Edwards et al v. Raymond et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 6/5/2013. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ZACHARIA L. EDWARDS, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
USHER TERRY RAYMOND IV, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

No.

12 C 7165

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Universal Music Corp. (“Universal,” mistakenly named in the
Complaint as “Universal Music Corporation (n/k/a ‘Universal Music
Group, Inc.’”), one of the defendants in this multidefendant
copyright infringement action, has filed its Answer to the
Complaint.

This memorandum order is issued sua sponte because

Universal’s pleading errors require a do-over of that Answer.
To begin with, the pleading fails to conform to the
requirement of this District Court’s LR 10.1, which is not just a
technical provision, but rather has an obvious constructive
purpose.

Lead counsel is apparently a partner in the New York

office of Jenner & Block, LLP, but that does not relieve her of
the responsibility to become familiar with and comply with such
local rules--and the error is particularly difficult to
understand where, as here, Jenner & Block’s principal office is
in Chicago and one of the lawyers here has also signed onto the
Answer.
Next, Answer ¶1 is simply wrong in stating that no response

is needed to Complaint ¶1 because “it states a legal conclusion.”
In that respect, see App’x ¶2 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001).

So Answer ¶1 is

stricken (with leave to plead over, of course).
Next, although the vast majority of the Complaint’s
allegations have been met with a minor variant of the disclaimer
that gives rise to deemed denials under Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”)
8(b)(5), any affirmative defenses (“ADs”) that Universal wishes
to advance (see Rule 8(c)) must operate on the premise that the
Complaint’s allegations are true--see App’x ¶5 to State Farm.
That being so, ADs (1), (2) and (4) are stricken.

In addition,

others among Universal’s package of purported ADs are
problematic:
1.

AD (3) simply picks several items from the laundry

list set out in Rule 8(c) without providing any predicate
for the assertion of the listed defenses.

Federal pleading

is notice pleading, to which defendants as well as
plaintiffs ought to adhere, and a totally uninformative
statement of a legal doctrine does not do the job.

AD (3)

is therefore also stricken, but without prejudice to the
possible advancement of fleshed-out ADs that properly inform
plaintiffs’ counsel and this Court of Universal’s
contentions.
2.

Because Complaint ¶31 includes Universal among the

2

defendants who allegedly copyrighted the musical composition
that is said to have infringed plaintiffs’ copyright, AD (5)
also needs fleshing out to explain Universal’s asserted lack
of complicity in the infringement.
3.

ADs (6), (7) and (9) similarly require more

explication to fit the concept of notice pleading.
4.

That is true of ADs (7) and (9).

Because what has been set out here calls for a completely
new responsive pleading rather than an amendment to the Answer,
the entire existing Answer is stricken.

Universal is ordered to

file a self-contained Amended Answer (including any surviving
ADs) on or before June 19, 2013.
In addition, no charge is to be made to Universal by its
counsel for the added work and expense incurred in correcting
counsel’s errors.

Universal’s counsel are ordered to apprise

their client to that effect by letter, with a copy to be
transmitted to this Court’s chambers purely as an informational
matter (not for filing).

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

June 5, 2013

3