T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T VI C T OR I A R YA N, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. E D I T I O N S L I M I T E D W E S T , I N C ., a C a lif o rn iac o rp o r a tio n ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 06- 17364 D. C . No . C V- 0 6 - 0 4 8 1 2 - P VT ME MOR AN DU M *

VI C T OR I A R YA N, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. E D I T I O N S L I M I T E D W E S T , I N C ., a Ca l i f o rn i ac o rp o r a t i o n a n d ARTS EL EC T, I N C . , aD e l a w a r e c orpor a t i on, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees, a nd E N V I R O N M E N T A L G R A P H I C S , I N C ., a M in n e s o tac o rp o r a tio n ; e t a l., N o. 09- 16287 D. C . No . 5 : 0 6 - c v - 0 4 8 1 2 - P VT



# FI LED MA R 03 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

D efen d an t s.

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia P a tr i c i aV . T rum bul l , M a gi s tr a t e J udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 15, 2011 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: N O O N A N , O ’ S C A N N L A IN , an d T R O T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. V i ct ori a R yan, a vi sual art i st , appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof sum m ary j udgm e nti n f

a vorof de f e nda ntE di t i ons L i m i t e d W e s t( “ E L W ” ) on he rc l a i m s f or ( 1) c ontr i but ory a nd vi c a r i ous c opy r i ghti nf r i nge m e nt , ( 2) br e a c h of c ontr a c t , ( 3) u n fai r co m p et i t i o n , an d (4 ) sl an d er o f t i t l e. S h e al so ch al l en g es v ari o u s d i sco v eryre lated ru li n g s a n d th e d en ial o f h eran ti -S L A P P m o ti o n to strik e E L W ’s c o u n te r c la im f

o rd e f a m a tio n . W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e ntde novo, dr a w i ng a ll in f e r e n c e s in f

a v o ro f th e n o n m o v in g p a r ty . N o yes v. Kel l

y Servs. , 488 F . 3d 1163, 1167 ( 9th C i r . 2007) . W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on t o de ny d is c o v e ry f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . H

al le t t v . Mor gan , 29 6 F . 3d 73 2, 75 1 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) .F i r s t , R y a n a r gue s tha tE L W i s l i abl e f orc opy r i ghti nf

r i nge m e ntba s e d on E L W ’ s l i ce nce t o A rt S el ec tt o m ake unautho ri ze d reprodu ct i on s of R yan’ s ori gi nal3

past el s. A tthe t i m e A rt S el ec tm ade i t s unautho ri ze d reprodu ct i on of P r i m av e r a I, b o th e le m e n ts o f

c o n tr ib u to ry c o p y r ig h t in f r in g e m e n t w e r e p r e s e n t. See P e r f e c t 10, Inc. v. V isa Int ’l Serv i ce A ss ’n , 49 4 F . 3d 78 8, 79 5 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). E L W kn ew that A rtS elec t w as p ro d u cin g an d se ll in g u n au th o rize d ca n v as tran sf er s o f R ya n ’s w orks . E L W c ontr i but e d t o A rt S e l e c t ’ s di r e c tc opy r i ghti nf r i nge m e ntby gr a nt i ng p e rm is s io n to A rtS e le c t to m a k e c a n v a s tr a n s f e r s a n d s e llin g A r tS e le c t th e p o s te rit us e d t o c r e a t e the c a nva s tr a ns f e r . R y a n a l s o pr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e of the e l e m e nt s of v ic a r io u s c o p y r ig h t in f

r in g e m e n t. Se e Me tr o G oldw y n-M ay e rStudi os , I

nc . v . G roks ter , L td . , 545 U . S . 913, 930 ( 2005) . E L W ’ s C E O , M i c ha e l J a kol a , s t a t e d i n a decl ar at i on thatE L W sol d A rt S el ec tthe po st erof P ri m avera I tha ti tus e d t o m a ke th e in f r in g in g c a n v a s tr a n s f

e r . A t th e tim e o f

th e p o s te rs a le , A r tS e le c t h a d e x p lic it au th o r iz a tio n f

r o m E L W to u s e th e p o s te rto p r o d u c e ac a n v a s tr a n s f e r . E L W d id note xe r c i s e i t s r i ghtt o s t op A rt S e l e c tf r om c opy i ng the pos t e r . I ns of a ra s the d istrict co u rt fo u n d th at R ya n co u ldn o t p ro v e d am ag es , w e n o te th at A rtS elec t’ s profi t s f rom the i nfri ng em entw er e a tl ea stpart i al l y c ause d b y E L W ’ s unautho ri ze d lic e n s e o f

