### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

No. 14-2402

G RE G OR

Y E. R AH N

, et al. , Plaintiffs-Appellants ,

v.

B OAR DOF T R US T E E SOF N OR

T H E R N I L L I N O I S U N IV E RS I T

Y , et al. , Defen dants-Appellees.

Appe al f ro m the Uni ted S tates Distri ct Co urt fo r the Nor thern Distri ct o f Il l i noi s, Eastern Di v i sio n. No. 1: 09 -cv-03 03 3— Frederic k J. K apa la , Judg e.

A RGU E D A PRI L 13, 2015

— D E C I D E D S E PT E MB E R 23, 2015

B e fo re W OOD, Chief Judge, and R OVN E R , Circ uit Judge, and S PRI N G MANN

, District Judge. *

R OVN E R , Cir cui t Judge. Grego ry Rahn (“Rahn” ) a nd Genemetrix, a company in whi ch Rahn and hi s wife Regina

Hon. Theresa L. Spri ngmann o f the Nor thern Distri ct o f Indi ana, si tting * b y desi gna tio n.2 No. 14-2402

Rahn (herei nafter refer red to si mply as R e g ina in or der to
av oid confus i on wi th her husband) are prin ci pals, fi led a complaint in the di stric t court again st the Nort hern I llinoi s Uni v ersi ty Board of T

rustees (“NIU”) and indi vidu al Nort hern Illi noi s Uni v ersi ty offi cers Promod V ohra, Omar Ghr a yeb , Bradley Bond, and Raymon Alden III , allegin g di scri minati on and ret ali ation in violati on of Ti tle VII, copyright infringement and violati ons of due process. The di stric t court di smi ssed the due pr o ce ss clai ms wi th prej udi ce, and that deci si on i s not challen ged in thi s appeal. The di stric t court gr anted sum mary judgment in fav or of the d e fe nd a nts o n t he raci al di scri mination, ret ali ation, and copyright infring e ment clai ms, and the plainti ffs now appeal those deci si ons. Becaus e the claim s are fa ct ua lly di stinct, wi th no real ov erlap, w e wi ll address the fa ct s underlyin g the clai ms separately

. W e rev i ew the di stric t court’s sum mary judgment deci si on in fav or of the defendants de novo , consi dering the facts in the li ght most fav or able to the plainti ffs

. Seise r v

. City of Chicago , 762 F .3d 6 4 7, 6 5 3 (7th Ci r

. 2014).
I.
W e begi n wi th the facts un d e rlying the clai m of raci al d i scri minati on and ret ali ation. Rahn, who i s whi te, alleged that the defendants engaged in rev erse di scri minati on in violati on of Ti tle VII of t he C ivil Ri ghts Act of 1964, § 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A

. § 2000e et seq., when they fai led to hire hi m for a te nu re

- tr a c k a s s i s tant p ro fess or posi tion at the uni v ersi ty b a s e d on hi s race. Rahn, who earned a PhD in Industri al Engineering from the Uni v ersi ty o f Illinoi s, w as hi red as a vis i tin g professor at NIUNo. 14-2402 3

for the 2006-2007 sch ool y ea r

. His wi fe Regina w as hi red as a tenure-tr ack assi stant professor in the D e p a rtm e nt of In d u s tr i al and Sy stems Engi neering (“ISYE”) of the College of Engineer

ing a n d E n gin e e rin g T

e chn ol ogy (“College of Engineering”) for that same sch ool y ear

. Dur ing t hat y ear , a tenure-tr ack assi stant professor posi tion opened up in that Department, and Rahn appli ed for that posi tion. A search commi tte e w as entrusted wi th ev aluating the appli cants for the po si tion. Regina w as a member of that comm it t ee along wi th Dr

. Ri chard M arcellus, Dr

. Rein aldo Mor aga, Dr

. Murali Kr i shnam urthi and M i chelle Coo v ert, who w as a student

w or kin g as a teaching assi stant for Rahn. Ei ghty -tw o a p p li

cants appli ed for that po sit i on, and on Mar ch 5, 2007, the commi tte e met to consi der the appli cants. At th a t m e e tin g, the y

v ote d as to the quali fi cati ons of the appli cants in an effort to winnow the appli cants down to a gr oup that w ould proceed to the phone in ter viewstage.
De spi te her husband’s status as one of the appli cants, Regina remain ed on the search commi tte e and partici pated in t he v oting at that meetin g. Rahn receiv ed three v ote s at that meetin g—fro m hi s wi fe Regina, hi s teaching assi stant Coo v ert, and Mor aga—whi ch w as suffi ci ent to place hi m in the top ten of appli ca nt s although he w as not the hi ghest v ote -gett er

