`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`LESTER LEFKOWITZ,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`CASE NO. 15-cv-08875
`
`Hon. Ronald A. Guzman
`Magistrate Judge Sheila M. Finnegan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`McGRAW-HILL GLOBAL EDUCATION
`HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC and McGraw-Hill School
`
`ANSWER
`
`Education Holdings, LLC (here, collectively “MHE”), through their undersigned counsel,
`
`pursuant to Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby respond to the Complaint
`
`of Plaintiff Lester Lefkowitz (Dkt. No. 1, Oct. 6, 2015) with the following Answer
`
`corresponding to the paragraphs set out in the Complaint:
`
`Statement of Action
`
`1.
`
`MHE admits that this purports to be an action for copyright infringement and
`
`breach of contract by Plaintiff Lester Lefkowitz (“Lefkowitz”). MHE lacks sufficient
`
`information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 1 of the
`
`Complaint, and on that basis denies the remaining allegations.
`
`2.
`
`MHE admits the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint
`
`Parties
`
`{00905293;v1}
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-01255-KPF Document 19 Filed 12/28/15 Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`3.
`
`MHE admits that the named defendants in this action are limited liability
`
`companies organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, and that it is a publisher of
`
`textbooks and other educational products, and that it sells such books and products in this
`
`District, as well as elsewhere. MHE denies that any of Lefkowitz’s photographs in this suit were
`
`unlawfully reproduced by MHE. MHE denies all other allegations of Paragraph 3 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`4.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint are legal conclusions
`
`to which no answer is required. Nevertheless, MHE agrees that this Court has subject-matter
`
`jurisdiction over the claims raised in the Complaint.
`
`Venue
`
`5.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint are legal conclusions
`
`to which no answer is required. Nevertheless, MHE agrees that this District is one of many
`
`across the country in which venue may be properly situated under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). MHE
`
`denies, however, that this District is the most convenient or appropriate venue for this action in
`
`light of the related case previously filed by Lefkowitz against MHE in the Southern District of
`
`New York, and MHE affirmatively alleges that the sole reason for Lefkowitz’s selection of this
`
`District as the venue for this action is to forum-shop and thereby avoid the familiarity that the
`
`Southern District of New York already has obtained concerning his claims.
`
`Facts
`
`6.
`
`MHE is unable to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint
`
`because it fails to identify which exclusive copyright right Lefkowitz purports to own in the
`
`photographs cited in Exhibit 1 to the Complaint, and on that basis, MHE denies the allegations.
`
`{00905293;v1}
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-01255-KPF Document 19 Filed 12/28/15 Page 3 of 12
`
`
`
`MHE further affirmatively states that Exhibit 1 is a summary exhibit for which the supporting
`
`documentation has not been attached or otherwise made available to MHE, and further that it
`
`was not created by Lefkowitz, but rather by his counsel, and it reflects the opinions, work-
`
`product, and assumptions of his counsel. As a result, absent adequate supporting foundation
`
`from Lefkowitz’s attorneys, the summary chart is inadmissible. MHE denies any inference,
`
`implication, or assertion in or drawn from Exhibit 1 that is inconsistent with any document that
`
`Lefkowitz may later produce to support the chart.
`
`7.
`
`MHE lacks sufficient information to determine the truth of the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, and on that basis the allegations are denied. MHE further
`
`incorporates its response to Paragraph 6 of the Complaint. MHE affirmatively alleges that a
`
`citation to a copyright registration number, as listed in Exhibit 1 to the Complaint, is insufficient
`
`to identify the registration status of any specific photograph because the copyright registration
`
`numbers here refer to registrations of unspecified, mass groups of photographs, and absent
`
`evidence that the particular photo was submitted with the particular copyright registration, there
`
`is no evidence that the particular photo has been registered.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`MHE admits the allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
`
`MHE lacks sufficient information to determine the truth of the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 9 of the Complaint and on that basis the allegations are denied. MHE further lacks
`
`sufficient information to determine the authenticity or completeness of the documents attached as
`
`Exhibits 2 and 3, and on that basis, MHE denies their admissibility.
`
`10.