R y a n ’s w o rk s . See M

acki e v . R i es er , 29 6 F . 3d 90 9, 91 1 (9th C i r. 20 02 ). A c c or di ngl y , R y a n r a i s e d atr i abl e i s s ue a s t o w he the rs he i s e nt i t l e d t o j udgm e nt a g a in s t E L W f

o rc o p y r ig h t in f

r in g e m e n t.4

S e c ond, R y a n c ha l l e nge s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nton he rbr e a c h of

c ontr a c tc l a i m . T he di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y f ound tha tR y a n di d not a d d u c e a n y e v id e n c e o f d a m a g e s p r o x im a te ly c au s e d b y E L W ’s b r e a c h o f c o n tr a c t. T hi rd, R yan chal l enges the di stri ctcourt ’ s rul i ng thatthe C op yr i gh tA ct pree m pt s R yan’ s unfai r c om pet i t i on cl ai m agai nstE L W . T he C op yr i gh tA ct expres sl y pre em pt s r el at ed st at e l aw cl ai m s bas ed excl usi vel y on ri gh t s prot ec t ed u n d e rth e A c t. See Kodadek v. M T V N etw orks , I

nc . , 15 2 F . 3d 12 09 , 12 12 (9th C i r. 1998) . R y a n a r gue s tha ts om e a l l e ga t i ons i n he rc om pl a i nti nvol ve r i ght s not pr ot e c t e d unde rthe A c t ; how e ve r , the a l l e ga t i ons t o w hi c h s he poi nt s i nvol ve the e nc our a ge m e ntori nduc e m e ntof c opy r i ghti nf

r i nge m e nt , w hi c h i s a n e l e m e ntof th e f e d e r a l c o n tr ib u to ry c o p y r ig h t in f r in g e m e n t c la im . Se e A & M R e c ords , Inc. v. N ap ster , I nc . , 23 9 F . 3d 10 04 , 10 19 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). T he C op yr i gh tA ctthere fore p r e e mp t s Ry a n ’ s u n f

a i rc o mp e t i t i o n c l a i m. F ourth, R y a n c ha l l e nge s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udge m e nton he rs l a nde rof

t i t l e c l a i m . T he di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y de t e rm i ne d tha tR y a n di d not a dduc e a ny e vi de nc e tha ts he i nc urr e d a tt orne y s ’ f e e s i n c l e a r i ng he rt i t l e or s u f f e r e d a n y o th e rp e c u n ia ry lo s s r e s u ltin g f r o m s la n d e ro f

title . See A

pp el v. B urm an , 2 0 6 C al. Rp tr. 2 5 9 , 2 6 2 -6 3 (C t. A p p . 1 9 8 4 ). T h er ef o re , w e r ejec t R ya n ’s chal l enge.5

R yan al so chal l enges the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of her m ot i on t o com pel f ur the rw r i tt e n di s c ove ry r e s pons e s a nd i t s de ni a l of R y a n’ s r e que s t s f

ore xt e ns i ons of the deadl i ne t o fi l e m ot i on s t o com pel di sc ov ery and the di sc ov ery c ut off de a dl i ne . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s br oa d di s c r e t i on i n m a na gi ng d is c o v e ry w h e n it d e n ie d th e s e d is c o v e ry - r e la te d m o tio n s . Se e H a lle tt , 29 6 F . 3d at 7 5 1 . R yan argues thatthe di stri ctcourti m prop er l y deni ed her r equestfor a pe rm a ne nti nj unc t i on a ga i ns tE L W a nd i m pr ope r l y de t e rm i ne d tha ts he w a s notthe p r e v a ilin g p a rty u n d e rh e rc o n tr a c t w ith E L W . I f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f

in d s E L W liab le for c on tri bu t ory or vi cari ou s c op yr i gh ti nfri ng em ent , i tshou l d rec on si der w hether R yan i s the prevai l i ng party und erthe broad l angu age of the contra ct , and w hether s h e is e n title d to ap e rm a n e n t in ju n c tio n a g a in s t E L W . Se e M A I Sys . C or p. v . P e ak C om pu ter , I nc . , 991 F . 2d 511, 520 ( 9th C i r . 1993) ( “ A s age ne r a l rul e , ape rm a ne nt i nj un ct i on w i l l be grant ed w hen l i abi l i ty has been es t abl i shed and there i s athrea t of cont i nu i ng vi ol at i on s. ”) . R y a n c h a lle n g e s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h e ra n ti- S L A P P m o tio n to s tr i ke E L W ’ s c ount e r c l a i m . U nde rthe c ol l a t e r a l or de rdoc tr i ne , w e ha ve j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the deni al of an ant i -S L A P P m ot i on t o stri ke brou gh tun der C a l i f o rn i al a w. B a tz e l v . Sm ith , 33 3 F . 3d 10 18 , 10 24 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). T he di stri ct6

c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b y d e n y in g R y a n ’s a n ti- S L A P P m o tio n in o r d e rto p e rm it E L W to c o n d u c t d is c o v e ry e s s e n tia l to its o p p o s itio n . See Metab ol i f e I nt ’l , Inc. v. W orni ck , 26 4 F . 3d 83 2, 84 6 (9th C i r. 20 01 ). W e A F F I R M the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of R y a n’ s a nt i - S L A P P m ot i on, R E V E R S E the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nton R y a n’ s vi c a r i ous a nd c ontr i but ory l i abi l i ty c l a i m s a ga i ns tE L W a nd R E M A N D f orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c o n s is te n t w ith th is d is p o s itio n . E a c h p a r ty s h a ll b e a rits o w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l.