Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00621/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00621-1/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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dan Coogan, doing business as Coogan

Photographic, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Avnet, Inc., a foreign corporation; Roy

Vallee and Jane Doe Vallee, husband and

wife; Allen Maag and Jane Doe Maag,

husband and wife, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-0621-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a motion (Doc. 104) requesting that the Court clarify its Order

which granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment

(Doc. 100). The latter motion asked the Court to decide, among other things, whether

Defendants had infringed on one "work" or three separate "works" within the meaning of the

Copyright Act. Plaintiff argued that no issues of material fact remained on this issue, and

that Defendants had infringed upon three separate works. Defendants agreed that no issues

of material fact remained, but contended that they had infringed upon only one work. The

Court sided with Defendants, holding "[a]s a matter of law, the . . . photographs constitute

one 'work.'" (Order at 11.) 

Case 2:04-cv-00621-SRB Document 117 Filed 12/07/05 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Plaintiff now seeks clarification of that statement, as he is uncertain as to whether it

means that the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on that issue. That

phrase is perfectly clear, and means exactly what is says.

Plaintiff's real concern with the Order seems to be about something slightly different.

Plaintiff apparently believes that when the Court is ruling on a motion for summary

judgment, the Court, if it disagrees with the party filing the motion, cannot state its

disagreement in the form of a definitive legal conclusion, but instead, "should simply leave

the issue undecided." (Pl.'s Mot. for Clarification at 3.) In other words, in the present

context, the Court should have expressed its disagreement with Plaintiff's position by

essentially stating that, "The photographs do not constitute three separate works," as opposed

to what in this case was the converse: "The photographs constitute one work." Plaintiff is

wrong. He invited the Court's consideration of this issue, and the Court found that the

undisputed facts compelled a certain legal conclusion. Plaintiff's argument that the Court

should withhold that conclusion simply because he was the one who filed the motion for

summary judgment and this ruling favors Defendants is without merit.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's motion for clarification (Doc. 104).

DATED this 7th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-00621-SRB Document 117 Filed 12/07/05 Page 2 of 2