Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05499/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05499-6/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 RE JOINT DISCOVERY 

LETTER OF JULY 18, 2019

Docket No. 96

Currently pending before the Court is the parties’ joint discovery letter of July 18, 2019. 

The Court’s rulings on each of the issues raised in the letter are presented below.

A. Issue No. 1

The first issue is whether Scholastic should produce information on only the photographs 

at issue or, instead, on any Menzel photograph. Scholastic is willing to provide information on the 

photographs at issue – whether in the publications identified in the SAC or in other publications. 

See Joint Letter at 3. What Scholastic is not willing to do is provide information on all Menzel 

photographs; this would be, in effect, an audit. Mr. Menzel wants, in essence, discovery on all 

Menzel photographs because he wants Scholastic to produce information from its electronic 

database using only the search term “Menzel.” See Joint Letter at 1. (Scholastic does not claim 

any burden to do this kind of electronic search.)

The Court finds the reasoning of Judge Rakoff in Psihoyos v. Pearson Education, Inc., No. 

C-10-5912 (JSR), persuasive. See Letter, Ex. 5 (order, filed December 7, 2010). As Judge Rakoff 

rightly notes, the Advisory Committee Notes for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) states there 

is “no entitlement to discovery to develop new claims or defenses that are not already identified in 

Case 3:17-cv-05499-EMC Document 98 Filed 07/29/19 Page 1 of 3
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

the pleadings,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), 2000 Adv. Comm. Note to Subdivision (b)(1). In the instant 

case, the allegations of the operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) make clear that the case 

is focused on the specific photographs identified in the pleading. See, e.g., SAC ¶ 1 (“This is an 

action for copyright infringement brought by Menzel, the owner of copyrights to the photographs 

described hereafter, against Scholastic for its unlicensed and unauthorized uses of Menzel’s 

photographs.”); SAC ¶ 26 (“This Second Amended Complaint concerns only Scholastic’s 

unlicensed uses of the Photographs identified in Exhibit 1.”). The only place where Mr. Menzel 

puts at issue other photographs is the prayer for relief, see SAC, Prayer ¶ 1 (seeking “[a] 

preliminary and permanent injunction against Scholastic . . . from copying . . . Menzel’s 

Photographs described in this Second Amended Complaint and Menzel’s photographs not 

included in suit”), which is not supported by the claims of the SAC; those claims concern only the 

photographs expressly described in the SAC. 

Although the Advisory Committee Notes acknowledge that “[d]iscovery that is relevant to 

the parties’ claims or defenses may also support amendment of the pleadings to add a new claim 

or defense that affects the scope of discovery,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), 2015 Adv. Comm. Note to 

Subdivision (b)(1), Mr. Menzel does not make an express claim of willful copyright infringement 

by Scholastic. See, e.g., SAC, Prayer ¶ 3 (asking for “[a]n award of Menzel’s actual damages and 

all profits derived from the unauthorized use of Menzel’s Photographs or, where applicable and at 

Menzel’s election, statutory damages”; not specifying willful infringement for statutory damages). 

Hence, any argument that evidence of unauthorized use of other photographs may be relevant to a

willfulness claim is inapposite.

B. Issue No. 2

The second issue is whether Scholastic should produce information about prior and 

subsequent editions of publications identified in the SAC. Mr. Menzel argues that this 

information is useful “particularly where Scholastic has not produced complete data for the 

infringing edition. . . . [A] jury could rely on the data for other books in the same series to 

approximate the specific edition data Scholastic claims it cannot find.” Joint Letter at 2. Mr. 

Menzel also argues that the information is relevant to Scholastic’s affirmative defense of re-use –

Case 3:17-cv-05499-EMC Document 98 Filed 07/29/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

i.e., that a use was not infringing because the use was simply in a revision. 

Scholastic fails to address Mr. Menzel’s re-use argument. Furthermore, even though 

Scholastic argues that there is no indication that prior or subsequent editions would be similar to 

the edition at issue, it is not implausible that such an inference could be made based on the 

evidence uncovered thus far. Finally, while Scholastic maintains that, if it did not produce a 

specific edition, that would “usually [be] due to its age,” and therefore it probably would not have 

prior or subsequent editions close in time, Joint Letter at 3, that may well be true. But that does 

not negate Scholastic’s obligation to produce what exists.

C. Issue No. 3

The final issue is whether Mr. Menzel should be allowed to get discovery on whether 

Scholastic would suffer any harm from having its print run information publicly disclosed. This is 

essentially Mr. Menzel’s attempt to get Scholastic to de-designate information that it designated 

“Confidential.” The Court shall not order Scholastic to produce this information. There is no 

indication that Scholastic does not treat its print run information as confidential. Indeed, the Court 

notes that Mr. Menzel has previously complained that he cannot find information about 

Scholastic’s print runs, which indicates that Scholastic does not share this information with the 

public.

This order disposes of Docket No. 96.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-05499-EMC Document 98 Filed 07/29/19 Page 3 of 3