Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01637/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01637-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

1 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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 

ROBERT ALEXANDER KASEBERG, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

CONACO, LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

ORDER REGARDING JOINT 

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION 

OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE 

MODIFYING THE SCHEDULING 

ORDER TO REOPEN DISCOVERY 

AND PERMIT THE DEPOSITION 

OF PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL 

(ECF No. 132) 

On June 28, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery 

Dispute Re: Modifying the Scheduling Order to Reopen Discovery and Permit the 

Deposition of Plaintiff’s Counsel. (ECF No. 132.) In the Joint Motion, Defendants 

Conaco, LLC, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., Time Warner, Inc., Conan O’Brien, Jeff 

Ross, and Mike Sweeney (collectively, “Defendants”) seek to (1) modify the Scheduling 

Order and reopen discovery for a period of sixty days, and (2) take the deposition of Jayson 

Lorenzo, counsel for Plaintiff Robert Alexander Kaseberg (“Plaintiff”). 

After careful consideration of the papers submitted, the Court ORDERS that a 

telephonic, attorneys only Discovery Conference shall be held, as set forth below. 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 139 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of

 12
2 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

I. BACKGROUND 

A. First Amended Complaint 

Plaintiff commenced this copyright infringement action on July 22, 2015. (ECF No. 

1.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants on October 3, 

2016. (ECF No. 58.) Plaintiff alleges he is a comedic writer engaged in the entertainment 

industry. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Plaintiff alleges that after he wrote and published five jokes on his 

personal online blog and/or Twitter account between December 2, 2014 and June 9, 2015, 

each joke was subsequently featured in the monologue segment of the “Conan” show. (Id. 

at ¶¶ 15-24.) These jokes, in order of date of alleged infringement, are (1) the “UAB Joke;” 

(2) the “Delta Joke;” (3) the “Tom Brady Joke;” (4) the “Washington Monument Joke;” 

and (5) the “Jenner Joke.” (See id.) 

Plaintiff alleges he filed copyright applications for each of the jokes at issue, 

deeming them “literary works,” with the United States Copyright Office. (Id. at ¶ 26.) He 

further alleges these applications are pending. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction, 

actual damages, statutory damages, increased statutory damages for willful infringement, 

and profits attributable to the infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrights pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 

§§ 502(a) and 504. (Id. at pp. 6-8.) Plaintiff also seeks attorney’s fees and costs and 

punitive damages. (Id. at p. 7.) 

 B. Answer 

 On October 17, 2016, Defendants filed an Answer to the FAC. (ECF No. 59.) 

Defendants assert eight affirmative defenses and reserve additional defenses. (Id. at pp. 5-

6.) The affirmative defenses include: (1) failure to state a claim; (2) lack of copyrightable 

subject matter; (3) copyright non-infringement; (4) independent creation; (5) lack of 

originality; (6) fair use; (7) no willfulness; and (8) improper venue. (Id.) 

 C. Motion for Summary Judgment 

 On February 3, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and/or 

Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 70.) Defendants moved for summary judgment, in 

part, on the Tom Brady Joke and the UAB Joke on the basis that Plaintiff failed to register 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 139 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of

 12
3 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

these jokes. (ECF No. 70-1 at pp. 8-9.) Defendants argued that a party “cannot litigate an 

infringement claim until it has at least filed an application to register the allegedly infringed 

copyrights.” (Id. at p. 9.) Based on Plaintiff’s discovery responses, Defendants argued 

that Plaintiff “failed to produce any evidence proving that he registered the Tom Brady 

Joke and the UAB Joke, which were first published on February 3, 2015 and December 3, 

2014, respectively.” (Id.) Defendants asserted the Copyright Office’s records are 

consistent with Plaintiff’s production. (Id.) Thus, Defendants argued Plaintiff’s claims as 

to the Tom Brady Joke and the UAB Joke must be dismissed for lack of standing. (Id.) 

 In his opposition, filed on February 24, 2017, Plaintiff asserted that he had submitted 

applications to the Copyright Office for all of the jokes at issue, including the Tom Brady 

and UAB Jokes, but that the applications for the Tom Brady Joke and the UAB Joke were 

currently pending. (ECF No. 97 at pp. 6-7.) Plaintiff represented that he sent an application 

for the UAB Joke on December 2, 2014, and that he sent applications for the Tom Brady 

Joke on September 3, 2015 and August 10, 2016, but they all remain pending. (Id.) 

Plaintiff argued that because he had submitted the applications, he has standing to proceed 

on these jokes. (Id.) 

