OLIVARES v. UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO et al
Filing
101
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 1/11/2016; For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' motion to compel (Docket Entry 59 ) is DENIED. (Sheets, Jamie)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
JULIÁN OLIV,\RES,
Plaintiff,
V.
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, et aL,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1,:1,5CY71,3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This mattet is before the Cout upon Defendants Margaret Greer ("Professor
Greer") and F,bzal¡eth Rhodes' ("Ptofessot Rhodes") (collectively "Defendants") Opposed
Motion to Compel Intertogatory Responses from Plaintiff Julián OLivares ("Professor
Olivares" and "Plainttf?'). (Docket Entry 59,) Plaintiff has filed responses to this motion.
(Docket Enffies 63, 96.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court will deny Defendants'
mot1on.
I. BACKGROUND1
Ptofessor Olivates filed this Complaint alleging copyright infringement and related
claims against Ptofessots Greet and Rhodes (and other named Defendants) for an alleged
infiingement
of a book
entitled "Novelas amorosas
y
ejemplares,
Sotomayot," which was created by Professor Olivares.
(See
by Maria de Zayas y
Tktttd Am. Complaint
fl
8,
Docket Fntry 27.) Professor Olivares alleges that his book "is a new and different version
I This case was originally filed
of North Carcltna.
(Jaø
in the Eastern District of Texas and transferred to the Middle District
Docket F,nty 72.) At the trme of the transfer, several motions were
pending, rncludrng the matter now before the Court,
of Novelas amorosas y ejemplares, contains a latge amount of material wholly odginal with
Plaintiff, and is copyrightable subject matter under the laws of the United States."
Qd.)
Professor Olivares alleges that Ptofessors Gteet and Rhodes published the book "Maria de
Zayas
y Sotomayor, Exemplary Tales of Love and Tales of Disillusion," which "included
odginal, copydghted material ftom Plaintiffls Copydghted Text, including at least nine
translated naratives from Plaintiffs Copyrþhted
Text."
(Id. n
n)
Discovery commenced
in this m^tter., and on March 4, 2015, Ptofessot Gteer served upon Ptofessot
Olivates
intetrogatories on several topics which Professot Olivates specifically lodged objections to
Intertogatories 2 and
3.
(See
Ex. 1, Docket E.rtty 59-2.) Professor Olivates subsequently
provided amended responses to Interrogatodes
Dissatisfìed
with PlaintifÎs
2
and
3.
(See
responses, Ptofessors Greet
8x.2, Docket Entty
59-3.)
and Rhodes conducted
^n
unsuccessful second telephone confetence, and subsequently fìled the pending motion to
compel complete intetrogatory responses from Ptofessots Olivares. On December 4,2015,
a headng was
held in this matter. (À4inute Entty dated 1,2/4/1,5.)
II. DISCUSSION
As a genetal tule, Fedetal Rule 26þ) ptovides general ptovisions tegarding the scope
of discovery:
Panies may obtain díscovery rcgardtng any nonprivileged matter that is
televant to any party's claim or defense and ptopottional to the needs of the
case, considering the impottance of the issues at stake in the action, the
amount in controversy, the patties' telative access to televant infotmation, the
patties' resources, the impottance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and
whethet the butden or expense of the ptoposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in
evidence to be discovetable.
2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(bX1). Discovery rules are to be accorded btoad and l-iberal construction.
See
Herbert u. I-ando,441 U.S. 1,53, 177 (1,979); and Hickman u. Ta/or, 329 U.S. 495, 507
(1,947). Nevertheless, a court m^y "issue an order
to protect
annoyance, embattassment, opptession, or undue butden
of
^
par|y
expense. . .
or petson from
."
Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(c)(1). District courts generally have broad discretion in managing discovery, including
whether to grant ot deny a motion to compel .
I-.ane
Star Steakhouse dY Saloon, Inc. u. Aþha of
Virginia, lruc., 43 F.3d 922, 929 (4th Cu. 1,995); Erdmarun u. Preferred Research, Inc. of Ceorgia, 852
F.2d788,792 (4th Cir. 1988).
Ptofessots Greer and Rhodes seek complete responses
to Intettogatoties 2
and 3
which state the following:
2. By page and line number, identift
response to Intetrog tory
Olivates.2
each portion
of any wotk identifìed
rn
No. 1 that constitutes the original authotship of
3.
By page and line number, identi$r each portion of The Gteet/Rhodes
\X/ork that constitutes the otiginal authotship of Olivates.
(E,". 1, Docket Entry 59-2.) In his otiginal response, Professor Olivates objected and later
ptovided a supplemental response to Intettogatory No. 2
Plaintiff objects that Defendants are attempting to have Plaintiff matshal his
case while discovety still proceeds. Plaintiff further objects to Defendants
attempting to requíre Plaintiff to use "pug, and line number," as page and line
number has nothing to do with inftingement. Plaintiff furthet objects to this
interrogatory because it seeks attorney wotk ptoduct. Plaintiff has specifically
identifìed the sections of the infringing work by Gteet and Rhodes that
infringe Plaintiff's copyrighted wotk.
After a conference of counsel on June 12, 2015, Plaintiff agrees to futthet
supplement by providing that Plaintiff believes the entite novel to be a tework
2 Interrogatory No.
1
states: "Identify each copyrighted work on which your copyrightable
infringement claim is based." (Ex. 1, Dochet Entry 59-2.)
J
of a masterpiece that nevet existed before being cteated by Juüan Olivates.
