`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`Magistrate Judge Gudrun J. Rice
`
`Civil Action No. 06-cv-00249-WYD-GJR
`
`HOME DESIGN SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`B&B CUSTOM HOMES, LLC,
`DAVID BAGG, DENISE BAGG,
`BENNETT CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
`LARRY W. BENNETT, JOHN J. BENNETT,
`FRED BISHOP ENTERPRISES, INC.,
`FRED W. BISHOP III,
`INFINITY BUILDERS, INC. f/k/a CASTLE HOMES, INC.,
`WILLIAM J. FITZGERALD,
`MERRITT CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
`MERRITT L. SIXBEY, JR.,
`SUSAN MARIE SIXBEY,
`PAUL RIENSHE,
`SERRA CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
`GARY L. POUSH,
`SANDRA L. DORR,
`
`Defendants.
`_____________________________________________________________________________
`
`ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING THE DISCOVERABILITY OF
`PLAINTIFF’S LITIGATION REVENUE (Docket # 708)
`_____________________________________________________________________________
`
`THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion (docket # 708) for
`
`Reconsideration Regarding the Discoverability of Plaintiff’s Litigation Revenue. The matter is
`
`fully briefed and oral argument was heard in Grand Junction, Colorado on May 5, 2008.
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00249-CMA-GJR Document 770 Filed 05/30/08 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10
`
`For the reasons set forth below the Defendants’ Motion is granted in part and denied in
`
`part.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff Home Design Services (HDS) has sued numerous Defendants for alleged
`
`copyright infringement. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, home builders and their owners,
`
`engaged in copyright infringement by building homes copied from HDS copyrighted plans.
`
`Defendants previously sought to discover the amount of revenue Plaintiff generates from
`
`litigation-related activities. Defendants requested a ruling regarding the discoverability of
`
`information related to revenue Plaintiff receives from litigation in other copyright cases
`
`throughout the country, including amounts received from any verdicts, judgments, court decrees,
`
`and settlement agreements (“litigation revenue”). See Defendants’ Reply Brief (docket # 450 at
`
`3-4) in Support of Discoverability of Plaintiff’s Actual Damages.
`
`This Court denied Defendants’ request for inquiry into Plaintiff’s litigation revenue, by
`
`Order dated July 19, 2007 (docket # 542), by restricting discovery of Plaintiff’s actual damages
`
`solely to the plans at issue in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (docket # 353) from 2003 forward.
`
`By the terms of the July 19, 2007 Order, Defendants were granted leave to petition the court for
`
`reconsideration of the Order, upon additional evidence or argument presented by Defendants
`
`supporting further inquiry into Plaintiff’s actual damages substantiation.
`
`Defendants have now, by this Motion (docket # 708) before the Court, moved for
`
`reconsideration regarding the discoverability of Plaintiff’s litigation revenue. Defendants
`
`request that this Court reconsider the July 19, 2007 Order and grant Defendants leave to inquire
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00249-CMA-GJR Document 770 Filed 05/30/08 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10
`
`at depositions into Plaintiff’s litigation revenue from 1996 forward, require Plaintiff to produce
`
`documents, including settlement agreements, sufficient to identify with certainty Plaintiff’s gross
`
`litigation-related revenue from 1996 forward, and require Plaintiff to produce documents
`
`sufficient to identify with certainty how much of Plaintiff’s gross income is litigation related..
`
`In support of this Motion and their request for reconsideration of the discoverability of
`
`Plaintiff’s litigation revenue, the Defendants bring to the Court’s attention these additional
`
`arguments: 1) evidence of Plaintiff’s litigation revenue bears on Defendants’ affirmative
`
`defense of copyright misuse; 2) evidence of Plaintiff’s litigation revenue bears on the credibility
`
`of Plaintiff’s potential witnesses.
`
`STANDARD OF LAW
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) allows parties to:
`
`obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
`party’s claim or defense, including the existence, description, nature, custody,
`condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the
`identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For
`good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the
`subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be
`admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to
`the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`“Relevancy is to be construed more broadly during discovery than at trial.” Centurion
`
`Industries, Inc. v. Warren Steurer and Associates, 665 F.2d 323, 326 (10th Cir. 1981) “Relevancy
`
`is broadly construed at the discovery state of litigation and a request for discovery should be
`
`considered relevant if there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the
`
`subject matter of the action.” Flour Mills of America, Inc. v. D.F. Pace, 75 F.R.D. 676, 680 (10th
`
`Cir. 1977)
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00249-CMA-GJR Document 770 Filed 05/30/08 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10
`
`DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF COPYRIGHT MISUSE
`
`Defendants have raised the affirmative defense of copyright misuse. The copyright
`
`misuse doctrine is an equitable defense to a copyright infringement action that forbids the use of
`
`a copyright to secure an exclusive right or limited monopoly not granted by the copyright office
`
`and is contrary to public policy to grant. See 185 ALR Fed 123, citing Alcatel USA, Inc. v. DGI
`
`Technologies, Inc. 166 F.3d 772, 792 (5th Cir. 1999).