`
`The allegations of Paragraph 10 are legal conclusions to which no answer is
`
`required. Nevertheless, MHE denies Lefkowitz’s allegations to the extent they purport to assert
`
`{00905293;v1}
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-01255-KPF Document 19 Filed 12/28/15 Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`or imply that Getty Images lacked authority to enter into transactions with MHE under which
`
`MHE used the Lefkowitz photos at issue in this action.
`
`11. MHE admits that during the referenced period from 2004 to 2012, as well as
`
`before, and after, MHE and Getty Images worked under successive agreements pursuant to
`
`which Getty authorized MHE to use Getty’s photos in MHE’s books and other products, subject
`
`to the terms of the various successive agreements. MHE denies that the invoice numbers
`
`referenced in Exhibit 1 to the Complaint accurately identify the terms of the agreements under
`
`which Getty authorized MHE’s use of the Lefkowitz photos at issue in this action. MHE denies
`
`all other allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint. MHE further incorporates its response to
`
`Paragraph 6 with regard to the claim chart in Exhibit 1 to the Complaint.
`
`12. MHE denies the allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
`
`13. MHE denies the allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
`
`14. MHE denies the allegations of Paragraph 14 of the Complaint. MHE further
`
`incorporates its response to Paragraph 6 with regard to the claim chart in Exhibit 1 to the
`
`Complaint.
`
`15. MHE denies the allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
`
`16. MHE admits that it has conducted internal investigations concerning its use of
`
`other photos, not necessarily including those referenced in the Complaint. MHE lacks sufficient
`
`information to determine whether any of the photos alleged in Exhibit 1 to the Complaint are
`
`among those for which Getty has already received additional payments from MHE. MHE denies
`
`all other allegations of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
`
`17. MHE denies the allegations of Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, which are in any
`
`event improper under Rule 12(f).
`
`{00905293;v1}
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-01255-KPF Document 19 Filed 12/28/15 Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`18. MHE denies the allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, which are in any
`
`event improper under Rule 12(f).
`
`19. MHE denies that it has any practice, general or otherwise, of infringing the
`
`copyrights in the photographs used in its books or other products. MHE admits that it has been
`
`sued by Lefkowitz’s own counsel numerous times for copyright infringement. MHE denies any
`
`other allegation in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
`
`20. MHE admits the allegations of Paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
`
`21. MHE denies the allegations of Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, which are in any
`
`event improper under Rule 12(f).
`
`22. MHE denies the allegations of Paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
`
`23. MHE lacks information sufficient to determine the truth of the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, and on that basis the allegations are denied.
`
`24. MHE admits that during certain periods of time, invoices issued to MHE by Getty
`
`did identify the working title of the book or product in which Getty’s photographs were to be
`
`used, as well as other information, and that such information is usually, but not always, retained
`
`in MHE’s business records. MHE denies all other allegations of Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
`
`25. MHE incorporates its response to Paragraph 6 with regard to the claim chart in
`
`Exhibit 1 to the Complaint. MHE denies any allegation of unauthorized use of the photographs
`
`referenced in Exhibit 1, as asserted in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint. MHE denies all other
`
`allegations contained therein.
`
`26.
`
`The allegations of Paragraph 26 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which
`
`no answer is required. Whatever agreements may have existed between Lefkowitz and Getty
`
`Images for the use of the photographs at issue in this action, those documents speak for
`
`{00905293;v1}
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-01255-KPF Document 19 Filed 12/28/15 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`themselves, and any legal conclusions to be drawn from those documents are for the Court to
`
`determine. MHE affirmatively denies that Lefkowitz was an intended beneficiary of any
`
`agreement between MHE and Getty Images, and MHE further denies that Lefkowitz has any
`
`standing to assert any contractual claims against MHE arising from MHE’s agreements with
`
`Getty Images.
`
`27. MHE admits that Getty was authorized to offer the photographs in suit to MHE.
`
`MHE denies that Getty was Lefkowitz’s exclusive licensing agent with regard to all of
`
`Lefkowitz’s photographs. MHE denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 27 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`28. MHE denies the allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. MHE further
`
`denies that the document attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 4 is a copy of any agreement
`
`between MHE and Getty Images, and further asserts that Lefkowitz’s contention that this
`
`document applies to MHE’s use of photos from Getty Images is knowingly false, and represents
`
`an intentional failure to conduct a reasonably diligent investigation of the facts, and thus is in
`
`violation of Rule 11(b)(3).
