-3-12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728work, Plaintiff became concerned that the billed hours were excessive and that WhiteZuckerman had been churning his client’s file. (
. ¶¶ 27-28.)On March 26, 2007, Plaintiff sent an e-mail to the Consumer AttorneysAssociation of Los Angeles (“CAALA”) listserv, which stated in its entirety as follows:“Has anyone had a problem with White, Zuckerman . . . cpas including their economistemployee Venita McMorris over billing or trying to churn the file?”
(SW Opp’n, SternDecl. ¶ 3 (ellipsis in original).)
This statement—the subject of Plaintiff’s copyrightinfringement claim—was posted on the CAALA listserv. (
.)At the time, both Plaintiff and Defendant Robert Weinstein were members of theCAALA listserv. (2nd Am. Compl. ¶¶ 16-17.) Robert Weinstein accessed the CAALAlistserv e-mails containing Plaintiff’s writing, which he forwarded in an e-mail to hissister, Defendant Sara Weinstein, who was a client of White Zuckerman. Sara Weinsteinthen forwarded the e-mail containing Plaintiff’s writing to White Zuckerman.
. ¶¶ 41-42; McMorris Depo. at 9:17-10:16.) On September 5, 2009, the United States CopyrightOffice issued Plaintiff a certificate of registration for his listserv post. (RW Opp’n, Ex.2.)Plaintiff asserts that he holds a valid copyright and that Defendants’ acts—copyingand distributing his listserv post—constituted both copyright infringement andcontributory infringement. (2nd Am. Compl. ¶¶ 136, 140; RW Opp’n, Stern Decl. ¶ 17.)
The Court reproduces the whole of Plaintiff’s e-mail so that the ensuing discussion of originality and fair use is not hopelessly abstract. The Court’s “unauthorized reproduction” of Plaintiff’scopyrighted work is, as Judge Posner has succinctly put it, “a good example of the fair-use doctrine inaction.”
Ty, Inc. v. Publ’ns Int’l Ltd.
, 292 F.3d 512, 519 (7th Cir. 2002).
Citations to the record prefaced with “RW” refer to documents filed in support of or inopposition to Defendant Robert Weinstein’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Similarly, citationsprefaced with “SW” refer to documents associated with Defendant Sara Weinstein’s Motion.
Plaintiff appears open to the possibility that Defendants transmitted his listserv post to WhiteZuckerman in some other manner. (
, 2nd Am. Compl. ¶ 41.) Because the Court ultimatelyfinds that any copying and distribution of Plaintiff’s writing was fair use, the exact method of itstransmission is immaterial. Defendant Robert Weinstein does not concede and Defendant SaraWeinstein disputes that any transmission occurred.
Case 2:09-cv-01986-DMG-PLA Document 181 Filed 02/10/11 Page 3 of 30 Page ID#:2920