Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01158/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01158-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

– 1 – 14cv1158

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 STEVENS and STEVEN 

VANDEL, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CORELOGIC, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-1158-BAS-JLB

ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO 

STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE 

DEFENSES

Plaintiffs Robert Stevens, Steven Vandel, and Affordable Aerial Photography, 

Inc., (collectively “Plaintiffs”) bring this putative class action alleging that Defendant 

CoreLogic, Inc. falsified, removed, or altered Plaintiffs’ copyright management 

information in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1202. (ECF No. 34.) Presently before the Court 

is Plaintiffs’ motion to strike affirmative defenses in CoreLogic’s answer to Plaintiffs’ 

second amended complaint. (ECF No. 43-1.) CoreLogic filed an opposition to which 

Plaintiffs replied. (ECF Nos. 46, 51.)

The Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted

and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons that follow, the 

Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendant’s affirmative defenses. 

Case 3:14-cv-01158-BAS-JLB Document 118 Filed 11/17/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
– 2 – 14cv1158

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

CoreLogic must file any amended answer curing the defects noted by the Court no 

later than December 1, 2015.

I. BACKGROUND

This putative class action centers on Plaintiffs’ allegations that CoreLogic 

falsified, removed, or altered Plaintiffs’ copyright management information (CMI) 

in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1202. Plaintiffs are professional photographers who 

provide real estate photography services to real estate brokers and agents. (Second 

Am. Compl. (SAC) 2:12–24.) CoreLogic, a Delaware corporation, is the nation’s 

largest provider of software and technology services to real estate multiple listing 

services (“MLSs”). (SAC at 4.) MLSs are common databases that allow member 

companies to share real estate listing information across company lines. (SAC 3:6–

19.) The software products and services that CoreLogic provides to various MLSs 

allow member real estate agents to upload listing information, including property 

descriptions and photographs. While MLSs pay CoreLogic for software and services 

to facilitate online listing of real estate information, CoreLogic pays MLSs for the 

right to use MLS data, including real estate photographs, to market CoreLogic 

products and services. (SAC at 4, 5.) Plaintiffs allege that millions of their real estate 

photographs (including photographs created by unnamed class members) have been 

uploaded to MLSs using software in CoreLogic’s custody or control. Id.

The gravamen of Plaintiffs’ complaint concerns what CoreLogic allegedly 

does after Plaintiffs’ photographs are uploaded to an MLS. Plaintiffs assert that 

when their real estate photographs are first uploaded to an MLS, the photographs

contain embedded metadata identifying the source of the work. This copyright 

management information (“CMI”) includes the name of the photographer, the name 

of the copyright owner, the terms and conditions of use, and/or geo-location 

information. (SAC at 12.) Plaintiffs allege that when CoreLogic comes into 

possession of Plaintiffs’ photographs—for example, by copying or downloading 

them from an MLS—the company knowingly strips, removes, or otherwise alters the 

Case 3:14-cv-01158-BAS-JLB Document 118 Filed 11/17/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
– 3 – 14cv1158

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

CMI in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b), and/or falsifies CMI—by placing 

CoreLogic’s own copyright notice on the same webpage as the digital images owned 

by Plaintiffs—in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1202(a). (SAC 11–15; 33–39.)

The provisions under which Plaintiffs bring this action are notable for the 

mens rea required to find a violation.1 The first provision, 17 U.S.C. § 1202(a),

provides in part that “[n]o person shall knowingly and with the intent to induce, 

enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement[,] provide copyright management 

information that is false[.]” (italics added). The second provision, 17 U.S.C. § 

1202(b), provides in part that “[n]o person shall, without the authority of the 

copyright owner or the law . . . intentionally remove or alter copyright management 

information, . . . knowing . . . [or] having reasonable grounds to know, that it will 

induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any right under this title.”

