Art Akiane LLC v. Art & Soulworks LLC
| Decision Date | 05 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 19 C 2952 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
| Parties | ART AKIANE LLC., Plaintiff, v. ART & SOULWORKS LLC and CAROL CORNELIUSON, Defendants. |
Hansel ‘N Gretel Brand, Inc. v. Savitsky, 1997 WL 698179 *2 (S.D.N.Y.1997).
After an all-too-brief hiatus, the now 20-month-old discovery dispute between the parties is back before the court. Twenty months is a long time, and unfortunately the conflict continues and certain matters remain unresolved. And so, here we are with the eighth discovery motion, or quasi-discovery motion, from the plaintiff, all of which, in the main, trod repeatedly over the same ground. [Dkt. ## 120, 122, 124, 126 196, 212, 213, 262].
Plaintiff bases its eighth discovery motion [Dkt. #262] on a misrepresentation. Plaintiff tells the court that the requests involved in this current motion are “new discovery requests, ” but they are not. Save for two exceptions, they are the same requests that plaintiff raised in the raft of motions filed in March of 2020 and which were ruled on back in September of 2020. It might seem plaintiff is trying to mislead the court, but the misrepresentation it makes is so easily shown to be false that we prefer to think it must have been the result of poor proofreading or an inexact choice of words. Plaintiff has a track record of fancy packaging that belies reality, including calling, what in reality was a motion for reconsideration that would have gutted a previous ruling, a “Request for Minor Clarification.” This proves once again that titles do not count. See Krivak v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. 2 F.4th 601, 604 (7th Cir. 2021)(“Regardless of what counsel calls [the motion], [and] regardless of the lingo associated with the post judgment motion” a motion is determined by its substance “regardless of what counsel calls it....”); Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. v. BCS Insurance Company, 671 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2011); Guyton v. United States, 453 F.3d 425, 426 (7th Cir. 2006).
In any event, as can easily be seen from a comparison of the current “new discovery requests” and those plaintiff previously brought to court in its trio of motions to compel, there is nothing new here. The only difference is that the previous requests came with no qualifier as to whether they had to do with plaintiff's copyright claim or the plaintiff contract claim. Now, plaintiff has slapped a coda on each of those old requests - “pursuant to the Licensing Agreement” - and pretends they are, magically, “new discovery requests” that the court has not previously had to rule on. But, they're not. Hopefully, the following comparison chart will put that notion to rest[1]:
PLAINTIFF'S CURRENT MOTION
Interrogatory No. 1: Identify and describe all instances in which you received permission from Art Akiane LLC, Akiane Art Gallery, LLC, Akiane Kramarik, Mark Kramarik, Jeanlu Kramarik, or Foreli Kramarik to produce, reproduce, duplicate, copy, modify, or print Art Akiane's Works from January 11, 2009 to the present pursuant to the Licensing Agreement.
Interrogatory No. 2 (ASW): Identify all persons, including any third-party companies, You engaged, retained, employed, or otherwise worked with to print Art Akiane's Works from January 11, 2009 to the present pursuant to the Licensing Agreement.
Interrogatory No. 3 (ASW): Identify and describe all instances in which You added the text “© Art & SoulWorks, ” “© Art & Soul Works, LLC, ” “© Art-SoulWorks.com, ” “© www.Art-SoulWorks.com, ” “© www.JesusPrinceof Peace.com, ” “Art & SoulWorks, ” “Art-SoulWorks.com, ” or “www.JesusPrinceof Peace.com” to any of Art Akiane's Works from January 11, 2009 to the present pursuant to the Licensing Agreement.
Interrogatory No. 15 (Corneliuson): Identify and describe all instances in which You modified any of Art Akiane's Works from January 11, 2009 to the present pursuant to the Licensing Agreement.
Interrogatory No. 16 (Corneliuson): Identify and describe all instances from January 11, 2009 to the present pursuant to the Licensing Agreement in which You added the text “(C) Art & SoulWorks, ” “(C) Art & SoulWorks, LLC, ” “(C) Art-SoulWorks.com, ” “(C) www.Art-SoulWorks.com, ” “(C) www.JesusPrinceof Peace.com, ” “Art & SoulWorks, ” “Art-SoulWorks.com, ” or www.JesusPrinceof Peace.com to any of Art Akiane's Works.
[Dkt #120, at 7]:Interrogatory No. 5: Interrogatory No. 5 required ASW to “[i]dentify and describe all instances in which you received permission from Art Akiane, Akiane Art Gallery, LLC, [or a member of the Kramarik family] to produce, reproduce, duplicate, copy, modify, or print Art Akiane's Works.”