. A numb er of other candi da t e s received three v ote s as w ell, one candi date receiv ed fi v e v ote s, and the person ulti mately hi red for the posi tion, Dr

. Gary Chen, receiv ed four v ote s at that meetin g. Wi thi n days of that meetin g, on Mar ch 9, 2007, Promod V ohra, t he dean of the College of Engineering, conv ened an emerge ncy meet ing to inform the commi tte e that Regina w as4 No. 14-2402

being removed from i t based on the confli ct of int e rest as the wi fe of one of the appli cants. That deci si on w as consi stent wi th NIU Board of T

rustees poli cy that prov i des that “[f ]acu lty and

a d m ini s tr a tiv e e m p l oye e s a re s e l e cted for employment w i th ou t reg ard to relat i onshi p by blood or marriage” and tha t “no indi vidu al shall ini tiate or partici pate in p e r sonnel deci si ons inv olving ini tial employment, ret ention, promo tion

... or other di rect benefi t to an indi vidu al employ ee who i s a me mb er of the same i mmedi ate fami ly or i mmedi ate household [inclu ding] an emplo yee ’ s spouse

... .” Di st. Ct. Doc. 163-16, P ageID 1182. Although Rahn contends that the poli cy appli es only to the Board of T

rustees , t he language inclu ding facu lty and admini strat i v e employ ees beli es such an interpr etat i on, and in any case he f ai ls to pro vide any su pportfor t hat contention.
C oovert testifi ed that at that emerge ncy meetin g, V o hr a

w as upset that Regina had been on the commi tte e v oting on t he p ote nti al candi dates inclu ding her husband, and quest io ne d commi tte e member Mor aga as to why he v ote d fo r Rahn. Coo v ert also testifi ed that V ohra stated that he w ould not hi re a whi te man into the department i f quali fi ed minority candi dates w ere av ai lable. Regina stated that she w as li stening outsi de the door of the meetin g, and si mi larly heard those statements from V

ohra, whereas Ghray eb, V ohra and Mor aga testifi ed that no such st atements w ere made. For purposes of

sum mary judgment, how ev er , w e mus t ta k e the testim ony in the li ght most fav or able to Rahn.
In an effort to prov i de a more tr ansparent process, Kr i shnamurthi dev eloped an ev aluati on metric to prov i de a structure for comparing the candi dates. That metric set fort h catego ries whi ch corr esponded wi th the requirements set fort h in the jo bNo. 14-2402 5
descri ption, allowi ng the commi tte e member s to numeri cally rank each candi date in th e indi vidu al catego ries

. Once those

scores w ere talli ed, the resulti ng composi te score w ould faci li tate compari son of candi dates. The search commi tte e w as giv en the oppor tuni ty to prov i de feedbac k as to the propo sed metric, and once finali zed t he metric w as used in the ev aluation of the candi dates by the commi tte e. Rahn arg ues that the metric w as desi gned to eli minate hi m from consi derat i on, and asserts that Coo v ert testifi e d t o that effect. Coo v e r t ’ s testim ony , how ev er

, does not supp or t that arg ument. Coo v ert ini tiall y stated that she beli ev ed the metric

w as desi gned to eli minate Rahn, but upon further questi oni ng she clari fi ed that she thought the me t ric v alued academi c exper i ence such as publi shing ov er indus tr y exper i ence, and

w ould there fore fav or those wi th that academi c backgr o un d. She stated that as a student she v alued the indus tr y exper i ence that her professors such as Rah n br o ug ht to the clas sroo m. That testim ony does not supp or t the arg ument that the metric

w as a subt e rfuge for eli minati ng Rahn on raci al gr ounds. A uni v ersi ty employ er may proper ly prefere nce acad e mi c exper i ence, an d Rahn h a s not ev en presented any evidenc e that

such a prefere nce w as inconsi stent wi th the ini tial descri ption of the posi tion and the preferr ed quali fi cat io ns. Mor eov er , Coo v ert di d not clai m to hav e any persona l k no wl e dge as to the purpose or procedure of the creation of the metric, and there w as no evidenc e at all that Kr i shnamurthi or t he o t her members of the search commi tte e harbor ed any di sc rim in a to ry intent

