Freeman v. Deebs-Elkenaney
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:22-cv-02435
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Freeman v. Deebs-Elkenaney, Judge Netburn denied Freeman’s request to pause an order requiring her to identify two primary manuscripts while objections were pending.
Lynne Freeman’s request to pause the manuscript-identification order was denied; the named defendants opposed the stay, and the underlying claims were not decided.
What happened
Lynne Freeman asked the court to pause a January 11, 2023 order requiring her to identify two manuscripts as the primary works supporting her copyright claim. She said she planned to object to that order and argued that she should be able to pursue claims involving all 17 manuscript versions and 12 other documents.
The defendants did not agree to the pause. The Kim Defendants argued that Freeman had waited too long to request it and that the stay would delay identifying the manuscripts. Freeman responded that her request was timely and said she had already identified all 17 manuscript versions and the other copyrighted materials.
In Freeman v. Deebs-Elkenaney, Judge Sarah Netburn denied the motion for a stay. The court said Freeman would not be harmed by identifying two primary manuscripts while seeking permission to identify more, and that she could rely on additional transcripts later if her objections succeeded.
The detailed version
- Freeman v. Deebs-Elkenaney · No. 1:22-cv-02435
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 20, 2023
Background
Lynne Freeman asked the court to stay, or pause, a January 11, 2023 order requiring her to identify two manuscripts to serve as the primary works supporting her copyright claim. She said she intended to object to that order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. Freeman argued that the Copyright Act protected each of her 17 manuscript versions and 12 additional documents containing notes, outlines, and other materials. She also stated that her amended complaint asserted fraud and deceit, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract claims against Emily Sylvan Kim and Prospect Agency, LLC.
The parties’ positions
The Wolff Defendants—Tracy Deebs-Elkenaney, also known as Tracy Wolff; Entangled Publishing, LLC; Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC, doing business as Macmillan; and Universal City Studios, LLC—did not consent to the stay. The Kim Defendants—Emily Sylvan Kim and Prospect Agency, LLC—also did not consent. The Kim Defendants argued that Freeman had delayed requesting the stay and that the request would further delay identifying the manuscripts. Freeman responded that her request was timely under Rule 72, that she had been finalizing a privilege log, and that she had already identified all 17 manuscript versions and the other copyrighted materials.
Ruling
Judge Sarah Netburn denied Freeman’s motion for a stay pending resolution of her forthcoming objections. The court stated that Freeman would not be prejudiced by identifying two primary manuscripts while also seeking permission to identify more. If her objections were sustained, she would be able to rely on additional transcripts in the future. The order did not decide the underlying copyright, fraud, fiduciary-duty, or contract claims.
Judge-name discrepancy
The supplied case metadata identifies Colleen McMahon as the judge, but the opinion’s order is addressed to and signed by United States Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn. This summary uses the judge identified in the opinion text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.