Cambridge University Press et al v. Patton et al
Filing
310
ORDER that the 273 Motion in Limine to Overrule Objections to Evidence of Alleged Infringements is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs' Motion to Overrule Defendants' first objection is DENIED. Plaintiffs' Motion to Overrule Defendants' second objection is DENIED. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Overrule Defendants' third objection as to all allegedly infringed works for which Plaintiffs have provided copies of valid copyright registration certificates; for the allegedly infringed works for which copyright registration is still pending, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to OVerrule Defendants' third objection. The 274 Motion in Limine to Preclude the Admission of Recently Created Fair Use Checklists is DENIED. The Court will allow Defendants to seek to authenticate the documents at trial. The 272 Motion in Limine to Exclude Irrelevant Evidence in Accordance with Order of September 30, 2010 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are only permitted to introduce evidence of the alleged infringed works identified in Plaintiffs' August 20, 2010 filing and the parties' March 15, 2011 joint filing. The 277 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Alleged Infringement of Improperly-Asserted Copyrights is GRANTED. Plaintiffs may not introduce evidence related to alleged copyright infringement of works for which Plaintiffs have not produced a valid copyright registration certificate. Additionally, Plaintiffs may not introduce evidence related to alleged copyright infringement of works for which Plaintiffs have not provided any admissible evidence to show Plaintiffs' ownership of the copyright for the works. Signed by Judge Orinda D. Evans on 5/12/2011. (ank)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS;
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, INC.;
SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC.
Plaintiffs,
v.
OIPuty ark
CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:08-CV-1425-0DE
MARK P. BECKER, in his official
capacity as President of
Georgia State University; RISA
PALM, in her official capacity
as Senior Vice President for
Academic Affairs and Provost of
Georgia State University; J.L.
ALBERT, in his official
capacity as Georgia State
un~vers~ty Assoc~ate Provost
for Information Systems and
Technology; NANCY SEAMANS, in
her offic~al capacity as Dean
of Libraries at Georgia State
University; ROBERT F. HATCHER,
in his official capacity as
Vice Chair of the Board of
Regents of the University
system of Georgia; KENNETH R.
BERNARD, JR., JAMES A BISHOP,
FREDERICK E. COOPER, LARRY R.
ELLIS, FELTON JENKINS, W.
MANSFIELD JENNINGS, JR., JAMES
R. JOLLY, DONALD M. LEEBERN,
JR., WILLIAM NESMITH, JR.,
DOREEN STILES POITEVINT, WILLIS
J. POTTS, JR., WANDA YANCEY
RODWELL, KESSEL STELLING, JR.,
BENJAMIN J. TARBUTTON, III,
RICHARD L. TUCKER, ALLAN VIGIL,
and LARRY WALKER, in their
official capacities as members
of the Boara of Regents of the
University System of Georgia
Defendants.
ORDER
This civil case is before the Court on two Motions in Limine
filed by Plaintiffs
[DOC.
273 and Doc.
274],
to which Defendants
responded in opposition [Doc. 289 and Doc. 290] and Plaintiffs have
replied [DOC. 298 and Doc. 304]; and two Motions in Limine filed by
Defendants
[Doc.
272
and
Doc.
277],
to
which
Plaintiffs
have
responded in opposition [Doc. 287 and Doc. 288] and Defendants have
replied
[Doc.
301 and Doc.
302].
After considering the parties'
arguments, the Court rules as follows:
Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Overrule Objections to Evidence
of Alleged Infringements [Doc. 273] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part.
Plaintiffs moved this Court to overrule three of Defendants'
specific objections to the evidence of the alleged infringements in
the parties' March 15, 2011 Joint Filing:
(1) the objection that an
exclusive license to publish a work does not confer standing to bring
a
copyright infringement claim;
(2)
the objection that copyright
registration is a prerequisite to a suit for infringement of works
first published outside the United States; and (3) the objection that
Plaintiffs should have produced "deposit copies" of each allegedly
infringed work.
objection
is
Plaintiffs' Motion to Overrule Defendants'
DENIED;
Defendants
are
entitled
to
Plaintiffs prove ownership of certain copyrights at
ist
first
that
to show
they have standing to bring certain copyright infringement claims.
Plaintiffs'
DENIED;
Motion
Defendants
to
are
Overrule
Defendants'
entitled
to
insist
second
that
objection
Plaintiffs
is
make
certain factual showings at trial regarding whether certain allegedly
infringed works are "foreign works."
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs'
Motion to Overrule Defendants' third objection as to all allegedly
infringed works for which Plaintiffs have provided copies of valid
copyright registration certificates;
for the allegedly infringed
works for which copyright registration is still pending, the Court
DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to OVerrule Defendants' third objection.
2
Plaintiffs'
Motion
in
Limine
to
Preclude
the
Admission of
Recently Created Fair Use Checklists [Doc. 274] is DENIED; the Court
will allow Defendants to seek to authenticate the documents at trial.
Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Irrelevant Evidence in
Accordance with Order of September 30, 2010
[Doc. 272]
is GRANTED;
Plaintiffs are only permitted to introduce evidence of the alleged
infringed works identified in Plaintiffs' August 20, 2010 filing and
the parties' March 15, 2011 joint filing.
Defendants'
Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Alleged
Infringement of Improperly-Asserted Copyrights [Doc. 277] is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs may not introduce
evidence related to alleged copyright
infringement of works for which Plaintiffs have not produced a valid
copyright registration certificate.
Additionally, Plaintiffs may not
introduce evidence related to alleged copyright infringement of works
for which Plaintiffs have not provided any admissible evidence to
show Plaintiffs' ownership of the copyright for the works.
SO ORDERED, this _/~ day of May, 2011.
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?