Hines v. EMI April Music Inc.

Background

Ernie Hines brought a copyright-infringement lawsuit against W Chappell Music Corporation, the artists known as Jay-Z and Timbaland, and the artist known as Ginuwine. The court collectively referred to W Chappell, Jay-Z, and Timbaland as the Warner Defendants. On September 25, 2023, the court granted summary judgment motions filed by the Warner Defendants and Ginuwine.

Hines then moved for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60.

Local Rule 6.3 and Rule 59

The court held that Hines’s motion was untimely under Local Rule 6.3 because he served it 28 days after judgment, rather than within the rule’s 14-day period. The court nevertheless evaluated the motion under Rules 59 and 60 because those rules provide separate timing provisions.

Under Rule 59(e), reconsideration requires an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court found that Hines showed none of these grounds. In particular, the court rejected Hines’s argument that excluding Dr. Bennett’s materials was clear error or caused manifest injustice.

The court explained that the materials were disclosed after the expert-disclosure and expert-discovery deadlines. Under Rules 26 and 37, late-disclosed information generally cannot be used unless the late disclosure was substantially justified or harmless. Applying the relevant factors, the court found that Hines had repeatedly relied on the same personal explanations for missing deadlines, that the defendants would have been prejudiced by receiving new materials after discovery closed, and that admitting the materials would have caused further delay. The court also noted that it previously concluded it would have reached the same result even if it had considered Dr. Bennett’s supplemental materials.

The court separately rejected Hines’s argument that the materials qualified as a timely rebuttal expert report. The court’s scheduling order controlled the deadlines, and the materials were submitted months after those deadlines. The court also found that the materials were not timely even under the rule governing rebuttal reports and that rebuttal evidence could not be used to fill gaps in Hines’s main case revealed by the defendants’ summary-judgment motions.

Rule 60

The court also denied relief under Rule 60. Rule 60(a) permits correction of clerical mistakes, but Hines did not identify a clerical error and sought a result contrary to the court’s original decision. Rule 60(b) provides limited relief for exceptional circumstances, but Hines did not address that standard and sought to relitigate issues already decided. The court stated that legal error alone was not a sufficient basis for Rule 60(b) relief and that the rule could not substitute for an appeal.

Disposition

The court denied Hines’s motion to reconsider the court’s earlier grant of the Warner Defendants’ and Ginuwine’s motions for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 226.