Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01766/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01766-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

THE REGENTS OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15-cv-1766-BEN (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

CLARIFICATION OR

MODIFICATION OF THE

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

vs.

PAUL S. AISEN, et al.,

Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION

Now before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Clarify or Modify the

Preliminary Injunction Issued by the State Court. Defendants allege that changed

circumstances necessitate modification, or at least, clarification of the preliminary

injunction order. Plaintiff disagrees. The evidence suggests that circumstances

have changed significantly since the time the preliminary injunction order was

entered. Moreover, the Special Master has asked for clarification. At least

clarification, and perhaps modification is necessary. Therefore, the motion is

granted.

II. APPLICABLE LAW

The Supreme Court teaches that when questions arise as to the interpretation

or application of an injunction order, a party should seek clarification or

- 1 - 15cv1766

Case 3:15-cv-01766-BEN-JLB Document 129 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 4
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

modification from the issuing court, rather than risk disobedience and contempt.

McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 192 (1949) (“Yet if there were

extenuating circumstances or if the decree was too burdensome in operation, there

was a method of relief. . . . Respondents could have petitioned the District Court for

a modification, clarification or construction of the order.”); Regal Knitwear Co. v.

NLRB, 324 U.S. 9, 15 (1945) (“If defendants enter upon transactions which raise

doubts as to the applicability of the injunction, they may petition the court granting

it for a modification or construction of the order.”). Defendants filed this motion for

clarification or modification shortly after circumstances changed and not long after

questions were raised by the Special Master. Because “courts no less than parties

desire to avoid unwitting contempts,” Regal, 324 U.S. at 15, clarification or

modification is warranted. 

III. THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER

The difficulty with this type of case stems from the medical delicacy and

technological complexity of the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study (“ADCS”)

Data and Systems which are the subject of the preliminary injunction order. The

preliminary injunction was crafted in such a way as to safeguard from destruction a

significant public resource: longitudinal medical research and its informational

databases about treatments for Alzheimer’s Disease. Because the informational

databases include computer data files, they must be managed by experts in digital

technology. Because the studies are ongoing, disruptions in data access or loss of

data may have serious adverse impacts on patients today. 

On August 4, 2015, a preliminary injunction was issued on the basis that

Plaintiff “has demonstrated ownership and a right to control and manage certain

data and systems, the control and management of which have been taken over by

Defendants.” (Preliminary Injunction at 1-2.) The ADCS Systems and Data were

ordered transferred to the “possession, custody, and control of UCSD and its duly

- 2 - 15cv1766

Case 3:15-cv-01766-BEN-JLB Document 129 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 4
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

authorized employees, consistent with the terms of the contracts and grants to

which UCSD is a party.” (Id. at 2 (emphasis added).) The Special Master is “to

ensure that the process is completed in a comprehensive, technically appropriate,

and timely manner, and without prejudicing UCSD, or causing any avoidable risk of

harm to the rights or interests of third parties.” (Id. at 3-4.)

The preliminary injunction order anticipates change. It anticipates that a

study sponsor (the term “third party” is used in the text) may assign its rights to

obtain access, custody, or control over the ADCS data, and it may assign its rights

to the Defendants. At the time the preliminary injunction issued, Plaintiff was

responsible for managing all of the ADCS studies. 

Not long after, however, five of the six major study sponsors transferred their

studies to Defendant University of Southern California. The five major studies are

the FYN study with Yale, the INI study with Wake Forest, the two ADNI Studies,

and the A4 Study with Lilly. In addition to the five major studies, another study,

LEARN, which is an offshoot of the major A4 Study, has also transferred to

Defendant University of Southern California. Defs.’ Mot. to Clarify or Modify,

Aisen Decl. ¶ 37, Exs. J, K, & L; Barton Decl. ¶ 6; Sperling, M.D., Decl. ¶ 4. As a

result, by maintaining custody and control over some ADCS Systems and Data,

Defendants may be acting in compliance with the preliminary injunction by virtue

of acting in the shoes of the transferred Study Sponsors, while at the same time be

violating the order to the extent they are acting on their own behalf. Not only does

this make difficult the task of enforcing the ordered return of systems and data to

the Plaintiff, it will require a re-transfer of systems and data back to the Defendants

for the transferred studies. Medical research is complicated enough. Large scale

data management is complicated enough. 

Defendants filed their motion for clarification or modification only two weeks

after questions were raised by the Special Master. See Notice of Lodging of Special

- 3 - 15cv1766

Case 3:15-cv-01766-BEN-JLB Document 129 Filed 09/07/16 Page 3 of 4
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

Master’s Interim Report (9/2/15), Dkt. #14. The Special Master wrote, “[o]n

September 2, 2015 the ‘Interim Report of the Special Master and Consultant’ was

lodged with this Court by Defendants on the Special Master’s behalf . . . . The

Interim Report updated the Court on the status of the Special Master’s work, and

requested three clarifications of the Preliminary Injunction.” See Notice of

Lodging of Directive of the Special Master (9/11/15), at 6, Dkt. #20 (emphasis

added). The Defendants need clarification and the Special Master needs

clarification. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Therefore, the motion is granted. The preliminary injunction order will be

clarified or modified if still warranted by the current state of events. However, time

has passed since the briefing on the motion. Consequently, the parties are directed

to file new briefs. 

Defendants shall file by October 3, 2016, a new brief setting forth their

requested clarifications or modifications. Plaintiff may file a response by October

24, 2016. It is requested that the Special Master file a statement setting forth his

own requested clarifications or modifications by October 17, 2016. Either party

may file a response to the Special Master’s statement by October 31, 2016. A

hearing will be set by the Court thereafter. 

DATED: August 30, 2016

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

- 4 - 15cv1766

Case 3:15-cv-01766-BEN-JLB Document 129 Filed 09/07/16 Page 4 of 4