Freeman v. Deebs-Elkenaney

Background

Lynne Freeman asked the court to compel the defendants to: (1) respond to requests seeking damages-related information; (2) provide additional identifying information about recipients of Freeman’s work, referred to as Interrogatory 8; and (3) answer Interrogatory 26. The defendants agreed to respond to Interrogatory 8 but otherwise opposed the motions.

Damages discovery

The court explained that under the Copyright Act, a copyright owner may seek actual damages and certain infringer profits or statutory damages. For an infringer’s profits, the copyright owner must show the infringer’s gross revenue, while the infringer must prove deductible expenses and profits attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.

Freeman argued that the defendants were resisting relevant updates to their damages-related discovery. The court found that the defendants had provided damages information through periods ending less than six months earlier, had committed to future updates, and had acknowledged an ongoing obligation to update their responses. The defendants objected to making continual, incremental updates and proposed producing updated financial documents and interrogatory responses at an appropriate time.

The court found that approach reasonable. It concluded that Freeman had enough damages information to question witnesses at depositions or defend against a motion for summary judgment, and that the burden of repeated updates outweighed the value of incremental information. The parties were ordered to meet and agree on a date for one final update. If they could not agree, the defendants were ordered to provide supplemental discovery within 45 days after any decision denying, in whole or in part, a motion for summary judgment. The court also stated that Kim/Prospect must respond within 14 days to one document request if its response suggested that an earlier production had not been made.

Interrogatory 26

Freeman sought an order requiring Defendant Wolff to identify by manufacturer and model number every computer used to write the Crave book series and every editing program used to edit it. Wolff objected on several grounds, including the limit of 25 interrogatories without court permission and the timing of the request. Wolff principally argued that the issue was moot because Freeman had asked these questions during depositions and received sworn testimony.

The court found that the cited deposition testimony appeared to reasonably provide the requested information. It stated that Wolff must provide additional interrogatory responses if Freeman believed the testimony was insufficient.

Disposition

The court concluded that Freeman’s motions were DENIED and requested that the Clerk terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 161 and 162.