01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR A TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PROPET USA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LLOYD SHUGART,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-0186-MAT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Propet USA, Inc. (hereinafter “Propet”) filed a Motion for a Protective Order,

requesting that the Court issue an order prohibiting defendant Lloyd Shugart (hereinafter

“Shugart”) from further contacting Propet’s customers pending resolution of the current case.

(Dkt. 157.) Propet points to “Infringement Demand Notice[s]” in which Shugart demands that

Propet customers discontinue use of his copyright protected images and make payment for

copyright infringements, and indicates that he “will take action accordingly[]” if his demands are

not met. (Dkt. 158, Exs. A & B.)

The Court finds Shugart’s actions troubling. Shugart’s counterclaims against Propet

explicitly asserted infringement through Propet’s distribution of his images to third parties. (Dkt.

Case 2:06-cv-00186-MAT Document 167 Filed 12/20/07 Page 1 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR A TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER

PAGE -2

13 at 7-9.) In pre-trial briefing, Shugart calculated his damages with consideration of the lost

royalty associated with distribution of his images to third parties. (Dkt. 113 at 6-7.) At trial,

Shugart’s counsel argued: “Part of our dispute on this thing is the film delivery memo says that

Propet USA and only Propet USA can use these images. And these are to show that Propet has

taken these images and distributed to other entities, namely, third parties entirely and its foreign

operations which are different from Propet USA.” (Dkt. 147 at 157-58.) Further, although

Shugart provided evidence of copying specific only to a small number of infringements on Propet’s

website, he supplemented this testimony with extensive evidence of third party usage of his

images. (Id. at 158-64, 167.)

Based on the evidence presented, the jury awarded and Shugart elected a significant

amount of statutory damages for copyright infringement. As reflected in a recent order from this

Court, given the minimal amount of evidence specific to copying by Propet, the evidence of third

party usage may well have supported a finding of willful infringement. (Dkt. 164 at 4-5.) The jury

also found Shugart entitled to a substantial award for Propet’s violation of the Digital Millenium

Copyright Act (DMCA), the violation of which presumably took place prior to any distribution

of plaintiff’s images to third parties. Indeed, Shugart previously argued that it was Propet’s

removal of his copyright management information in violation of the DMCA that enabled Propet

to make distributions to third parties without his consent. (Dkt. 113 at 6.)

Given all of the above, it does appear, as argued by Propet, that the jury awards

compensate Shugart for the injuries sustained in relation to the images associated with this lawsuit

and that Shugart inappropriately seeks additional compensation for those same injuries.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Propet’s motion for a temporary protective order. Shugart is

Case 2:06-cv-00186-MAT Document 167 Filed 12/20/07 Page 2 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

1

 This specific language should resolve Shugart’s concern that the requested protective

order is unconstitutionally overbroad. The Court also notes that the parties have been ordered to

submit a proposed stipulated order entering a permanent injunction that will serve to identify with

specificity the images affected by the instant order. (See Dkt. 165.)

2

 In a Surreply, Shugart seeks to strike portions of Propet’s Reply. (Dkt. 163.) However,

because the contested portions of Propet’s Reply were not relevant to the Court’s ruling on

Propet’s motion, it DENIES Shugart’s motion to strike.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR A TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER

PAGE -3

directed to cease contact with Propet’s customers for the purpose of demanding payments for

alleged copyright violations 1

 pending the ultimate resolution of the present case and should

carefully consider the propriety of later pursuing this course of action. The Clerk is directed to

send copies of this Order to counsel for Propet and Shugart.2

DATED this 20th day of December, 2007.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00186-MAT Document 167 Filed 12/20/07 Page 3 of 3