t: 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT : L]f;J(; #: *. . & d : 

. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK , /o/lo/07 t8 , 

............................................................ X .--.-.--- -.-- 5 --'I--- '-.-I..-- - ..--.-.-- ",< - --,. " -.- , I-'-.--- ---- -___ 

CHRISTOPHER PAPE, 

Plaintiff, 07 Civ. 5760 (RMB) 

ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC. and 

INETVIDEO.COM, 

Defendants. ............................................................ X 

I. Introduction 

On June 1 8, 2007, Christopher Pape ("Plaintiff ') filed a complaint ("Complaint") against 

Electronic Arts, Inc. and 1netVideo.com (collectively, "Defendants") alleging, among other 

things, that Defendants "inhnged and continue to inhnge Plaintiffs copyright [in his 

painting] . . . by including Plaintiffs work in [Defendants'] electronic video game." (See 

Compl. 17 7-8 (Plaintiff "created . . . a painting entitled 'Freedom,"' and "Defendants inhnged 

and continue to inhnge Plaintiffs copyright . . . by wrongfully copying . . . adapting . . . 

distributing . . . and/or displaying . . . the copyrighted work by inclucling [it] in a[n] electronic 

video game" named Freedom Fi&ters).) On September 27, 2007, Defendants moved, pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), for a more definite statement that would identify "(1) 

the work that [Plaintiff] contends was inhnged or (2) the particular :material within the game 

that [Plaintiff] contends is inhnging." (See Defs.' Mot. for a More Definite Statement, dated 

Sept. 27, 2007 ("Defs.' Mot."), at 1 .) To date, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants' 

motion. 

For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion is denied. 

Case 1:07-cv-05760-RMB Document 8 Filed 10/10/2007 Page 1 of 3
11. Legal Standard 

Rule 12(e) provides that "[ilf a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so 

vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to fiaine a responsive pleading, 

the party may move for a more definite statement before interposing ;a responsive pleading." 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Rule 12(e) motions "generally are disfavored because of their dilatory 

effect," Fisher v. Bldg. Serv. 32B-J Health Fund, No. 01 Civ. 7707, 2001 WL 1586689, at *I 

(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11,2001) (citation omitted), and "should not be granted unless the complaint is 

so excessively vague and ambiguous as to be unintelligible and as to prejudice the defendant 

seriously in attempting to answer it," Kok v. First Unum Life Ins. Ca, 154 F. Supp. 2d 777, 782 

(S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citation omitted). 

111. Analysis 

Defendants argue that "the Complaint does no more than reference [the infringing video 

game] Freedom Fihters by name" and that "it does not include an irnage of, or otherwise 

describe, any allegedly infringing material within the game." (Defs." Mot. at 3.) 

Defendants' motion is denied because the Complaint is sufficient to give Defendants 

"notice of what [Plaintiffs] claim is," Richard Feiner & Co. v. Larrv Harmon Pictures Corp., 38 

F. Supp. 2d 276, 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), and "adequately enable[s] de-fendant[s] to form a 

responsive pleading," I.M.S. Inquiry Mgmt. Svs., Ltd. v. Berkshire Info. Sys., Inc., 307 F. Supp. 

2d 521, 533 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); see Carrel1 v. Shubert Org., 104 F. Sulpp. 2d 236,251 (S.D.N.Y. 

2000). "Discovery is the appropriate vehicle for obtaining more detail concerning the issues 

raised in the [Complaint]." &, 1 54 F. Supp. 2d at 78 1. 

Case 1:07-cv-05760-RMB Document 8 Filed 10/10/2007 Page 2 of 3
IV. Conclusion and Order 

For the forgoing reasons, Defendants' motion for a more definite statement [Dkt. # 61 is 

denied. 

The parties are directed to appear for an initial scheduling conference on October 26, 

2007 at 9: 15 a.m. in Courtroom 21D at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 

500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. 

Dated: October 10, 2007 

New York, New York 

1 

Richard M. ~ermrn, U.S.D.J. 

Case 1:07-cv-05760-RMB Document 8 Filed 10/10/2007 Page 3 of 3