Case 3:17-cv-01989-SRU Document 25 Filed 07/02/18 Page 1 of 12
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL CASE NO.:
`3:17CV01989-SRU
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`July 2, 2018
`
`
`
`
` )
`
`
`
`JAMES CORDES,
` )
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
` )
`
`
`
`
`
`
` )
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
` )
`
`
`
`
`
`
` )
`ARCHITECTURE DESIGN ALLIANCE;
`ANDY DIGUISEPPI; KEVIN F. MCQUEEN )
`MCQUEEN VERDI GROUP, LLC;
` )
`CURTIS A. VERDI, VERDI
`
` )
`CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC
` )
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
` )
`
`
`
`JOINT STATEMENT OF EXPLANATION RE: RULE 26(F) REPORT
`
`
`
`Date Complaint Filed: December 1, 2017
`
`Date Complaint Served: December 7th – 11th, 2017
`
`Date of Defendant’s Appearance: December 28, 2017
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), 26(f) and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 16, a conference was
`
`held on June 13, 2018. The participants were:
`
`James Cordes, pro se, for plaintiff (the “Plaintiff”).
`
`Antonino Leone, for defendants Curtis A Verdi, Verdi Construction Company, McQueen
`
`Verdi Group, LLC and Andy DiGuiseppi.
`
`Christopher Klepps, for defendants Architectural Design Alliance, and Kevin F.
`
`McQueen.
`
`Defendants Architectural Design Alliance, Kevin F. McQueen, McQueen Verdi Group,
`
`LLC, Curtis A Verdi, Verdi Construction Company, and Andy DiGuiseppi are collectively
`
`referred to herein as the “Defendants”.
`
`
`
`
`57898624 v1
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL CASE NO.:
`3:17CV01989-SRU
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`July 2, 2018
`
`
`
`
` )
`
`
`
`JAMES CORDES,
` )
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
` )
`
`
`
`
`
`
` )
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
` )
`
`
`
`
`
`
` )
`ARCHITECTURE DESIGN ALLIANCE;
`ANDY DIGUISEPPI; KEVIN F. MCQUEEN )
`MCQUEEN VERDI GROUP, LLC;
` )
`CURTIS A. VERDI, VERDI
`
` )
`CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC
` )
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
` )
`
`
`
`JOINT STATEMENT OF EXPLANATION RE: RULE 26(F) REPORT
`
`
`
`Date Complaint Filed: December 1, 2017
`
`Date Complaint Served: December 7th – 11th, 2017
`
`Date of Defendant’s Appearance: December 28, 2017
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), 26(f) and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 16, a conference was
`
`held on June 13, 2018. The participants were:
`
`James Cordes, pro se, for plaintiff (the “Plaintiff”).
`
`Antonino Leone, for defendants Curtis A Verdi, Verdi Construction Company, McQueen
`
`Verdi Group, LLC and Andy DiGuiseppi.
`
`Christopher Klepps, for defendants Architectural Design Alliance, and Kevin F.
`
`McQueen.
`
`Defendants Architectural Design Alliance, Kevin F. McQueen, McQueen Verdi Group,
`
`LLC, Curtis A Verdi, Verdi Construction Company, and Andy DiGuiseppi are collectively
`
`referred to herein as the “Defendants”.
`
`
`
`
`57898624 v1
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-01989-SRU Document 25 Filed 07/02/18 Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Certification
`
`Undersigned counsel (after consultation with their clients) and any undersigned self
`
`represented parties certify that (a) they have discussed the nature and basis of the parties' claims
`
`and defenses and any possibilities for achieving a prompt settlement or other resolution of the
`
`case; and (b) they have developed the following proposed case management plan. Counsel
`
`further certify that they have forwarded a copy of this report to their clients.
`
`II.
`
`A.
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`Subject Matter Jurisdiction
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
`
`1338, and 1367.
`
`B.
`
`Personal Jurisdiction
`
`Personal jurisdiction is not contested.
`
`III.