 In their Reply, dated March 10, 2017, Defendants argued that they did not receive 

Plaintiff’s copyright applications for the Tom Brady Joke and the UAB Joke until February 

8, 2017. (ECF No. 106 at pp. 1-2.) Defendants argued the late disclosure were not harmless 

because the UAB Joke application appeared to be invalid, and Plaintiff failed to explain 

why he produced two different applications for the Tom Brady Joke. (Id. at p. 2.) 

 In supplemental briefing following oral argument, the parties addressed whether 

Plaintiff’s failure to produce the applications was substantially justified or harmless, or 

whether such evidence should be excluded, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. 

(ECF Nos. 124, 126, 127.) 

 In the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, dated May 12, 2017, she addressed the issue 

in detail. (ECF No. 131.) Judge Sammartino held “there is no question that Plaintiff failed 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 139 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of

 12
4 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

to timely produce the required disclosures,” but ultimately found the failure “harmless” 

within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c). (Id. at pp. 8-9.) Although 

Defendants could have conducted discovery that invalidates the applications if the 

applications were produced in a timely manner, Judge Sammartino found the fact remains 

that “Plaintiff did, in fact, submit applications which in turn confer Plaintiff with standing 

for the relevant jokes.” (Id. at p. 9.) Because she found the failure to disclose harmless

insofar as it relates to standing to bring suit, Judge Sammartino denied Defendants’ 

summary judgment motion on this ground. (Id. at p. 10.) 

 However, Judge Sammartino added that “Defendants are correct that they should 

be permitted to reopen discovery regarding the relevant applications, associated 

documents, and communications from the Copyright Office. Further, if Defendants 

discover fatal deficiencies in Plaintiff’s applications then Defendants should also again be 

permitted to move for Summary Judgment on those discrete grounds.” (Id. at pp. 9-10.) 

Judge Sammartino instructed the parties to meet and confer regarding these issues, and “if 

possible,” submit a joint motion to reopen discovery and modify the operative pre-trial 

schedule. (Id. at p. 10.) 

 Ultimately, Judge Sammartino granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants 

on the UAB Joke and the Delta Joke. (Id. at p. 28.) Summary judgment was granted as to 

the UAB Joke on grounds unrelated to registration with the Copyright Office. (Id. at pp. 

22-23.) Judge Sammartino did not, however, grant summary judgment as to the Tom Brady 

Joke. 

 D. Scheduling Order 

 On July 7, 2017, Defendants filed an Ex Parte Motion to Continue Pretrial Deadlines 

Pending Resolution of the Parties’ Joint Motion. (ECF No. 134.) On July 10, 2017, Judge 

Sammartino granted the Ex Parte Motion and vacated all current pretrial deadlines. (ECF 

No. 136; see also ECF No. 138.) Judge Sammartino will reset the pretrial deadlines after 

the present motion is resolved. (Id. at p. 2.) 

/// 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 139 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of

 12
5 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

 E. Meet and Confer Efforts 

 The parties met and conferred extensively on the present issue before the Court. (See

ECF No. 132-1, Declaration of Nicholas Huskins (“Huskins Decl.”); ECF No. 132-2, 

Declaration of Jayson M. Lorenzo (“Lorenzo Decl.”).) After reviewing the submissions 

by the parties, the Court notes the following key dates in the history of this issue: 

 March 10, 2015: Plaintiff submitted a Standard application to the 

Copyright Office for the Delta Joke, but included screenshots from 

Plaintiff’s blog of the Delta Joke, the Tom Brady Joke, and the

Washington Monument Joke. (Huskins Decl. at ¶¶ 12-13, Exhs. 7-8.) 

 March 11, 2015: Plaintiff submitted a Single application for the Delta 

Joke, and again included screenshots from Plaintiff’s blog of the Delta 

Joke, the Tom Brady Joke, and the Washington Monument Joke. 

(Huskins Decl. at ¶¶ 12-13, Exhs. 7-8.) 

 July 22, 2015: Complaint filed alleging copyright infringement of the 

Delta Joke, the Tom Brady Joke, the Washington Monument Joke, and 

the Jenner Joke. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges Plaintiff filed 

copyright applications for each of these jokes on March 10, 2015, 

March 11, 2015, June 26, 2015, and July 8, 2015, and that these

applications remain pending with the Copyright Office. (Id. at ¶ 23.) 

 August 11, 2015: The Copyright Office sent a letter to Plaintiff’s 

counsel advising him that it was refusing to register Plaintiff’s March 

2015 applications “because they are duplicate claims, or because they 

contain multiple works that require multiple applications, filing fees, 

and deposit copies.” (Huskins Decl. at ¶ 13, Exh. 8.) 

