Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03332/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03332-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

C:\Documents and Settings\Workstation\Local Settings\Temp\notes06E812\Proposed Order (MSJ) 

(KDH0871).DOC 1 (PROPOSED) ORDER

 C-04-3332 SBA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TISDALE & NICHOLSON, LLP

Kevin D. Hughes (SBN 188749)

2029 Century Park East, Suite 900

Los Angeles, California 90067

Tel.: (310) 286-1260

Fax: (310) 286-2351

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant

Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. and 

Counterdefendant Diane Gladwell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLADWELL GOVERNMENTAL 

SERVICES, INC., a California 

corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COUNTY OF MARIN, a legal 

subdivision of the State of 

California; COUNTY OF 

TUOLUMNE, a legal subdivision 

of the State of California, 

and DOES 1 through 50 

inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C-04-3332 SBA

ORDER DENYING COUNTERCLAIMANTS’ 

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT AND DISMISSING 

COUNTERCLAIMS

Date: October 18, 2005

Time: 1:00 p.m.

Place: Oakland, Courtroom 3

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM )

)

On October 18, 2005, Counterclaimants’ Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment came on regularly for hearing before the 

Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong. After consideration of the 

parties’ written submissions, as well as the argument of counsel 

at hearing, 

Case 4:04-cv-03332-SBA Document 58 Filed 10/17/05 Page 1 of 9
C:\Documents and Settings\Workstation\Local Settings\Temp\notes06E812\Proposed Order (MSJ) 

(KDH0871).DOC 2 (PROPOSED) ORDER

 C-04-3332 SBA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT COUNTERCLAIMANTS’ MOTION FOR 

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE DENIED AND THE COUNTERCLAIMS BE 

DISMISSED.

I. BACKGROUND

On March 7, 2005, the Court granted the Defendants’ Motion 

to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. In so doing, the Court ruled 

that the Marin County (“Marin”) records retention schedules were 

a “work made for hire”, owned by Marin. (Order, p. 8) The Court 

ruled that Plaintiff Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. 

(“Gladwell”) had no ownership interest in the Marin schedules, 

and therefore, no ownership interest in any copyright therein. 

(Order, pp. 7-8)

The County of Marin and the County of Tuolumne 

(collectively, the “Counties”) now seek declaratory judgments 

with respect to ownership of the Marin schedules and the scope of 

copyright protection the schedules merit – these are issues in 

which (as per the Court’s prior ruling) Gladwell has no legal 

interest. Because there is no “present live controversy” between 

the parties as to either of the Counties’ three counterclaims, 

the Court must dismiss them as moot. 

II. THERE IS NO “PRESENT LIVE CONTROVERSY” AS TO ANY OF THE 

THREE ISSUES RAISED IN THE COUNTIES’ MOTION AND SO THE COURT MUST 

DISMISS THEM AS MOOT

The exercise of judicial power under Article III of the 

Constitution depends on the existence of a case or controversy. 

Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402 (1975). More particularly, 

a federal court has no authority to issue a declaratory judgment 

Case 4:04-cv-03332-SBA Document 58 Filed 10/17/05 Page 2 of 9
C:\Documents and Settings\Workstation\Local Settings\Temp\notes06E812\Proposed Order (MSJ) 

(KDH0871).DOC 3 (PROPOSED) ORDER

 C-04-3332 SBA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

apart from that authority granted it by the Declaratory Judgment 

Act, which requires by its terms that an “actual controversy” 

exist between the parties before the court. 28 U.S.C. § 2201; 

Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240 (1937). “The 

controversy must be definite and concrete, touching the legal 

relations of parties having adverse legal interests.” Aetna, 

supra, at 240-241. The rule in federal cases is that an actual 

controversy must exist at all stages of review and not merely at 

the time the complaint is filed. Preiser, supra, at 402. 

The “actual controversy” must be one which presently exists 

and not simply one which may occur. Farnum v. International 

Ass’n of Machinists, 161 F.Supp. 391 (S.D.N.Y. 1958); Garcia v. 

Brownell, 236 F.2d 356 (9th Cir. (Cal.) 1956). Whenever an action 

loses its character as a “present live controversy” during the 

course of litigation, federal courts are required to dismiss the 

action as moot. Allard v. DeLorean, 884 F.2d 464, 466 (9th Cir. 

1989). An action ceases to be a “present live controversy” and 

becomes moot once either party is shown to lack a “legally 

cognizable interest in the outcome” of the adversary proceeding. 

