Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02429/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02429-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Phil Degginger,

Plaintiff,

v.

McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings,

et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-14-2429-TUC-DCB

ORDER

This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and the local rules of practice of

this Court for hearing and a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on the

Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Before the Court is the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on the Defendants’ Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommends, after

hearing oral argument, to the Court that the Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment should be denied. The Defendants filed Objections to this

Recommendation and Plaintiff responded to these Objections. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When objection is made to the findings and recommendation of a

magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review.

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Case 4:14-cv-02429-DCB-DTF Document 99 Filed 01/06/16 Page 1 of 3
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

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS

Defendants object, as follows: (1) the Magistrate Judge erred in

holding that Defendants did not adequately differentiate the in-suit

infringements for which it claims Plaintiff had actual knowledge; (2) the

Magistrate Judge erred in finding there is a dispute of fact as to

whether Plaintiff had constructive knowledge of all of Defendants’ other

infringements; (3) Defendants dispute the Magistrate Judge’s finding that

Defendants failed to show Plaintiff’s attorneys had knowledge of

Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiff’s photographs, because of

information obtained in representing a different client in April 2011;

and, (4) the Magistrate Judge incorrectly found a dispute of fact as to

whether Plaintiff conducted a sufficient investigation of Defendants

based on what he knew of Defendants’ infringements. Defendants argue that

no investigation was conducted.

DISCUSSION 

After conducting a de novo review of the record, the Court finds

that none of the lodged Objections merit a conclusion other than that the

Report and Recommendation should be adopted completely. Defendants are

not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of actual knowledge and

resolution of the constructive knowledge issue is one that poses a

genuine issue of material fact, as well as credibility assessments. A

jury will need to resolve these questions. This also applies to the duty

to investigate issue. Notice and knowledge are all material questions

of fact and not resolvable by dispostive motion, based on the record

before this Court. The record completely supports the factual findings

and legal conclusions contained in the Report and Recommendation. 

Case 4:14-cv-02429-DCB-DTF Document 99 Filed 01/06/16 Page 2 of 3
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

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, after conducting a de novo review of the record,

IT IS ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 96) in its entirety. The Objections (Doc. 97) raised by the

Defendants are OVERRULED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment (Doc. 65) is DENIED. This matter is REFERRED BACK to the

Magistrate Judge to continue pretrial management through discovery and

dispositive motions.

DATED this 5th day of January, 2016.

Case 4:14-cv-02429-DCB-DTF Document 99 Filed 01/06/16 Page 3 of 3