[Dkt. #120-2, at 5]: Interrogatory No. 6 required ASW to “[i]dentify all persons, including any third-party companies, You engaged, retained, employed, or otherwise worked with to print Art Akiane's Works. Moreover, [Dkt. #120, at 10]: Interrogatory No. 14 required ASW to “[i]dentify and describe all instances in which You added the text ‘© Art & SoulWorks,' ‘© Art & SoulWorks, LLC, '‘© Art-SoulWorks.com, '‘© www.Art-SoulWorks.com, ' ‘© www.JesusPrinceof Peace.com, ' ‘Art & SoulWorks,' ‘A r t-S oulW ork s.com,' or ‘www.JesusPrinceof Peace.com' to any of Art Akiane's Works.” Whether ASW added copyright management information to images of Art Akiane's works is relevant to Art Akiane's copyright infringement claim under 17 U.S.C. § 1202(a).
[Dkt. #122, at 5]: Interrogatory No. 1 required that Corneliuson “[i]dentify and describe all instances in which [she] modified any of Art Akiane's Works.” Corneliuson's and ASW's modifications of Art Akiane's works are fundamental issues in this case, and relate to Corneliuson's modification of Art Akiane's artwork, which are elements of Art Akiane's copyright infringement claim under 17 U.S.C. § 106, and Art Akiane's claim of removal, falsification and alteration of copyright management information under 17 U.S.C. § 1202.
[Dkt. #122, at 5]: Interrogatory No. 2 required Corneliuson to “[i]dentify and describe all instances in which [she] added the text ‘© Art & SoulWorks,' ‘© Art & SoulWorks, LLC,' ‘© Art-SoulWorks.com,' ‘© www.Art-SoulWorks.com, ' ‘© www.JesusPrinceof Peace.com, ' ‘Art & SoulWorks,' ‘ Ar t - Soul Wo rks. c om,' o r ‘www.JesusPrinceof Peace.com' to any of Art Akiane's Works.” Whether Corneliuson added copyright management information to images of Art Akiane's works is relevant to Art Akiane's copyright Interrogatory No. 17 (Corneliuson): Identify and describe all instances in which You removed, cropped out, or altered text on any of Art Akiane's Works from January 11, 2009 to the present pursuant to the Licensing Agreement.
Interrogatory No. 18 (Corneliuson): Identify and describe all instances in which You sent, shared, distributed, or permitted other persons to download images relating to Art Akiane's Works through the internet from January 11, 2009 to the present pursuant to the Licensing Agreement.
Interrogatory No. 19 (Corneliuson): Identify and describe all instances in which You printed or directed another person or entity to print Art Akiane's Works, including identifying the person, what they printed, and the amount they printed from January 11, 2009 to the present pursuant to the Licensing Agreement.
Interrogatory No. 20 (Corneliuson): Identify and describe all instances in which You posted or shared an image relating to Art Akiane's Works through the internet, including but not limited to posting to or sharing through social media from January 11, 2009 to the present pursuant to the Licensing Agreement.
Interrogatory No. 21 (Corneliuson): Identify and describe all instances in which you received permission from Art Akiane LLC, Akiane Art Gallery, LLC, Akiane Kramarik, Mark Kramarik, Jeanlu Kramarik, or Foreli Kramarik to produce, reproduce, duplicate, copy, modify, or print Art Akiane's Works from management information (“CMI”) claim under 17 U.S.C. § 1202(a).
[Dkt. #122, at 6]: Interrogatory No. 3 required Corneliuson to “[i]dentify and describe all instances in which [she] removed, cropped out, or altered text on any of Art Akiane's Works.” Whether Corneliuson removed or altered text containing copyright management information from Art Akiane's works bears directly on Art Akiane's CMI claim under 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b).
[Dkt. #122, at 8]: Interrogatory No. 4 required Corneliuson to “[i]dentify and describe all instances in which [she] sent, shared, distributed, or permitted other persons to download images relating to Art Akiane's Works through the Internet.” Corneliuson's distribution of copies of Art Akiane's works is another primary issue in dispute because “sending, ” “sharing” and “distributing” Art Akiane's artwork relates directly with the “distributing copies” element of Art Akiane's copyright infringement claim
[Dkt. #122, at 7]: Interrogatory No. 5 required Corneliuson to “[i]dentify and describe all instances in which [she] printed or directed another person or entity to print Art Akiane's Works, including identifying the person, what they printed, and the amount they printed.” Corneliuson's printing of Art Akiane's works and hiring third parties to print the works is a central issue in this case. Printing and copying Art Akiane's artwork relates directly with the copying (i.e. printing) element of Art Akiane's copyright infringement claim.
[Dkt #122, at 8]: Interrogatory No. 7 required Corneliuson to “[i]...
To continue reading
Request your trial