`
`Brief Description of Case
`
`A.
`
`Claims of Plaintiff: Plaintiff alleges....
`
`
`
`James Cordes is a professional commercial photographer and marketing consultant.
`
`Cordes has brought a civil action against Defendants for direct copyright infringement in
`
`violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501, contributory copyright infringement, removal of CMI in violation
`
`of 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b), breach of contract, and civil conspiracy.
`
`
`
`Cordes met with defendant Curt Verdi, owner of Verdi Construction in June 2014. At the
`
`meeting Verdi supplied a list of construction project sites they discussed for Cordes to
`
`photograph. Verdi agreed to pay Cordes a fee as consideration for use of the photographs in
`
`keeping with previous work they had done. This list formed the work offer from Verdi that he
`
`
`
`
`57898624 v1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-01989-SRU Document 25 Filed 07/02/18 Page 3 of 12
`
`
`
`emailed to Cordes July 15, 2014 titled Verdi Jim Cordes List 7.15.14.xls
`
`
`
`By early October 2014, Cordes had completed all of the sites identified by Verdi. This
`
`included low altitude aerial photography and ground architectural photography. Cordes owns a
`
`valid copyright on each photograph Defendants have used.
`
`
`
`During the early phase of photography, on July 21, 2014, Verdi asked Cordes in an email,
`
`if he could provide his website developer, Defendant DiGuiseppi, access to Cordes’ photographs
`
`so he could: “… see what we have to work with and continue planning.”
`
`
`
`Cordes emailed DiGuiseppi on July 28th 2014 allowing him a license, limited in scope, to
`
`see the images, on the expressed condition: “No image may be put into public domain or shared
`
`without written permission.”
`
`
`
`As no payment of any kind had been made by Verdi, Cordes exercised his right to retain
`
`control of his work until consideration of the contract was met. Cordes’ website log shows
`
`DiGuiseppi accessed the website by password on July 28, 2014, and again on Sep 9, 2014,
`
`downloading 27 images.
`
`
`
`Digital copies of Cordes’ photographs contain CMI (Copyright Management Information
`
`as EXIF data. CMI is encoded in all Cordes’ image files. In his Answer to the complaint
`
`DiGuiseppi admits stripping the Copyright Management Information from Cordes’ images
`
`knowing his software does this. Use of this software is by choice. It renders photographs
`
`untraceable by name or text searches. On his business website DiGuiseppi promotes his
`
`expertise in Software Applications and coding.
`
`
`
`No permission, was given to any Defendant, to reproduce, distribute, display, make derivative
`
`works, or to remove or alter CMI.
`
`
`
`
`57898624 v1
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-01989-SRU Document 25 Filed 07/02/18 Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`On October 6, 2014, Cordes informed Verdi by email that all work was complete, that an
`
`invoice was being prepared, and it was sent shortly thereafter. The invoice was sent again on or
`
`about November 14, 2014. The invoice was never paid and Cordes continued to send additional
`
`copies of the invoice to Verdi but received nothing in response.
`
`
`
`On or about March 25, 2015 Cordes discovered that five of his photographs were
`
`displayed on VCC’s commercial Website. This was after repeated and unsuccessful attempts to
`
`be paid and in violation of the license condition on scope of use: “No image may be put into
`
`public domain or shared without written permission.”
`
`
`
`Cordes immediately sought information on how to protect his photographs from
`
`infringing use and contacted the US Copyright Office. On March 28, 2015 three days later,
`
`Cordes applied for and received a valid Certificate of Registration # VAu 1-206-696. Cordes has
`
`not published the photographs, nor has he given anyone authorization to publish the photographs.
`
`
`
`A final invoice with a demand letter was sent to Verdi VCC, by USPS Return Receipt
`
`Registered mail on June 3, 2015. This registered invoice and letter was signed for on June 5,
`
`2015. The invoice remains entirely unpaid to this day and no communication has been received
`
`from any of the Defendants until this action was taken. Verdi breached the contract by accessing,
`
`copying, displaying, and sharing the photographs without Cordes’ express or implied
`
`authorization and by not paying.