. R a hn also fai led to produce any evidenc e that V ohra had any ro le in the creation of the metric. In fact, the defendants contend that the metric merely tr acked the quali fi cati ons6 No. 14-2402

set fort h in the posi tion descri ption, and Rahn does not arg ue other wi se. Rahn di d not make the ev entual cut of candi dates, and di d not proceed to the teleph one stage of the process. Regina there fore w as allow ed to rej oin the commi tte e and she partici

pated in the int e r v ie ws and the v ote on the final candi dates. The commi tte e then forw arded the proposed final candi dates to V ohra, and he made t he ulti mate hi rin g d e cis i on to choose Chen, who w as not a whi te male.
Rahn sub sequently fi led a gr i ev ance c onte s ting the deci si on to hi re Chen ov er hi m. NIU deni ed the gr i ev a nc e , and Rahn pursued an EEOC complaint and then fi led thi s sui t allegin g
race and gender di scri minat ion, whi ch he ulti mately pared down to si mply a clai m of race di scri minati on. He alleges that under ei ther the di rect or indi rect method of establi shing di scri minati on, he should s urviv e sum mary j udgment.
T o p r e v ai l under the di rect method, a plainti ff must produce “ei ther di rect or ci rcums tantial evidenc e that w ould permi t a jury to infer that di scri minati on motiv ated an adv erse employment acti on.” Langen bach v

. W al-Mart Stores, Inc ., 761 F .3d 792, 802 (7th Ci r

. 2014). Di rect evidenc e i s evidenc e of di scrim inat or y intent wi thout resor t to inference, such as an admi ssi on of di scri minator y int e nt often refer red to as “smoki ng gun” evidenc e. Ripber ger v

. Corizon , 773 F .3d 871, 877 (7th Cir

. 2014); Hutt v

. AbbV ie Products, LLC, 757 F .3d 687, 691 (7 t h Ci r

. 2014). Here, there i s no such di rect evidenc e. R a hn sub mi ts that the statement by V ohra reg ardin g hi ring a qualifie d minority candi date ov er a whi te one i s di sposi tiv e di rec t evidenc e that he w as not hi red becau se of hi s race.No. 14-2402 7

V ohra, ho w ev er

, di d not make the deci si on to eli minate Rahn fro m c on s i d e ra tion. The search commi tte e, applying the fa c to rs deeme d re l e v ant to the jo b, eli minated hi m from consi derat i on. V ohra ch ose betw een the tw o candi dates sub mi tte d to hi m by the commi tte e, but Rahn w as not in that pai ring. Accordi ngly , the statement by V

o hr a i s not evidenc e “wi thout resor t to inference” that the hiring deci si on w as bas ed on hi s race. Mor eov er

, ev en viewed as ci rcums tantial evidenc e that di scri minati on motiv ated the deci si on, i t i s insu ffi cie nt to surviv e sum ma ry ju d gm e nt. “ C i rcu m s tanti a l e vi d e nce can take

a numb er of forms, such as sus pi ci ous tim ing, behav ior or comments di rect e d at members of the prot ected gr oup, evidenc e showing t hat si mi larly-si tuated employ ees outsi de the prot ected gr oup receiv ed systemati cally bet ter tr eatment, and evidenc e that the reason the employ er gav e for the adv erse acti on w as pret extual.” Langen bach , 761 F .3d at 803. Rahn does not allege any comments by the de ci si on-makers di rected at whi te candi dates, and although he arg ues thatthe commi tte e

w as influ en ced by V

ohra’ s comment, he fai ls to ci te to any evidenc e i n the recor d to supportthat ar gument. Nor i s there evidenc e that the reason giv en for the hi ring d e cis io n w as pret ext ual. Ev en before the alleged statement by V ohra whi ch Rahn beli ev es tain ted the process, Chen receiv e d mo re v ote s than Rahn by the c ommi tte e; and at that poin t, the commi tte e also inclu ded hi s wi fe Regina. There i s, in short, no evidenc e in the recor d at a l l t ha t contradic ts the clai m by NIU that Chen

w as more quali fi ed for the posi tion than Rahn, and that he w as hired for that non-di scri minator y reason. In addi tion to a deart h of any e videnc e that the search commi tte e members