County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979); 

DiGiorgio v. Lee, 134 F.3d 971, 974 (9th Cir. (Cal.) 1998). See

also Lusardi v. Xerox, 975 F.2d 964 (3rd Cir. 1992)(No agreement 

between the parties to allow the federal court to hear the case 

will rescue a mooted claim.)

The Counties seek declaratory judgments with respect to 

ownership of Marin’s schedules and the scope of copyright 

protection the schedules merit. As a result of the Court’s March 

7, 2005 ruling, Gladwell has no legally cognizable interest in 

Case 4:04-cv-03332-SBA Document 58 Filed 10/17/05 Page 3 of 9
C:\Documents and Settings\Workstation\Local Settings\Temp\notes06E812\Proposed Order (MSJ) 

(KDH0871).DOC 4 (PROPOSED) ORDER

 C-04-3332 SBA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the outcome of these counterclaims. Furthermore, the declaratory 

relief sought is as to the validity of defenses to an action that 

has been dismissed. The fact that, theoretically speaking, 

Gladwell may in the future obtain a reversal of the dismissal on 

appeal simply does not create a “present live controversy”. 

Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 746-747 (1998)(there is no 

“case or controversy” where an action seeks declaratory relief as 

to the validity of defenses that the defendant may or may not

advance in future litigation that may or may not take place). 

For each of these reasons, the counterclaims are moot and must be 

dismissed. 

A. The First Counterclaim Is Moot Because The Court Has 

Already Ruled that Marin Owns The Retention Schedules

The Counties’ first counterclaim seeks a declaratory 

judgment that under the contract between Marin County and Diane 

Gladwell, Marin County is the sole owner of the records retention 

schedules. The Counties concede that the ruling sought is 

precisely the ruling received on March 7, 2005. Thus, it is a 

settled question, and not a live issue between the parties.

B. The Fourth Counterclaim Is Moot Because Gladwell Has No 

Legal Interest In Whether Marin’s Retention Schedules 

Are Copyrightable

The Counties’ fourth counterclaim seeks a declaratory 

judgment that the records retention schedules at issue are not 

copyrightable. This issue was briefed last winter, but the Court 

expressly declined to resolve it because the question of whether 

Case 4:04-cv-03332-SBA Document 58 Filed 10/17/05 Page 4 of 9
C:\Documents and Settings\Workstation\Local Settings\Temp\notes06E812\Proposed Order (MSJ) 

(KDH0871).DOC 5 (PROPOSED) ORDER

 C-04-3332 SBA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the retention schedules were copyrightable was mooted by the 

Court’s threshold ruling that Gladwell had no legal interest in 

any such copyright. (Order, at fn. 5) This remains true today. 

Gladwell has no legal interest in the Marin schedules, or any 

copyright that might protect them, and therefore, no legal stake 

in the outcome of this counterclaim. Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 

U.S. 171, 173 (1977)(“Emotional involvement in a lawsuit is not 

enough to meet the case-or-controversy requirement; were the rule 

otherwise, few cases could ever become moot.”). 

In Ashcroft, supra, after the defendant successfully 

defended a claim by virtue of a particular affirmative defense, 

plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment as to whether defendant 

would have been liable were it not for the affirmative defense. 

There was no live controversy on the point and so the court 

refused to issue what would effectively be an advisory opinion. 

The Counties are attempting the same tactic here: The matter has 

been resolved, but they want the Court to issue advisory opinions 

as to defenses that were not adjudicated. The Court has no 

jurisdiction to do so. 

Indeed, to the extent Gladwell has any stake in whether the 

Marin schedule is copyright-protected, it is not adverse to the 

Counties’ but rather is in agreement. Gladwell is in the 

business of creating records retention schedules for California 

governmental entities. It would be hard-pressed to stay in 

business if Marin County obtained a monopoly on the unique 

selection, coordination and arrangement of data that Gladwell has 

developed in 10 years of serving California local governments. 

Thus, a ruling that Marin owned a copyright in the retention 

Case 4:04-cv-03332-SBA Document 58 Filed 10/17/05 Page 5 of 9
C:\Documents and Settings\Workstation\Local Settings\Temp\notes06E812\Proposed Order (MSJ) 

(KDH0871).DOC 6 (PROPOSED) ORDER

 C-04-3332 SBA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

schedules would be potentially devastating to Gladwell’s 

business. The fact that the interests of the Counties and 

Gladwell with respect to resolution of these issues is aligned

fortifies the conclusion that no justiciable controversy is 

present. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. Public Bldg. Com’n of St. 