`
`
`
`On or about October of 2016, Cordes discovered additional copyrighted photographs
`
`being displayed on VCC websites. Cordes discovered his copyrighted photos promoting Verdi
`
`Construction in Google’s Business listing. Cordes discovered that DiGuiseppi Studios promotes
`
`they produced what they referred to as a “multi-page” “corporate brochure” for Verdi.
`
`
`
`
`57898624 v1
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-01989-SRU Document 25 Filed 07/02/18 Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`On or about September 10, 2017 Cordes discovered that five of his photographs were
`
`displayed on a website (in the form of a Comprehensive Downloadable Brochure) for the
`
`Architecture Design Alliance (ADA , a company and website owned by Kevin McQueen. It was
`
`discovered that DiGuiseppi, Verdi, and McQueen have businesses that work with each other.
`
`
`
`Cordes has had no contact with Defendants McQueen, McQueenVerdi Group LLC, or
`
`Architecture Design Alliance nor has he ever authorized his photographs to be used by those
`
`defendants. None of the Defendants ever sought and Cordes never gave permission to distribute
`
`or make public the photographs. Verdi and McQueen, having removed attribution of authorship
`
`from Cordes’ photographs, falsely claim copyright on all works displayed on their web pages.
`
`
`
`On or about September 15, 2017 Cordes discovered two new infringing photographs on
`
`the VCC website not previously displayed. Verdi, VCC, McQueen, and ADA, continue to
`
`infringe Cordes’ copyrights.
`
`
`
`Cordes claims statutory damages in the maximum amount allowed by law, compensatory
`
`damages, and costs, and for all other relief to which he is entitled.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Defenses and Claims of Defendants: Defendants deny the allegations asserted
`
`in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`C.
`
`Defenses and Claims of Third Party Defendant: N/A
`
`IV.
`
`Statement of Undisputed Facts
`
`Counsel certify that they have made a good faith attempt to determine whether there are
`
`any material facts that are not in dispute. The following material facts are undisputed:
`
`
`
`
`57898624 v1
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-01989-SRU Document 25 Filed 07/02/18 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Connecticut doing business as an individual
`
`professional photographer and provider of creative services whose address is P.O. Box 320, West
`
`Redding, Connecticut 06896.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Curtis A. Verdi ("Verdi") is a citizen and resident of Connecticut who
`
`presently resides at 7 Bradley Lane, Sandy Hook, Connecticut 06482.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Kevin F. McQueen ("McQueen") is a citizen and resident of
`
`Connecticut who presently resides at 24 Christian Street, Bridgewater, Connecticut 06752.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant The Verdi Construction Company, L.L.C. ("VCC") is a Connecticut
`
`limited liability company with a primary place of business at 16 Taylor Avenue, Bethel,
`
`Connecticut 06801.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant McQueen Verdi Group, LLC ("MVG") is a Connecticut limited
`
`liability company with a primary place of business at 312 Danbury Road, Suite 6, New Milford,
`
`Connecticut 06776.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Architecture Design Alliance ("ADA") is an unregistered Connecticut
`
`company with a primary place of business at 312 Danbury Road, New Milford, Connecticut
`
`06776.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant Andy DiGuiseppi ("DiGuiseppi") is a citizen and resident of
`
`Connecticut who presently resides at 29 Aspetuck Pines Drive, New Milford, Connecticut
`
`06776. DiGuiseppi does business as DiGuiseppi Studios with a primary place of business at 40
`
`Laurel Hill Road, Brookfield, Connecticut 06804.
`
`8.
`
`On or about June, 2014, Verdi, on behalf of VCC, met with Plaintiff to discuss
`
`Cordes taking photographs of construction projects.
`
`
`
`
`57898624 v1
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-01989-SRU Document 25 Filed 07/02/18 Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Verdi, on behalf of VCC, requested that Cordes provide DiGuiseppi access to
`
`photographs.