w ere i mpacted by V

ohra’ s vi ews in selec tin g candi dates to be8 No. 14-2402

sent to hi m, R a hn has not contested that the candi dates w ere sort ed by applyi ng the c riteria of the m etr i c, and as di scu ssed abov e he has fai led to arg ue that the metric di d not accu rat ely ref l e ct the legiti mate quali fi cati ons of the posi tion and w as there fore a pr etex tual reason for the hi ring determin ation.
Nor has he arg ued that the selecti on of Chen w as not based on that metric, or that i t otherwi se establi shed that the reason giv en w as pret ext ual. In fact, the di stric t court noted that Rahn faile d to address the defendants’ contention that Chen w as hi red based on the deter minati on that he w as more quali fi ed. Although Rahn dev ote d si gni fi cant tim e in the di stric t court on wi de-rangin g alle ga ti on s u n re l a ted to hi s di scri minati on clai m, inclu ding allegat io ns that V ohra had commi tte d perj ury and questi ons as to acti ons take n by the u ni v ersi ty wi th respec t to gr ading i ssu es, R a hn d i d not ev en menti on the name “Chen” in hi s bri ef and nev er addressed the defendants’ arg ument that Chen w a s chosen becau se he w as more quali fi ed. In fact, although Rahn testifi ed that he w as “by far the most quali fi ed candi date,” he acknowledged that he w a s unaw are of the quali fi cati ons of Chen or the other candi dates. The defendants noted in the r eply bri ef that Rahn had there fore w ai v ed the arg ument, and Rahn then atte mpted to fi le a sur-reply wi thout fi rst seeki ng the p ermis si on of the di stric t court. The di stric t court ulti mately rej ected the sur-reply , but the court noted that

ev en in the sur -reply

, Rahn di d not address the arg ument that Che n w as chosen becau se he w as more quali fi ed than Rahn. The di stric t court gr anted sum mary judgment in favo r of the defendants, holding that Rahn had fai led to contest the defendants’ clai m that i t had a non-pretex tual reason for hi ring Chen that w as unrelated to race. On appeal, Rahn does not addressNo. 14-2402 9

that w ai v er arg ument, and there fore cannot assert here that the commi tte e’s deter minati on that Chen w as more quali fi ed w as
a pret ext

. That dooms hi s clai m under the indi rect method as

w ell, becau se e ven if Rahn w as able to establi sh a prim a faci e
case of di scri minati on under that method, he could not surviv e
sum mary judgment; the defendants set fort h a legiti mate
reason for choosing Chen based on the metric ev aluati on of hi s quali fi cati ons, and Rahn has w ai v ed any arg ument that t he

reason i s pret ext ual. See Mat thews v

. W aukesha County, 759 F .3d 821, 826-27 (7th Ci r . 2014).
In addi tion to the di scri minati on clai m, Rahn also asserted that NIU ret ali ated again st hi m for fi ling hi s g r ie v a nce by ha v ing t he NIU poli ce force harass hi m and by fai ling t o proper ly inv esti gate the gr i ev ance. The di stric t court held that the ret ali ation clai m w as w ai v ed becau se Rahn fai led to address NIU’s arg uments as to that claim asi de from tw o sentences at the end of Rahn’s response whi ch lacked any legal supp or t. On appeal, Rahn does not ev en address the w ai v er holding, and t herefor e has alleged no basi s to rev erse the di stric t court on that gr ound. See Ripber ger, 773 F .3d at 879 (perfunc tor y and undev eloped arg uments are w ai v ed).
II.
W e turn then to t he co p y right clai ms. Rahn asserts tw o d i stinct clai ms of copyright infringement on appeal. The fir st inv olv es the use of a co ur se note packet for a course in the Department of Industri al and Sy stems Engineering (ISYE) of the College of Engi neering at NIU, the ISY E 100 course entitled “Ess ential s of Manufacturing.” Whi le employ ed as a full- tim e tenured prof e ss o r at NIU, Regina dev eloped the ISY E 10010 No. 14-2402

course notes, and those notes w ere uti li z e d by a di fferent professor

, Joe Bi tto rf, in teaching the course. Although Regina ini tiall y gr anted hi m permi ss io n to use the ISY E 100 course notes, in the Spr ing semes ter of 2007 she informed Bi tto rf that sh e no longer w anted hi m to use the course notes. Nev ert heless, the ISY E 100 course notes w ere used in the course thro ugh the Spr ing semes ter of 2009. In addi tion t o informing Bi tto rf that he could no longer use the course notes, Reg ina had als o informed defendant Alden, the NIU Prov ost, by emai l in January 2008, that NIU no lon g e r had permi ssi on to use the ISY E 100 course notes. The parties debate whethe r R egina’s bri ef tw o-sentence st a tement in a four -page single-spac ed

