Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02298/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02298-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

*E-FILED 10/31/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOEL BEININ, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF POPULAR

CULTURE,

Defendant. /

NO. C 06-2298 JW (RS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

MOTION TO COMPEL AND

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is defendant’s motion for a protective order, plaintiff’s corresponding

motion to compel, and post-hearing requests from both sides that they be permitted to submit

additional materials. Based on the parties’ briefing, the arguments of counsel, and the record herein,

each motion will be denied in part and granted in part, and the requests to file additional materials

will be denied.

 II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Joel Beinen is a professor of Middle Eastern studies at Stanford University who has

been involved with the Middle East Studies Association (“MESA”). Defendant The Center for the

Study of Popular Culture (“the Center”) is self-described as a “non-profit organization founded by

author and advocate David Horowitz to promote conservative positions on matters of domestic and

foreign policy.” The Center publishes political commentary online and in printed books and

pamphlets. In February of 2005, the Center published a pamphlet entitled “Campus Support for

Case 5:06-cv-02298-JW Document 36 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Terrorism.” The pamphlet collected several articles criticizing various academic organizations and

individuals for advocating views that the authors assert are not in the interests of the United States. 

One of the articles in the pamphlet, entitled “Terror’s Faculty Sympathizers,” expressly criticized

MESA and Beinen.

The cover of the pamphlet featured photographs of four individuals mentioned in the articles,

including one of Beinen. The center obtained the photo of Beinen from the Stanford University

website. Beinen subsequently obtained an assignment of rights from the photographer who had

taken the picture, and then filed this action for copyright infringement.

III. DISCUSSION

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(b)(1),

 [p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, 

that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party . . . For good cause, 

the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter 

involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the 

trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence.

Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of

consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be

without the evidence.” Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 401. Discovery may be limited by the court

for good cause shown “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or

undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c))

A. Discovery Requests Related to Liability

Beinen has propounded a number of interrogatories and document requests that the Center

contends are wholly inappropriate given that Beinen is suing only for copyright infringement and

not for libel. The Center notes that it would be entitled to various protections in any libel suit,

including the provisions of California’s “anti-SLAPP” statute, Cal. Code Civ. P. § 425.16 and rights

under the First Amendment. The Center argues that Beinen is now attempting to evade those

limitations by seeking discovery that would only be relevant had he brought a defamation claim.

Beinen concedes that, as drafted, the discovery requests seek factual support for the content

Case 5:06-cv-02298-JW Document 36 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

of the pamphlet, among other things. Beinen argues, however, that in the meet and confer process

he narrowed his requests to seek only information related to the cover of the pamphlet, and its use

in advertising and promoting the pamphlet or other publications, fund raising, or other activities of

the Center. Beinen contends that, as limited, the requests properly seek information that is relevant

to a copyright claim because the Center’s intent and motive is germane to its various equitable

defenses and to the doctrine of “fair use.” 

As noted at the hearing, the precise contours of the limitations Beinen proposes are

somewhat unclear. It appears, however, that even though Beinen has disavowed any intent to

obtain factual support for the contents of the pamphlet, he is still expecting the Center to provide

any factual support it may have for what Benin sees as the “message” of the cover. Even assuming

that the Center’s good faith or lack thereof may have some bearing on claims or defenses in this

copyright action, Beinin has not shown how the truth or falsity of the “message” of the cover has

any relevance to this action for copyright infringement of the photograph. The issue in this case is

not whether Benin “supports terrorism” or not, nor whether it was defamatory to imply that he does. 

With that limitation in mind, the Court will address the specific requests remaining in dispute.

Interrogatory No. 4

This interrogatory requests the Center to state all facts relating to why it “believes Prof.

Beinin supports or collaborates with terrorists.” Having sued only in copyright, Beinen cannot now

call on the Center to defend or support any opinions it may hold about Beinen and his activities. 

No further response to this interrogatory will be required. 

Interrogatory No. 5

 As drafted, this interrogatory seeks “all facts relating to the Pamphlet’s discussion of Prof.

Beinin,” including all facts underlying the statements made in the pamphlets. Beinen has now

recast this interrogatory to request “all facts relating to the cover of the Booklet and use of the cover

of the booklet in [the Center’s] advertising, promotion, solicitation and or fund-raising activities.” 

With the understanding that the Center is not required to state facts supporting the “message” of the

cover, the revised interrogatory is appropriate, and a further response shall be provided within 20

days of the date of this order. 