 September 3, 2015: Plaintiff filed a Single Application to register the 

Tom Brady Joke by itself. (Huskins Decl. at ¶¶ 9, 14, Exh. 4, 9.) 

 March 24, 2016: Conaco, LLC’s served its First Set of Requests for 

Production of Documents and Things to Plaintiff. (Huskins Decl. at ¶ 

6, Exh. 1.) Request for Production No. 8 stated: “Please produce all 

DOCUMENTS related to the application and/or registration of the

JOKES AT ISSUE with the United States Copyright Office.” (Id. at 

Exh. 1.) 

 April 25, 2016: Plaintiff responded to Conaco, LLC’s Request for 

Production by stating: “Documents in Respondent’s possession that do 

not violate the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product 

privileges will be produced.” (Huskins Decl. at ¶ 7, Exh. 2.) In 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 139 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of

 12
6 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

response to Conaco, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories, Plaintiff 

responded: “Respondent objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that 

the question is vague and ambiguous as to the term ‘ownership’. 

Without waiving said objections, Respondent has registered copyrights 

for the jokes created.” (Huskins Decl. at ¶ 8, Exh. 3.) 

 July 20, 2016: The Copyright Office sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel 

advising him that it could not register the Brady Joke “because the 

material deposited represents less than the required minimum amount 

of original authorship.” (Huskins Decl. at ¶ 15; Exh. 10.) 

 August 10, 2016: Plaintiff filed a Standard Application to register the 

Tom Brady Joke and two others posted to Plaintiff’s blog on February 

3, 2015. (Huskins Decl. at ¶ 9, Exh. 4.) 

 October 3, 2016: Plaintiff filed the FAC. (ECF No. 58.) The FAC 

added the UAB Joke. (Id. at ¶¶ 15-16.) The FAC alleges that Plaintiff 

filed copyright applications for each of the five jokes on March 10, 

2015, March 11, 2015, June 26, 2015, July 8, 2015, and August 10, 

2016, and that these applications remain pending with the Copyright 

Office. (Id. at ¶ 26.) 

 October 7, 2016: Discovery closed. (ECF No. 57.) At the time 

discovery closed, Plaintiff had only produced registration certificates 

for the Delta Joke, the Bruce Jenner Joke, and the Washington 

Monument Joke. (Huskins Decl. at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff did not produce any 

applications, deposits, or correspondence with the United States 

Copyright Office related to any of the jokes at issue, and did not 

produce registration certificates for the Tom Brady Joke or the UAB 

Joke. (Id.) 

 October 19, 2016: Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to the Copyright 

Office asking it to reconsider its refusal to register the Tom Brady Joke. 

(Huskins Decl. at ¶ 16, Exh. 11.) 

 February 3, 2017: Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment 

and/or Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 70.) 

 February 8, 2017: Plaintiff produced two copyright registration 

applications for the Tom Brady Joke: the September 3, 2015 application 

and the August 10, 2016 application. (Huskins Decl. at ¶ 9, Exh. 4.) 

 March 23, 2017: The Copyright Office sent a letter to Plaintiff’s 

counsel denying his request for reconsideration, stating that the Tom 

Brady Joke “does not contain a sufficient amount of original and 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 139 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of

 12
7 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

creative literary authorship to support a copyright registration.” 

(Huskins Decl. at ¶ 17, Exh. 12.) 

 April 21, 2017: Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to the Copyright Office 

advising them of the pending lawsuit, the application history of the Tom 

Brady Joke, as well as the collective work application filed on August 

10, 2016. (Lorenzo Decl. at ¶ 19, Exh. O.) 

 May 12, 2017: Judge Sammartino issued her Order Granting in Part 

and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, 

ordering the parties to meet and confer. (ECF No. 131.) Judge

Sammartino granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment for 

failure to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the UAB 

Joke and the Delta Joke. (Id.) 

 May 19, 2017: Upon request, Plaintiff produced seventy-one (71) 

pages of documents, which included the registration applications, 

deposits, and letters with the Copyright Office related to the 

Washington Monument Joke, the Tom Brady Joke, and the Bruce 

Jenner Joke. (Lorenzo Decl. at ¶ 5, Exh. C; Huskins Decl. at ¶¶ 3, 12.) 

 May 30, 2017: Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to the Copyright Office 

seeking reconsideration of its decision on the Brady Joke based on 

Judge Sammartino’s ruling on Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment. (Huskins Decl. at ¶ 18, 

Exh. 13.) 

 June 2, 2017: Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to the Copyright Office 

advising them “of the procedural history related to the Tom Brady Joke, 

which included the filing of a collective work application.” (Lorenzo 

Decl. at ¶ 11, Exh. H.) 

