The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences v. Multimedia System Design

Background

The plaintiffs sued Multimedia System Design, Inc. over an allegedly infringing image. Jason Goodman, identified in the filing as Multimedia’s sole owner and employee, sought to intervene as a defendant. He asserted that he personally owned the disputed image and other content connected with the online network known as Crowdsource the Truth.

Goodman requested intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), which can require a court to allow a person with a legally protected interest to join a case when the existing parties do not adequately protect that interest. Alternatively, he requested permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), which allows intervention when the proposed defense shares a common legal or factual question with the main case and intervention would not improperly delay or prejudice the existing parties.

Goodman also sought to raise defenses based on the Communications Decency Act’s protection for operators of interactive computer services. His filing additionally alleged that representatives of the plaintiffs had deceived the court and the plaintiffs’ boards. The filing sought to vacate a default judgment and dismiss the complaint, but the court’s ruling addressed the application to intervene.

The Court’s Ruling

The court denied the application. For intervention as of right, the court held that the request was not timely because Goodman filed it one year and five months after the lawsuit began. The court rejected Goodman’s reliance on information he said he newly discovered, stating that it did not make the application timely.

The court also held that Goodman’s interests were already adequately represented. Goodman acknowledged that he was Multimedia’s sole owner and employee, and the court concluded that Multimedia’s current inability to retain counsel did not change that conclusion.

The court likewise denied permissive intervention. It explained that intervention could not be used to add collateral issues to an existing case and noted that Goodman had already filed a separate lawsuit asserting many of the claims raised in this application. The court said those claims were better addressed in that separate litigation, not in this case at such a late stage. The order did not decide the underlying copyright dispute or the proposed Communications Decency Act defense.