Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01451/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01451-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WARNER BROS. RECORDS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JULIAN ROMERO,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 07-01451 JSW

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero’s Report and

Recommendation on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment (“the Report.”) In his Report,

Magistrate Judge Spero recommends granting the motion for default judgment and sets forth his

recommendations regarding the relief requested.

With respect to the issues of Defendant’s liability, statutory damages and costs, the

Court finds the Report well-reasoned and thorough and adopts it in every respect. In addition,

the Court also finds that the Report is well-reasoned and thorough with respect to the Plaintiffs’

entitlement to injunctive relief, and adopts it to the extent it recommends granting Plaintiffs a

permanent injunction. 

The Copyright Act authorizes the Court to grant a permanent injunction “on such terms

as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.” 17 U.S.C. §

502(a). Pursuant to Rule 65, an injunction “shall be specific in terms” and “shall describe in

reasonable detail ... the act or acts sought to be restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d). The Court

Case 3:07-cv-01451-JSW Document 24 Filed 10/29/07 Page 1 of 3
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 Although the language in the injunction seeking protection “in the

Copyrighted Recordings and any sound recording” could be read to suggest Plaintiffs were

seeking to protect works that were not copyrighted, it is clear from the record in this case that

Plaintiffs only seek to protect works for which they have obtained, or will in the future

obtain, a valid copyright. The Court, however, shall modify the injunction to include this

clarification.

2

adopts the Report to the extent it recommends that the injunction be limited to infringement of

Federal copyright law and recommends that the Court require Defendant to destroy all copies or 

phonorecords made or used in violation of the Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights. 

Plaintiffs also requested and the Report recommends issuing an injunction that would,

inter alia, enjoin the defendant from “directly or indirectly infringing Plaintiffs’ rights under

federal or state law in the Copyrighted Recordings and any sound recording, whether now in

existence or later created, that is owned or controlled by Plaintiffs (or any parent, subsidiary, or

affiliate record label.” (See Report at 10:15-22 (quoting proposed injunction).)1

 

As to Plaintiffs’ existing copyrighted works, the injunction clearly is specific enough to

place Defendant on notice that he cannot infringe the Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works or

copyrighted sound recordings. Thus, the Court concludes that the injunction is sufficiently

specific in terms to put that defaulting defendant on notice that the work in question cannot be

infringed, even if the copyright interest in that work subsequently is transferred or otherwise

granted to one of the named Plaintiffs’ parents, subsidiaries or affiliate record labels. 

The Report also correctly notes that the that once a plaintiff has established infringement

of existing copyrighted works, an injunction may extend to future copyrighted works and the

named Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction for such works. See, e.g., Princeton Univ. Press v.

Michigan Document Servs., Inc., 99 F.3d 1381, 1392-93 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing cases); Warner

Bros. v. Malacra, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13421 at *16 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2007). To the extent

Plaintiffs seek to obtain an injunction for future works that would apply to parents, subsidiaries

and affiliate record labels, the Court shall grant the request to the extent Plaintiffs obtain

copyright protections for future works but as to which the interests in the copyrighted work is

transferred or otherwise granted to a parent, subsidiary or affiliate record label. Again, the

Court concludes that such an injunction would put the defendant on notice that he cannot

Case 3:07-cv-01451-JSW Document 24 Filed 10/29/07 Page 2 of 3
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

infringe the Plaintiffs’ future copyrighted works, even if the interests in the copyright are

subsequently transferred or otherwise granted to one of Plaintiffs’ parents, subsidiaries or

affiliate record labels.

To the extent the Plaintiffs request and to the extent the Report can be construed to

recommend extending the benefits of the injunction to future works of Plaintiffs’ parents,

subsidiaries, and affiliate record labels, the Court does not believe the strictures of Rule 65

would be met. These entities are not named in, or otherwise identified in, the Complaint. Thus,

if one of these entities were to copyright a work in the future, the defaulting defendant would

not be placed on notice that the injunction applied to that entity. The Court therefore finds this

aspect of the proposed injunction overbroad and, accordingly, rejects that aspect of the Report.

For the foregoing reasons, the Report and Recommendation is adopted in part and

rejected in part. A separate judgment shall issue, and the Clerk is directed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-01451-JSW Document 24 Filed 10/29/07 Page 3 of 3