Case 5:06-cv-02298-JW Document 36 Filed 10/31/06 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Document Request No. 1

This request seeks all documents in any way related to Beinen. The Center has agreed to

produce any documents related to its use of Beinen’s photograph, but contends that the request is

otherwise overbroad. Assuming the Center possesses other documents relating to Beinen, those

documents may well pertain to his public activities and political views. Indeed, the divergent

political opinions of the parties is no secret. The details of what the Center has collected about

Beinen, or what it has said to others about Beinen, simply have no bearing on the copyright issues

in this action. No further response to this request will be required. 

Document Request No. 3 

This request originally sought “all documents relating to the Pamphlet” including

communication with third parties. As limited, it now seeks only documents relating to the cover of

the pamphlet and its use by the Center. As limited, the request does not require the Center to

support the “message” of the cover, and is not otherwise overbroad. The Center has already agreed

to produce responsive documents “relating to its use of the photograph.” To the extent that the

Center possesses additional responsive non-privileged documents relating to its use of the cover in

its advertising, promotion, solicitation, and/or fund raising activities, it shall produce them within

20 days of the date of this order.

Document Request Nos. 5 and 6

As drafted, these requests seek communications between Horowitz or Ben Johnson and third

parties regarding Beinen, MESA, the photograph and/or the pamphlet. Beinen is now limiting the

request to communications regarding Beinen, the photograph, the cover of the pamphlet and its use

in advertising, promotion, solicitation, and/or fund raising activities. 

To the extent the narrowed requests still seek any communications relating to Beinen, they

remain overbroad, for the same reason as discussed in connection with request no. 1. The

remainder of the requests as narrowed, however, are appropriate, for the same reason as discussed

in connection with request no. 3. To the extent that the Center possesses additional responsive nonprivileged documents relating to its use of the cover in its advertising, promotion, solicitation,

and/or fund raising activities, it shall produce them within 20 days of the date of this order.

Case 5:06-cv-02298-JW Document 36 Filed 10/31/06 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

Document Request Nos 28 and 29

These requests seek documents supporting the purported connection between terrorists and

Beinen and other academics. As with interrogatory no. 4, there is no basis in this copyright action

to require the Center to defend the message conveyed by the pamphlet or its cover. No further

response to these requests will be required.

B. Discovery Requests Related to Damages

As narrowed in the parties’ meet and confer discussions, the discovery requests relating to

damages that remain in dispute are interrogatory 12, subcategories (3) (sales of books and

pamphlets) and (4) (revenue received from direct solicitations) and document request 14

(documents supporting the interrogatory response). 

The Center contends that it should not have to disclose any revenue information except what

it derived from sales of the pamphlet itself. Beinen points out, however, that the pamphlet –and

therefore his photograph–was depicted prominently on the Center’s website. Beinen’s theory is

that his photograph was in effect used as a marketing tool for all of the Center’s sales and fundraising efforts. The Center argues that Beinen will not be able to prove a sufficient nexus between

the use of the photograph and other revenues so as to permit recovery of such “indirect profits.” 

The Center may well ultimately be able to persuade the trial judge or a trier of fact that issues of

causation and speculation preclude recovery for some or all of the “indirect profits,” but that is a

question that must be decided on a complete factual record. As limited, these requests are

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Center shall serve a

further response to interrogatory 12, subcategories (3) and (4), and any non-privileged responsive

supporting documents within 20 days of the date of this order. 

C. Post-hearing submissions

The Court has received and considered the post hearing letter briefs that it requested. The

Center’s subsequent request to submit copies of certain materials produced by Benin in discovery is

denied. The Center has not demonstrated that consideration of such materials is critical to

Case 5:06-cv-02298-JW Document 36 Filed 10/31/06 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 

C 06-2298 JW (RS) 

6

disposition of these motions. Beinin’s request to file a transcript counsel produced of the hearing in

this matter is denied. The audio record of the hearing is already part of the record herein.

IV. CONCLUSION

The parties’ respective motions are denied in part and granted in part, as set forth above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-02298-JW Document 36 Filed 10/31/06 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 

C 06-2298 JW (RS) 

7

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Rachel E. Matteo-Boehm rachel.matteo-boehm@hro.com

Mary Elizabeth Milionis MMilionis@Fenwick.com, NCarroll@Fenwick.com

Roger R. Myers roger.myers@hro.com, adam.brezine@hro.com; nancy.burnett@hro.com

Patrick E. Premo ppremo@fenwick.com

Albert Lukas Sieber asieber@fenwick.com, rjones@fenwick.com

Mitchell Harris Zimmerman mzimmerman@fenwick.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 10/31/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:06-cv-02298-JW Document 36 Filed 10/31/06 Page 7 of 7