 June 5, 2017: Plaintiff produced fifty-one (51) additional pages of 

application-related documents pertaining to the jokes at issue. (Huskins 

Decl. at ¶ 4.) 

 June 13, 2017: Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to the Copyright Office 

withdrawing the August 10, 2016 application for the Tom Brady Joke, 

prior to registration being received. (Lorenzo Decl. at ¶ 15, Exh. K; 

Huskins Decl. at ¶ 19, Exh. 14.) 

 June 19, 2017: Plaintiff’s counsel received a registration for the 

collective work application on the Tom Brady Joke. (Lorenzo Decl. at 

¶ 20, Exh. P.) Plaintiff forwarded the registration to Defendants. (Id.) 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 139 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of

 12
8 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

 June 28, 2017: Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to the Copyright Office 

requesting the copyright registration for the Tom Brady Joke be

voluntarily cancelled. (Lorenzo Decl. at ¶ 21, Exh. Q.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

 A. Modifying the Scheduling Order 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(3)(A), district courts must enter a 

scheduling order to establish deadlines to, among other things, “complete discovery.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). Once issued, a Rule 16 scheduling order “may be modified only 

for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The decision to 

modify a scheduling order is within the broad discretion of the district court. Johnson, 975 

F.2d at 607 (citation omitted). Under Rule 16(b)(4)’s good cause standard, the court’s 

primary focus is on the movant’s diligence in seeking the amendment. Johnson, 975 F.2d 

at 609. “Good cause” exists if a party can demonstrate that the scheduling order could not 

or “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. 

(citations omitted). “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers 

no reason for a grant of relief.” Id. “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the 

party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the 

focus of the [Rule 16] inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 

modification.” Id. (citations omitted). The party seeking to continue or extend the 

deadlines bears the burden of proving good cause. See Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 

F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608–09. 

In addressing the diligence requirement, one district court in this Circuit noted: 

[T]o demonstrate diligence under Rule 16’s “good cause” standard, the 

movant may be required to show the following: (1) that [it] was diligent in 

assisting the Court in creating a workable Rule 16 order..; (2) that [its] 

noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, 

notwithstanding [its] diligent efforts to comply, because of the development 

of matters which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the 

time of the Rule 16 scheduling conference ...; and (3) that [it] was diligent in 

seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it became apparent that [it] 

could not comply with the order . . . . 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 139 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of

 12
9 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal.1999) (internal citations omitted); 

see also Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 466 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (McCurine 

Jr., J.). If the district court finds a lack of diligence, “the inquiry should end.” Johnson, 

975 F.2d at 609; see also Zivkovic v. So. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 

2002). 

B. Reopening Discovery 

District courts have broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course 

of litigation under Rule 16. Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012). 

In determining whether to reopen discovery, courts consider such factors as: 

1) whether trial is imminent, 2) whether the request is opposed, 3) whether the 

non-moving party would be prejudiced, 4) whether the moving party was 

diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the court, 

5) the foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the time 

allowed for discovery by the district court, and 6) the likelihood that the 

discovery will lead to relevant evidence. 

United States ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512, 1526 (9th Cir. 1995), 

rev’d on other grounds, 520 U.S. 939 (1997) (quoting Smith v. United States, 834 F.2d 166, 

169 (10th Cir. 1987)); see also Mikell v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., No. CV 13-07611 MMM 

(PJWx), 2014 WL 12588640, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2014). 

III. DISCUSSION 

 The parties do not dispute that Defendants were diligent in seeking to modify the 

Scheduling Order, and that the need for modification could not have reasonably been 

foreseen or anticipated at an earlier date. Despite requesting the documents in discovery, 

Defendants first received the copyright applications for the UAB Joke and the Tom Brady 

Joke on February 8, 2017, after they filed their Motion for Summary Judgment and/or 

Partial Summary Judgment. During subsequent meet and confer efforts ordered by Judge 

Sammartino, Plaintiff produced seventy-one (71) pages of new documents, which included 

the registration applications, deposits, and letters with the Copyright Office related to the 

Washington Monument Joke, the Tom Brady Joke, and the Bruce Jenner Joke on May 19, 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 139 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of

 12
10 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

2017, and an additional fifty-one (51) pages of new application-related documents 

pertaining to the jokes at issue on June 5, 2017. (Lorenzo Decl. at ¶ 5, Exh. C; Huskins 

Decl. at ¶¶ 3-4, 12.) Plaintiff subsequently sent Defendants the registration for the Tom 

Brady Joke on June 19, 2017. (Lorenzo Decl. at ¶ 20, Exh. P.) After failing to resolve 

their issues as part of their meet and confer, this motion was filed shortly thereafter, on 

June 28, 2017. As the Court finds Defendants were diligent in seeking to modify the 

Scheduling Order, the Court now turns to address whether reopening discovery is 

appropriate. 

