The Trustees Of Columbia University in the City of New York v. Encyclopaedia…

Background

These consolidated actions concern ownership of, and trademark rights in, the Encyclopaedia Iranica. Encyclopaedia Iranica Foundation, Inc. (EIF) asserted, among other claims, that it owned books, artwork, documents, and other materials located at Columbia University’s Yarshater Center for Iranian Studies and in EIF’s former offices leased from Columbia. EIF said it needed access to the materials to prepare a defense to Columbia’s complaint and amend its own pleadings.

At an initial pretrial conference, the court ordered the parties to use a third-party vendor to identify and provide access to disputed materials in Columbia’s possession. The court’s November 7, 2019 Inventory Order required an inventory of “all materials in Columbia’s possession for which ownership is disputed, including, but not limited to, documents, artwork, and books.” Columbia was to turn over materials the parties agreed belonged to EIF, while disputed materials would remain in Columbia’s possession for the time being. The order also extended EIF’s deadlines to file an amended complaint and respond to Columbia’s complaint until after the completed inventory was delivered.

EIF later told Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox that the inventory was incomplete because Columbia had limited access to materials stored in the basement and certain apartments in the building where EIF’s former offices were located. EIF requested that pleading and discovery deadlines be paused until Columbia provided full access and the inventory was updated. On March 13, 2020, Judge Fox ordered that the complete inventory required by the Inventory Order be performed.

Columbia’s Objections

Columbia objected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), which allows a district judge to change or set aside a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive ruling if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Columbia argued that the March 13 Order was an improper mandatory injunction, was unsupported by the facts, misinterpreted the Inventory Order, and required discovery broader than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or local rules allowed. Columbia also argued that the Inventory Order covered only books, artwork, and documents in the Center’s basement.

Judge Torres rejected those arguments. She held that the March 13 Order was not an injunction because it did not grant the declaratory or injunctive relief sought in EIF’s complaint. Instead, it paused pleading and discovery deadlines and required an inventory so EIF could prepare its pleadings. Columbia did not have to surrender materials it believed belonged to Columbia. The court also held that the order was not a discovery order, but an effort to provide both parties with the information needed at the pleading stage.

The court further held that the March 13 Order was not clearly erroneous. The order’s requirement of an inventory of “all” disputed materials was consistent with the plain language and purpose of the earlier Inventory Order.

Motions to Strike and Disposition

Columbia filed a reply supporting its objections. EIF sought to strike that reply, and Columbia sought to strike EIF’s response. Because the court did not need to consider those filings to resolve Columbia’s objections, the requests to strike were denied as moot.

Judge Analisa Torres overruled Columbia’s objections to the March 13 Order. The parties were ordered to meet and confer about a timeline for completing the inventory, including precautions that might be needed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. They were also ordered to file a status letter addressed to Judge Fox by June 22, 2020.