Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01372/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01372-6/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPLIED PROFESSIONAL TRAINING,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv1372 DMS (MDD)

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION

OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE:

TRAINING MATERIALS

[DOC. NO. 90]

vs.

MIRA COSTA COLLEGE, et al.,

Defendants.

Background

Plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of educational and technical training.

Defendant Teleskills, LLC, d/b/a Ameri-Skills, is a competitor of Plaintiff alleged to have been

created by former employees of Plaintiff. Plaintiff has alleged several causes of action against

Defendants including copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair

competition. (Doc. No. 1). The allegations of copyright infringement pertain to certain course and

reference books and materials alleged to be protected by copyright registrations. The allegations of

trade secret misappropriation pertain to contact and sales databases and lists of customers,

students, businesses, organizations, instructors and key contact persons and to student rosters and

lists. The unfair competition claim relates to Defendants’ acquisition and use of Plaintiff’s

copyrighted material and proprietary information in the marketplace. (Id.).

- 1 - 10cv1372 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01372-DMS-MDD Document 113 Filed 12/21/11 Page 1 of 4
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

On November 15, 2011, Defendants filed the instant Motion for Determination for

Discovery Dispute. (Doc. No. 90). Plaintiff filed their Memorandum in Opposition on November

28, 2011. (Doc. No. 98). Defendants filed a reply on December 5, 2011. (Doc. No. 103). The

parties did not comply with this Court’s Chambers Rules requiring that the parties meet and confer

and, if unable to resolve their dispute, file a joint motion with the Court. The issue of noncompliance with Chambers Rules previously has been addressed by this Court. (Doc. No. 96). 

Discussion

At issue are responses to Interrogatories propounded by Defendants pertaining to Plaintiff’s

allegations regarding misappropriation and use by Defendants of Plaintiff’s copyrighted course

materials. Interrogatories 1through 4 ask Plaintiff to identify with specificity the portions of its

copyrighted course materials Defendants are alleged to have copied, infringed, used and continue

to use to teach classes. Interrogatories 7 through 9 cover the same ground but more broadly. For

example, Interrogatory 7 asks Plaintiff to identify by registration number and page number the

particular text alleged to have been copied, distributed and infringed upon by Defendants. 

Interrogatories 10 through 12 ask Plaintiff to identify facts and documents supporting Plaintiff’s

claim that it is the original owner of the copyrighted materials. Interrogatories 13 through 18 ask

Plaintiff to provide facts supporting Plaintiff’s contention that particular Defendants had direct

access to Plaintiff’s copyrighted materials. Interrogatories 19 through 24 ask Plaintiff to identify

specific materials included and excluded in the registration of the various registered works alleged

to have been infringed by Defendants. 

1. Interrogatories 1 through 4 and 7 through 9

In response to these Interrogatories, Plaintiff identified 10 books or compilations and

answered that Defendants copied them with only minor changes. Plaintiff claims that the works

were registered as compilations and were copied almost completely by Defendants. Defendants

assert that this response is inadequate. Plaintiff also claims that disclosing specific portions of the

registered works alleged to have been copied or used by Defendants is protected from disclosure as

attorney work-product. In addition, relying upon Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(d), Plaintiff claims that to the

- 2 - 10cv1372 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01372-DMS-MDD Document 113 Filed 12/21/11 Page 2 of 4
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

extent Defendants are asking Plaintiff to conduct a comparison of the relevant materials of Plaintiff

and Defendants, the burden is the same for all parties and that all parties have access to the

necessary materials. 

Plaintiff’s answer that the disclosed compilations were copied, distributed and used by

Defendants in their entirety, but for some minor differences, is a sufficient response. To the extent

that Plaintiff has conducted a comparison of the materials at issue, it appears that Plaintiff is

asserting that it was prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3)

protects this information from discovery unless it is relevant and the party seeking disclosure

“shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue

hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.” While clearly relevant, Defendants

have not made the requisite showing. No further responses are required.

2. Interrogatories 10 through 12

 These Interrogatories ask Plaintiff to identify facts and documents supporting Plaintiff’s

claim that it is the original owner of the copyrighted materials. Plaintiff has responded that it has

produced the materials along with the copyright registration certificates and the agreements with

the employees and independent contractors who compiled the materials. 

Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants provided briefing regarding the adequacy of these

responses. The responses appear sufficient. Accordingly, no further responses are required.

3. Interrogatories 13 through 18

These Interrogatories ask Plaintiff to provide facts supporting Plaintiff’s contention that

particular Defendants had direct access to Plaintiff’s copyrighted materials. Plaintiff responded by

asserting its reliance on the presence of common typographical and grammatical errors in the

materials it has copyrighted and the materials being used by Defendants. Defendants assert that

these answers are insufficient.

Plaintiff has answered adequately and, absent supplementation, will have to live with those

answers at trial. No further responses are required. 

- 3 - 10cv1372 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01372-DMS-MDD Document 113 Filed 12/21/11 Page 3 of 4
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

4. Interrogatories 19 through 24

These Interrogatories ask Plaintiff to identify specific materials included and excluded in

the registration of the various registered works alleged to have been infringed by Defendants. 

Plaintiff has responded that the works at issue are compilations and, as such, Plaintiff has not

sought independent copyright protection for any particular component that is otherwise the

independent work of others. Defendant complains that this response is inadequate.

Neither party briefed the adequacy of these responses. The responses appear sufficient. No

further responses are required. 

Conclusion

As provided herein, no further responses are required from Plaintiff regarding these

Interrogatories.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: December 21, 2011

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 4 - 10cv1372 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01372-DMS-MDD Document 113 Filed 12/21/11 Page 4 of 4