 On July 10, 2017, Judge Sammartino vacated the trial pending the outcome of this 

Joint Motion. (ECF Nos. 136, 138.) Accordingly, although trial would be the next step in 

this case absent additional discovery, there is no trial imminent. Furthermore, while 

Defendants’ request is opposed, given Plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with discovery, 

it would be difficult for Plaintiff to argue that he would be prejudiced by reopening 

discovery. These factors weigh in favor of reopening discovery. However, in light of 

Judge Sammartino granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the UAB Joke, 

and Plaintiff’s voluntary cancellation of the Tom Brady Joke registration, the key question 

is whether there is any likelihood additional discovery will lead to relevant evidence. 

 Plaintiff argues the requested discovery is not relevant to any of Defendants’ claims 

or defenses. (ECF No. 132 at 18-23.) In response, Defendants argue “the intended 

discovery is highly relevant, as it bears directly on [Plaintiff’s] ability to assert an 

infringement claim as to the Tom Brady Joke, and any potential relief he may be afforded.” 

(Id. at 9.) In particular, Defendants argue the intended discovery – written discovery and 

depositions of Plaintiff and his counsel – is crucial to determine whether Defendants can 

assert the affirmative defenses of fraud and unclean hands to the Tom Brady Joke. (Id.) 

These defenses, Defendants argue, “may invalidate the Tom Brady registration.” (Id.) 

 Unfortunately, because Plaintiff’s counsel did not send the letter to the Copyright 

Office requesting voluntary cancellation of the Tom Brady Joke registration until the day 

the present Joint Motion was filed, Defendants did not have an opportunity to address in 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 139 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 12
11 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

detail the relevance of their intended discovery, if such registration was cancelled. Instead, 

Defendants were left to argue: 

While [Plaintiff] may offer that he will abandon the Tom Brady registration, 

rendering Defendants’ proposed affirmative defenses and discovery moot – 

this misses the point. Defendants are entitled to the discovery they were 

prejudicially denied so they can explore and develop potential claims, 

affirmative defenses, and evidentiary issues for trial. Until Defendants take 

discovery, they cannot know the extent of what it will bear, and what other 

issues may present themselves. 

(Id. at 5-6.) As they were dealing with a hypothetical and were constrained by page limits, 

Defendants did not further explain what types of potential claims, affirmative defenses, 

and evidentiary issues they expect to find. Without further explanation, the Court is not 

inclined to grant the Joint Motion. 

However, in light of Plaintiff’s late decision to seek cancellation of the Tom Brady 

Joke claim, the uncertain status of the claim,1

 and the prejudice that may result to 

Defendants if they are not given an opportunity to present further argument, the Court finds 

it appropriate to set a Discovery Conference. At the Discovery Conference, Plaintiff shall 

be prepared to discuss how he intends to proceed on the Tom Brady Joke, and Defendants 

shall be prepared to discuss how their intended discovery is relevant and necessary, given 

Plaintiff’s request to cancel the registration on the Tom Brady Joke. The parties should 

also be prepared to discuss whether the intended discovery is relevant to Plaintiff’s 

                                               

1

 Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ potential affirmative defenses to the Tom 

Brady Joke must fail because the request for a cancellation was made. (ECF No. 132 at 

23.) However, Plaintiff does not discuss the status of his Tom Brady Joke claim after the 

request was sent, other than stating “[i]n the event that the request for cancellation is not 

granted prior to this Court making a ruling on this dispute, Plaintiff will and continues to 

agree not to use the August 10, 2016 registration at trial.” (Id.) Thus, it is unclear whether 

Plaintiff intends to pursue a copyright infringement claim as to this “unregistered” joke, 

and whether he is entitled to all the damages he seeks in the FAC. See, e.g., 17 U.S.C. § 

412. 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 139 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 12
12 

15-cv-01637-JLS (DHB) 

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

remedies under 17 U.S.C. §§ 411(b)(1), 412. Defendants shall also address whether they 

intend to amend their Answer to the FAC. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 

1. A telephonic, attorneys only Discovery Conference shall be held on July 28, 

2017 at 10:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter. 

2. The parties shall use the Court’s conferencing system: 

 Conference number: (888) 684-8852 

 Access code: 2236596 

 Participant security code: 1637 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 25, 2017 

 _________________________ 

 LOUISA S PORTER 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 139 Filed 07/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 12