Dantonio v. Southwest Educational Development Corporation et al

Filing 44

ORDER AND REASONS denying 29 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 3/20/2012. (lag, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARYLOU DANTONIO, PH.D.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 11-1477

SOUTHWEST EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
JILL B. SLACK, PH.D., & LOUISIANA
CHILDREN’S RESEARCH CENTER FOR
DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING

SECTION “B”(5)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment by
Defendant, The Louisiana Children’s Research Center for Development
and Learning, d/b/a Center for Development & Learning of Metairie
(“CDL”) (Rec. Doc. No. 29), opposed by Plaintiff MaryLou Dantonio
(Rec. Doc. No. 30). For the following reasons, the Motion is
DENIED, without prejudice to reurge at the close of discovery.
In this action, brought under federal copyright and trademark
law, Plaintiff Dr. Dantonio alleges that defendants CDL, Dr. Jill
Slack,

and

infringed

the
on

Southeast
Plaintiff’s

Educational
copyright

Development

Corporation

rights

making

by

and

distributing Dr. Dantonio’s work without her authorization. (Rec.
Doc. No. 1).
Defendant CDL contends that because co-defendant Dr. Slack
misrepresented the materials to be her own original work, CDL is an

1

innocent infringer liable only for statutory penalties of $200.1
Plaintiff Dr. Dantonio contends that the motion for summary
judgment in premature in that neither party has developed factual
information

regarding

CDL’s

willfulness

or

innocence

in

distributing the materials.
Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions,
interrogatory

answers,

and

admissions,

together

with

any

affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986). A genuine issue exists if the evidence
would

allow

a

reasonable

jury

to

return

a

verdict

for

the

nonmovant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248,
(1986). Although the Court must consider the evidence with all
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party, the nonmovant must produce specific facts to demonstrate
that a genuine issue exists for trial. Webb v. Cardiothoracic
Surgery Assocs. of N. Texas, 139 F.3d 532, 536 (5th Cir. 1998). The
nonmovant

must

go

beyond

the

pleadings

1

and

use

affidavits,

Defendant CDL originally contended also that its limited
distribution of the seminar materials does not constitute
infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyright. In its reply
memorandum (Rec. Doc. No. 33), CDL withdrew its argument on the
merits of the infringement claim, and argued only its innocent
infringer status. CDL’s status as an innocent infringer is thus
the only issue considered in this motion for summary judgment.

2

depositions, interrogatory responses, admissions, or other evidence
to establish a genuine issue. Id. Accordingly, conclusory rebuttals
of the pleadings are insufficient to avoid summary judgment.
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enter., Inc., 7 F.3d 1203, 1207 (5th
Cir. 1993).
The mere argued existence of a factual dispute does not defeat
an otherwise properly supported motion. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). However, if the respondent shows by
affidavit or declaration that it cannot present facts essential to
justify its opposition, the court may defer consideration of or
deny the motion, allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or
to take discovery, or issue any other appropriate order. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(d). Rule 56(d) motions are generally favored and should
be liberally granted. Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s Inc., 939
F.2d 1257, 1267 (5th Cir. 1991). The rule is designed to safeguard
against

premature

or

improvident

grants

of

summary

judgment.

Equipment Leasing, LLC v. Three Deuces, Inc., 2011 WL 1326931
(E.D.La. 2011), citing Washington v. Allstate Ins. Co., 901 F.2d
1281, 1285 (5th Cir. 1990). The nonmoving party invoking Rule 56(d)
must show how additional discovery will defeat a summary judgment
motion, that is, will create a genuine dispute of material fact.
Equipment Leasing, LLC v. Three Deuces, Inc., 2011 WL 1326931 (E.D.
La. 2011).
Plaintiff correctly points out that CDL’s state of mind --

3

innocence or willfulness -- is material to its status as an
innocent

infringer.

Although

CDL

supported

its

contention

of

innocence with the affidavit attached to its motion for summary
judgment, the Plaintiff has cited to several factual issues that,
if developed further, might defeat this summary judgment motion,
namely what knowledge CDL had of the copyright prior to and at the
time of the dissemination, CDL’s access to properly copyrighted
copies of the work at issue, and the nature and extent of the
dissemination. It would be unfair to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims
before she has completed factual discovery into these material
issues. However, the Plaintiff is warned to avoid proceeding with
patently false claims if discovery reveals no material factual
disputes relative to CDL’s knowledge of alleged infringement at
pertinent times.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 20th day of March, 2012.

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4