e ma il to Alden w as suffi ci ent notic e to NIU that i t could no longer use the ISY E 100 cour se notes, or whether NIU rat her than Regina w as the real owner of any intere st in the ISY E 100

course notes because they w ere dev eloped in the scope of Regina’s employment, but w e need not ad d r e ss those i ssu es. Th e copyright clai m fai ls for a more fund amental reason, whi ch i s that the eviden ce e stabli shes only that Regina Rahn

w as the author of the ISY E 100 course notes, b ut Regina i s not
a plainti ff in thi s ca se

. Accordi ng to appellants’ bri ef, Regina

w as ini tiall y a plainti ff, but the di stric t court sev ered her from the sui t pursuant t o Feder al Rule of Ci vil Procedure 21. The plainti ffs here allege that the ISY E 100 course notes w ere

wr it t e n by Grego ry and Regina Rahn as prin ci pals of Genemetrix, and assert that the Uni v ersi ty violated copyright law in continuing to di strib ute the ISY E 100 course notes after permi ssi on to do so w as r escinded. The di stric t court r ejecte d that arg ument and held t hat the recor d indicated t hat Regina

w a s t he sole author of the ISY E 100 course notes. On appe a l ,No. 14-2402 11

Rahn arg ues o nly that the di stric t court v entured bey ond the arg uments for sum mary judgment and in doing so fai led to consi der the entire recor d. W e rej ect thi s arg ument. The di stric t court’s deter minati on w as re sp onsi v e to the defendants’ arg ument on sum mary judgment that Regina w as the sole author of the ISY E 100 cour se notes and that they w ere prepar ed as part of her employmen t

. Mor eov er , that holding by the dis tr i ct court is consi stent wi th the r ecord.
At the outset, i t i s i mport ant to i de nt ify the three documents that are refer enced in thi s clai m. The copyrighted w or k at the co r ne r st one of the clai m i s entitled T rifini ty Six Sigma Ser i es TXu001018550 (“Si x Sigma Ser i es.”) There i s no di spute that the document w as authore d by Grego ry and Regina Rahn who are princ i pals in Genemetrix, and that Genemetrix owns

a v ali d copyright in that w or k. A second w o rk entitled “Ess ential s fo r Manufacturing Sy stems” w as purpor tedly created after the Six Sigma Ser i es by Grego ry and Regina Rahn for consu ltin g purposes, and i s a deriv ativ e w or k. The relat i onshi p betw een the ISYE 100 course notes an d the Es senti als for Man ufac turing Sy stems, how ev er , i s unnec essari ly muddl ed. The di stric t court characterized the ISY E 100 course notes as a deriv ativ e of the Ess ential s for Manu fa c tu rin g So luti ons, whi ch

w as i ts e l f a d e r i v ativ e of the Six Sigma Ser i es, and held that because Regina created the ISY E 100 course packet wi th authority from Genemetrix, she be came the owner to the copyr ig ht to that clas s note packet, ci tin g Schrock v

. Learnin g Curve Int’l In c

. , 5 8 6 F .3d 513, 524 (7th Ci r

. 2009) (the right to clai m copyright in a deriv ativ e w or k aris es by oper ation of law but may be alter ed by agr eement). On appeal, Rahn tr eats the tw o deriv ative w or ks as the same document but does not12 No. 14-2402

i denti fy them as such. In fact, he i denti fi es no evidenc e in t he

r e co rd that w ould let us conclu de that the ISY E 100 course notes a r e in fact si mply a copy of the Ess ential s for Manufacturing Sy stems document, and oth e r evidenc e in the recor d indi cat e s at least some of the ISY E 100 course notes such as student exer ci ses w ere not part of the Es senti als for Manufac

turing Sy stems w or k. In addressing the di stric t court’s character i zation of the ISY E 100 course notes as a “seco nd d eriv ativ e,” (a d e riv ativ e of the Ess ential s for Manufacturing Sy stems whi ch w as i tself a der iv ativ e of the copyrighted w or k), the plainti ffs merely state that the exis tence of a second deriv ativ e i s “not sub stanti ated” but i s i rr elev ant becau se the page of the not e s contai ned a copyright mark wi th a Genemetrix logo

