Bell v. Show-Rite Feeds

Background

Dr. Keith F. Bell is representing himself. He sued Show-Rite Feeds for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Bell alleges that the defendant posted material from his book, Winning Isn’t Normal, and an excerpt from that book on the internet and social media without authorization. The defendant’s formal corporate name is Ridley USA Inc.; the court referred to the defendant as “Ridley.”

Ridley’s amended answer included a counterclaim seeking to invalidate Bell’s copyright in Winning Isn’t Normal and an injunction requiring Bell to seek voluntary cancellation of another copyright registration. Ridley’s counterclaim also cited a judicial decision that compared Bell’s frequent litigation behavior to that of a “copyright troll.” Bell responded that Ridley’s conduct involved additional copyright infringement and that the “copyright troll” allegation was libelous, defamatory, and inflammatory.

Motion to Strike

Ridley moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike two portions of Bell’s response. Rule 12(f) permits a court to remove an insufficient defense or matter that is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous from a pleading.

The court struck the phrase in paragraph 8 asserting that Ridley’s November 30, 2023 copying, distribution, and display of Bell’s intellectual property was unauthorized. The court stated that Bell’s claims were limited to those in his complaint and that he had not sought or obtained permission to amend the complaint to add an infringement claim based on Ridley’s reference to and attachment of copyrighted material in its amended answer and counterclaim.

The court also struck the phrase in paragraph 12 describing Ridley’s allegation as libelous, defamatory, and inflammatory and claiming harm to Bell’s reputation and relationships. Although the court found that Bell’s response was responsive to Ridley’s allegation, Bell had not sought or obtained permission to amend his complaint to add a libel or defamation claim. The motion to strike was therefore granted.

Electronic Evidence Protocol

Ridley filed an initial motion for an electronic stored information (ESI) protocol. The motion did not comply with the District of Minnesota’s local rules because the parties had not completed a meaningful discussion before filing, and Ridley did not file a supporting legal memorandum. Ridley later filed a second motion but never withdrew the first. The court denied the first motion without prejudice because of the rule violations and because the second motion replaced it.

Ridley’s second motion sought a protocol to collect and preserve ESI from Bell’s devices and other custodians’ devices. Ridley said Bell had reported that his computer had stopped working and later was functioning unreliably. Ridley argued that the devices might contain evidence relevant to its defense that Bell learned of the alleged infringement more than three years before filing suit. Ridley also offered to pay for forensic collection and preservation and to allow Bell to select the vendor.

Bell argued that forensic collection was unnecessary, invaded privacy, and could damage or destroy ESI. He also argued that Ridley’s proposed protocol was overly broad and burdensome, but he did not explain why or offer an alternative protocol.

The court found good cause for an ESI protocol and concluded that the proposed protocol was not unduly broad or burdensome. The protocol provides that Ridley will pay the collection costs, Bell may choose whether collection occurs in person or remotely, and privileged information will be protected. The court granted Ridley’s second ESI motion and ordered the attached protocol to govern ESI discovery.

Disposition

Judge John F. Docherty’s order addressed pleading content and discovery procedures; it did not decide whether either side ultimately prevailed on the copyright claims or counterclaim.