Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05499/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05499-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER MENZEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCHOLASTIC, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-05499-EMC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Docket No. 136

Currently pending before the Court is Mr. Menzel’s motion to reconsider regarding Rows 

50 and 51. The motion is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

• For each row, Scholastic did not dispute that it had exceeded the print run. Thus, 

to that limited extent, Mr. Menzel is entitled to summary adjudication.

• However, for each row, Scholastic did assert that it did not infringe by making 

some copies prior to the invoice date. To that extent, Mr. Menzel’s motion for 

summary judgment or adjudication is denied. See also Docket No. 135 (Order at 

24) (stating that there is a question of fact on “whether Mr. Menzel ‘regularly 

issued licenses despite being aware that the publication had already been printed, 

or printed in part’”).

• The Court reaffirms its prior ruling that Mr. Menzel’s motion for summary 

judgment on the affirmative defense of copyright invalidity/unenforceability 

(based on infringement before registration) is denied. See Docket No. 135 (Order 

at 19) (noting that, “for Rows 50 and 51 of the SAC, the copyright registration for 

the photograph is October 2007, and Mr. Menzel seems to be claiming 

Case 3:17-cv-05499-EMC Document 142 Filed 01/08/20 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

infringement based on a book published in 2002”). As the parties note, this only 

impacts the issue of damages rather than liability. See Mot. at 2; Opp’n at 1.

Based on the above, Rows 50 and 51 shall, as the Court previously held, proceed to trial.

This order disposes of Docket No. 136.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-05499-EMC Document 142 Filed 01/08/20 Page 2 of 2