PDK Commercial Photographers, Ltd. v. GRI American European LLC
- John Koeltl
- 1:20-cv-00057
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In PDK Commercial Photographers v. GRI American European, Judge Koeltl scheduled a conference about GRI’s proposed discovery motion and sanctions request.
PDK Commercial Photographers, Ltd. and GRI American European LLC; the supplied text also discusses possible sanctions involving PDK and its attorney, Richard Liebowitz.
What happened
PDK Commercial Photographers, Ltd. sued GRI American European LLC over GRI’s alleged use of a Hudson Yards photograph. GRI said PDK had licensed the photograph to a third party and that the license agreement was important to liability, fair use, and damages.
GRI asked for a pre-motion conference before seeking an order requiring PDK to produce the license agreement and related communications. GRI also said PDK had not produced documents after receiving discovery requests and asked that sanctions be considered.
Judge John G. Koeltl ordered a conference for September 2, 2020, at 2:30 p.m. The text does not show a ruling granting or denying the proposed motion to compel or the request for sanctions.
The detailed version
- PDK Commercial Photographers, Ltd. v. GRI American European LLC · No. 1:20-cv-00057
- John Koeltl
- Sept. 3, 2020
Background
PDK brought a copyright-infringement action against GRI concerning a photograph of Hudson Yards. GRI’s counsel submitted a letter requesting a pre-motion conference under the court’s individual practices and Local Civil Rule 37.2. The letter says GRI intended to move to compel discovery and seek sanctions.
Discovery dispute
GRI said it served interrogatories, requests for admission, and document requests on June 2, 2020. According to GRI, PDK responded on July 17 with objections and incomplete responses but produced no documents. GRI said PDK admitted that it had licensed the photograph to a company called Related and had agreed to produce responsive licensing documents and communications. GRI reported that, after a July 31 telephone conference, PDK had still not produced the license agreement or related documents.
Parties’ positions
GRI argued that the license agreement could be important to whether its use of the photograph was authorized, whether its use was fair, and how much PDK could recover. GRI said it obtained the photograph from the Hudson Yards press-image website, where it was publicly available under a royalty-free license, and that the website identified the photograph as provided courtesy of Related. GRI also asserted that PDK had admitted it could not seek statutory damages but claimed $5,000 in actual damages and GRI’s profits. GRI maintained that it earned no profit from the article containing the photograph.
The letter asked the court to require production of the requested materials and stated that PDK’s complaint should otherwise be dismissed and that PDK or its attorney, Richard Liebowitz, should be sanctioned. Those requests and factual assertions are presented in GRI’s letter; the supplied text does not include a response from PDK or a ruling resolving the requested discovery or sanctions.
Court action and disposition
The supplied text shows Judge John G. Koeltl ordering a conference scheduled for September 2, 2020, at 2:30 p.m. It does not show that the court granted or denied GRI’s anticipated motion to compel, dismissed PDK’s complaint, or imposed sanctions. The letter is dated September 1, 2020, while the signed “SO ORDERED” notation bears September 3, 2020, creating a date discrepancy in the supplied text.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.