Court Opinion

ID: 9955422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 16:01:01.09392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:40.472466
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-6177     Document: 010111023401      Date Filed: 03/28/2024   Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                        March 28, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  TIMOTHY SEPI,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  and

  WHYTE MONKEE PRODUCTIONS,
  LLC,

        Plaintiff,

  v.                                                        No. 22-6177
                                                     (D.C. No. 5:20-CV-00933-D)
  NETFLIX, INC.; ROYAL GOODE                                (W.D. Okla.)
  PRODUCTIONS, LLC,

        Defendants - Appellees.

  –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

  WHYTE MONKEE PRODUCTIONS,
  LLC; TIMOTHY SEPI,

        Plaintiffs - Appellants,

  v.                                                        No. 22-6199
                                                     (D.C. No. 5:20-CV-00933-D)
  NETFLIX, INC.; ROYAL GOODE                                (W.D. Okla.)
  PRODUCTIONS, LLC,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                                 ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

        *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
Appellate Case: 22-6177    Document: 010111023401         Date Filed: 03/28/2024    Page: 2

                          _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Plaintiffs-Appellants Timothy Sepi and Whyte Monkee Productions, LLC

 appeal the awards of costs and attorney fees in favor of Defendants-Appellees

 Netflix, Inc. and Royal Goode Productions, LLC. Eight videos recorded by Mr. Sepi

 were used by Defendants in a documentary series called Tiger King: Murder,

 Mayhem and Madness. Plaintiffs sued, alleging copyright infringement. On April 27,

 2022, the district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and

 entered judgment in their favor, holding that Plaintiffs had no copyright in seven of

 the videos because they were works made for hire, and that Defendants’ use of the

 eighth was fair use. Both plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal of this order on

 May 26, 2022, docketed in this court as Appeal No. 22-6086.

       On June 1, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for an award of attorney fees

 under the Copyright Act, which the district court granted in part on September 30,

 2022. On October 25, 2022, Sepi—but not Whyte Monkee—filed a timely notice of

 appeal with regard to “all appealable orders and judgments” of the district court,

 including the attorney-fee award. Fee App., Vol. 1 at 221. This appeal was docketed

 in this court as Appeal No. 22-6177.

 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
 estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
                                          2 of 4
Appellate Case: 22-6177    Document: 010111023401         Date Filed: 03/28/2024     Page: 3

       On October 4 Defendants moved for a review of the taxation of costs, which

 the district court partially granted on November 14, increasing the award of costs. On

 November 24 both Sepi and Whyte Monkee filed an “Amended Notice of Appeal,”

 again appealing “all appealable orders and judgments” of the district court, including

 its order on costs.1 Id.at 235. That appeal was docketed as Appeal No. 22-6199. We

 consolidated Appeal Nos. 22-6177 and 22-6199 in a November 30, 2022 order.2

       In the merits case this court reversed the district court’s summary-judgment

 order that Defendants’ use of Plaintiffs’ eighth video was fair use and remanded for

 further proceedings. See Whyte Monkee Prods., LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 22-6086

 (10th Cir. March 27, 2024). On this appeal, Plaintiffs argued that if we reversed the

 judgment on the merits, we must vacate the awards of attorney fees and costs as well.

 Defendants did not present any argument to the contrary. Accordingly, we vacate the

 awards of attorney fees and costs and remand for further proceedings on those issues

 following resolution of Plaintiffs’ merits case on remand. See Unit Drilling Co. v.

 Enron Oil & Gas Co., 108 F.3d 1186, 1194 (10th Cir. 1997) (“In light of our

 disposition of this case [reversing judgment on the merits and remanding for a new

 trial], we vacate the awards [of attorney fees and costs] and remand the issues for

       1
          The amended notice of appeal was timely as to the award of costs; but
 because it was filed more than 30 days after the order granting attorney fees, it was
 not timely with respect to the attorney-fee award. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A)
 (requiring notice of appeal in a civil case to be filed within 30 days after entry of the
 order appellant seeks to appeal). Sepi’s October 25 notice of appeal, however, was
 timely with respect to the award of attorney fees.
        2
          Appeal No. 22-6086 concerned Plaintiffs’ challenge to the judgment. The
 consolidated appeals concern only attorney fees and costs.
                                           3 of 4
Appellate Case: 22-6177    Document: 010111023401        Date Filed: 03/28/2024     Page: 4

 further consideration by the district court[.]”). Defendants’ motion to take judicial

 notice of the briefs and oral arguments in the merits case is dismissed as moot.

       We REVERSE the awards of attorney fees and costs and REMAND for

 further proceedings.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Harris L Hartz
                                             Circuit Judge

                                          4 of 4