`
`Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that it holds a copyright and that Defendants
`
`infringed the copyright by advertising, designing or constructing and participating in the
`
`construction of a residence which was copied largely or was an exact duplicate of a design or
`
`plan of Plaintiff.
`
`Defendants bear the burden of establishing their affirmative defense of copyright misuse.
`
`Defendants must prove that Plaintiff “illegally extended its monopoly beyond the scope of the
`
`copyright or violated the public policies underlying the copyright laws.” In re Indep. Serv. Orgs.
`
`Antitrust Litig., 85 F.Supp.2d 1130, 1175 (D.Kan 2000).
`
`Defendants argue that Plaintiff is unlawfully extending its purported monopoly by
`
`seeking protection over non-protectable elements of its plan, such as common layouts and floor
`
`plans. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s plans contain largely generic, unoriginal elements and
`
`thus are not afforded protection under copyright law. Defendants further assert that Plaintiff is
`
`violating public policy underlying the copyright laws by using its purported copyright as a
`
`mechanism to generate more revenue through litigation than through the actual plan sales.
`
`Defendants apparently find it difficult to comprehend that a particular arrangement of
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00249-CMA-GJR Document 770 Filed 05/30/08 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10
`
`three bedrooms, living room, kitchen and bath, for example, is subject to the protection of the
`
`federal copyright laws. But protection for architectural plans and designs is afforded by the
`
`federal copyright laws.
`
`Copyright protection is currently embodied in the Copyright Act of 1976. It was not until
`
`1990 that the Copyright Act was amended to extend its protection to the overall shape of three-
`
`dimensional works of architecture. Amended section 101 defines “architectural work” as “the
`
`design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building,
`
`architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form and elements in the design,
`
`but does not include individual standard features.” The amended statute now makes it an
`
`infringement to construct a building that copies from another’s protectable two-or three-
`
`dimensional design.
`
`The Honorable Wiley D. Daniel, in the case cited by the Defendants, Medias & Co, Inc.
`
`v. Ty, Inc., 106 F.Supp.2d 1132 (D.Colo. 2000), discussed the difficulties inherent in separating
`
`the ideas, and basic utilitarian functions, which are not protectable, from the particular
`
`expression of the work, which is protectable and copyrightable.
`
`The Medias v. Ty case, supra, dealt with an alleged infringement of a Beanie Baby plush
`
`toy, specifically a yellow duck with a bright orange bill and bright orange feet named
`
`“Quackers.” Judge Daniel found that the idea of a plush duck is not protectable. Neither is the
`
`fact that the duck has a bill, bright yellow plush fabric for the head and body, two webbed feet
`
`and two eyes. However, the particular way in which Ty expressed the idea of a duck was
`
`protected. Medias v Ty, supra, at 1137
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00249-CMA-GJR Document 770 Filed 05/30/08 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10
`
`Judge Daniel found that the particularized expression of the Beanie Baby “Quackers”
`
`included “the unique shape of Quackers’ head and body, combined with bright yellow plush
`
`fabric for the head and body, combined with a bright orange, less plush flared bill, combined
`
`with the same bright orange, less plush webbed feet attached directly to the body without
`
`intervening legs, combined with two round black shiny eyes made of hard plastic, placed on the
`
`front of the face rather than the sides of the head; combined with eyebrows made out of black
`
`thread; combined with no wings,....” Id. at 1137 Judge Daniel found that the particularized
`
`expression of “Quackers” was protected by the Copyright Act.
`
`The Plaintiff seeks to establish that the particular way in which rooms, their sizes, their
`
`orientation, their arrangement have been placed in a plan or design is copyrightable and
`
`protectable. The Plaintiff seeks to establish that the particular expression contained in the HDS
`
`plans, made up of elements common to all plans, such as doors and windows and kitchens and
`
`dining rooms and living rooms and bedrooms and bathrooms, is original, copyrightable and
`
`protectable.
`
`The fact that the Plaintiff has been successful in protecting copyrighted designs and has
`
`generated revenue through litigation would not appear to pertain to the elements of the defense
`
`of copyright misuse. The fact that the Plaintiff has litigated claims under the federal Copyright
`
`Act and has been successful in that litigation fact does not indicate to this Court that the Plaintiff
`
`has engaged in copyright misuse. The Defendants must establish that the Plaintiff extended its
`
`purported monopoly beyond the scope of the copyright. I find that litigation revenue of the
`
`Plaintiff in other cases around the country does not tend to show that the Plaintiff illegally
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00249-CMA-GJR Document 770 Filed 05/30/08 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10
`
`extended its monopoly beyond the scope of the copyright laws. I find that the information
`
`sought by Defendants with regard to Plaintiff’s litigation revenue from around the country is
`
`unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding the Defendants’ affirmative
`
`defense of copyright misuse, based on an extension of a purported monopoly.
