * Exhibit 2 is a live W3Techs “Market shares of web hosting providers,” dated October 17, 2025. [p.2], [Ex. 2], [ECF #191] * The RJN provides URLs but no hashes, headers, or capture metadata beyond Wayback timestamp. [p.2, 5], [Ex. 1–2], [ECF #191] * No side-by-side comparison to Plaintiff’s allegations appears in the RJN text. Not specified. [would appear in MTD] [p.2–3], [ECF #191] ### ⚖️ 2.2 Legal Citations & Precedents * Tellabs authorizes considering incorporated materials and judicially noticeable facts on 12(b)(6). [p.2] (citing 551 U.S. at 321) * FRE 201 permits notice of facts generally known or readily verifiable from reliable sources. [p.2] (citing Fed. R. Evid. 201(b), (c)(2)) * Ninth Circuit permits notice of public websites at the pleading stage. [p.2–3] (e.g., In re Facebook; Vitt) * Incorporation-by-reference doctrine covers contents alleged and not disputed for authenticity. [p.2–3] (Davis; Knievel; Ritchie) * Courts may reject allegations contradicted by incorporated or noticeable documents. [p.3] (Steckman; Sprewell) * RJN cites Unsworth, Von Saher, and Google Assistant Privacy for website notice scope. [p.3] ### 🧠 2.3 Argument Structure & Logical Flow * Premise: CSAC references these sources; they are publicly accessible. [p.3] [Ex. 1–2], [ECF #191] * Rule: FRE 201 and incorporation-by-reference allow court consideration at 12(b)(6). [p.2–3] * Inference: Exhibits contextualize and may contradict certain pleaded assertions. [p.3] * Conclusion: Court should take notice of Exhibits 1–2. [p.3–4] * Labeled gaps: RJN does not authenticate via technical metadata or attestations. [p.2–3], [Ex. 1–2] * Fallacies: None apparent; reliance on standard doctrines is facially sound. [p.2–3] ### 🗂️ 2.4 Procedural Compliance & Formatting * Caption lists N.D. Cal., San Francisco Division, Case No. 3:24-cv-06917-AMO. [p.1] * Counsel blocks list Gibson Dunn attorneys with bar numbers and offices. [p.1] * Hearing notice includes date, time, courtroom, and judge. [p.1] * The RJN includes a signature by Joseph R. Rose dated October 17, 2025. [p.4] ### 🧭 2.5 DARVO & Judicial Considerations * No deny/attack/reverse framing; filing is procedural and neutral in tone. [p.2–4] * Chain-of-custody for online sources is minimal; no preservation detail included. [p.2–3], [Ex. 1–2] ## 🧮 3. Evaluation Expectations & Comparative Feedback * Likely judicial lens: routine grant if sources are relevant and cited in CSAC. [p.3] * Opposing critique: lack of technical authentication or full context may limit probative value. [p.2–3] * Improve evidence authenticity: add capture certificates, headers, or archive metadata. Not specified. [would appear in supporting declaration] [p.2–3] * Address potential DARVO: keep descriptive, non-adversarial language about sources. [p.2–3] * Strengthen precedents: add circuit cases distinguishing notice of “existence” vs. “truth.” [p.2–3] ## 🔧 4. Recommendations * Attach archive metadata or affidavits authenticating capture dates and content. [p.2–3], [Ex. 1] * Clarify which CSAC paragraphs incorporate each exhibit and for what purpose. [p.3] * Note judicial notice limited to “existence” of statements, not their truth, where applicable. [p.2–3] ## 🎯 5. Final Thoughts * RJN is standard and likely noncontroversial if tied tightly to the CSAC text. [p.2–4] * Authentication depth is modest; supplementation could preempt evidentiary skirmishes. [p.2–3] ## 📎 6. Supplemental Materials & Appendices * Exhibit summary and authentication notes appear in the table below. [p.2, 5–6], [Ex. 1–2] ## 🧩 7. Core Legal Extracts (Master Schema) ### 🧷 7.1 Document Metadata * Title: “DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE.” [p.1], [ECF #191] * Filing