Judge Stanton

Subscribe to Judge Stanton via RSS

In an Order last week, Judge McMahon asked the lawyers in a copyright infringement case over the young adult book series Crave (see the operative complaint here) how they planned to conduct a forthcoming jury trial, given the massive volume of evidence—both the book series itself and, separately, the plaintiff’s unpublished manuscripts from which the series was allegedly stolen.

The case was filed by family law attorney and aspiring novelist Lynn Freeman who for years sought to publish her book Blue Moon Rising. After having failed to find a publisher, she came across a book, Crave by Tracy Wolff, with striking similarities. Wolff, it turned out, had the same literary agent as Freeman. Freeman would later sue for copyright infringement. (For more case background, see the New Yorker’s feature on the case).

Judge Stanton denied summary judgment, agreeing with Magistrate Judge Netburn’s report and recommendation that there were fact issues about whether Wolff had access to Freeman’s manuscripts (via their common agent) and whether Wolff “copied parts, large or small.”

The case was assigned to Judge McMahon, who initially suggested that the parties agree to a bench trial because, among other things, it would make it easier to manage the volume of evidence: “I promise I will read everything that either side wants to submit to a trier of fact — all the books, all the notes and all the drafts.”

The parties’ decision to proceed with a jury trial is what gave rise to last week’s Order, and Judge McMahon’s query on how to present the evidence. As Judge McMahon explained, it would not suffice for the manuscripts by Freeman or the Crave series itself to be admitted into evidence merely by way of summaries:Continue Reading In Case Over Allegedly Infringing Teen Romance Book Series, Judge McMahon Asks Counsel: How To Efficiently Try A Case With 10,000-Plus Pages Of Allegedly Infringing Material?

In an opinion Friday, Judge Stanton dismissed, on jurisdictional grounds, a case accusing the promoters of an initial coin offering of fraud, because the plaintiffs’ transactions did not occur domestically, as required by Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010).

The plaintiffs offered declarations from two putative class members who did not live in the U.S. One was from from the United Arab Emirates and the other from the United Kingdom. According to the plaintiffs, there was nonetheless a basis for personal jurisdiction because the servers that hosted the website through which the coin sales were made were physically located in Kansas, and because, in all likelihood, the relevant blockchain “nodes” that would record the transactions publicly were likely located in the United States, as well.

Judge Stanton rejected this reasoning, and found the relevant question to be where the “change in the legal relationship” between the parties occurred:
Continue Reading Judge Stanton: Offering Virtual Currencies Via a Website Hosted on U.S. Servers Is Not Enough for Jurisdiction

In an opinion last week, Judge Stanton granted video game manufacturer Take-Two’s request for an injunction against the creator of two software programs that allowed users to cheat at Take-Two’s “Grand Theft Auto V” video game.  Among other functions, the computer programs allow users to use an unlimited amount of in-game currency that otherwise had to be purchased from Take-Two.  Take-Two alleged that the cheat software violated Take-Two’s copyright in “Grand Theft Auto V” and also violated the terms of the user agreement.

In granting the preliminary injunction, Judge Stanton focused on the harm to both the public as well as Take-Two:
Continue Reading Judge Stanton Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Creator of “Grand Theft Auto V” Cheat Software

In an opinion today, Judge Stanton appeared inclined to dismiss a suit by billionaire Ron Burkle challenging his being voted off the board of Morgans Hotel Group.  Burkle contends that the a press release issued by OTK Associates before the vote falsely suggested that two leading proxy advisory firms supported replacing the entire board, including him.  Judge Stanton agreed the press release was incorrect, but observed that news reports corrected the error:
Continue Reading Judge Stanton Casts Doubt On Ron Burkle Proxy Soliciation Suit Because News Reports Corrected The Misstatements At Issue

In an opinion Thursday, Judge Stanton granted YouTube summary judgment in a high-stakes copyright infringement case in which the plaintiff, Viacom, claims YouTube unlawfully allows Viacom’s copyrighted videos to be posted online. Judge Stanton’s had earlier granted summary judgment to YouTube because of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s “safe harbor” provision, which protects websites from infringement claims based on certain user-posted material, so long as the sites lack actual knowledge and have mechanisms to promptly remove the material after being notified by the copyright holder.  The Second Circuit reversed and remanded for Judge Stanton to consider (among other things) whether YouTube had actual knowledge of the videos at issue.  In Thursday’s opinion, Judge Stanton again ruled for YouTube.  He rejected Viacom’s argument that YouTube should be bear the burden of proving it lacked actual knowledge of each of the over 63,000 videos in dispute:
Continue Reading On Remand, Judge Stanton Again Rejects Copyright Claims Against YouTube