. Gi v en the centrality of those documents to the clai m and to the di stric t court’s resolution, i t i s incomprehensi ble that at thi s stage of the li tigati on there i s any doubt as to the exact composi tion of the documents. Ev en on appeal, the plainti ffs to their detr i ment fai l to clari fy the matte r , and mor e i mport antly fai l to po int to any evidenc e in the recor d that doe s so. First, the plainti ffs hav e fail e d to i denti fy evidenc e in the

recor d whi ch w ould demonstrate that they authore d the ISY E 100 course notes. In the fact secti on o f the bri ef, the plainti ffs ini tiall y prov i de no ci te at all for the statement that “[t]he notes

w ere created by Greg and Gina as p r incip als of GMX [Genem etr i x].” In a later si mi lar statement, they ci te to d o cuments t hat do not in f act contai n eviden ce su ffi ci ent to rais e a genuine i ssu e of fact as to that i ssu e. First, they ci te to the cov er pages for ISY E 100 c ou rs e n ot e s l abeled Ess ential s for Manufacturing Book 1, Boo k 2 , a nd Book 3, but no authorshi p i s indi cated. That i s follow ed by three pages that appear i denti calNo. 14-2402 13

to each other labeled Ess ential s for Manufacturing Sy stems, each of whi ch prov i des that i t i s wri tte n by Grego ry Rahn and Regina Rahn and contai ns a Genemetrix copyright. There i s no context prov i ded for those pages, and the exhib i t does not
co nt ain the course notes themselv es. Mor eov er , those appear to be the cov er pages for the Ess ential s for Manufacturing Sy stem deriv ativ e w or k, whi ch, as w e di scu ssed, appears to be di stinct from the ISY E 100 course notes. At or al arg ument, neit he r p a r ty could ev en poin t us to the place in the recor d where w e could find th e I S Y E 1 00 course notes that were the basi s of the clai m. In response to our request for supp lemental bri efing, the defendants stated that t he y w e re unabl e to find the course notes in the recor d, and that only the cov er pages for the three v olumes of the course notes w ere prov i ded in the

recor d. The exhib i t i denti fi ed by the defendants in fact contai ns only the cov er pages. The plain tiffs then in formed us that the ISY E 100 course notes can be found in three differentexhib i ts t aken tog ether

. Those exhib i ts contai n a document entitled Ess ential s for Manufactu r ing Sy stems but nowhere does i t i denti fy i t as the ISY E 100 course notes. The recor d does not appear to contai n bo th t he full IS YE 100 course notes and t he Ess ential s for Manufacturing Sy stems document whi ch w ould allow compari son, and the pl ainti ffs hav e not alleged that the t w o a re i denti cal. The fai lure of the plainti ffs to clari fy the di fferences, i f any

, betw een those documents i s si gni fi cant giv en the di stric t court’s opin i on that clearly co ns idered the documents to be di stinct. Ev en i f t he ci tation prov i ded by the plainti ffs are to the ISY E 100 course notes wi th the cov er pages mi ssing, that docume nt sti ll does not prov i de us wi th the complete ISY E 100 course notes becau se the plainti ffs concede14 No. 14-2402

that some pages of the document are mi ssing from the recor d. The fai lure to clearly i denti fy documents in the recor d, and to prov i de supp or tin g ci tations for material propo si tions of fact, i s a r e curr ent problem in t hi s case. At a mini mum, in seek ing copyright prot ecti on, the p lainti ffs mus t clearly i denti fy the

w or k at i ssu e. The plainti ffs hav e fai led to do so here. That alone could w arr ant sum mary judgme nt, b u t a t a mini mum the fai lur e t o i denti fy the relev ant documents in the recor d prec lu d es an arg ument of authorshi p or copyright that i s based

on i solated pages of t ho se incomplete documents. Therefore , the pages i denti fyi ng Ess ential s for Manufacturing Sy stems as authore d by Greg and Regina Rahn and copyrigh t e d by Genemetrix are insu ffi ci e nt evidenc e as to the authors and copyright owners of the I SYE 100 cour se notes. The only other ci tation that indi cates Rahn as a jo int author wi th Regina are emai ls sent by R e g ina t o the book stor e after the conf l ict wi th NIU ov er the notes had already ensued, in whi ch she asks how many copi es hav e been sold and refer s to the course notes as notes authore d by Rahn and herself. The plainti ffs ci te to no depos it io n or affi davit testim ony from Regina indi cating that Rahn co-authored the course notes, and there fore has fai led to prod uc e admi ssi ble evidenc e to that effect. The plainti ffs do prov i de tw o recor d ci tations for the statement t hat i n 2005 or 2006, “Greg and G ina allow ed GMX [ G e n e m e tri x] professi onal dev elopment materials to be used in the academi c curriculum at NIU for the

