Degginger v. McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings LLC

Filing 99

ORDER the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 96 ) in its entirety. The Objections (Doc. 97 ) raised by the Defendants are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 65 ) is DENIED. This matter is REFERRED BACK to the Magistrate Judge to continue pretrial management through discovery and dispositive motions. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 1/5/2016. (See attached Order for complete information)(DLC)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Phil Degginger, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, ) ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________ CV-14-2429-TUC-DCB ORDER 14 This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge 15 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and the local rules of practice of 16 this Court for hearing and a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on the 17 Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Before the Court is the 18 Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on the Defendants’ Motion 19 for Partial Summary Judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommends, after 20 hearing oral argument, to the Court that the Motion for Partial Summary 21 Judgment should be denied. 22 Recommendation and Plaintiff responded to these Objections. 23 The Defendants filed Objections to this STANDARD OF REVIEW 24 When objection is made to the findings and recommendation of a 25 magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review. 26 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 27 28 1 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS 2 Defendants object, as follows: (1) the Magistrate Judge erred in 3 holding that Defendants did not adequately differentiate the in-suit 4 infringements for which it claims Plaintiff had actual knowledge; (2) the 5 Magistrate Judge erred in finding there is a dispute of fact as to 6 whether Plaintiff had constructive knowledge of all of Defendants’ other 7 infringements; (3) Defendants dispute the Magistrate Judge’s finding that 8 Defendants 9 Defendants’ failed to show infringement Plaintiff’s of attorneys Plaintiff’s had knowledge photographs, of because of 10 information obtained in representing a different client in April 2011; 11 and, (4) the Magistrate Judge incorrectly found a dispute of fact as to 12 whether Plaintiff conducted a sufficient investigation of Defendants 13 based on what he knew of Defendants’ infringements. Defendants argue that 14 no investigation was conducted. 15 DISCUSSION 16 After conducting a de novo review of the record, the Court finds 17 that none of the lodged Objections merit a conclusion other than that the 18 Report and Recommendation should be adopted completely. 19 not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of actual knowledge and 20 resolution of the constructive knowledge issue is one that poses a 21 genuine issue of material fact, as well as credibility assessments. 22 jury will need to resolve these questions. 23 to investigate issue. 24 of fact and not resolvable by dispostive motion, based on the 25 before this Court. 26 and legal conclusions contained in the Report and Recommendation. A This also applies to the duty Notice and knowledge are all material questions record The record completely supports the factual findings 27 28 Defendants are 2 1 CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, after conducting a de novo review of the record, 3 IT IS ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation 4 (Doc. 96) in its entirety. 5 Defendants are OVERRULED. 6 The Objections (Doc. 97) raised by the IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary 7 Judgment (Doc. 65) is DENIED. 8 Magistrate Judge to continue pretrial management through discovery and 9 dispositive motions. 10 This matter is REFERRED BACK to the DATED this 5th day of January, 2016. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?