Davis v. Pinterest, Inc.

Background

Harold Davis, a digital artist and professional photographer, sued Pinterest, Inc. for direct and contributory copyright infringement. The court had dismissed the contributory-infringement claim, leaving only a claim for direct copyright infringement. The scheduling order required Davis to serve a final identification of the alleged infringements by June 1, 2021, while allowing Pinterest to pursue discovery about those identified infringements through September 3, 2021.

Pinterest served an interrogatory asking Davis to identify the Pinterest URL or other information sufficient to locate each alleged infringement. Davis produced a spreadsheet, but later stated that it was only a sample and that the same image could have hundreds or thousands of URLs and identification numbers. Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered Davis to provide a verified response identifying the spreadsheet by document number and held that the spreadsheet was the final identification of the alleged infringements. Davis sought review of that order.

Motion to Review the Discovery Order

Davis asked the district court to treat Judge Hixson’s statement about the spreadsheet as nonbinding and to allow him to expand the alleged infringements at issue. The court rejected Davis’s argument that identifying the 51 works in suit was enough for Pinterest to locate the alleged infringements. The court explained that identifying the works did not identify which reproductions or displays Davis claimed were infringing, particularly because some uses might be subject to defenses such as a license or fair use.

The court also rejected Davis’s argument that the spreadsheet was only an example and that he had identified additional infringements through earlier pleadings and discovery. It found that allowing expansion four months after the deadline and after discovery had closed would make the deadline meaningless. The court agreed with Judge Hixson that the spreadsheet was the final identification of the alleged infringements and denied Davis’s motion to limit or overturn the discovery order.

Motion to Continue Discovery

Pinterest requested an extension of the September 3 discovery deadline to depose Pixsy after receiving documents from that third party. Pinterest said the documents and anticipated testimony could support a statute-of-limitations defense. Davis asserted that the Pixsy documents were protected attorney work product, and a separate discovery dispute about that assertion remained pending before Judge Hixson.

Because the need for an extension depended on the unresolved work-product dispute, the court declined to decide whether an extension was necessary. It denied without prejudice Pinterest’s motion for a continuance, allowing Pinterest to renew the request after Judge Hixson ruled on the work-product issue.

Motion to Seal

Pinterest asked to seal portions of Davis’s deposition attached to its motion for a discovery continuance. Because the materials related to a nondispositive motion, the court applied the lower “good cause” standard, which requires a specific showing of likely harm from disclosure. The court held that a “Highly Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation alone did not establish that the materials should be sealed. It also found that the excerpts did not contain confidential information warranting sealing.

The court denied Pinterest’s motion to seal and directed Pinterest to file public versions of the documents within seven days. The court stated that the parties could file a new sealing motion within seven days.

Case Schedule and Disposition

The court also denied the parties’ stipulation seeking to extend the case schedule. It directed the parties to proceed under the existing schedule and move the case forward expeditiously. The court stated that it would consider a later request for another summary-judgment motion or a schedule extension if resolving a pending discovery dispute provided an additional basis for such a request.

The final dispositions were: Davis’s motion to limit Judge Hixson’s discovery order was denied; Pinterest’s request to extend fact discovery was denied without prejudice; Pinterest’s motion to seal was denied; and the parties’ stipulation to extend the schedule was denied.