Manufacturing Automation and Software Systems, Inc. v. Kristopher Hughes et al

Filing 402

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Christina A. Snyder: RE ADMISSIBILITY OF COPIES OF PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATES OF COPYRGIHT. On February 12, 2019, plaintiff Manufacturing Automation and Software Systems, Inc. moved to admit into evidence copies of its certificates of copyright, marked as exhibits 91, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223. Defendants Kristopher Hughes, James Huysentruyt, Informatrac, Inc., PcVue, Inc., and Edward Nugent objected on the basis that they were copies of the copyright certificates, as opposed to the original public documents. The Court hereby admits these exhibits. (lc). Modified on 2/14/2019 (lc).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
2:16-cv-08962-CAS-KSx
Date  February 14, 2019
MANUFACTURING AUTOMATION AND SOFTWARE SYSTEMS,
INC. v. KRISTOPHER HUGHES, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable 
Catherine Jeang 
Deputy Clerk 

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER 

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: 

N/A 

Tape No. 

Attorneys Present for Defendants: 

Not Present 

Not Present

Proceedings:

Not Present 
Court Reporter / Recorder 

(IN CHAMBERS) - ADMISSIBILITY OF COPIES OF
PLAINTIFF’S CERTIFICATES OF COPYRGIHT  

On February 12, 2019, plaintiff Manufacturing Automation & Software Systems,
Inc. (“MASS Group”) moved to admit into evidence copies of its certificates of
copyright, marked as exhibits 91, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223. Defendants Kristopher
Hughes, James Huysentruyt, Informatrac, Inc., PcVue, Inc., and Edward Nugent
(collectively, “defendants”) objected on the basis that they were copies of the copyright
certificates, as opposed to the original public documents.
The Court hereby admits these exhibits. To authenticate an item of evidence, the
offering party “must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what
the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901. “A duplicate is admissible to the same
extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original's authenticity
or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate,” Fed. R. Evid. 1003, and a
photocopy constitutes a “duplicate” for the purposes of this rule, Fed. R. Evid. 1001(4).
See United States v. Hampton, 464 F.3d 687, 690 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding that
photocopies of certificates of insurance were admissible); see also Siegel v. Warner Bros.
Entm't Inc., 542 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1121 (C.D. Cal. 2008), rev'd on other grounds sub
nom. Larson v. Warner Bros. Entm't, 504 F. App'x 586 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding that
photocopies of copyright registration certificates were admissible under Federal Rule of
Evidence 902(1)); Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, 780 F. Supp. 182,
184 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (same).
Here, plaintiff identifies these photocopies as duplicates of the original
certificates of copyright, and defendants raise no genuine questions regarding the original
certificates’ authenticity. The Court thus finds the copies of the certificates admissible to

CV-8962 (04/18)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
2:16-cv-08962-CAS-KSx
Date  February 14, 2019
MANUFACTURING AUTOMATION AND SOFTWARE SYSTEMS,
INC. v. KRISTOPHER HUGHES, ET AL.

the same extent as the original. These certificates are evidence only that the copyrights
covered by the registrations are valid and that plaintiff owns them. Plaintiff nonetheless
bears the burden of proving the meaning of the titles of the registered works listed in the
certificates, and the attachments to the certificates.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer 

CV-8962 (04/18)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

: 
00 
                         CMJ 

00 

Page 2 of 2