Rudolf D. Fullybright v. Amazon.com Inc.

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 5 RUDOLF D. FULLYBRIGHT, CASE NO. C25-1458-KKE 6

Plaintiff(s), ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 7 v. MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

8 AMAZON.COM INC., et al.,

9 Defendant(s).

10 Plaintiff, who is representing himself in this action, filed a motion for procedural 11 clarification, seeking the Court’s advice as to whether the United States Copyright Office would 12 accept an alternate means of satisfying the deposit copy requirement. Dkt. No. 57. The Court is 13 unable to advise Plaintiff as to whether the Copyright Office would make alternate arrangements, 14 or to assist Plaintiff in making alternate arrangements. See Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 15 1366 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that courts must refuse to provide legal advice even to litigants 16 representing themselves, because to do otherwise “would entail the district court’s becoming a 17 player in the adversary process rather than remaining its referee”). 18 The Court therefore must DENY Plaintiff’s motion. The clerk shall email a copy of this 19 order to Plaintiff. See Dkt. No. 45. 20 Dated this 12th day of December, 2025. 21 22 A 23 Kymberly K. Evanson United States District Judge 24