Iglesia Ni Cristo v. Cayabyab

Background

Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) sought reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) of an earlier order that granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. INC challenged four aspects of that order: the court’s decision not to defer summary judgment for additional discovery; its decision to sustain evidentiary objections to screenshots of Internet content; its grant of summary judgment to defendants on INC’s copyright claims; and its grant of summary judgment on trademark claims against Ramos, Kuizon, and Mora.

In the alternative, INC sought entry of final judgment on claims decided in favor of De La Uso, Ramos, Kuizon, Mora, and Villanueva, and on the copyright claim decided in favor of Cayabyab, Dizon, and H2O. Under Rule 54(b), a court may enter final judgment on fewer than all claims or parties only when it expressly finds no just reason to delay.

Reconsideration

The court held that INC had not shown any basis for reconsideration under the applicable local rule. That rule permits reconsideration when there is a material difference in facts or law, new material facts or a change in law, or a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments.

Additional discovery. The court denied reconsideration of its decision not to delay summary judgment. INC had not filed a request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), submitted an affidavit or declaration explaining why it could not oppose summary judgment without more discovery, identified specific facts the discovery would likely produce, or shown diligence in pursuing discovery. The court also found that the evidence INC later submitted about the litigation timeline could have been presented before the earlier summary-judgment ruling and therefore did not support reconsideration.

Screenshots. The court denied reconsideration of its ruling excluding screenshots submitted as Exhibits G and H to Nicole M. Goss’s declaration. The court had previously found that INC did not establish who took the screenshots or when they were taken. INC argued that admissions in Cayabyab and Dizon’s answer authenticated them, but the court found that the answer’s general admissions did not authenticate the specific screenshots. The court also rejected INC’s reliance on a new declaration in which Goss stated for the first time that she had taken the screenshots, because INC could have supplied that information earlier.

Copyright claims. The court denied reconsideration of summary judgment on Claim 2, which alleged that Cayabyab, Dizon, and H2O infringed INC’s copyrights in hymns. The court had previously found that Cayabyab and H2O declared they never used the copyrighted hymns and that Dizon declared he performed them only during worship services, which the court described as permitted under a Copyright Act exemption. INC did not provide sufficient admissible evidence showing infringing use. The court stated that it had considered INC’s argument that the exemption would not cover Internet videos displaying the hymns’ lyrics, but found that INC had not submitted admissible evidence showing that these defendants posted such videos.

Trademark claims. The court denied reconsideration of summary judgment on the trademark claims against Ramos, Kuizon, and Mora. The court had considered the declarations and screenshots cited by INC, excluded the screenshots, and found that the declarations did not establish trademark use by those defendants. The court concluded that INC’s disagreement with that ruling was not a basis for reconsideration.

Rule 54(b) final judgment

The court found that the earlier summary-judgment order satisfied Rule 54(b)’s first requirement because it finally disposed of all claims against De La Uso, Ramos, Kuizon, Mora, and Villanueva, and disposed of the copyright claim against Cayabyab, Dizon, and H2O. But it found a just reason to delay final judgment.

The trademark claims decided in favor of De La Uso, Ramos, Kuizon, Mora, and Villanueva substantially overlapped with trademark claims still pending against Cayabyab, Dizon, and H2O. INC had relied on the same liability theories and the same collection of declarations and screenshots. Entering final judgment could therefore produce separate appeals involving the same issues and evidence. The court also found that entering judgment on the copyright claim against Cayabyab, Dizon, and H2O could create similar complications because their trademark claims remained unresolved.

Disposition

The court denied INC’s motion for reconsideration and denied, in the alternative, its motion for entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b). The order terminated ECF 146. Judge Beth Labson Freeman did not add a with-prejudice or without-prejudice designation.