The plaintiff revised the 1.637 2"d ed, of Zaya's Novelas amorosas y exemplars,
thus creating an odginal text previously unpubüshed. He also introduced
cottections to the 1637 2d ed. base text (lrJ) from the 1'637 1',t ed.,princþs Q),
and the second 1638 ed. (H).
(E,". 1, Docket Er,try 59-2) (emphasis in original). As to Intettogatory No. 3, Plaintiffs
response states:
Plaintiff objects
to this interogatory as it is
vague, ambiguous and
nonsensical. Plaintiff futher objects that Defendants ate attempting to have
Plaintiff matshal his case while discovery still proceeds. Plaintiff futhet
objects to Defendant attempting to tequire Plaintiff to use "pug, and line
number," as page and line number has nothing to do with infringement.
Plaintiff further objects to this interrogatory because it seeks attorney wotk
ptoduct, Plaintiff has specifically identified the sections of the infringing wotk
by Greer and Rhodes that inftinge Plaintiffls copytighted wotk.
After a confetence of counsel on June 12, 201.5, Plaintiff agrees to futther
supplement by providing the chaptets ot sections of his novel inftinged by
Defendants: Âll pages and line numbers of Greet/Rhodes translations of "Al
que leyere" ) "To the Reader"; "Prólogo de un desapasion^do" ) "Prologue
by a Disintetested Person"; "Introducción" ) "Inttoduction"; "Aventutarse
petdiendo" ) "Takj.ng a Chance on Losing"; "Noche segunda" ) "Second
Night"; "El ptevenido enganado" >
quinta" > "Fifth Night"; "BI juez de su causa" > ["] The Judge of Het Own
Case." Plaintiff reserves the dght to supplement or amend this response.
(Id.)
Defendants Greer and Rhodes contend that Plaintìffs responses ate insuffìcient,3
mainly because Ptofessor Olivares' book "contains work that þe] does not even claim to
have created" and that Professor Olivares' "edition consists Iaryely of text written centuries
ago by María de Zayas
y Sotomayor." (Defs.' Mot. at 4, Docket Entry 59.) Defendants
futher contend that Professor Olivares only has "exclusive dghts in his otiginal, cteative
3
In a supplemental brief, Defendants furthet
assert that Professot Olivates' deposition is furthet
indication that his intetogatory responses ate insufficient. (Docket Entry 95.)
4
conttibution (if any),"
^nd
"no exclusive rights in Zayas' otiginal text," thus Professor
Olivares should distinguish between his contributions and that
(Id. at 4,
6.) Plaintiff contends that InterrogatoÅes 2
and 3 do
of the otiginal Zayas text.
not ask fot such information,
thus "Olivares cannot be otdeted to answer interrogatoties that were not asked." €1.',
Resp.
Bl at 3, Docket E.rtty
63.) Professor Olivares futther contends that he has answeted
the interrogatories by identifying his entite
work.
(1/.)
To establish copydght inftingemeÍrt, "à plaintiff must prove that it
copydght and that the defendant copied elements
protectable."
Cope/and u. Bieber,
compilation or
deriuatiue work
possesses a valid
of its wotk that are otiginal and
789 F.3d 484, 488 (4th Cir. 201'5). "The copytight
in
a
extends only to the matetial contributed by the authot of such
work, as distinguished ftom the pteexisting matetial employed in the work, and does not
imply any exclusive tight in the preexisting material." 17 U.S.C. S 103(b) (emphasis added).
In part, derivative work is deûned
elaborations,
or other
as
"la] wotk consisting of editotial tevisions, annotations,
modifìcations, whích, as a whole, represent an otiginal wotk of
authorship." 17 U.S.C. S 101 at definition for "detivative wotk." The intettogatories
seek
information regarding PlaintifPs odginality, which is the ctux of Plaintiffs copyright claim.
Darden u. Peters,488 F.3d 277
Serv. C0.,499 U.S.
'sine qaa non
of
, 286 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Fei¡t Pablicationt, Inc.
u. Raral Tel.
340,345 (1991) (",\ work must be original to be copyrightable; indeed, the
copyright
supplemental responses
is originality."'). At this stage, the Court finds
to be
Plaintiff's
sufficient based upon the questions posed
in
the
interrogatories. Plaintiff identifìes his entire novel as otiginal authotship, and identifies
chaptets and sections of his novel alleged to be inftinged upon by Defendants. Professots
5
Greer and Rhodes may disagree with PlaintifPs tesponse, but the Court finds that Ptofessot
Olivares did fafuly arìsv/er the interrogatoties in his supplemental response.a Thus, the Court
need not address PlaintifPs otiginal objections to the interrogatories. Defendants' motion to
compel is denied.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants'motion
to compel (Docket Ent y 59) is DENIED.
L
Tt/úcter
Stn*r tttqgi+nte
Ju dg'e
Jantary 1,1,,201.6
Dutham, North Catoltna
Defendants tely upon several cases, particulady Computer Assodales Inl'/, Inc. u. paest Software, Inc.,
No. 02 C 4721., 2003 WL 221,59022, at *2 (1.{.D. Ill. Sept. 1.7, 2003), to atgue that Plaintiff must
specifically disclose which elements he believes ate copytþhted and inftinged. The disttict coutt in
that case held, "[I]n order to allow defendants to adequately ptepa;re a defense,[the] plaintiff must, at
some point, specifically disclose the elements of source code it believes were copied and state why it
believes those elements were protected by law." (Id) In tesponse, Plaintiff telies upon the same
case which stated that it "find[s] no authority in support of [defendants'] argument." (Id.) This
Coutt fnds Comþater Assodalar unhelpful in light of the riature of the copyright claim before the
Court.
+
6
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?