... ISY E 100 co ur se,” but upon exami nati on those ci tes also fa il to supp or t that propo si tion. The fi rst ci te i s a statement in the affi dav it by Regina Rahn, st atin g that documents from Genemetrix w ere used in the prepar ation of the course no t e s. That statementNo. 14-2402 15

makes no men t io n as to whether copyrighted material w as used, and also fai ls to i denti fy Rahn as inv olv ed in the author

ing or prepar ation of the notes. The other ci te prov i ded for the factual propo si tion i s ev en l e ss he lpful

. That ci tation i s to a l e tte r from the Inter i m Department Chai r of the Industr ia l Engi neering Department to P a t Foste r of the Uni v ersi ty B ook stor e, statin g that Regina Rahn, as the author of the cours e notes , is e nt i tled to receiv e any ro y alties from the sale of the notes. Once again

, that fai ls to demonstrate any connecti on betw een the pla inti ffs and the notes, nor does i t indi cate that copyrighted materials w ere used. In hi s deposi t io n, Donald T urk, the Manager of the Uni v ersi ty Bo o k st o re, testifi ed that

ro y alties w ere pai d for w or k authore d by the professors for both copyrighted and unc opyr i ghted materials

. Mor eov er , by i denti fyi ng Regina Rahn as the author of th e notes, wi thout

r e fer ence to Grego ry Rahn or Genemetrix, the lette r in fact di sputes the propo si tion that the plainti ffs w ere authors of the notes. Although Regina Rahn a s a ut hor of the course notes may hav e an intere st in prev entin g the unauthorized di strib ution of her course notes, she i s not a plainti ff in t his case. Grego ry Rahn and Genemetrix hav e fai led to demonstrate any
such intere st.
Nor hav e they pre sent ed evidenc e that Regina Rahn authore d the course notes in he r capac i ty as prin ci pal of Genemetrix. First, the course notes w e r e prepar ed for clas sro om use, and the preparation of such materials w as a part of the du ties of professors. Si gni fi cantly , in prov i ding the course notes to the book stor e to be copi ed and sold, Regina Rahn affi rmativ ely repr esented that she w as the sole author and that the course notes contai ned no copyrigh t e d materials

. In the16 No. 14-2402

form sub mi tte d wi th the notes, Regina Rahn si gned a declaration whi ch prov i ded “I, Regina Rahn, affi rm that the materials I am sub mi tting to be copi ed and sold for my clas s are entirely my own or i gin al w or k and I have not inclu ded any copyrighted material.” Regina acknowledged in her deposi tion that the si gnature and rep r e se nt ation w as indeed hers. The plaintiffs hav e fai led to poin t to evidenc e in the r e co rd rebutting that repr esentation by Regina. If there i s evidenc e in the recor d establis hing that plainti ffs hav e a prot ectible intere st in the ISY E 100 course notes and tha t t he di stric t court err ed in deter mining other wi se, the y hav e fai led to i denti fy i t. As w e hav e oft-stated, “w e wi ll not ro ot thro ugh the hundreds of doc um e nt s and thousands of pages that make up the recor d here to make [plainti ff’s] case for hi m.” Corley v

. Rosewoo d Care Ctr ., Inc. of Peoria, 388 F .3d 990, 1001 (7 th Ci r

. 2004); Frien d v

. V alley V iew Commun ity Unit School Dist. 365U , 789 F .3d 707, 710-11 (7th Ci r

. 2015); United States v

. Dun kel, 927 F .2d 955, 956 (7th Ci r

. 1991) ( Judges a r e not li ke pi gs, hunting for tr uffles buri ed in the bri efs.”)

