Purzel Video GmbH v. Does 156, 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 168, 169, 170, 171, 175, 176, 177, 181, 182, 183, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 197 and 199

Filing 63

ORDER Affirming and Adopting Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 62 is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. ORDERED that Plaintiffs Amended Motion and Memorandum for Default Judgment Against Defendant Derrick Anderson (ECF No. 59) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor against Defendant Derrick Anderson by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 01/06/14.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01173-WYD-MEH
PURZEL VIDEO GmbH,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY MARTINEZ, and
DERRICK ANDERSON,
Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court in connection with Plaintiff’s Amended Motion
and Memorandum for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendant Derrick Anderson
[“Anderson”] filed November 13, 2013. This motion was referred to Magistrate Judge
Hegarty for a recommendation. A Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
were issued on December 11, 2013, and is incorporated herein by reference. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommends therein that Plaintiff’s Amended Motion
and Memorandum for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant Derrick Anderson
be granted in part and denied in part. (Recommendation at 1, 16.) Specifically, he first
notes that Defendant Anderson did not answer or respond to the Amended Complaint
before the deadline, and that an Entry of Default was docketed by the Clerk of the Court

on October 15, 2013. (Id. at 7-8.) He further notes that Anderson did not respond to
the motion for default judgment. (Id. at 8.)
It is then recommended that default judgment be entered in Plaintiff’s favor
against Anderson pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). (Recommendation at 9.) In
support of this, he finds that the Court has jurisdiction and that “Plaintiff has established
a violation of its copyrighted work by Defendant Anderson, in that a computer at
Defendant Anderson’s residence participated in an illegal download of its motion
picture.” (Id. at 10.) Thus, Magistrate Judge Hegarty finds that “Plaintiff has established
that Defendant Anderson copied Plaintiff’s copyright protected work” and “recommends
that the District Court find Defendant Anderson has committed a direct infringement of
the Copyright Act against Plaintiff as set forth in Count I of the Amended Complaint. (Id.
at 12-13.) He also recommends that the Court find that Plaintiff has demonstrated
Anderson’s liability as to contributory infringement as set forth in Count II of the
Amended Complaint. (Id. at 13.) As to damages, it is recommended that Anderson be
ordered to pay Plaintiff $2,250.00 in statutory damages as authorized by 17 U.S.C.
§ 504(c)(1), and $650.00 for attorney’s fees and costs as authorized by 17 U.S.C.
§ 505. (Id. at 15, 16.)
Finally, Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommends that the Court grant in part and
deny in part Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. (Recommendation at 15.) Thus, it is
recommended that Plaintiff’s request for an order directing Anderson to “destroy all
copies of Plaintiff’s Motion Picture” from “any computer hard drive or server without
Plaintiff’s authorization” that are within Defendant Anderson’s “possession, custody, or
-2-

control” be granted as reasonable. (Id.) On the other hand, Magistrate Judge Hegarty
recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s request for an order enjoining Anderson
from directly or indirectly infringing on Plaintiff’s copyrighted works, as he finds that
Plaintiff failed to proffer evidence sufficient to justify this request. (Id. at 15-16.)
Magistrate Judge Hegarty advised the parties that written objections were due
within fourteen (14) days after service of the Recommendation. (Recommendation at 1
n. 1.) Despite this advisement, no objections were filed to the Recommendation. No
objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review the Recommendation
“under any standard [I] deem[] appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167
(10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that “[i]t
does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's
factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party
objects to those findings”). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I review the
Recommendation to “satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of the
record.”1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.
Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error
on the face of the record. The Recommendation is well reasoned and persuasive. I
agree that Plaintiff should be granted default judgment against Defendant Anderson for
direct infringement of the Copyright Act and for contributory infringement as set forth in
Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint. I further agree with the recommendation on

1

Note, this standard of review is something less than a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard
of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

-3-

damages—that Anderson should pay Plaintiff $2,250.00 in statutory damages and
$650.00 for attorney’s fees and costs. Finally, I agree that Plaintiff’s request for
injunctive relief should be granted in part and denied in part as set forth in the
Recommendation. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge dated
December 11, 2013 (ECF No. 62) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance
therewith, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Motion and Memorandum for Default
Judgment Against Defendant Derrick Anderson (ECF No. 59) is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART; namely, it is granted as to the request for a default judgment
and for damages, and granted in part and denied in part as to the request for injunctive
relief. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor against
Defendant Derrick Anderson for direct copyright infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrighted
works and contributory infringement as set forth in Counts I and II of the Amended
Complaint. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Anderson shall pay Plaintiff the sum of
$2,250.00 in statutory damages and $650.00 for attorney’s fees and costs. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Anderson shall permanently destroy all
the digital media files relating to, and copies of, Plaintiff’s copyrighted work made or
used by him in violation of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights, as well as all master copies in his
possession, custody or control from which such copies may be reproduced. Finally, it is
-4-

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for “entry of preliminary and permanent
injunctions providing that [Defendant Anderson] shall be enjoined from directly or
indirectly infringing Plaintiff’s rights in the copyrighted Motion Picture” is denied.
Dated: January 6, 2014
BY THE COURT:
s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Senior United States District Judge

-5-