ABKCO Music, Inc. v. Sagan

Background

The plaintiffs were music publishers that claimed rights in 197 musical works. They alleged that William Sagan, Norton LLC, and Bill Graham Archives, LLC and its listed businesses infringed those copyrights by making concert recordings available for downloading and streaming and by manufacturing physical records containing some of the works.

Before the judgment entered here, a jury awarded the plaintiffs $189,500 in statutory damages after a nine-day trial. The jury found regular infringement for 30 works, and the court had previously determined that infringement was willful for the other 167 works. The court had also previously ruled that the defendants did not establish valid compulsory mechanical licenses for the works.

Motions Addressed in the November 5, 2020 Opinion

The plaintiffs sought a new damages trial, arguing that the worsening COVID-19 pandemic prevented the jury from deliberating fairly. They relied on the trial’s length and complexity, the jury’s deliberation time of less than an hour, the relatively low damages award, and comments by Juror Number 5 expressing concern about the pandemic and his mother’s compromised immune system.

The court denied the new-trial motion. It concluded that the short deliberations did not establish a miscarriage of justice, emphasizing that the court had not pressured the jury to finish quickly and that no party objected to the juror’s comments or sought to remove him. The court also found no persuasive connection between the pandemic and the specific damages amounts awarded.

The plaintiffs also sought attorneys’ fees and costs under Section 505 of the Copyright Act. The court found that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties because they succeeded on the infringement claims and obtained findings of willful infringement for most of the works. The court further found that the defendants’ lack of admissible evidence supporting artist consent to the original concert recordings was objectively unreasonable and that a fee award would serve compensation and deterrence purposes.

The court nevertheless reduced the requested attorneys’ fee award by 60%. It cited the parties’ financial disparity and the substantial difference between the more than $6 million in fees sought and the $189,500 in damages recovered. The plaintiffs had requested $6,050,565.50 in attorneys’ fees and $52,689.12 in costs. After the reduction, the court stated that the net fee award was $2,420,226.00.

February 26, 2021 Judgment

The February 26 judgment stated that, under the November 5 opinion and order, the plaintiffs had judgment for $2,420,226.00 against the defendants. The clerk was directed to issue a certified copy of that judgment and the earlier July 22, 2020 judgment for $189,500 in a form that could be registered in other federal districts without waiting for the parties’ cross-appeals to end.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos entered the $2,420,226 judgment against the defendants. The incorporated November 5 order denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, with the attorneys’ fee award reduced by 60%.