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)
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?