Opinion ID: 784350
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Leeds and the Heart defendants

Text: 24 At his deposition, Leeds admitted that he had received tapes from Jorgensen but stated that he did not listen to them and he believed that they had been discarded. Leeds testified that his job as a Sony vice president involved reviewing promotional touring budgets and that he was not involved in the A & R process. Leeds also stated that he did not know the Heart songwriters. 25 Citing this evidence (and echoing their arguments with respect to Pollock), the defendants assert that the mere fact that Leeds had received a copy of Jorgensen's song does not mean that the Heart songwriters had a reasonable opportunity to hear it. Defendants argue that it is undisputed that Leeds did not forward Jorgensen's tape to the Heart songwriters, but they do not address the evidence introduced by Jorgensen that Leeds and his assistants repeatedly told Jorgensen that his tapes — including, in particular, one containing the song Lover — were being sent to Sony's A & R department. 6 Leeds, at his deposition, disputed Jorgensen's version of events, testifying that he did not recall ever making such a promise to Jorgensen and that he likely threw Jorgensen's tapes away. Leeds also conceded, though, that it was possible that if there was a tape that he received that he found interesting he might pass it on to one of his friends in the A & R department. 26 To draw a connection between Sony's A & R department and Horner and Jennings, the creators of Heart, Jorgensen relied on Sony's admission, in its response to his Request for Admissions, that during the relevant time period, on limited occasions, writers, producers or musicians affiliated with Sony may have been shown some material solicited by the A & R Dept. .... In concluding that Leeds did not forward Jorgensen's package, the District Court made no mention of (i) Jorgensen's deposition testimony to the contrary or (ii) Sony's admission regarding the practices of its A & R Department. 7 2002 WL 31119377, at . 27 Although the defendants accurately note that Jorgensen has put forth no evidence that the Heart songwriters actually heard his song, that argument misapprehends Jorgensen's burden. Jorgensen must show a reasonable possibility of access by the alleged infringer. Dimmie, 88 F.Supp.2d at 146 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Herzog, 193 F.3d at 1249 (explaining that to show access, a plaintiff must establish that the alleged infringer had a reasonable opportunity to view his work (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). He is not required to establish actual access. See Bouchat, 241 F.3d at 354-55 (A copyright infringement plaintiff need not prove that the infringer actually saw the work in question; it is enough to prove that the infringer (or his intermediary) had the mere opportunity to see the work and that the subsequent material produced is substantially similar to the work.) (emphasis added). 28 The facts of Jorgensen's case against the Heart defendants are entirely distinguishable from those presented in Dimmie, upon which the defendants rely, where the district court found that the plaintiff had not introduced a scintilla of evidence that the corporate recipient of her tape had forwarded it to the alleged infringers. 88 F.Supp.2d at 146; see also Novak, 752 F.Supp. at 169. Jorgensen's evidence sets out a clear nexus between Leeds, who has admitted receiving the Lover tape and the Sony A & R department, to which Leeds told Jorgensen he'd forwarded the tape. In addition, Jorgensen elicited an admission that the Sony A & R department occasionally shares such material with affiliated songwriters. Cf. Bouchat, 241 F.3d at 354 (noting that it was permissible for the jury to rest its access finding, in part, on the standard office routines of the defendant). What is not clear from the record before us is whether Horner and Jennings were songwriters affiliated with Sony in the period between when Jorgensen sent his tapes to Sony and when Heart was published. Absent some evidence on this issue, a jury could not reasonably infer simply from Sony's access to Jorgensen's work that Horner and Jennings also had such access. See generally Towler, 76 F.3d at 583 (refusing to find access where there was no evidence that intermediaries (who had access to plaintiff's screenplay) had contact with alleged infringer during the relevant time period). 29 As already noted, it is the defendant seeking summary judgment who must demonstrate a lack of evidence supporting an essential element of plaintiff's claim. See Repp, 132 F.3d at 890. The Heart defendants, who undoubtedly possess information about the time frame of Sony's affiliation with Horner and Jennings, failed to support their summary judgment motion with any evidence showing the lack of a relationship during the relevant period. 8 Because Jorgensen, appearing pro se, may not have appreciated the need to develop this particular evidence in discovery, summary judgment should not have been granted to defendants until the timing of any affiliation was clarified. Viewing the evidence adduced thus far in the light most favorable to Jorgensen and drawing all justifiable inferences in his favor, as we must at the summary judgment stage, see Mack, 326 F.3d at 119, we find that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment to the Heart defendants. Of course, it would be well within the District Court's discretion to permit limited discovery into the question of the timing of the songwriters' affiliation with Sony and to entertain a renewed motion for summary judgment, as may be appropriate.