Tag: Copyright Infringement

1
Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc. et al. (D. Nev. 2020)
2
Oppenheimer v. Episcopal Communicators, Inc. (W.D. N.C. 2020)
3
Berg v. M & F Western Products, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2020)

Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc. et al. (D. Nev. 2020)

Key Insight: Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel based on Defendant’s (categorical) objections and assertion of attorney-client privilege over (software) source code in responding to discovery requests; Plaintiff specifically cited Defendant’s failure to provide an itemized privilege log for its objections. Defendant filed a Motion to seal the redacted information that it provided to Plaintiff despite the privilege objections.

The Court upheld Defendant’s objections, noting that objection(s) need not be in the form of a privilege log. Moreover, the Court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Seal the redacted information that it provided to Plaintiff despite its objections.

Nature of Case: Intellectual Property, Copyright Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source Code

Case Summary

Oppenheimer v. Episcopal Communicators, Inc. (W.D. N.C. 2020)

Key Insight: The litigation was over Defendant’s purported copyright infringement due to Defendant’s publishing of a copyrighted photograph on its website. Defendant served its first discovery requests on Plaintiff; Plaintiff provided an untimely response with a number of objections including attorney-client privilege (without a privilege log), and “boilerplate objections”. Defendant filed a Motion to Compel, which was granted. Plaintiff provided a supplemental response, however, Defendant filed an additional Motion to Compel, and also sought attorney’s fees for the Motion. Besides privilege, at issue was Plaintiff’s objection to the proportionality of Defendant’s discovery requests.

The Court did not find Plaintiff’s “boilerplate objections”, including proportionality, persuasive. And found that they lack specificity and/or merit. Plaintiff’s objection(s) of confidentiality on the grounds of settlement, proprietary business information was rejected. Similarly, the Court rejected the Plaintiff’s privilege objection(s) due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide a privilege log.

In summary, the Court found that Plaintiff’s assertion of boilerplate objections (and failure to provide a privilege log) consisted of grounds overruling all of his objections. The Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel, and similarly, ordered Defendant to provide it an estimate of the attorney’s fees spent on the Motion (for the purpose of awarding Defendant attorney’s fees).

Nature of Case: Intellectual Property, Copyright Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Digital Photograph

Case Summary

Berg v. M & F Western Products, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2020)

Key Insight: Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff that was granted by the Court. The Court ordered Plaintiff to conduct a full search of all documents in hard and electronic formats conduct, including but not limited to all data on social media platforms, demand letters issued by Plaintiff or his counsel to third parties referencing this case, documents and materials of Plaintiff’s company, and documents and materials related to the litigation that are in the custody and control of Plaintiff’s current or prior lawyers. The Motion’s request(s) that Plaintiff be compelled to attend his deposition and testify at trial in-person were denied.

Nature of Case: Copyright Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media, Electronic Documents

Case Summary

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.