OLIVARES v. UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO et al, No. 1:2015cv00713 - Document 101 (M.D.N.C. 2016)
Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
OLIVARES v. UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO et al Doc. 101 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, Dockets.Justia.com 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: ll 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
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
