Erickson Productions Inc v. Kraig R Kast

Background

Erickson Productions Inc. and Jim Erickson sued Kast, alleging that he infringed copyrights in three photos. After a three-day jury trial in April 2015, the jury found that Kast vicariously and contributorily infringed the copyrights and acted willfully. The court entered judgment for $450,000, consisting of $150,000 in statutory damages for each photo.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in part, reversed it in part, and sent the case back for further consideration of willfulness. It held that the jury had received an erroneous instruction and that the error was likely prejudicial, but it did not direct the district court to enter judgment for Kast. On remand, the court reviewed the existing record, found that the evidence supported willfulness, and entered a February 12, 2021 judgment awarding Erickson $450,000.

Kast’s Motions

Kast, who was representing himself, moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) for a new trial. Alternatively, he moved under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the February 12, 2021 judgment.

Kast argued that the court had treated negligence or constructive knowledge as sufficient to establish willfulness, even though the earlier appellate decision said negligence alone was insufficient. He also argued that the evidence did not show reckless disregard and that the $450,000 award violated the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, was excessive, and was unjust.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a Rule 59(a) new-trial motion in a court-tried matter may be based on a manifest error of law, a manifest error of fact, or newly discovered evidence. The court noted that Kast did not claim newly discovered evidence. It also discussed the parties’ dispute about whether the new-trial motion was timely. The court did not resolve that issue because, even assuming Kast’s view of the deadline was correct, he had not shown that a new trial was warranted.

The court rejected Kast’s interpretation of its earlier ruling. It said it had not found merely that Kast “should have known” about the infringement. Instead, it had found that it was more likely than not that he acted with reckless disregard of a substantial and unjustified risk that the photos had been copied without licenses. Under the applicable law, reckless disregard was sufficient to establish willfulness for statutory-damages purposes, and willfulness could be inferred from a defendant’s conduct.

The court also rejected Kast’s challenge to the damages. Erickson had elected statutory damages, and the court stated that the statutory maximum for each infringed work was $150,000 when the infringement was willful. Kast did not show that the maximum award was legally erroneous or unconstitutional.

Disposition

The court concluded that Kast was attempting to relitigate issues already decided and had not shown a manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, or an intervening change in controlling law. Judge Donna Ryu denied Kast’s motion for a new trial and denied his alternative Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment.