Case: 1:22-cv-02064-JPC Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/12/24 1 of 27. PageID #: 683
`
`GINA WEISBLAT,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`JOHN CARROLL UNIVERSITY,
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Case No. 1:22-cv-02064
`
`Judge J. Philip Calabrese
`
`Magistrate Judge
`Jonathan D. Greenberg
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Gina Weisblat claims the copyright to a draft grant application and
`
`contends that her former employer, Defendant John Carroll University, infringed on
`
`her intellectual property rights. John Carroll University moved for summary
`
`judgment on Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim. After Dr. Weisblat’s counsel
`
`withdrew at the close of discovery, the Court instructed her to respond substantively
`
`to Defendant’s first two legal arguments: that certain language from Dr. Weisblat’s
`
`grant application is not copyrightable as a matter of law and that, even if it is
`
`copyrightable, Northeast Ohio Medical University is the owner of any copyright
`
`under the work-for-hire doctrine. Plaintiff opposes the motion on those grounds, and
`
`presumably others. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS summary
`
`judgment for Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`GINA WEISBLAT,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`JOHN CARROLL UNIVERSITY,
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Case No. 1:22-cv-02064
`
`Judge J. Philip Calabrese
`
`Magistrate Judge
`Jonathan D. Greenberg
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Gina Weisblat claims the copyright to a draft grant application and
`
`contends that her former employer, Defendant John Carroll University, infringed on
`
`her intellectual property rights. John Carroll University moved for summary
`
`judgment on Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim. After Dr. Weisblat’s counsel
`
`withdrew at the close of discovery, the Court instructed her to respond substantively
`
`to Defendant’s first two legal arguments: that certain language from Dr. Weisblat’s
`
`grant application is not copyrightable as a matter of law and that, even if it is
`
`copyrightable, Northeast Ohio Medical University is the owner of any copyright
`
`under the work-for-hire doctrine. Plaintiff opposes the motion on those grounds, and
`
`presumably others. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS summary
`
`judgment for Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-02064-JPC Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/12/24 2 of 27. PageID #: 684
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`
`
`On John Carroll University’s motion for summary judgment, the Court
`
`construes the facts in Plaintiff’s favor. As relevant to the motion for summary
`
`judgment on the issues before the Court, the record establishes the following facts.
`
`Background
`A.
`By way of background, AmeriCorps is a federal agency that “works with
`
`communities and supports a variety of public-private partnerships and governmental
`
`collaboration to address local challenges through service.” (ECF No. 30-1, PageID
`
`#260.) The Ohio Commission on Service and Volunteerism, known as ServeOhio,
`
`administers AmeriCorps programs in Ohio and “provides grants to organizations that
`
`demonstrate they will engage AmeriCorps members to provide a service intervention
`
`that addresses a critical need in Ohio.” (Id., PageID #271.) To receive a grant, an
`
`organization must submit an application that follows specific formatting and
`
`substantive requirements. (ECF No. 30-1, PageID #354–55 (discussing the guidelines
`
`for writing grant proposals); see also AmeriCorps Funding, ServeOhio,
`
`https://serve.ohio.gov/grants-and-funding/americorps-funding
`
`[https://perma.cc/
`
`4NKG-2EL6] (last visited Sept. 12, 2024).)
`
`Dr. Weisblat is a social scientist and professor who has managed a large
`
`portfolio of grant-funded programming, including a program titled “The Health
`
`Professions Affinity Community.” (ECF No. 30-1, PageID #272–78.) This educational
`
`program “aims to identify and engage youth, particularly from underrepresented and
`
`underserved communities, in the health of their communities” and support their
`
`pursuit of careers in the healthcare industry. (Id., PageID #338–39.)
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-02064-JPC Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/12/24 3 of 27. PageID #: 685
`
`The HPAC Program at NEOMED
`B.
`In 2012, Northeast Ohio Medical University, also known as NEOMED, hired
`
`Dr. Weisblat as a faculty member, and her work included preparing grant
`
`applications for AmeriCorps-funded projects. (ECF No. 34, PageID #666.) During
`
`her tenure at NEOMED, Dr. Weisblat developed the idea for the Health Professions
`
`Affinity Community program in collaboration with Dr. Erik Porfeli, her former
`
`co-author and supervisor. (ECF No. 30-1, PageID #275, #329, #339 & #359; ECF No.
`
`34, ¶ 6, PageID #592.)
`
`In 2013, while employed at NEOMED, Dr. Weisblat and Dr. Porfeli prepared
`
`an AmeriCorps grant application to fund the HPAC program. (ECF No. 30-1, PageID
`
`#349 & #351; ECF No. 2-2, PageID #11.) Dr. Weisblat credits the idea for the program
`
`as building on all her research and experience throughout her career, and the
`
`substantive parts of the grant application derive from her prior articles, book
`
`chapters, and programming. (ECF No. 30-1, PageID #304–05; ECF No. 34, ¶¶ 2–6,
`
`PageID #591–92.) Dr. Porfeli describes himself as a “co-founder of the HPAC
`
`program” (ECF No. 30-2, PageID #567) and testified that, in his work with
`
`Dr. Weisblat, they “were taking content from various grant proposals to create new
`
`grant proposals” (ECF No. 30-1, PageID #349).
`
`Specifically, the language that Dr. Weisblat used in the 2013 draft grant
`
`application “derives from the language used to create and fund” a community
`
`organization titled “Teens Networking Together,” which Dr. Weisblat developed
`
`years earlier. (ECF No. 34, ¶ 2, PageID #591.) Dr. Weisblat also attests that a book
`
`chapter she co-authored discusses similar concepts “using much of the same wording”
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-02064-JPC Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/12/24 4 of 27. PageID #: 686
`
`as the 2013 grant application. (Id., ¶ 3; id., PageID #595–608 (listing co-authors).)
`
`Additionally, Dr. Weisblat wrote three other publications that “contain wording very
`
`similar” to the 2013 grant application—including one paper while employed at
`
`NEOMED. (Id., ¶¶ 4–6, PageID #592.) Dr. Weisblat is listed as a co-author on some
`
`of these publications. (See, e.g., id., PageID #621 (“An Exemplar in Mentoring and
`
`Professional Development: Teaching Graduate Students Transferable Skills Beyond
`
`the Discipline”); id., PageID #646 (“Through the Lens of the Students: Using
`
`Narrative Inquiry to Evaluate an Innovative Urban High School”).)
`
`NEOMED applied for and received AmeriCorps funding for the Health
`
`Professions Affinity Community program for the 2014 fiscal year. (ECF No. 30-1,
`
`PageID #305–06; see also ECF No. 2-2.) With the title of principal investigator,
`
`Dr. Weisblat ran the program at NEOMED from 2013 until 2018. (ECF No. 30-1,
`
`PageID #306.) Dr. Porfeli testified that he was a co-principal investigator for the
`
`program while at NEOMED. (Id., PageID #404.)
`
`On March 7, 2018, Dr. Weisblat and NEOMED signed a separation agreement
`
`and mutual release. (ECF No. 34, PageID #657–64.) Under the agreement,
`
`Dr. Weisblat would “retain or become, upon the approval of the respective granting
`
`authority, the Principal Investigator . . . of the following grants, with all the attendant
`
`rights and responsibilities of [Principal Investigator], including employee/volunteer
`
`supervision and fiscal accountability. . . .” (Id., PageID #658.) The agreement then
`
`lists nine different grants—including the grant funding the Health Professions
`
`Affinity Community program. (Id., PageID #658–59.) Dr. Weisblat contends that
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-02064-JPC Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/12/24 5 of 27. PageID #: 687
`
`this language awards her “sole rights” to the HPAC program. (Id., ¶ 11, PageID
`
`#593.)
`
`The separation agreement also allows Dr. Weisblat to “request extensions” to
`
`complete current grant-related obligations, “reasonably and promptly transfer any
`
`unexpired grants to another qualified institution,” cooperate with any reporting
`
`obligations for the grants, and “retain her direct reports . . . and assume responsibility
`
`for all programmatic activities and fiscal management” for the grants. (Id., PageID
`
`#659.) The agreement did not allow Dr. Weisblat to “renew any of the [] grants
`
`through NEOMED,” “submit any new grants through NEOMED,” or “receive any
`
`matching fund support from NEOMED for any of the [] grants.” (Id., PageID #660.)
`
`The agreement does not explicitly purport to assign or transfer any intellectual
`
`property rights associated with the grants to Dr. Weisblat. On this point,
`
`Dr. Weisblat proffers the declaration of Maria R. Schimer, NEOMED’s general
`
`counsel. (Id., PageID #666.) On July 8, 2024, Schimer attested that: “In accordance
`
`with the NEOMED Intellectual Property Policy, Dr. Weisblat was granted the rights
`
`under the Separation and Release Agreement to use the intellectual property that
`
`she produced under the Ameri Corp Program while an employee of NEOMED.” (Id.)
`
`Additionally, “[i]n accordance with the NEOMED Intellectual Property Policy,
`
`NEOMED does not assert any copyright ownership for Dr. Weisblat’s work on the
`
`Ameri Corp Program during her employment at NEOMED, including the year 2013.”
`
`(Id.) While neither party provides the Intellectual Property Policy, it is a publicly
`
`available regulation. See Ohio Admin. Code § 3349–20–50.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-02064-JPC Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/12/24 6 of 27. PageID #: 688
`
`The HPAC Program at John Carroll University
`C.
`After leaving NEOMED, Dr. Weisblat, who was then employed by University
`
`Hospitals, moved the Health Professions Affinity Community program and its related
`
`grant to Baldwin Wallace University as the principal investigator. (ECF No. 30-1,
`
`PageID #306.) Due to a conflict between the AmeriCorps director at Baldwin Wallace
`
`and Dr. Weisblat’s supervisor at University Hospitals, she moved again. (Id., PageID
`
`#306 & 309–10.) In 2018, Dr. Weisblat approached John Carroll University to apply
`
`for an AmeriCorps grant for the HPAC program. (Id.) John Carroll University agreed
`
`to apply for AmeriCorps funding to continue the HPAC program in collaboration with
`
`University Hospitals. (ECF No. 30-2, ¶ 12, PageID #506.)
`
`At John Carroll University, Dr. Weisblat served as a co-principal investigator
`
`for the HPAC program, and she frequently worked with Erica Kennedy and Anita
`
`Iveljic Fakhoury to manage the program and develop other grant applications. (ECF
`
`No. 30-1, PageID #311–12; ECF No. 30-2, ¶ 6, PageID #504–05.) Dr. Weisblat was
`
`an unpaid volunteer at John Carroll University, not an employee. (ECF No. 30-2,
`
`PageID #566.)
`
`
`
`On May 1, 2019, John Carroll University applied for AmeriCorps funding for
`
`the Health Professions Affinity Community program and was awarded funding
`
`effective August 1, 2019. (Id., ¶¶ 12–13, PageID #506–07; id., PageID #561–62.)
`
`Dr. Weisblat collaborated on this grant application. (Id., ¶¶ 11–12, PageID #506.)
`
`John Carroll University applied for AmeriCorps funding again in 2020 for the 2021
`
`fiscal year, and Dr. Weisblat also contributed to that application. (Id., ¶ 13, PageID
`
`#506–07.) At John Carroll University, the Health Professions Affinity Community
`6
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-02064-JPC Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/12/24 7 of 27. PageID #: 689
`
`program became known as the Corps for Rural and Urban Success and Health
`
`program, or CRUSH. (Id., PageID #566.)
`
`In November 2020, John Carroll University and Dr. Weisblat parted ways.
`
`John Carroll University claims that Dr. Weisblat was no longer needed as a volunteer
`
`in connection with the HPAC/CRUSH program. (ECF No. 30-1, ¶¶ 35 & 37, PageID
`
`#285.) Dr. Weisblat claims that she was “forcibly removed from the program and
`
`falsely accused of wrongdoing.” (ECF No. 34, ¶ 9, PageID #592.) Whatever the case,
`
`the reason for Dr. Weisblat’s separation from John Carroll University is not material
`
`to the legal dispute over the intellectual property rights at issue.
`
`The Intellectual Property at Issue
`D.
`After Dr. Weisblat’s departure, John Carroll University submitted AmeriCorps
`
`grant applications for the HPAC/CRUSH program in 2021, 2022, and 2023. (ECF No.
`
`30-2, ¶ 14, PageID #507.) Fakhoury attested that the subsequent applications “built
`
`off each previous year’s grant application, supplying new/revised information to
`
`ServeOhio in support of its grant applications.” (Id., ¶ 15.)
`
`In 2021, Dr. Porfeli contacted John Carroll University after learning of
`
`Dr. Weisblat’s departure to express his concern that the university was using
`
`intellectual property that he and Dr. Weisblat created in the HPAC/CRUSH program.
`
`(ECF No. 30-2, PageID #567.) Kennedy responded that the grant and its associated
`
`intellectual property “continues to belong to the grantee institution ([John Carroll
`
`University]) and to the federal government.” (Id., PageID #566.) In John Carroll
`
`University’s view, “[a]ny materials used in the . . . AmeriCorps program were either
`
`developed” by the program, “owned by [John Carroll University] and/or the federal
`7
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-02064-JPC Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/12/24 8 of 27. PageID #: 690
`
`government,” or “in the public domain and not subject to intellectual property rights.”
`
`(Id.)
`
`In these emails, Dr. Porfeli did not raise a concern about infringement of any
`
`particular grant application. (Id., PageID #565–67.) In his deposition, Dr. Porfeli
`
`testified that he did not patent the HPAC program or copyright any of the program’s
`
`grant application materials. (Id., PageID #341–45.) Additionally, Dr. Porfeli has not
`
`asserted any purported intellectual property rights in the 2013 draft grant
`
`application against anyone. (Id., PageID #388.)
`
`According to Fakhoury, she and Dr. Weisblat created an individualized goal
`
`plan, which describes procedures to “track[] each AmeriCorps member’s individual
`
`goals and performance while serving under the grant.” (ECF No. 30-2, ¶ 6, PageID
`
`#504–05.) The two developed this individualized goal plan before working at John
`
`Carroll University and created it to comply with AmeriCorps grant conditions, which
`
`required grant holders to use this type of performance rubric. (Id.) Fakhoury used
`
`“publicly-accessible materials” in creating the individualized goal plan. (Id., ¶ 7,
`
`PageID #505.) Later, Fakhoury contributed to another individualized goal plan for
`
`the HPAC/CRUSH program at John Carroll University, based on the prior one she
`
`developed with Dr. Weisblat—this second individualized goal plan is the allegedly
`
`infringing work at issue in this case. (Id., ¶ 16, PageID #507; see also ECF No. 2-3,
`
`PageID #35–73.)
`
`An individualized goal plan is not submitted with a grant application; it is used
`
`“once a program was funded, in place, and operational, to monitor the success of
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-02064-JPC Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/12/24 9 of 27. PageID #: 691
`
`members participating in the program.” (ECF No. 30-2, ¶ 8, PageID #505.) To
`
`Fakhoury’s knowledge, “at no point did any of [John Carroll University’s] applications
`
`for AmeriCorps grant funding include the IGP as a part of grant submission.” (Id.,
`
`¶ 17, PageID #507.)
`
`In her complaint, Dr. Weisblat claims that John Carroll University infringed
`
`the 2013 draft grant application (which she co-authored with Dr. Porfeli) by using
`
`some of the application’s language in a single paragraph in the second individualized
`
`goal plan that Fakhoury created. (ECF No. 2, ¶ 24, PageID #5.) Ms. Fakhoury
`
`attests:
`
`The IGP describes the [John Carroll University] CRUSH Program
`generally; the responsibilities of members funded through the
`AmeriCorps program; timelines and aspirational goals under these
`timelines; performance measures; objectives and key components to
`those objectives; personal and academic goals of members; advice on
`resumes for members; and a cover letter, among other information.
`(ECF No. 30-2, ¶ 17, PageID #507.) The paragraph at issue provides a general
`
`summary of the HPAC/CRUSH program’s goals, John Carroll University’s role in
`
`program’s administration, and the expected outcomes for participants. (ECF No. 2-
`
`3, PageID #36.)
`
`Dr. Weisblat identifies a series of sentences and sentence fragments that are
`
`common to the individualized goal plan’s summary paragraph and the 2013 draft
`
`grant application:
`
`• “. . . members of all ages and education backgrounds to create a
`
`rural . . .”
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-02064-JPC Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/12/24 10 of 27. PageID #: 692
`
`• “. . . volunteer health education corps that provides economically
`
`disadvantaged middle school through . . .”
`
`• “. . . youth with academic and career support through the utilization
`
`of a service-learning model, across Ohio.
`
` The AmeriCorps
`
`members . . .”
`
`• “. . . will establish and deliver a Health Professions Affinity
`
`Community (HPAC) service learning based curriculum to students
`
`whose Ohio school districts lack the resources to provide academic
`
`and career skill support necessary for students to obtain a
`
`sustainable career in the health care industry, a growing Ohio career
`
`opportunity. AmeriCorps members . . .”
`
`• “. . . will leverage a sufficient number of additional participants to
`
`sustain the program after the three-year funding period is over. The
`
`project begins in August . . . .”
`
`• “The project will focus on the Corporation for National & Community
`
`Service (CNCS) focus area of K-12 Success including improving
`
`opportunities for participating student academic and career success
`
`in . . .”
`
`• “.
`
`.
`
`. rural Ohio school districts while improving academic
`
`engagement and learning and increasing school attendance rates. In
`
`addition, the expected outcome for AmeriCorps members . . .”
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-02064-JPC Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/12/24 11 of 27. PageID #: 693
`
`• “. . . is to improve students’ opportunities for career success,
`
`especially in the health care industry, by fostering college and career
`
`readiness, leadership skills, and self-efficacy.”
`
`(ECF No. 2-4, PageID #74–75.)
`
`John Carroll University stopped using this individualized goal plan in 2021.
`
`(ECF No. 30-2, ¶ 18, PageID #507.) Defendant calculates that approximately 195
`
`words are common to the individualized goal plan’s summary paragraph and the 2013
`
`draft grant application. (ECF No. 30, PageID #236 n.4.) By its calculation, these
`
`words make up only 2.3% of the individualized goal plan and the remaining language
`
`of the document is different. (Id., PageID #236.) Dr. Weisblat neither disputes these
`
`calculations nor identifies any other common language between the 2013 draft grant
`
`application, any of her other publications, or John Carroll University’s other grant
`
`applications and materials.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`On May 23, 2022, Dr. Weisblat obtained a copyright registration for the 2013
`
`grant application, registration number TXu 2-317-331. (ECF No. 2-1, PageID #10.)
`
`Dr. Weisblat identifies herself as the sole author of the copyright, notwithstanding
`
`Dr. Porfeli’s contributions (which she does not dispute) or the fact that NEOMED
`
`ultimately submitted the application for funding. (Id.)
`
`On November 15, 2022, Plaintiff sued John Carroll University for copyright
`
`infringement. (ECF No. 2.) After Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew from representation
`
`the day after discovery closed (ECF No. 25, PageID #209–10), the Court set a
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-02064-JPC Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/12/24 12 of 27. PageID #: 694
`
`dispositive motion schedule and instructed her to respond to any motion filed by
`
`Defendant in accordance with Rule 56(d) if she believed additional discovery was
`
`necessary before she could substantively respond to Defendant’s legal arguments
`
`(ECF No. 28, PageID #216).
`
`On May 22, 2024, Defendant moved for summary judgment. (ECF No. 30,
`
`PageID #220.) On June 5, 2024, Plaintiff, represented by new counsel, requested a
`
`90-day extension of time to complete discovery under Rule 56(d) and to respond to
`
`Defendant’s summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 32, PageID #570.) Plaintiff
`
`identified several depositions of John Carroll University employees that she wished
`
`to complete and documentation that she wanted to obtain to support her claims. (Id.,
`
`PageID #572–74.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion because it appeared that some
`
`of her proposed fact discovery was unrelated to the substantive elements of her
`
`copyright infringement claim or John Carroll University’s defenses. (ECF No. 33,
`
`PageID #575–76.)
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the Court directed Plaintiff to respond substantively to
`
`Defendant’s first two grounds for summary judgment: (1) that the 2013 grant
`
`application is not copyrightable; and (2) that NEOMED is the owner of any copyright
`
`to the 2013 grant application under the work-for-hire doctrine. (Id. (citing ECF
`
`No. 30, PageID #220).) On July 8, 2024, Plaintiff opposed the motion for summary
`
`judgment. (ECF No. 34, PageID #578.) On July 22, 2024, Defendant filed a reply.
`
`(ECF No. 35, PageID #667.)
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-02064-JPC Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/12/24 13 of 27. PageID #: 695
`
`EVIDENCE ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
` As a threshold matter, the Court addresses an evidentiary matter that
`
`Plaintiff raises. In a footnote, Plaintiff objects to certain evidence Defendant uses to
`
`support its motion for summary judgment—namely, a declaration from one of John
`
`Carroll University’s lawyers (ECF No. 30-1, PageID #254)—as an improper attempt
`
`to “authenticate evidence and present testimony” without “personal knowledge of the
`
`assertions she makes” (ECF No. 34, PageID #578 n.1). Counsel authenticates several
`
`pieces of evidence: screenshots of and links to government websites, Dr. Weisblat’s
`
`State court complaint from a prior lawsuit and stipulation of its dismissal, a third-
`
`party deposition transcript, Plaintiff’s responses to interrogatories, and two
`
`screenshots comparing the word count of the IGP and the 2013 grant application.
`
`Rule 56(c)(2) governs objections to the admissibility of evidence offered to
`
`support a factual assertion in a motion for summary judgment. Under this Rule, “[a]
`
`party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be
`
`presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.” Under Rule 56(c)(2), the
`
`Court will disregard any inadmissible portions of the evidence at issue. In evaluating
`
`an objection under Rule 56(c)(2), the Court “should disregard [inadmissible evidence]
`
`rather than striking it from the record.” Stephenson v. Family Sols. of Ohio, Inc.,
`
`No. 1:18-cv-2017, 2021 WL 795551, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 2, 2021) (cleaned up). “It
`
`is well settled that only admissible evidence may be considered by the trial court in
`
`ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Wiley v. United States, 20 F.3d 222, 226
`
`(6th Cir. 1994) (cleaned up). Because the evidence at issue is either self-
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-02064-JPC Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/12/24 14 of 27. PageID #: 696
`
`authenticating, subject to judicial notice, or capable of being presented in an
`
`admissible form at trial, the Court will consider it on summary judgment and,
`
`accordingly, overrules Plaintiff’s objections to them.
`
`First, records from government websites are generally self-authenticating. An
`
`affidavit of a witness when viewed in combination with circumstantial indicia of
`
`authenticity (such as a URL, date, or other identifying information) will also serve to
`
`authenticate website screenshots. Foreword Mag., Inc. v. OverDrive, Inc., No. 1:10-
`
`cv-1144, 2011 WL 5169384, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2011) (collecting cases). Here,
`
`counsel attaches a cover sheet that details when the screenshots were obtained, the
`
`URL for each website, and the title of each. (ECF No. 30-1, PageID #257; id., PageID
`
`#263.) The Court is satisfied that the declaration and the other indicia of the
`
`reliability of these screenshots sufficiently authenticate the exhibits.
`
`Second, court filings from other lawsuits are matters of public record and are
`
`appropriate for judicial notice. See Lyons v. Stovall, 188 F.3d 327, 332 n.3 (6th Cir.
`
`1999). Accordingly, the Court takes judicial notice of the court filings as matters of
`
`public record but does not take judicial notice of the truth of any statement of fact
`
`contained in those documents. See Embassy Realty Invs., LLC v. City of Cleveland,
`
`877 F. Supp. 2d 564, 571 (N.D. Ohio 2012).
`
`Third, a deposition transcript is authenticated by identifying the deponent and
`
`including the cover sheet and court reporter’s certificate. Alexander v. CareSource,
`
`576 F.3d 551, 560 (6th Cir. 2009). The deposition offered includes a cover sheet,
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-02064-JPC Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/12/24 15 of 27. PageID #: 697
`
`identifies the deponent, and includes the court reporter’s certificate; therefore, it is
`
`properly authenticated. (ECF No. 30-1, PageID #317.)
`
`Fourth, Plaintiff’s response to
`
`interrogatories are self-authenticating
`
`statements of a party opponent. See Jones v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., No. 2:19-cv-
`
`2747, 2021 WL 784145, at *5 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 1, 2021).
`
`Fifth, the Court can consider the screenshots documenting the word counts of
`
`the 2013 draft grant application and the individualized goal plan’s summary
`
`paragraph as properly authenticated. In Plaintiff’s argument against consideration
`
`of these documents on summary judgment, she claims that counsel does not “actually
`
`hav[e] personal knowledge of the assertions she makes in the declaration.” (ECF No.
`
`34, PageID #578.) But the declaration includes the requisite language under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1746, and counsel identifies the source of these screenshots and word count
`
`calculations as “Microsoft Word, after converting it from PDF to Microsoft Word.”
`
`(ECF No. 30-1, ¶¶ 11–12, PageID #255.) Moreover, Plaintiff does not dispute the
`
`accuracy of these calculations, the reliability of the method Defendant used to reach
`
`the calculations, or the reliability of the screenshots. The Court finds that Defendant
`
`has properly authenticated these screenshots. Old West End Ass’n v. Buckeye Fed.
`
`Sav. & Loan, 675 F. Supp. 1100, 1106 (N.D. Ohio 1987) (summary calculations
`
`authenticated through an affidavit under Rule 901(b)(1) where the proffering party
`
`indicates the source of the calculations).
`
`Additionally, these screenshots would be admissible in this form at trial either
`
`as summaries under Rule 1006, as pedagogical devices under Rule 611(a) which
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-02064-JPC Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/12/24 16 of 27. PageID #: 698
`
`would be used to “aid the jury’s examination of testimony or documents which are
`
`themselves admitted into evidence,” or as a combination of summaries and
`
`pedagogical devices admitted “not in lieu of the evidence they summarize but in
`
`addition thereto.” United States v. Bray, 139 F.3d 1104, 1111–12 (6th Cir. 1998)
`
`(emphasis omitted) (discussing ways to admit summary exhibits under Rules 611(a)
`
`and 1006).
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no
`
`genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
`
`matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). On a motion for summary judgment, “the judge’s
`
`function is not . . . to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to
`
`determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`
`477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). “The party seeking summary judgment has the initial
`
`burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion” and identifying the portions
`
`of the record “which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material
`
`fact.” Tokmenko v. MetroHealth Sys., 488 F. Supp. 3d 571, 576 (N.D. Ohio 2020)
`
`(citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). The non-moving party must
`
`then “set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. (citing
`
`Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250).
`
`“When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent
`
`must do more than simply show there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material
`
`facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-02064-JPC Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/12/24 17 of 27. PageID #: 699
`
`The Court, instead, determines “whether the evidence presents a sufficient
`
`disagreement to require submission to a jury” or whether the evidence “is so one-
`
`sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251–52.
`
`In doing so, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-
`
`moving party. Kirilenko-Ison v. Board of Educ. of Danville Indep. Schs., 974 F.3d
`
`652, 660 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587).
`
`If a genuine dispute exists, meaning “the evidence is such that a reasonable
`
`jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party,” summary judgment is not
`
`appropriate. Tokmenko, 488 F. Supp 3d at 576 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250). If
`
`the evidence, however, “is merely colorable or is not significantly probative,”
`
`summary judgment for the movant is proper. Id. The “mere existence of some alleged
`
`factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported
`
`motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (quoting
`
`Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247–48) (emphasis omitted).
`
`“Just as a plaintiff may not rely on conclusory allegations to proceed past the
`
`pleading stage, so too a plaintiff may not rely on conclusory evidence to proceed past
`
`the summary-judgment stage.” Viet v. Le, 951 F.3d 818, 823 (6th Cir. 2020) (cleaned
`
`up). “Conclusory statements unadorned with supporting facts are insufficient to
`
`establish a factual dispute that will defeat summary judgment.” Id. (quoting
`
`Alexander, 576 F.3d at 560).
`
`I.
`
`Idea for the HPAC/CRUSH Program
`The Constitution gives power to Congress to grant authors exclusive copyrights
`
`over their works. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8. Copyright protection extends to
`17
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-02064-JPC Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/12/24 18 of 27. PageID #: 700
`
`“original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.” 17 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(a).
`
`At bottom, Plaintiff contends that John Carroll University’s continued
`
`administration of the HPAC/CRUSH program is improper because that program was
`
`her idea. On the record presented, that program stemmed from years of
`
`Dr. Weisblat’s scholarship, research, effort, and collaboration with others. However,
`
`“there is no labor theory of copyright.” ACT, Inc. v. Worldwide Interactive Network,
`
`Inc., 46 F.4th 489, 500 (6th Cir. 2022) (citing Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv.
`
`Co., 499 U.S. 340, 359–60 (1991) (recognizing that “sweat of the brow” is not a basis
`
`for copyright protection and enforcement)). In legal terms, this dispute boils down to
`
`whether Dr. Weisblat’s idea for the HPAC/CRUSH program and her expression
`
`describing that program are subject to copyright protection.
`
`Against this legal backdrop, the Court turns to Defendant’s argument that
`
`neither the idea for the HPAC/CRUSH program nor what it characterizes as the de
`
`minimis language common to the 2013 draft grant application and the individualized
`
`goal plan are copyrightable. “Although a copyright owner enjoys various exclusive
`
`rights . . . ‘[t]he mere fact that a work is copyrighted does not mean that every element
`
`of the work may be protected.’” RJ Control Consultants, Inc. v. Multiject, LLC, 100
`
`F.4th 659, 666–67 (6th Cir. 2024) (quoting Feist Publ’ns, 499 U.S. at 348) (alteration
`
`in original). “In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship
`
`extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept,
`
`principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained,
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-02064-JPC Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/12/24 19 of 27. PageID #: 701
`
`illustrated, or embodied in such work.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). Copyright protection
`
`extends only to the expression of an idea, not the idea itself or the facts underlying
`
`such expression. Premier Dealer Servs., Inc. v. Allegiance Adm’rs, LLC, 93 F.4th 985,
`
`989–90 (6th Cir. 2024) (recognizing that an author cannot copyright principles of
`
`arithmetic or the physics of gravity but can copyright the problems and answer keys
`
`in a math or physics textbook); see also Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 101–05 (1879)
`
`(explaining that, while a book describing a bookkeeping system is worthy of copyright
`
`protection, the underlying method described is not).
`
`Whether known as the Health Professions Affinity Community program or the
`
`Corps for Rural and Urban Success and Health program, this program is a service-
`
`based youth educational program that delivers curriculum and academic and career
`
`support to students in underserved Ohio communities to encourage them to pursue
`
`careers in healthcare-related fields. Simply stated, this idea at the heart of the
`
`HPAC/CRUSH program is an idea not subject to copyright.
`
`Plaintiff repeatedly describes the HPAC/CRUSH program as an idea and
`
`claims that John Carroll University “re-bra
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