`
`Nor does the fact that the Plaintiff has recovered more in litigation revenue than the cost
`
`of the plans tend to show that the Plaintiff has violated the public policy underlying copyright
`
`law.
`
`Section 504(b) of the Copyright Act protects the copyright holder by allowing the copy
`
`right holder to recover not only the actual damages but also any of the infringer’s profits. As the
`
`Plaintiff states in its brief, damages are awarded to compensate the copyright owner for losses
`
`from the infringement and profits are awarded to prevent the infringer from unfairly benefitting
`
`from a wrongful act. Section 504(b) is punitive in nature because it is designed to deter
`
`copyright infringement. See H.R.Rep. No. 94-1476, 94th Cong., 2nd Sess., 161 (1976), U.S. Code
`
`Cong. & Admin. News 1976, pp. 5659, 5777 as cited in Plaintiff’s Response (docket # 746 at
`
`page 3 of 6). Damages are awarded to compensate the copyright owner for losses from the
`
`infringement, and profits are awarded to prevent the infringer from unfairly benefitting from a
`
`wrongful act.
`
`Even if revenue from litigation exceeds the cost of the plans, there is nothing in this fact
`
`that would tend to show that the Plaintiff has acted in violation of the public policies underlying
`
`copyright law. I find that litigation revenue is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
`
`of information tending to show that the Plaintiff has violated the public policies underlying
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00249-CMA-GJR Document 770 Filed 05/30/08 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10
`
`copyright law. I consequently find that the information sought by the Defendants with regard to
`
`the Plaintiff’s litigation revenue from cases brought around the country is unlikely to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence in support of the Defendants’ copyright misuse defense based
`
`on violation of public policy.
`
`LITIGATION REVENUE AS BEARING
`ON CREDIBILITY OF PLAINTIFF’S WITNESSES
`
`Defendants also assert that information with regard to Plaintiff’s litigation revenue would
`
`tend to show that Plaintiff’s potential witnesses have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of this
`
`litigation. Here I find the Defendants’ arguments more persuasive. Defendants should be
`
`allowed to make limited inquiry into Plaintiff’s litigation revenue to discover how much is at
`
`stake for the witnesses. I find that for this limited purpose litigation revenue is discoverable
`
`pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) in so far as the witnesses have received litigation bonuses or
`
`litigation related income. The Plaintiff has stated that it is willing to produce, by way of
`
`supplemental
`
`interrogatory answer,
`
`the aggregate amount received
`
`through
`
`litigation.
`
`(Plaintiff’s Response - docket # 746 at page 4 of 6) The Plaintiff shall do so. The Defendants
`
`shall be allowed to inquire of Plaintiff’s potential witnesses, including Plaintiff’s CEO, experts,
`
`and fact witnesses, with regard to their pecuniary interest in litigation revenues. The Defendants
`
`may seek to discover exactly how much is at stake for the witnesses by reviewing how much
`
`money the witnesses have made as a consequence of litigation revenue in the past. The litigation
`
`revenue is discoverable as being reasonably calculated to lead to impeachment evidence. The
`
`Defendants are not, however, entitled to the discovery of particular verdicts, judgments, court
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00249-CMA-GJR Document 770 Filed 05/30/08 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10
`
`decrees and settlement agreements. Nor shall the Defendants be permitted to obtain the
`
`documents, including settlement agreements, which would identify Plaintiff’s gross litigation
`
`related revenue from 1996 forward.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`I find and conclude that discovery of information related to revenue Plaintiff has received
`
`from litigation in other copyright cases throughout the country is not reasonably calculated to
`
`lead to the discovery of admissible evidence with regard to the Defendants’ affirmative defense
`
`of copyright misuse. I find and conclude that discovery of limited litigation related revenue is
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence with regard to the bias of
`
`the Plaintiff’s potential witnesses and with regard to potential impeachment of Plaintiff’s
`
`witnesses.
`
`ORDER
`
`It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff will produce, by way of a supplemental
`
`interrogatory answer, the aggregate amount of money received through litigation from 1996
`
`forward.
`
`It is hereby ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration regarding the
`
`discoverability of Plaintiff’s litigation revenue is GRANTED to the extent that the Defendants
`
`shall be permitted to inquire at depositions with regard to the pecuniary interest of Plaintiff’s
`
`potential witnesses in the outcome of the litigation, by reviewing how much money Plaintiff has
`
`made in litigation revenue in the past.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00249-CMA-GJR Document 770 Filed 05/30/08 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10
`
`It is ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion is DENIED with regard to the request to
`
`require Plaintiff to produce documents, including settlement agreements, sufficient to identify
`
`Plaintiff’s gross litigation-related revenue, in support of the Defendants’ affirmative defense of
`
`copyright misuse.
`
`Dated this 30th day of May, 2008.
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`s/ Gudrun J. Rice
`______________________________________
`Gudrun J. Rice
`U.S. Magistrate Judge
`
`10