Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02602/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02602-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:504 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEXANDER L. WILD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEAN B. PETERSON,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-2602-KJM-KJN

ORDER 

This is an action for copyright infringement filed by plaintiff, a professional photographer 

of insects, against defendant, who allegedly used one of plaintiff’s copyrighted photographs on 

the website for defendant’s pest control business without authorization. (See, generally, ECF No. 

1.) Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. (ECF No. 13.)1 

Defendant has not appeared in this case, and failed to oppose plaintiff’s motion in accordance 

with Local Rule 230. Upon review of plaintiff’s motion, and without expressing any opinion 

concerning its ultimate merits, the court finds that supplemental briefing and supporting materials

would be beneficial to the court’s resolution of the motion.

////

 

1

This motion was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(19).

Case 2:15-cv-02602-KJM-KJN Document 15 Filed 04/08/16 Page 1 of 3
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

2

In a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff may elect to seek either actual or 

statutory damages. 17 U.S.C. § 504. The statute provides for statutory damages for all 

infringements of a given work of not less than $750.00 and not more than $30,000, as the court 

considers just. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1). “In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden 

of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its 

discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.” 17 

U.S.C. § 504(c)(2). Courts in this district have previously looked to seven factors in evaluating 

whether a proposed award of statutory damages is just: (1) “the expenses saved and the profits 

reaped;” (2) “the revenues lost by the plaintiff;” (3) “the value of the copyright;” (4) “the 

deterrent effect on others besides the defendant;” (5) “whether the defendant’s conduct was 

innocent or willful;” (6) “whether a defendant has cooperated in providing particular records from 

which to assess the value of the infringing material produced;” and (7) “the potential for 

discouraging the defendant.” See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Nop, 549 F. Supp. 2d 1233, 1237 

(E.D. Cal. 2008).

In this case, plaintiff seeks $20,000 in statutory damages, but has provided little rationale 

for the computation of that number. By way of example, plaintiff has not provided the court with 

the fee plaintiff customarily charges to license use of the particular photo, accompanied by a

showing of why a particular multiplier would be appropriate in light of the facts and legal 

authorities. 

Plaintiff submitted a declaration by plaintiff’s counsel in an attempt to demonstrate that

defendant’s infringement was willful, but the declaration itself lacks proper factual foundation. 

For example, plaintiff’s counsel states that “Defendant continued to display the Image after being 

repeatedly notified that the Image was subject to copyright by the Plaintiff” and that “Defendant 

has continued infringement of the Image to the present day.” (ECF No. 13 at 10.) However, the 

declaration does not outline how, when, and by whom defendant was notified of plaintiff’s rights 

to the photo, and it is unclear how plaintiff’s counsel even has personal knowledge regarding such 

notification to the defendant.

////

Case 2:15-cv-02602-KJM-KJN Document 15 Filed 04/08/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

In light of defendant’s default, and plaintiff’s inability to conduct discovery, it is 

understandable that plaintiff may not be able to provide an exhaustive analysis of each of the 

above-mentioned factors. Nevertheless, plaintiff should be able to provide the court with some 

properly supported rationale for computing the $20,000.00 figure requested, so as to avoid an 

ostensibly arbitrary award of statutory damages.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. No later than April 28, 2016, plaintiff shall file supplemental briefing, including any 

appropriate declarations, in support of the requested amount of statutory damages.

2. Defendant shall have an additional opportunity to oppose the motion for default 

judgment, including the supplemental briefing, by filing a written opposition no later 

than May 26, 2016.

3. Thereafter, the motion will be submitted for decision without oral argument on the 

record and written briefing pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), unless the court 

subsequently determines that oral argument is necessary.

4. The April 21, 2016 hearing is VACATED.

5. The Clerk of Court shall serve a courtesy copy of this order on defendant at the 

address for defendant listed on plaintiff’s proof of service: Dean Peterson dba 

Certified Pest Management, 4120 Douglas Blvd., Suite 306, Granite Bay, CA 95746.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 8, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-02602-KJM-KJN Document 15 Filed 04/08/16 Page 3 of 3