`
`29. MHE admits that Lefkowitz’s counsel sent correspondence to David B. Stafford,
`
`Esq., General Counsel of MHE, dated February 6, 2015, a true and correct copy of which is
`
`attached here as Exhibit A. This document speaks for itself. MHE alleges that the parties
`
`subsequently engaged in settlement discussions pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408 that
`
`included reference to the claims contained in that letter of February 6, 2015, and which are now
`
`asserted in this action. The parties ultimately did not reach a settlement. MHE denies all other
`
`allegations of Paragraph 29 of the Complaint.
`
`30. MHE denies the allegations of Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
`
`{00905293;v1}
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-01255-KPF Document 19 Filed 12/28/15 Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`31. MHE denies that Lefkowitz has any right or standing to assert any contractual
`
`claims against MHE, and MHE denies all other allegations of Paragraph 31 of the Complaint.
`
`32. MHE denies the allegations of Paragraph 32 of the Complaint.
`
`33.
`
`The language of Paragraph 33 attempts to quote a portion of the text of Exhibit 3
`
`to the Complaint, a document whose authenticity and admissibility is undetermined. That
`
`document, to the extent it is authentic and complete speaks for itself. Any conclusions to be
`
`drawn from the document are questions of law for the Court. MHE denies that Lefkowitz has
`
`any right or standing to assert any contractual claims against ME, and MHE denies any factual
`
`allegation of Paragraph 33 of the Complaint.
`
`34. MHE has seen a copy of the correspondence referenced in Paragraph 34 of the
`
`Complaint, but it lacks sufficient information to determine the authenticity or completeness of
`
`that correspondence, and on that basis denies the allegations of Paragraph 34 of the Complaint.
`
`35. MHE admits that Getty Images has made no legal claim against MHE for breach
`
`of contract or copyright infringement. MHE denies all other allegations of Paragraph 35 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`36. MHE incorporates its prior responses regarding the exhibits to the Complaint.
`
`COUNT I
`Copyright Infringement
`
`37. MHE incorporates its prior responses to the prior paragraphs of the Complaint.
`
`38. MHE denies the allegations of Paragraph 38 of the Complaint.
`
`39. MHE denies the allegations of Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
`
`COUNT II
`Breach of Contract
`
`40. MHE incorporates its prior responses to the prior paragraphs of the Complaint.
`
`{00905293;v1}
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-01255-KPF Document 19 Filed 12/28/15 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`41. MHE denies the allegations of Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.
`
`42. MHE admits that Getty Images entered into successive licensing agreements with
`
`MHE over many years. MHE denies that the invoices referenced in Exhibit 1 to the Complaint
`
`constitute those agreements. MHE alleges that its authorization to use the photos at issue in this
`
`action arose from the course of MHE’s business dealings with Getty over many years and
`
`included the successive licensing and pricing agreements that MHE and Getty reached during
`
`that time. MHE denies all other allegations of Paragraph 42 of the Complaint.
`
`43. MHE denies the allegations of Paragraph 43 of the Complaint.
`
`44. MHE denies that Lefkowitz has any right or standing to assert any contractual
`
`claims against MHE, and MHE denies all other allegations of Paragraph 44 of the Complaint.
`
`45. MHE denies the allegations of Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.
`
`46. MHE denies that Lefkowitz is entitled to any relief in this action.
`
`
`
`DEFENSES
`
`MHE denies any and each allegation, inference, or implication asserted anywhere in the
`
`Complaint that is not specifically and explicitly admitted herein.
`
`In addition, MHE further propounds the following separate and additional defenses, and
`
`by doing so, MHE in no way concedes that it has the burden of proof and/or burden of
`
`persuasion with respect to any of such defenses.
`
`First Affirmative Defense
`
`Lefkowitz’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
`
`Second Affirmative Defense
`
`Lefkowitz’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by applicable statutes of limitations.
`
`{00905293;v1}
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-01255-KPF Document 19 Filed 12/28/15 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`Third Affirmative Defense
`
`Lefkowitz’s copyright claims are barred, in whole or in part, by his lack of standing due
`
`to invalid transfer, assignment, or other defects in ownership of the applicable copyright in the
`
`particular works.