(italics added). The plain language of the provisions makes clear that no violation 

will be found without the accompanying intent (in the case of falsification under §

1202(a)) or knowledge (in the case of removal or alteration under § 1202(b)) that the 

alleged acts will “induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal [copyright] infringement.” 

Plaintiffs allege that CoreLogic had the requisite mens rea under the statute. 

CoreLogic denies that it violated § 1202 and asserts fourteen affirmative defenses 

primarily intended to negate the mens rea element of Plaintiffs’ § 1202 claims. 

(Def.’s Answer 11–13; Def.’s Opp’n 2:17–3:25.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

When responding to a complaint, a party must “state in short and plain terms its 

defenses to each claim asserted against it[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1)(A). Under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), an affirmative defense “is a defense that does not negate 

the elements of the plaintiff’s claim, but instead precludes liability even if all of the 

 

1 The provisions at issue—17 U.S.C. § 1202(a) and 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b)—were added to Title 17 

as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (Oct. 28, 

1998)).

Case 3:14-cv-01158-BAS-JLB Document 118 Filed 11/17/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
– 4 – 14cv1158

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

elements of the plaintiff’s claim are proven.” Barnes v. AT & T Pension Benefit PlanNonbargained Program, 718 F.Supp.2d 1167, 1173–74 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). An affirmative defense must give the plaintiff “fair notice” 

of the nature of the defense. Id. “Fair notice generally requires that the defendant state 

the nature and grounds for the affirmative defense.” Kohler v. Islands Restaurants, 

LP, 280 F.R.D. 560, 564 (S.D. Cal. 2012). “It does not, however, require a detailed 

statement of facts.” Id. “A defense which demonstrates that plaintiff has not met its 

burden of proof as to an element plaintiff is required to prove is not an affirmative 

defense.” Zivkovic v. S. California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002); 

see also G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Nguyen, No. 10-CV-00168, 2010 WL 

3749284, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2010) (“[D]enials of the allegations in the 

Complaint or allegations that the Plaintiff cannot prove elements of his claims are not 

affirmative defenses.”). The burden of proof for affirmative defenses lies with the 

defendant. See Kanne v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 867 F.2d 489, 492 (9th 

Cir. 1988).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that a court may strike from a 

pleading “an[y] insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or 

scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). A defense is insufficient if it fails to provide 

the plaintiff with fair notice of the defense. Wyshak v. City Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 

827 (9th Cir. 1979). A matter is “immaterial” if it has no essential or important 

relationship to the claim for relief pleaded, and “impertinent” if it does not pertain and 

is not necessary to the issues in question in the case. See Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 

F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993). A showing of prejudice is not required to strike an 

affirmative defense that fails to provide fair notice, but is required to strike redundant, 

immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. See Minns v. Advanced Clinical 

Employment Staffing LLC, No. 13-cv-03249-SI, 2014 WL 5826984, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Nov. 10, 2014). Prejudice includes “the obligation to conduct expensive and 

potentially unnecessary and irrelevant discovery[.]” Bottoni v. Sallie Mae, Inc., No. C 

Case 3:14-cv-01158-BAS-JLB Document 118 Filed 11/17/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
– 5 – 14cv1158

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

10-036-2 LB, 2011 WL 3678878, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2011).

Courts generally disfavor motions to strike affirmative defenses because such 

motions are often used as a delaying tactic. See Neilson v. Union Bank of Cal., N.A., 

290 F.Supp.2d 1101, 1152 (C.D. Cal. 2003); Rosales v. Citibank, 133 F.Supp.2d 1177, 

1180 (N.D. Cal. 2001). “However, where the motion may have the effect of making 

the trial of the action less complicated, or have the effect of otherwise streamlining 

the ultimate resolution of the action, the motion to strike will be well taken.” 

California ex rel. State Lands Comm’n v. United States, 512 F.Supp.36, 38 (N.D. Cal. 

