Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Maremont v. SFDG, 10- C 7811 (N.D. Ill.; Dec. 7, 2011)

Maremont v. SFDG, 10- C 7811 (N.D. Ill.; Dec. 7, 2011)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,513|Likes:
Court grants and denies in part summary judgment motion against employee who alleged improper access of Twitter/Facebook account by employer.
Court grants and denies in part summary judgment motion against employee who alleged improper access of Twitter/Facebook account by employer.

More info:

Published by: Venkat Balasubramani on Dec 08, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

07/08/2013

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOISEASTERN DIVISION
JILL E. MAREMONT,))Plaintiff,))Case No. 10 C 7811v.))SUSAN FREDMAN DESIGN GROUP,)LTD. and SUSAN FREDMAN,))Defendants.)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AMY J. ST. EVE, District Court Judge:In her Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Jill E. Maremont alleges violations of theLanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701,
et seq.,
against Defendants Susan Fredman Design Group, Ltd. (“SFDG”) and Susan Fredman (Counts Iand II).
See
28 U.S.C. § 1331. Pursuant to the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, Maremont alsoalleges a claim under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, 765 ILCS 1075,
et seq.
(Count III) and acommon law right to privacy claim (Count IV).
See
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff’s motion forpartial summary judgment as to Counts I, II, and III of the Second Amended Complaint – bothpursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For the following reasons, the Court grants inpart and denies in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denies Plaintiff’s motionfor partial summary judgment. The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Illinois Right of Publicity Actclaim as alleged in Count III and common law right to privacy claim as alleged in Count IV withprejudice.
Case: 1:10-cv-07811 Document #: 58 Filed: 12/07/11 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:843
 
BACKGROUNDI.Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1
Local Rule 56.1 assists the Court by “organizing the evidence, identifying undisputedfacts, and demonstrating precisely how each side propose[s] to prove a disputed fact withadmissible evidence.”
 Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs.
, 233 F.3d 524, 527 (7th Cir.2000). “The Rule is designed, in part, to aid the district court, ‘which does not have theadvantage of the parties’ familiarity with the record and often cannot afford to spend the timecombing the record to locate the relevant information,’ in determining whether a trial isnecessary.”
 Delapaz v. Richardson,
634 F.3d 895, 899 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). LocalRule 56.1(a)(3) requires the moving party to provide “a statement of material facts as to whichthe moving party contends there is no genuine issue.”
Cracco v. Vitran Exp., Inc.,
559 F.3d 625,632 (7th Cir. 2009). “The opposing party is required to file ‘a response to each numberedparagraph in the moving party’s statement, including, in the case of any disagreement, specificreferences to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon.”
 Id.
(citing N.D. Ill. R. 56.1(b)(3)(B)). Also, Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) requires the nonmoving partyto present a separate statement of additional facts that requires the denial of summary judgment.
See Ciomber v. Cooperative Plus, Inc.,
527 F.3d 635, 643-44 (7th Cir. 2008).The purpose of Local Rule 56.1 statements is to identify the relevant admissible evidencesupporting the material facts, not to make factual or legal arguments.
See Cady v. Sheahan,
467F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 2006) (“statement of material facts did [] not comply with Rule 56.1 asit failed to adequately cite the record and was filled with irrelevant information, legal arguments,and conjecture”). Therefore, the Court will not address the parties’ legal and factual arguments2
Case: 1:10-cv-07811 Document #: 58 Filed: 12/07/11 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:844
 
made in their Rule 56.1 statements and responses.
See System Dev. Integration, LLC v.Computer Sciences Corp.,
739 F.Supp.2d 1063, 1068 (N.D. Ill. 2010). Moreover, therequirements for responses under Local Rule 56.1 are “not satisfied by evasive denials that donot fairly meet the substance of the material facts asserted.”
 Bordelon,
233 F.3d at 528.The Court may also disregard statements and responses that do not properly cite to therecord.
See Cady,
467 F.3d at 1060;
Cichon v. Exelon Generation Co., LLC,
401 F.3d 803, 809-10 (7th Cir. 2005). Because Defendants failed to respond to Maremont’s Rule 56.1 Statement of Additional Facts, all of Maremont’s additional facts are deemed admitted.
See
N.D. Ill. LocalRule 56.1(b)(3)(C);
Parra v. Neal,
614 F.3d 635, 636 (7th Cir. 2010).
II.Relevant Facts
Defendant SFDG is an interior design firm headquartered in Chicago and incorporated inthe State of Illinois. (R. 39, Defs.’ Rule 56.1 Stmt. Facts ¶ 1.) Defendant Fredman owns SFDG.(
 Id 
. ¶ 2.) During the relevant time period, SFDG employed Maremont as the Director of Marketing, Public Relations, and E-commerce. (
 Id 
. ¶ 3.) Maremont’s annual compensationincluded a bonus contingent upon SFDG’s gross sales exceeding certain threshold levels. (
 Id 
. ¶14.) Accordingly, Maremont’s social media efforts to promote SFDG’s sales qualified her forbonuses. (
 Id.
¶ 15.) During the course of Maremont’s employment at SFDG, she became wellknown in the Chicago design community and had developed a personal Twitter following of approximately 1,250 people. (R. 44, Pl.’s Rule 56.1 Stmt. Add’l Facts ¶ 34.)As part of a social media marketing campaign for SFDG, Maremont created the SFDGblog titled “
 Designer Diaries: Tales from the Interior 
” that was hosted on SFDG’s website. (
 Id 
. ¶ 40; Defs.’ Stmt. Facts ¶ 5.) Although it is undisputed that Maremont opened a Twitter account3
Case: 1:10-cv-07811 Document #: 58 Filed: 12/07/11 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:845

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->