`
`Fourth Affirmative Defense
`
`Lefkowitz’s copyright claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the lack of a valid and
`
`enforceable copyright registration for the works identified in Exhibit 1 to the Complaint.
`
`Fifth Affirmative Defense
`
`Lefkowitz’s copyright claims are barred by the defense of license and/or implied license
`
`arising from the specific agreements between MHE and Getty Images as well as the prolonged
`
`course of dealing between MHE and Getty Images over more than two decades.
`
`Sixth Affirmative Defense
`
`Lefkowitz’s contract claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the lack of any standing on
`
`his part to assert contractual provisions arising from the agreements between MHE and Getty
`
`Images.
`
`Seventh Affirmative Defense
`
`Lefkowitz’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by acquiescence, novation,
`
`satisfaction, or estoppel.
`
`Eighth Affirmative Defense
`
`Lefkowitz’s claims for statutory damages under the Copyright Act are limited under 17
`
`U.S.C. § 412(2) solely to those works, if any, where the purported infringement by MHE began,
`
`if at all, after the date of a valid and applicable copyright registration for the work at issue.
`
`{00905293;v1}
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-01255-KPF Document 19 Filed 12/28/15 Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`Ninth Affirmative Defense
`
`Lefkowitz’s contract claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent they seek
`
`damages predicated upon an unenforceable penalty.
`
`Eleventh Affirmative Defense
`
`Lefkowitz’s request for injunctive relief is barred by the lack of any irreparable harm
`
`from the purportedly unlawful conduct, if any, by MHE. Likewise, to the extent Lefkowitz can
`
`demonstrate that he has suffered damages from the purportedly unlawful conduct, if any, by
`
`MHE, such damages are adequately remedied at law.
`
`Twelfth Affirmative Defense
`
`To the extent that Lefkowitz’s Complaint seeks any relief as to any photograph or
`
`textbook title not cited in Exhibit 1 to the Complaint, such relief is not appropriately within the
`
`jurisdiction of this Court, and is therefore barred.
`
`Thirteenth Affirmative Defense
`
`MHE hereby gives notice that, due to the lack of information as to the matters set forth in
`
`the Complaint, MHE has insufficient knowledge or information from which to form a belief as to
`
`whether it has additional defenses not expressly enumerated in the preceding paragraphs. MHE
`
`thus hereby reserves its right to amend its Answer to assert additional defenses and to rely upon
`
`those additional defenses to the extent they become available or apparent during discovery.
`
`
`
`WHEEFORE, MHE requests that:
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`(a) This action should be transferred to the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1404(a);
`
`{00905293;v1}
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-01255-KPF Document 19 Filed 12/28/15 Page 11 of 12
`
`(b) In the absence of such a transfer of venue, or following the same, Lefkowitz’s
`
`Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice;
`
`(c) Lefkowitz should take nothing; and,
`
`(d) The Court award such further relief, including attorney’s fees and costs, against
`
`Lefkowitz and to the benefit of MHE as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 28, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Christopher P. Beall
`Christopher P. Beall
`Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP
`321 West 44th Street, Suite 1000
`New York, New York 10036
`(T): (212) 850-6100
`(F): (212) 850-6299
`cbeall@lskslaw.com
`
`William McGrath
`Davis McGrath LLC
`125 South Wacker Drive
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`(T): (312) 332-3033
`(F): (312) 332-6376
`wmcgrath@davismcgrath.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants McGraw-Hill
`Global Education Holdings LLC and
`McGraw-Hill School Education
`Holdings, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{00905293;v1}
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-01255-KPF Document 19 Filed 12/28/15 Page 12 of 12
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Christopher P. Beall, an attorney and counsel of record for Defendant McGraw-Hill
`
`Global Education Holdings, LLC and McGraw-Hill School Education Holdings, LLC, certify
`
`that I caused the foregoing ANSWER to be electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the
`
`CM/ECF filing system, which will send automated notification of this filing to all counsel of
`
`record on this date.
`
`
`Dated: December 28, 2015
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Christopher P. Beall
`
`{00905293;v1}
`
`12