CHRONOLOGY of THE RELEVANT EVENTS
1. 13 November 2017: citizens and
residents of the Russian Federation
Vitaly Pilkin (plaintiff 1) and Vladimir Miroshnichenko (plaintiff 2 who died 23 April 2018)
doing as plaintiffs pro se filed the
complaint for damages and declaratory judgments with the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia against Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, Sony Corporation, Hogan Lovells US LLP and the US Department of
Justice.
2. February 6, 2018: US District Judge
Randolph D. Moss (RDM) made Standing Order on the matter.
3. April 4, 2018: the Court ordered to
dismiss this action against the
US Department of Justice.
4. April
5, 2018: the Court ordered that the plaintiffs’ complaint does
not comply with Rule 8 and noted that plaintiffs may file an amended complaint
that satisfied the requirements of Rule 8 on or before April 30, 2018.
5. April 13, 2018: the Court served the
plaintiffs’ complaint on Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC and Hogan Lovells US LLP.
6. 23 April 2018: plaintiff 2 died.
7. May 1, 2018: plaintiff 1 filed the
amended complaint in accordance with the Court order dated April 5, 2018.
8. May 1, 2018: plaintiff 1 filed a
statement noting the party’s death.
9. May 9, 2018: counsels of Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC and Hogan Lovells US LLP filed their notice of appearance.
10. May
10, 2018: pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)
plaintiff 1 filed motion for the appointment of counsel.
11. May 16, 2018:
the served defendants filed their opposition to plaintiff’s motion for
appointment of counsel.
12. May 17, 2018:
the Court ordered to deny plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel without
prejudice.
13. May 29, 2018:
plaintiff 1 filed the motion to disqualify counsel of Hogan Lovells.
14. June 1, 2018:
served defendants filed their motions to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint
filed May 1, 2018.
15. June
4, 2018: pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)
plaintiff 1 filed one more motion for the appointment of counsel.
16. June 7, 2018: Hogan Lovells filed its
opposition to plaintiff’s motion to
disqualify Hogan Lovells’ counsel.
17. June 21, 2018: plaintiff filed contested
motion for leave to file second amended complaint (with attached second amended
complaint).
18. June 26, 2018: served defendants filed their joint opposition to
plaintiff’s motion for leave to file second amended complaint.
19. June 27, 2018: plaintiff filed
opposition to served defendants’ motions to dismiss.
20. July 17, 2018: served defendants filed their reply memorandum in
support defendants’ motions to dismiss.
21. July 18, 2018: plaintiff filed motion
to extend deadline for filing motion for substitution of the proper party.
22. July 20, 2018: the Court granted
plaintiff’s motion to extend deadline for filing motion for substitution of the
proper party.
23. October 25,
2018: plaintiff filed motion for substitution of the proper party (the
notary issued certificate of the right on inheritance which officially testifies
that plaintiff 1 inherited all exclusive rights of plaintiff 2 to the results
of intellectual activity, including the right of plaintiff 2 to restore the
Russian patent on the invention and exclusive right of plaintiff 2 to the
Russian patent within the period of validity of said patent in case of its
restoration).
24. January 9, 2019: the Court ordered to
deny plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Hogan Lovell’s counsel.
25. January 11, 2019: the Court ordered
that plaintiff serve process on Sony Corporation on or before February 1, 2019.
26. January
16, 2019: the Court ordered that defendant Sony Interactive Entertainment’s
motion to dismiss is granted (lack of personal jurisdiction).
27. January 17, 2019: plaintiff showed
good cause for plaintiff’s failure to serve process on Sony Corporation in
Japan (pursuant to Article 3 of the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of
Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters).
28. February 13, 2019: the Court ordered that the Clerk shall effectuate
service on defendant Sony Corporation pursuant to Article 5 of the Hague
Service Convention.
29. February 14, 2019: the Court ordered
(1) to grant plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend second amended complaint and
to file it, (2) to deny Hogan Lovells’ motion to dismiss without prejudice as
premature, (3) Hogan Lovells’ time to answer or otherwise respond to the second
amended complaint is extended until 21 days after Sony Corporation either
appears in this action or moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
30. August 2, 2019: Upon consideration of
plaintiff Vitaly Pilkin's motion to substitute himself for plaintiff Vladimir
Miroshnichenko, who passed away in April of 2018, the Court concluded that
Pilkin as the executor of Miroshnichenko's will shall hereby be substituted for
Miroshnichenko as the plaintiff in this matter and ordered that plaintiff
Vitaly Pilkin's motion is granted.
31. August 27, 2019: the Clerk’s Office requested that the Clerk mail a copy
of the summons and complaint to Sony Corporation through the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Japan in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3).
32. September 2, 2019: the
summons and complaint were delivered to the Japan’s central authority.
33. February 18, 2020: by
filing the Minute Order the Court ordered: “Sony Corporation has not
appeared in this matter to date. In light of this, it is hereby ORDERED that,
on or before March 18, 2020, Plaintiff and Defendant Hogan Lovells shall each
file a status report addressing the following questions: (1) Does either party
have knowledge concerning whether Defendant Sony Corporation has received service?
(2) Was the service on Sony Corporation described sufficient? (3) Should
service on Sony Corporation be attempted again? (4) Is Sony Corporation an
indispensable party in this litigation or would dropping Sony Corporation as a
Defendant prejudice the parties such that Sony Corporation's removal would be
inappropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 and In re
Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig., 631 F.3d 537, 542 (D.C. Cir.
2011)?”
34. March 4, 2020: Plaintiff filed Status
Report and supporting attachments, wherein Plaintiff shows the following: (i) the service of judicial documents
on Defendant Sony Corporation cannot
be deemed as proved; (ii) the service
of judicial documents on Defendant Sony Corporation cannot be deemed as sufficient; (iii) the service on Defendant Sony Corporation
should be made again; (iv) Defendant Sony Corporation is an indispensable party
in this litigation; (v) if, within 21 days after the Court will serve
judicial documents on Defendant Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation will not
respond, then, a judgment by default must be entered against Defendant Sony
Corporation for the relief demanded in the complaint.
35. March 17, 2020: Defendant
Hogan Lovells filed Status Report, wherein it answered the questions put in the
Minute Order dated February 18, 2020.
36. April 17, 2020: by filing the Minute Order the Court ordered that the Clerck of Court make a second attempt to
effectuate service upon Defendant Sony Corporation in accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4, Article 3 of the Hague Service Convention, and the
specifications of Japan's central authority.
