SA Music LLC v. Apple, Inc

Background

The court was addressing three related copyright cases: Case Nos. 3:20-cv-02146-WHO, 3:20-cv-02794-WHO, and 3:20-cv-02965-WHO. In an earlier order on the parties’ motions for partial summary judgment, the court granted Apple summary judgment that its alleged infringement was not willful and denied the plaintiffs’ motion seeking a ruling that it was willful. The court also determined that the plaintiffs had not established ownership as a matter of law of several compositions.

The plaintiffs asked for permission to file a motion for reconsideration of those rulings. They challenged the court’s treatment of willfulness and its ownership analysis concerning seven compositions. They argued that the court had failed to properly consider evidence and legal arguments, including evidence involving takedown notices, Apple’s oversight system, and chains of title. They also argued that evidence concerning a merger supported their ownership claim to one composition.

Reconsideration motion

The court held that most of the plaintiffs’ arguments improperly attempted to relitigate issues already decided at summary judgment. The court concluded that the earlier order had considered the evidence and arguments the plaintiffs identified. It also rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the earlier order applied the wrong willfulness standard or conflicted with Ninth Circuit precedent. The court said the earlier order recognized that knowledge, reckless disregard, or willful blindness could establish willfulness, and it concluded that Apple’s contractual rights representations and notice-and-takedown system were not obviously insufficient on the evidence presented.

The court did identify one factual misstatement in the earlier order. The earlier order referred to hundreds of thousands of uploaders, although that precise figure had not been placed in the summary-judgment record and did not accurately describe the accounts authorized to upload. The court stated that the substantive analysis was unchanged and would modify the earlier order to correct that limited point. It nevertheless denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.

On ownership, the court held that the silence of alleged prior owners did not establish a transfer of rights as a matter of law. For the seventh composition, the plaintiffs pointed to evidence of a merger that appeared to support their position, but they had not raised that argument in their motion or reply. The court said the plaintiffs would have to present that evidence to the jury if Apple did not concede the issue.

Interlocutory appeal

The plaintiffs alternatively sought certification for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Such certification requires a controlling legal question, substantial grounds for disagreement about that question, and a finding that an immediate appeal may materially advance the end of the litigation.

The court denied certification. It concluded that the plaintiffs had not identified a controlling legal question because the willfulness ruling applied settled law to the particular facts. The court also found no substantial grounds for disagreement, explaining that the cited Ninth Circuit decisions were consistent with the earlier order and that the plaintiffs had not identified a conflicting non-binding decision. The motion to certify the summary-judgment order for interlocutory appeal was therefore denied.

Consolidation for trial

The plaintiffs had previously moved to consolidate the cases for trial. After summary judgment, the court concluded that consolidation was warranted because the cases shared many common questions of law and fact. Although Apple opposed consolidation because of possible jury confusion or prejudice, the court determined that the parties and the court could use jury instructions to prevent evidence from one case from being used improperly in another. The court ordered the cases consolidated for trial, citing the efficiency and economy gained from their substantial overlap.

Disposition

The motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration was denied. The motion to certify for interlocutory appeal was denied. The related cases were consolidated for trial.