party: Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg. [p.1] * Date filed: October 17, 2025. [p.1, 4], [ECF #191] * Venue: N.D. Cal., San Francisco Division. [p.1] * Docket/ECF: 3:24-cv-06917-AMO; ECF 191. [p.1] * Procedural posture: RJN filed with Motion to Dismiss CSAC. [p.1–2] * Confidentiality status: Not specified. [would appear in sealing papers or caption] [p.1–4] ### 👥 7.2 Parties & Roles * Plaintiff: WPENGINE, INC. [p.1] * Defendants: Automattic Inc.; Matthew Charles Mullenweg. [p.1] * Counsel for Defendants: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; listed attorneys and offices. [p.1] * Defined terms/abbreviations: CSAC; RJN; FRE 201. [p.1–3] ### 📌 7.3 Claims, Defenses, Relief * Legal basis for RJN: FRE 201 and incorporation-by-reference doctrine. [p.2–3] * Relief requested: Grant of judicial notice for Exhibits 1–2. [p.3–4] * Damages/injunctive relief: Not applicable to this motion. [p.1–4] ### 🧾 7.4 Key Facts & Evidence * Exhibit 1: WordPress.org “Plugin Developer FAQ” archived at Wayback on 2024-09-24. [p.5–7], [Ex. 1] * Exhibit 1 shows “Last Updated: 25 August 2024.” [p.6], [Ex. 1] * Exhibit 2: W3Techs “Market shares of web hosting providers,” dated 2025-10-17. [p.2], [Ex. 2] * CSAC paragraphs allegedly reference both sources. [p.3] * Quotation (≤10 words): “courts must consider the complaint in its entirety.” [p.2] (Tellabs) ### 📚 7.5 Issues, Standards, Authorities * Issue: Whether the Court should notice the two web pages. [p.2–4] * Standard: FRE 201(b) and Ninth Circuit incorporation-by-reference. [p.2–3] * Authorities: Tellabs; NVIDIA; Royal Oak; Facebook; Vitt; Davis; Knievel; Ritchie; Falkenberg; Turbodyne; Swartz; Peel; Steckman; Sprewell; Unsworth; Von Saher; Google Assistant. [p.2–3] ### 🔎 7.6 Analysis Snapshot * Premise → inference → conclusion: CSAC referenced public sources → FRE 201 applies → grant RJN. [p.2–4] * Labeled gaps: No technical authentication or change logs provided for Exhibit 2. [p.2], [Ex. 2] * Counterargument: Notice should be limited to existence, not truth, of contents. [p.2–3] ### 🗣️ 7.7 Rhetoric, Tone, Bias * Tone is administrative and citation-driven. [p.2–4] * Framing highlights routine nature of website notice in N.D. Cal. [p.2–3] * Selective sourcing risk: Only two sites; no alternative sources offered. [p.2–3], [Ex. 1–2] ### 🚩 7.8 Red Flags & Ambiguities * No declaration authenticates the exhibits’ capture process or completeness. Not specified. [would appear in supporting declaration] [p.2–3] * W3Techs page is live; future updates could change content. Not specified. [would be cured by archive] [p.2], [Ex. 2] ### 🗓️ 7.9 Deadlines & Obligations * Hearing date/time stated; briefing deadlines not included in RJN. [p.1] * Local time zone not specified; court is in San Francisco. [p.1] ### 🧱 7.10 Practical Implications * If granted, the Court can consider these sources at 12(b)(6). [p.2–3] * Scope: Notice likely covers existence and context, not truth of assertions. [p.2–3] ### 🕰️ 7.11 Timeline (Mini) * Key events and exhibit dates appear below. [p.1–3, 5–6], [Ex. 1–2] ```mermaid timeline title Procedural Timeline (local court time) section Filing 2025-10-17 : Defendants file RJN ISO MTD CSAC [ECF #191] [p.1] section Hearing 2026-01-08 : MTD hearing set for 2:00 p.m., Ctrm 10 [p.1] section Exhibits 2024-08-25 : Exhibit 1 shows "L - URL: https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/377751669 Full text of this document omitted because this document is a PDF [Download original file →](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/377751669), Defendants' Request For Judicial Notice, Joseph R. Rose, Michael H. Dore, Ilissa A. Samplin, Josh A. Krevitt, Orin Snyder, Matthew Charles Mullenweg, 01k827gkndw115kva9jczde24z.