The legal battle between Comcast and former e-mail marketer e360 Insight is apparently about to run on schedule—or else.
David H. Coar, the newly appointed judge presiding over E360 Insight V. Comcast Corp. in U.S. District Court in Northern Ill., has a reputation for being utterly intolerant of delays.
Coar was appointed to the case after Judge James B. Zagel recused himself on Sept. 5, citing a conflict of interest. According to Dave Linhardt, CEO of e360, Zagel said his father had left him a large chunk of Comcast stock. In Zagel’s request to be taken off the case, he cited a “financial interest in the defendant corporation to this action.”
Enter Judge Coar.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers, a self-described “non-partisan public interest bar that is dedicated to improving the quality of justice in the legal system,” rates him as “qualified.”
“He is reported to be personally self-effacing, to take his job seriously, and to be thoroughly prepared,” says an assessment of Coar on ChicagoCouncil.org. “His written opinions are considered well-reasoned. At the same time, his practical sense and experience enable him to cut to the essence of a matter.”
He can also be pretty rough, according to comments on TheRobingRoom.com, a site where people can rate and post comments about their experiences with specific judges.
Posts on the site mostly describe a man who is smart, tough, fair, sometimes abusive and demands strict adherence to schedule.
“He will warn parties that he will give them any reasonable schedule that they request, but will almost never grant extensions or modifications of a schedule once it is set unless you, a family member or a material witness in the case are dead, dying or in the hospital and completely incapacitated,” said one post. “No, that was not intended nor should be construed as a joke. That's just how serious this guy is. He gets the law right 99% of the time and does not tolerate stupid lawyer games.”
Said another: “He warns people at the very start of the case that he will give you just about any schedule that you want, but once the schedule is set, nothing, not even an admonition from God above, will change that schedule.”
And another: “Do not be fooled by his absolutely harsh and abusive demeanor, he will be absolutely fair in resolution of a case on the merit. He is one of the smartest judges on the bench. But he is also draconian in his schedule. NO EXTENSIONS EVER- really I mean it. So be prepared to rock on your case fast or die.”
However, not all who have claimed to have been in front of Coar are in love with him.
"Smart? You must be joking. Coar yells at parties during motion practice because he doesn't understand what's going on,” said one post. “I once saw him shout at a party for something that was his own fault. The only way to prevent him from being abusive is to start explaining what's going on right from the introductions. He's routinely late, and routinely takes forever to resolve motions. A poor judge.”
Linhardt sued Comcast—America’s No. 2 Internet service provider with 13.2 million subscribers—in January, accusing it of unfairly blocking messages that he said were permission-based.
Comcast then countersued Linhardt.
Judge Zagel tossed Linardt’s suit, saying that Comcast is not liable for mistakenly blocking even permission-based e-mail when it’s part of a good-faith effort to protect its subscribers from spam.
Zagel also ruled against Linhardt’s motion to have Comcast’s countersuit dismissed.
Linhardt said last week that he hasn’t dealt with Coar yet and that he is trying to get Comcast to settle because he is out of the e-mail business.
“We suspended operations at the end of 2007,” he said in an e-mail exchange with this newsletter.
He said he left the e-mail business as a result of his well publicized legal battle with anti-spam outfit Spamhaus.
“Based on Spamhaus' continuous smear campaign, we could no longer operate the business,” Linhardt wrote.
“Apparently, several US corporations are willing to sponsor Spamhaus' heavy-handed tactics to destroy legitimate businesses in an attempt to reduce the amount of email traffic they carry on their networks,” he wrote. “As long as this is allowed to happen, there is no hope for legitimate email marketers. Any investment in this broken system is a waste of money in my view.”
