Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In the spring of 2001 an investigator employed by P, discovered a website operated by D that offered for sale devices that decode cable television programs. D advertised that his company, Hot-Gadgets.com, was a leading supplier of 'non-addressable' and 'bulletproof' decoders. A non-addressable decoder is one that cannot be tracked by a cable company, and a bulletproof decoder is immune to electronic security countermeasures. The sale of such decoders is illegal if the seller intends that they be used to intercept cable television signals without authorization from the cable company. See 47 U.S.C. § 553(a). Schramm ordered a decoder from D. Shortly thereafter, a package arrived C.O.D. but the receptionist declined to accept delivery as she was not informed of the ruse. In June 2003, Schramm, ordered another decoder and enclosed payment in the form of a money order. D endorsed the money order and sent Schramm the decoder. The decoder enabled Schramm to view all of P's scrambled premium and pay-per-view channels. P sued D alleging violations of several federal statutes, including section 553 of the Cable Communications Policy Act. P proceeded ex parte and now seeks a temporary restraining order ('TRO'), which, among other things, would authorize P's agents, with the assistance of federal marshals, to enter D's home and seize his business records and any decoders on the premises. P also seeks a preliminary injunction, expedited discovery, a freeze of D's assets, and an accounting of his income from the sale of the decoders.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.