Magistrate Judge Netburn

Subscribe to Magistrate Judge Netburn 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jury trial, given the massive volume of evidence—both the book series itself and, separately, the plaintiff’s unpublished manuscripts from which the series was allegedly stolen.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?

At least four SDNY lawsuits have been filed against Columbia University relating to the recent campus protests, including a class action complaint filed April 29, accusing the University of breaching its contractual obligation to provide a safe learning environment, insofar as Columbia chose to respond to the protests by making classwork partially remote for the remainder of the school year:

Columbia has in no uncertain terms announced that the university is not safe for its Jewish students. But rather than clear the encampment, the administration decided to take the extraordinary step of shifting to a “hybrid” model of education for the remainder of the academic year, where students that don’t feel safe enough to attend class in person can view the class online. This absurd shift makes no attempt to solve the safety problem on campus, and at the same time, creates two very different educational experiences for Jewish and non-Jewish students. The vast majority of the student population, including these extreme demonstrators, get to attend classes in person, take tests in person, communicate with professors in person, and otherwise take advantage of the campus.

The Jewish students, on the other hand, get a second-class education where they are relegated to their homes to attend classes virtually, stripped of the opportunity to interact meaningfully with other students and faculty and sit for examinations with their peers. This policy shift is a clear admission that the campus is not simply experiencing a protest movement, which has happened to universities across the country for decades, but instead, has become a place that is too dangerous for Columbia’s Jewish students to receive the education they were promised.

The class action is before Judge Torres, who has scheduled a hearing on the plaintiff’s TRO application for tomorrow.

The other cases are:Continue Reading Columbia University Faces Wave of Litigation Over Campus Protests

On Friday, Judge Netburn rejected the New Yorker magazine’s letter request to release a sealed deposition of former NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly, in a case brought by Muslim officer who sued Mr. Kelly and New York City for discrimination but lost on summary judgment.  She found that she lacked jurisdiction to grant the request because the proper procedural vehicle is a motion to intervene under Rule 24 — which the District Court cannot address while an appeal is pending:
Continue Reading Judge Netburn Refuses New Yorker Magazine’s Request for Ray Kelly’s Deposition Because Appeal Divested Her of Jurisdiction