Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01873/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01873-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:14-cv-1873-H-BLM

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

ANTHONY JOHNSON,

Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,

v.

STORIX, INC., a California Corporation,

Defendant and Counter-Claimant.

Case No.: 3:14-cv-1873-H-BLM

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO QUASH THE WRIT 

OF EXECUTION AND DENYING 

MOTION TO STAY POSTJUDGMENT DISCOVERYAND

ENFORCEMENT OF THE 

JUDGMENT 

[Doc. No. 268]

On November 16, 2016, the Court entered a final amended judgment, which 

included an award for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $555,118.64, in favor of Defendant 

and Counter-Claimant Storix, Inc. and against Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Anthony 

Johnson. (Doc. No. 246.) On November 28, 2016, Johnson filed a motion to stay 

Case 3:14-cv-01873-H-BLM Document 271 Filed 06/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

3:14-cv-1873-H-BLM

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

enforcement of the judgment pending appeal. (Doc. No. 251.) Storix filed an opposition, 

and the Court held telephonic status conferences on November 17, November 29, and 

December 13, 2016. (Doc. Nos. 248, 252, 254, 255.) In a written order, the Court granted

the motion to stay enforcement of the judgment pending appeal on the condition that 

Johnson must post a supersedeas bond in the amount of the full judgment. (Doc. No. 256.) 

The Court ordered Johnson to file notice of the supersedeas bond with the Court by 

December 20, 2016. (Id. at 4.)

On December 20, 2016, Johnson filed a motion to stay execution of the judgment 

with the Ninth Circuit. (See Doc. No. 258 at 3.) On December 23, 2016, Johnson filed an 

ex parte motion in this Court to continue the stay until the Ninth Circuit could rule on the

motion filed with that court. (Doc. No. 258.) This Court granted the motion, extending the 

stay of enforcement for 30 days from December 27, 2016. (Doc. No. 259.) The Ninth 

Circuit denied Johnson’s motion to stay on January 13, 2017. (Doc. No. 260.)

Johnson did not file a notice of a supersedeas bond with this Court. On January 27, 

2017, the Clerk of Court issued an abstract of judgment and a writ of execution. (Doc. Nos. 

263-64.) On April 28, 2017, Storix served Johnson with post-judgment written discovery.

(Doc. No. 268-2 at 3, ¶ 9.) On May 30, 2017, Johnson responded to each discovery request 

with the following objection:

Objection. As set forth in plaintiff’s concurrently filed motion, post-judgment 

discovery and other proceedings to enforce the judgment should be stayed 

pending the outcome on appeal in accordance with Rule 69(a) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and California law.

(Doc. No. 269-1.) In addition to this objection, Johnson asserted various forms of 

privilege in response to some of the discovery requests. (Id.) On May 31, 2017, Johnson

filed a motion for (1) an order quashing Defendant’s writ of execution, (2) a protective 

order staying post-judgment discovery, and (3) an order staying enforcement of the 

judgment. (Doc. No. 268.) Storix filed an opposition on June 19, 2017, and Johnson filed 

a reply on June 26, 2017. (Doc. Nos. 269, 270.)

Case 3:14-cv-01873-H-BLM Document 271 Filed 06/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

3:14-cv-1873-H-BLM

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

Pursuant to its discretion under Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the Court determines that the 

motion is fit for resolution without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court submits the 

motion on the parties’ papers and vacates the scheduled hearing. For the reasons that 

follow, the Court denies Johnson’s motion and overrules his objections to post-judgment 

discovery.

Discussion

I. Johnson is not entitled to a stay of enforcement pending appeal

Johnson began this action on August 8, 2014 by filing a complaint against Storix for 

copyright infringement of a software program. (Doc. No. 1.) Storix filed a counterclaim 

seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not infringe any copyright and that it owned all 

copyrights in the software. (Doc. No. 5.) On December 15, 2015, a jury returned a verdict 

in favor of Storix and against Johnson. (Doc. No. 160.) On January 4, 2016, Storix filed a

motion pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505 seeking costs not taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 as 

well as attorneys’ fees. (Doc. No. 165.) The parties briefed the issue and attended mediation 

sessions. (Doc. Nos. 180, 184, 202, 204.)

On June 16, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley 

& Sons, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1979 (2016). At the Court’s request, each party briefed the Court 

on how that decision should impact the Court’s analysis of Storix’s motion for costs and 

fees on July 18, 2016. (Doc. Nos. 217-18, 223-24.) On November 16, 2016, the Court 

entered a final amended judgment in favor of Storix, which included an award for 

attorneys’ fees. (Doc. No. 246.) Storix now seeks to enforce that judgment, but Johnson 

argues that enforcement must be stayed pending appeal. 

Johnson argues that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, post-judgment 

enforcement must follow California law. (Doc. No. 268-1 at 3-4.) California law 

purportedly prohibits enforcement of costs-only judgments pending appeal. (Id. at 4-5.) 

Johnson argues that the award of attorney’s fees is a costs-only judgment. Therefore, 

according to Johnson, he is not required to post a supersedeas bond while his case is on 

appeal. In support of his position, Johnson cites Rule 69(a), which provides:

Case 3:14-cv-01873-H-BLM Document 271 Filed 06/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

3:14-cv-1873-H-BLM

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

A money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, unless the court directs 

otherwise. The procedure on execution—and in proceedings supplementary 

to and in aid of judgment or execution—must accord with the procedure of 

the state where the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent 

it applies.

FED. R. CIV. P. 69(a)(1).

