Santiago v. Townsquare Media, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-03851
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Santiago v. Townsquare Media, Judge Stein denied Townsquare’s motion to limit discovery in Santiago’s copyright case.
Dakota Santiago and Townsquare Media, Inc.; discovery will proceed in the normal manner rather than being limited to the Freedom News TV authorization issue.
What happened
In Santiago v. Townsquare Media, Inc., Dakota Santiago claims Townsquare Media, Inc. copied and displayed two videos he created without permission on a news website it owned and operated.
Townsquare asked to pause most discovery and allow only limited discovery about whether Freedom News TV was authorized to post one of the videos on YouTube. Townsquare argued that authorization could give it permission to embed the video, but Santiago opposed the request.
Judge Stein denied Townsquare’s motion, finding that the request did not address the second video and that other issues, including whether the use was minimal or fair use, could involve factual questions requiring discovery. The parties were ordered to submit a revised case-management plan.
The detailed version
- Santiago v. Townsquare Media, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-03851
- Ronnie Abrams
- Oct. 4, 2024
Background
Dakota Santiago brought this copyright-infringement action against Townsquare Media, Inc. Santiago alleges that Townsquare reproduced and displayed two videos he created on nj1015.com, a New Jersey news-station website owned and operated by Townsquare, without his permission or authorization.
Townsquare filed a letter-motion asking the court to stay discovery, meaning pause discovery, except for limited discovery about whether Freedom News TV was authorized to post one video—called “Video 1”—to a Freedom News TV YouTube channel. Townsquare argued that, if Freedom News TV had Santiago’s authorization, YouTube’s terms of service would have given YouTube a license and Townsquare, as a YouTube user, a sublicense to re-share and embed the video. Townsquare contended that this would defeat Santiago’s infringement claim concerning Video 1.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a party seeking to limit discovery must show good cause. It rejected Townsquare’s assertion that the authorization question was the only relevant factual question. Santiago’s complaint also concerns “Video 2,” a recording of a different news event, and Townsquare’s motion did not explain how discovery about Video 1 could resolve the claim concerning Video 2.
The court also noted that Townsquare intended to seek summary judgment—a ruling based on the absence of a genuine factual dispute—on additional grounds, including that its display of screenshots was minimal and constituted fair use. The court stated that those issues are normally factual, at least in part, and Townsquare did not explain how they could be resolved without discovery. Santiago also disputed that authorization to post Video 1 on YouTube would authorize Townsquare’s commercial use under YouTube’s terms.
Ruling
Judge Gary Stein denied Townsquare’s motion to limit discovery and stay all other discovery. The court directed discovery to proceed in the normal manner and ordered the parties to submit a revised proposed Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order by October 11, 2024. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 25.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.