`
`10.
`
`VCC received a copy of an invoice for alleged services performed by Plaintiff,
`
`and a letter from Plaintiff on or about June 5, 2015.
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`A.
`
`Case Management Plan:
`
`Initial Disclosures
`
`Initial disclosures will be served by July 20, 2018.
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`Scheduling Conference
`
`The parties request to be excused from holding a pretrial conference with the
`
`Court before entry of a scheduling order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).
`
`2.
`
`The parties prefer that a scheduling conference, if held, be conducted by
`
`telephone.
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`Early Settlement Conference
`
`The parties certify that they have considered the potential benefits of attempting
`
`to settle the case before undertaking significant discovery or motion practice. Settlement may be
`
`facilitated by use of the following procedure: referral to a magistrate.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The parties request an early settlement conference.
`
`The parties prefer a settlement conference, when such a conference is held, with a
`
`magistrate judge.
`
`
`
`
`57898624 v1
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-01989-SRU Document 25 Filed 07/02/18 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`4.
`
`The parties do not request a referral for alternative dispute resolution pursuant to
`
`D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 16.
`
`D.
`
`Joinder of Parties, Amendment of Pleadings, and Motions Addressed to the
`
`Pleadings
`
`The parties have discussed any perceived defects in the pleadings and have reached the
`
`following agreements for resolution of any issues related to the sufficiency of the pleadings:
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff should be allowed until July 20, 2018 to file motions to join additional
`
`parties and until July 20, 2018 to file motions to amend the pleadings. Motions filed after the
`
`foregoing dates will require, in addition to any other requirements under the applicable rules; a
`
`showing of good cause for the delay.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants should be allowed until July 31, 2018 to join additional parties.
`
`Motions filed after the foregoing dates will require, in addition to any other requirements under
`
`the applicable rules, a showing of good cause for the delay.
`
`E.
`
`a.
`
`Discovery
`
`Recognizing that the precise contours of the case, including the amounts of
`
`damages at issue, if any, may not be clear at this point in the case, in making the proposals below
`
`concerning discovery, the parties have considered the scope of discovery permitted under Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
`
`b.
`
`(i)
`
`The parties anticipate that discovery will be needed on the following subjects:
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Plaintiff anticipates discovery will be needed for all communications among and between
`
`Defendants relevant to any and all uses of Cordes’ photography; including but not limited to all
`
`
`
`
`57898624 v1
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-01989-SRU Document 25 Filed 07/02/18 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`website designs, versions displayed, printed brochures, approvals, downloadable brochures,
`
`editing, renaming, removal of Copyright Management Information, sharing of images, or any
`
`other use. Discovery will be needed on Copyrights claimed by Defendants to Cordes’ images.
`
`Discovery will be needed as to the origin and Copyright permissions granted Defendants to use
`
`other images in any marketing effort appearing after January 2014. Discovery will be needed to
`
`verify all sites promoted by VCC by the slogan “See Our Work” are indeed sites VCC worked
`
`on. Plaintiff reserves the right to pursue discovery on any additional infringements, or infringers
`
`that may be revealed in discovery.
`
`
`
`(ii)
`
`Defendants:
`
`Defendants anticipate that discovery will be needed concerning the claims asserted in
`
`Plaintiff’s complaint including, without limitation, the factual assertions concerning Plaintiff’s
`
`allegations that Defendants infringed on Plaintiff’s copyright, removed Copyright Management
`
`Information, breached the contract, and/or participated in a civil conspiracy to harm Plaintiff.
`
`c.
`
`All discovery, including depositions of expert witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 26(b)(4), will be commenced on July 2, 2018 and completed (not propounded) by April 30,
`
`2019.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Discovery will not be conducted in phases.
`
`If discovery will be conducted in phases, describe each phase and state the date by
`
`which it will be completed by: N/A.
`
`
`
`
`57898624 v1
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-01989-SRU Document 25 Filed 07/02/18 Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`f.