Johnson misapplies the Federal Rules. “Although it is true that under California law, 

an appellant may obtain a stay of execution of a costs-only judgment without posting bond, 

the Federal Rules reflect no such policy.” Aldasoro v. Kennerson, 915 F. Supp. 188, 192-

93 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (internal citation omitted). Under Rule 69(a), state law provides the 

“procedure” on execution of a judgment. FED. R. CIV. P. 69(a)(1). In other words, it 

addresses the manner of executing a judgment—it does not address when a judgment may 

be stayed or whether a supersedeas bond is required pending appeal. Those issues are 

governed by federal law, which establishes when a judgment becomes final and when a 

judgment may be stayed. See FED. R. CIV. P. 54, 62; see also Lamon v. City of Shawnee, 

Kan., 758 F. Supp. 654, 656 (D. Kan. 1991) (“[T]he court finds that Rule 69(a) merely 

addresses the manner of execution of a judgment; it does not address whether the posting 

of a supersedeas bond pending an appeal is required.”). Federal law also completely 

governs attorney’s fee awards in copyright cases. See 17 U.S.C. § 505; Kirtsaeng v. John 

Wiley & Sons, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1979 (2016). As relevant here, federal law specifically sets

forth the conditions by which a stay may be had pending appeal, providing that when “an 

appeal is taken, the appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond.” FED.R.CIV. P. 62(d). 

The Court entered the amended judgment on November 16, 2016. (Doc. No. 246.) 

On December 13, 2016, the Court granted a stay of execution on the condition that Johnson 

would post a supersedeas bond. (Doc. No. 256.) The Court extended the stay of execution 

for 30 days from December 27, 2016, again directing Johnson to post a bond. (Doc. No. 

259.) On January 13, 2017, the Ninth Circuit denied Johnson’s motion to stay execution 

pending Johnson’s appeal with that court. (Doc. No. 260.) Now, seven months after the 

Court entered its amended judgment, Johnson is again seeking a stay of execution without 

Case 3:14-cv-01873-H-BLM Document 271 Filed 06/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

3:14-cv-1873-H-BLM

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

obtaining a supersedeas bond. Under to Rule 62, the “posting of a bond protects the 

prevailing [party] from the risk of a later uncollectible judgment and compensates him for 

delay in the entry of the final judgment.” N.L.R.B. v. Westphal, 859 F.2d 818, 819 (9th 

Cir. 1988). Pursuant to Rule 62(d) and the orders issued by this Court and the Ninth Circuit, 

Johnson must post a supersedeas bond in order to obtain a stay of execution. 

Even if the word “procedure” in Rule 69(a) could be construed to encompass 

whether a bond can be required pending appeal, state law would still be inapplicable to this 

case. State law does not govern the procedure on execution where there is an applicable 

federal statute. Office Depot Inc. v. Zuccarini, 596 F.3d 696, 700-701 (9th Cir. 2010); FED.

R. CIV. P. 69(a)(1). The Federal Rules have the “force and effect of federal statutes.” 

Zuccarini, 596 F.3d, at 701 (quoting Schneider v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 72 F.3d 17, 

19 (2d Cir.1995)). Rule 62 expressly provides the conditions under which a federal 

judgment may be stayed. FED. R. CIV. P. 62. “Accordingly, California law, whatever its 

precise content on this point, will not be applied.” Ribbens Int’l, S.A. de C.V. v. Transp. 

Int’l Pool, Inc., 40 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1143 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (under Rules 62 and 69, federal 

law governs supersedeas bond approval and the effect thereof); see also Leuzinger v. Cty. 

of Lake, 253 F.R.D. 469, 476 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (holding that the state law cited by Johnson, 

§ 917.1 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, must yield to Rule 62 as a matter of 

federal supremacy and also under the express language of Rule 69(a)(1)). Because 

California law does not apply, the Court denies Johnson’s motion.

In the alternative, Johnson asks the Court to reconsider its order requiring a 

supersedeas bond. (Doc. No. 268-1 at 7-8.) Johnson’s request for reconsideration is 

premised on a recent decision by a state court in California. (Id.) But because state law 

does not govern here, the state court case does not provide grounds for reconsideration. 

Accordingly, the Court declines to reconsider its order requiring a supersedeas bond.

Case 3:14-cv-01873-H-BLM Document 271 Filed 06/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

3:14-cv-1873-H-BLM

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

II. The Court overrules Johnson’s objections to post-judgment discovery 

Storix served Johnson with post-judgment interrogatories and document requests, 

and Johnson responded to each discovery request with the following objection:

Objection. As set forth in plaintiff’s concurrently filed motion, post-judgment 

discovery and other proceedings to enforce the judgment should be stayed 

pending the outcome on appeal in accordance with Rule 69(a) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and California law.

(Doc. No. 269-1.) In addition to this objection, Johnson asserted various forms of privilege 

in response to some of the discovery requests. (Id.) Storix asks the Court to issue an order 

overruling Johnson’s objections. 

Johnson is not entitled to a stay pending appeal. Accordingly, the Court overrules 

Johnson’s objections to post-judgment discovery. Johnson must comply with the postjudgment discovery requests to the extent that such production would not violate attorneyclient privilege. If Johnson asserts attorney-client privilege in response to any request for 

production, he is ordered to state the grounds for privilege with specificity. The magistrate 

judge will then rule on the asserted privilege.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Johnson’s motion and overrules his

objections to post-judgment discovery. Johnson must comply with the post-judgment 

discovery requests to the extent that such production would not violate the attorney-client 

privilege. If Johnson asserts attorney-client privilege in response to any request for 

production, he is ordered to state the grounds for privilege with specificity. The magistrate 

judge will then rule on the asserted privilege.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 27, 2017

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:14-cv-01873-H-BLM Document 271 Filed 06/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6