Freeman v. Deebs-Elkenaney

Background

Lynne Freeman brought a direct copyright-infringement claim against Tracy Deebs-Elkenaney and other defendants. The opinion discusses disputes concerning access to Freeman’s writings, notes, manuscripts, or drafts; alleged copying; similarities between Freeman’s work and Wolff’s work; and whether Kim aided Wolff in writing the BMR series.

Magistrate Judge Netburn issued a Report and Recommendation on August 1, 2024. Judge Stanton stated that the recommendation was careful, competent, and thorough, and that he found no error or omission in it.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine dispute about any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A factual dispute is genuine when the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to decide for the party opposing summary judgment.

Reasoning

The court identified genuine factual disputes about whether defendants had access to Freeman’s work, directly or through intermediaries; whether defendants copied some or all of that work; whether the similarities between Freeman’s and Wolff’s works indicated copying and infringement; and whether Kim helped Wolff write the BMR series. The court explained that these material factual issues had to be resolved by a jury before the court could decide whether Freeman was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Ruling and effect

The court concluded that this case did not satisfy Rule 56’s requirement for summary judgment and approved a jury trial as the proper process for resolving the disputes. The opinion does not state a separate disposition using the word “denied,” but it makes clear that the copyright-infringement claim was to proceed to a jury rather than be resolved on the existing summary-judgment record.