1981). If an affirmative defense is stricken under Rule 12(f), “leave to amend should 

be freely given so long as there is no prejudice to the opposing party.” Qarbon.com 

Inc. v. eHelp Corp., 315 F.Supp.2d 1046, 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2004).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move to strike all fourteen of CoreLogic’s affirmative defenses 

primarily on three grounds. First, Plaintiffs argue that affirmative defenses one 

through nine and fourteen are “copyright infringement defenses” inapplicable to the 

17 U.S.C. § 1202 claim brought by Plaintiffs. Second, Plaintiffs contend that nearly 

all of CoreLogic’s affirmative defenses are proffered to negate the mental state 

element of Plaintiffs’ § 1202 claim and so are not affirmative defenses at all, but rather 

denials pled as affirmative defenses. And third, Plaintiffs argue that many of the

defenses do not meet the fair notice standard. For its part, CoreLogic argues that (1)

the copyright-infringement defenses it has pled “can defeat the § 1202 claim by 

showing that the only acts that CoreLogic intended to aid were noninfringing,” and 

(2) the remaining defenses are pled with plausible facts sufficient to satisfy fair notice. 

(Def.’s Opp’n 2:6–15.) This Court finds Plaintiffs’ arguments persuasive.

A. Denials and Rebuttals Pled as Affirmative Defenses

A defense that “simply provide[s] a basis to negate an element of [Plaintiffs’] 

prima facie case” is a negative, rather than an affirmative, defense. Barnes, 718 

F.Supp.2d at 1174. CoreLogic argues that affirmative defenses one through nine and 

Case 3:14-cv-01158-BAS-JLB Document 118 Filed 11/17/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
– 6 – 14cv1158

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

fourteen are intended to demonstrate that CoreLogic did not have the requisite mental 

state under § 1202—i.e., that CoreLogic did not (1) remove Plaintiffs’ CMI knowing 

or having reasonable grounds to know that removal would facilitate copyright 

infringement or (2) provide false CMI with the intent to facilitate copyright 

infringement. (Def.’s 2:6–6:6.) In other words, CoreLogic expressly roots the validity 

of this group of affirmative defenses in the negating function of these defenses. This 

argument reflects a misapprehension of the distinction between negative and 

affirmative defenses. When defenses are pled for the purpose of negating elements of 

a claim, they operate as “mere[] rebuttals against the evidence presented by the 

plaintiff” and are not properly pleaded as affirmative defenses. Barnes, 718 F.Supp.2d 

at 1173.

For example, CoreLogic’s first affirmative defense alleges, “The complainedof uses of and activities with respect to photographs that are subject to copyright 

constitute fair use.” (Def.’s Answer 11:10–12.) CoreLogic argues that fair use, which 

it agrees is a defense specific to copyright infringement, is nonetheless proper here 

because it shows that CoreLogic intended to aid only in the creation of non-infringing 

work protected by the fair use defense. (Def.’s Opp’n 2:8–10; 3:20–26.) In 

CoreLogic’s view, if any infringement that results from the company’s removal of 

CMI would be subject to the fair use defense, then CoreLogic could not have had the 

requisite mental state to facilitate copyright infringement. This argument makes clear 

that CoreLogic is proffering fair use to rebut Plaintiffs’ claim that CoreLogic had the 

requisite mental state. Thus, fair use is not being used as an affirmative defense, but 

rather to deny Plaintiffs’ claim.

The same defect characterizes CoreLogic’s assertion of other defenses not 

specific to copyright infringement. For example, CoreLogic’s eleventh (express 

license), twelfth (implied license) and thirteenth (no exclusive rights) affirmative 

defenses are clearly pleaded to negate elements of Plaintiffs’ § 1202 claim rather than 

provide a basis upon which to defeat that claim assuming Plaintiffs’ allegations are 

Case 3:14-cv-01158-BAS-JLB Document 118 Filed 11/17/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
– 7 – 14cv1158