. The evidenc e in the recor d i denti fi ed in the bri efs is that Re gin a Rahn, no t the plainti ffs, authore d the ISY E 100 course notes, and she r e p resented to the book stor e that i t conta ined no copyrighted materials

. She i s nei ther a p l a int iff nor a defendant in thi s case, and the recor d fai ls to other wise establi sh a basi s for thi s copyright clai m. Accordingly , the di stric t court proper ly g r anted sum mary judgment on this clai m. One copyright clai m remain s. Rahn alleges that the defendants copi ed Rahn’s “Ri sk Management” pow er poin t presentation that he prepa red in or der to conduc t a seminar for Exelon engin eers, whi ch wa s derived from plainti ffs ’ Six SigmaNo. 14-2402 17

Ser i es. W

e take our facts large ly from the suc cinct fact ual

sum mary set fort h by the di stric t court. I n the fall of 2006, Kathleen Thi gpen, the seni or t r aining speci ali st at Exelon,

c onta c te d N IU a n d informed Cassan dra Sim m on s, the ou tr e a ch

co o r d inator for the College of Engineering, that Exelon w as intere sted in ha ving an NIU professor prov i de tr aining for Exelon employ ees on ris k management. That request aro se out of a relat i onshi p that spann ed sev eral y ears prior to t he 2 0 06 request, wher e by Exelon w ould prov i de NIU facu lty and students wi th indus tr y exper i ence in ret urn for tr aining and other supp or t from NIU. NIU and Ex elon agr eed in l ate 2006 and early 2007 that NIU w ould furni sh the ris k management
course by i ts employ ee and that Exelon w ould pay NIU, and Rahn w as chosen to dev elop and teach that course. Rahn subsequently dev eloped a pow er poin t presentation for that

course using materials prev i ously dev eloped by Regina whi ch Rahn consi ders deriv ativ e o f Genemetrix’s copyrighted materials

. Exelon sought to rev i ew the materials before agr eeing to the contract, and Rahn forw arded the presentation to Thi gpen and Y

ousef Alaeddin, an engineer wit h Exelon. Th e y d e te rm in e d th a t the presentation w as inadequate for thei r needs, finding that t he 1 4 4 sli des lacked any prominen t di scu ssi on of r isk management. Thi gpen also expr essed hi s di ssati sfac tion that Rahn inclu ded the Genemetrix logo on the sli des given that Exelon had requested that NIU prov i de one of i ts professors to giv e the presentation. Thi gpen there fore informed Sim mons that they di d not w a nt R a hn to teach the ris k management course.
Sim mons then asked Rahn’s di rect supervis or , Ghray eb, to
rev i ew the presentation and he agr eed with Exelon that ris k18 No. 14-2402
management w as not a si gni fi cant part of the presentati on. In addi tion, the dean of the College of Engineering, V ohra, also

rev i ew ed the presentation. Th e E xelon course ulti mately w as taught by ano ther NI U pro fess or , Denni s Cesarott i

. Rahn asserts that the de fe ndants ’ use of hi s pow er poin t presentation consti tuted a copyright violati on. It i s i mpossi ble to di scern the basi s for this claim, how ev er , becau se the plainti ffs fai l to ci te to a single case in presentin g thi s arg ument. The o nly legal ci tations in this port i on of the a r gument relat e t o the secti ons concerning the proper w ei ght that the di stric t court should hav e giv en to certain affi davits in consi dering hi s copyright clai m. As to the legal basi s for the copyright clai m i tself, the plainti ffs n e i the r i d e nti fy the relev ant copyright law nor do they i denti fy the as pects of the law that the defendants allegedly violated. Instead, they dev ote the e nt ir e ty of thi s arg ument to specu lativ e asserti ons that Rahn’s forw ardin g of the pow er poin t presentation w as somehow coerced, or that the pow er poin t w as di strib uted to competi tor s wit hin NIU. The di stric t court proper ly rej ected those asserti ons as uns upport ed in the recor d, but mo r e fundamentally , the plainti ffs hav e w ai v ed any clai m as to the Exelon pow er p o int becau se they hav e fai led to ci te any legal authority in support of their arg ument. See Ball v

. City of Indianapolis , 760 F .3d 636, 645 (7th Ci r

. 2014) (plainti ff who dev ote d no more than three sentences to he r a rg ument wi thout ci tation to legal authority fai led to comply wi th Fed. R. A p p

. P

. 28(a)( 8)(A) and has w ai v ed the clai m); Y asinskyy v

. Holder, 724 F .3d 983, 989 (7th C ir

. 2 013) (“[w ]e wi ll not enter tain baseles s and uns upporte d factual contentions or undev eloped legal arg uments”) ; United States v

. Lanzott i, 205 F .3d 951, 957 (7th Ci r

. 2000) (“perfunc tor y andNo. 14-2402 19

undev eloped arg uments, and argu m e nts that are uns upporte d by pert inent authority

, are w ai v ed”); Feder al Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8)( A).
The deci si on of the dis tr i ct court is AFF IRM ED.