`
`The parties anticipate that the Plaintiff will require a total of 3 depositions of fact
`
`witnesses and that the defendant will require a total of 1 deposition of fact witnesses. The
`
`depositions will commence by July 30, 2018 and be completed by February 28, 2019.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`The parties will not request permission to serve more than 25 interrogatories.
`
`Plaintiff [intends] to call expert witnesses at trial. Defendants intend to call expert
`
`witnesses at trial.
`
`i.
`
`Parties will designate all trial experts and provide opposing counsel with reports
`
`from retained experts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on any issues on which they bear the
`
`burden of proof by March 31, 2019. Depositions of any such experts will be completed by April
`
`30, 2019.
`
`j.
`
`Parties will designate all trial experts and provide opposing counsel with reports
`
`from retained experts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on any issues on which they do not
`
`bear the burden of proof by April 30, 2019. Depositions of any such experts will be completed
`
`by May 31, 2019.
`
`k.
`
`A damages analysis will be provided by any party who has a claim or
`
`counterclaim for damages by July 20, 2018.
`
`l.
`
`Undersigned counsel (after consultation with their respective clients concerning
`
`computer-based and other electronic information management systems, including historical,
`
`archival, back-up and legacy files, in order to understand how information is stored and how it
`
`may be retried) and self-represented parties have discussed the disclosure and preservation of
`
`electronically stored information (“ESI”), including, but not limited to, the form in which such
`
`data shall be produced, search terms and/or other techniques to be used in connection with the
`
`
`
`
`57898624 v1
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-01989-SRU Document 25 Filed 07/02/18 Page 11 of 12
`
`
`
`retrieval and production of such information, the location and format of electronically stored
`
`information, appropriate steps to preserve electronically stored information, and the allocation of
`
`costs of assembling and producing such information. The parties expect to hold more detailed
`
`conversations respecting discovery of electronically stored information.
`
`m.
`
`Undersigned counsel (after consultation with their clients) and self-represented
`
`parties have also discussed the location(s), volume, organization, and costs of retrieval of
`
`information stored in paper or other non-electronic forms. The parties agree to the following
`
`procedures for the preservation, disclosure and management of such information: all paper and
`
`non-electronic forms of documents likely to contain relevant information are to be preserved and
`
`disclosed by the parties.
`
`n.
`
`Undersigned counsel and self-represented parties have discussed discovery
`
`procedures that minimize the risk of waiver of privilege or work-product protect, including
`
`procedures for asserting privilege claims after production. The parties agree to the following
`
`procedures for asserting claims of privilege after production: the District of Connecticut Standing
`
`Protective Order, Document #4 in this case, shall apply.
`
`F.
`
`Other Scheduling Issues
`
`The parties propose the following schedule for addressing other issues pertinent to this
`
`case: N/A
`
`G.
`
`Summary Judgment Motions
`
`Summary judgment motions, which must comply with Local Rule 56, will be filed on or
`
`before May 31, 2019.
`
`H.
`
`Joint Trial Memorandum
`
`
`
`
`57898624 v1
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-01989-SRU Document 25 Filed 07/02/18 Page 12 of 12
`
`
`
`The joint trial memorandum required by the Standing Order on Trial Memoranda in Civil
`
`Cases will be filed by September 17, 2019.
`
`VI.
`
`TRIAL READINESS
`
`The case will be ready for trial by September 30, 2019.
`
`As officers of the Court, undersigned counsel agree to cooperate with each other and the
`
`Court to promote the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of the action.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff: James Cordes
`
`By: ___James Cordes__________
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: July 2, 2018
`
`Defendants: Curtis A Verdi, Verdi Construction and Andy DiGuiseppi
`
`By: /s/ Antonino M. Leone (ct27280)
`
`
`
`Date: July 2, 2018
`
`Defendants: Architecture Design Alliance, Kevin McQueen, McQueen Verdi Group, LLC
`
`By: /s/ Donald W. Doeg (ct10562)
`
`
`
`Date: July 2, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`57898624 v1
`
`12
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