Clair County, Illinois, 921 F.2d 118 (7th Cir. 1990)(If parties 

seek the “same result” on a claim, then no “case or controversy 

exists between adverse parties over this issue.”). 

C. The Fifth Counterclaim is Not Only Moot, It Asks The 

Court to Issue An Advisory Opinion On A Hypothetical 

Set Of Facts

The Counties’ fifth counterclaim seeks a declaratory 

judgment that the County of Tuolumne’s use of the Marin County 

records retention schedules was a “fair use”. For all of the 

foregoing reasons, Gladwell has no legally cognizable interest in 

the outcome and so this is not a “present live controversy”. 

Furthermore, the Counties ask the Court to issue an advisory 

opinion on a hypothetical set of facts, which it cannot do. 

The “fair use” doctrine is a defense to a claim for 

copyright infringement. The Court has dismissed Gladwell’s 

complaint and ruled that Marin owned the retention schedules at 

issue. As a result, and since Marin consented to Tuolumne’s use 

of the Marin schedules in the first place, there is (1) no 

unauthorized use at issue; (2) no live claim of infringement; 

(3) no occasion for Tuolumne to raise the “fair use” defense; and 

(4) no cause to adjudicate a hypothetical “fair use” defense to a 

moot claim.

Case 4:04-cv-03332-SBA Document 58 Filed 10/17/05 Page 6 of 9
C:\Documents and Settings\Workstation\Local Settings\Temp\notes06E812\Proposed Order (MSJ) 

(KDH0871).DOC 7 (PROPOSED) ORDER

 C-04-3332 SBA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Counties are effectively asking the Court to resolve a 

multi-layered hypothetical: (a) What if Gladwell did own “some 

portion” of the records retention schedules and (b) what if the 

schedules were copyright-protected and (c) what if Marin shared 

them with Tuolumne without Gladwell’s authorization and (d) what 

if Gladwell had a live infringement claim? This Court simply has 

no jurisdiction to provide an advisory opinion on a hypothetical 

set of facts. Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172. 

D. Adjudicating Moot Claims and Hypothetical Questions 

Does Not Serve “Judicial Efficiency”

In the Conclusion section of their brief, the Counties make 

an appeal to the “interests of judicial efficiency”. The 

interests of judicial efficiency are not served by the 

adjudication of moot claims, or the issuance of advance rulings 

on collateral defenses to a litigation that may never be 

litigated. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the Court denies Counterclaimants’ 

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and dismisses the 

Counterclaims, as follows:

On Counterclaimants’ First Counterclaim: The Court finds 

that the declaratory judgment sought is precisely the ruling 

received in the Court’s March 7, 2005 Order. Thus, it is a 

settled question, and not a live issue between the parties. It 

is DISMISSED.

On Counterclaimants’ Fourth Counterclaim: The Court finds 

that the counterclaim is moot because Counterdefendants have no 

Case 4:04-cv-03332-SBA Document 58 Filed 10/17/05 Page 7 of 9
C:\Documents and Settings\Workstation\Local Settings\Temp\notes06E812\Proposed Order (MSJ) 

(KDH0871).DOC 8 (PROPOSED) ORDER

 C-04-3332 SBA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

legal interest in the Marin schedules, or any copyright that 

might protect them, and therefore, no legal stake in the outcome 

of this counterclaim. It is DISMISSED.

On Counterclaimants’ Fifth Counterclaim: The Court finds 

that the counterclaim is moot because Counterdefendants have no 

legal interest in the Marin schedules, or any copyright that 

might protect them, and therefore, no legal stake in the outcome 

of this counterclaim. In addition, the Counterclaim seeks an 

advisory opinion based on a hypothetical set of facts. It is 

DISMISSED. 

Date:10/15/05 _________________________________

United States District Court Judge

Presented by:

TISDALE & NICHOLSON, LLP

Kevin D. Hughes

By: _____________________

 Kevin D. Hughes

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

and Counterdefendant 

Gladwell Governmental 

Services, Inc. and 

Counterdefendant Diane 

Gladwell

Case 4:04-cv-03332-SBA Document 58 Filed 10/17/05 Page 8 of 9
C:\Documents and Settings\Workstation\Local Settings\Temp\notes06E812\Proposed Order (MSJ) 

(KDH0871).DOC 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 4:04-cv-03332-SBA Document 58 Filed 10/17/05 Page 9 of 9