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

true. As CoreLogic itself makes clear, the argument that the company had an express 

or implied license is intended to “defeat Plaintiffs’ claim by showing that the alleged 

modifications were in fact authorized.” (Def.’s Opp’n 8:16.) In other words, 

CoreLogic is pleading the existence of a license to demonstrate that it had permission 

of the copyright owner and so could not have removed or altered CMI in violation of 

§ 1202(b). See 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b) (prohibiting removal or alteration of CMI without 

the authority of the copyright owner or the law). Similarly, the company’s defense 

that “Plaintiffs do not own the asserted exclusive rights for some or all of the works” 

is intended to demonstrate that Plaintiffs cannot show that CoreLogic removed CMI 

“without the authority of the copyright owner,” an element of a § 1202(b) claim. 

(Def.’s Opp’n 9.) Thus, these affirmative defenses are merely rebuttals of Plaintiffs’ 

claims and must be stricken.

The Court finds that affirmative defenses one, three, and five through thirteen

are improper affirmative defenses because they are proffered to negate elements of 

Plaintiffs’ complaint, rather than defeat Plaintiffs’ claims assuming all the allegations 

are true. Accordingly, the Court strikes these affirmative defenses.

B. Insufficiently Pled Affirmative Defenses

The remaining affirmative defenses pled by CoreLogic are legally plausible, 

but do not provide fair notice of the nature and grounds of the defense. For example, 

CoreLogic’s second and fourteenth affirmative defenses merely list provisions of Title 

17 of the United States Code without stating how these provisions are relevant to 

Plaintiffs’ § 1202 claims. Similarly, CoreLogic’s fourth affirmative defense 

(forfeiture or abandonment) merely states a legal doctrine without any attempt, 

however cursory, to explain how those doctrines preclude liability even if Plaintiffs’ 

allegations were true. Finally, affirmative defense ten (waiver, estoppel, acquiescence, 

statute of limitations, laches) contains little more than a recitation of legal doctrines 

of questionable applicability to Plaintiffs’ claims. In none of these cases has 

Case 3:14-cv-01158-BAS-JLB Document 118 Filed 11/17/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
– 8 – 14cv1158

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

CoreLogic provided fair notice.2“Though a detailed recitation of facts is unnecessary, 

some fact or argument must be presented in order for the Court to conclude that the 

defense asserted is indeed an affirmative defense.” Baker v. Ensign, No. 11–cv–2060–

BAS(WVG), 2014 WL 4161994, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2014). Neither mere 

reference to a legal doctrine, nor a bare recitation of statutory provisions, provides fair 

notice of an affirmative defense absent some fact or argument explaining the defense. 

Thus, the Court finds that affirmative defenses two, four, ten and fourteen must be 

stricken on the grounds that they do not provide fair notice.3

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to strike 

CoreLogic’s affirmative defenses. Accordingly, all fourteen of CoreLogic’s 

affirmative defenses are stricken WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Wyshak, 607 F.2d at 

826 (“In the absence of prejudice to the opposing party, leave to amend should be 

freely given.”). CoreLogic must file any amended answer revising one or more of its 

affirmative defenses no later than December 1, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 17, 2015

 

2 Many of the affirmative defenses that the Court strikes down on the ground that those defenses 

were pled to negate elements of Plaintiffs’ prima facie case would also fail to satisfy fair notice. In 

particular, affirmative defenses one, and five through nine, are bare recitations of legal doctrines 

with no “fact or argument” to show that these doctrines would preclude liability even if Plaintiffs’

allegations were true.

3 The Court notes that these affirmative defenses also could be stricken on other grounds. For 

example, affirmative defenses two and fourteen put forth statutory provisions relevant to copyright 

infringement claims, but these provisions seem wholly inapplicable to alleged violations of § 1202. 

Additionally, affirmative defense four, and at least some of the legal doctrines listed under 

affirmative defense ten, appear intended to negate elements of Plaintiffs’ prima facie case. Thus, 

these defenses do not constitute proper affirmative defenses. 

Case 3:14-cv-01158-BAS-JLB Document 118 Filed 11/17/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8