Aguiar v. Webb Et Al - Document No. 83
Aguiar v. Webb Et Al - Document No. 83
83
Defendants.
Defendant Floyd Webb submits this case management statement pursuant to Local Rule
16.1(d) and the Court’s February 15, 2008 Order. Despite reasonable efforts, Defendant Webb
was unable to obtain the cooperation of Plaintiff Aguiar in the preparation of a joint case
management statement.
Plaintiff Aguiar initiated this action against documentary filmmaker Floyd Webb to stop
Mr. Webb from using certain photographs, graphics and video footage in Mr. Webb’s upcoming
documentary film which tells the story of the founder of the Black Dragon Fighting Society,
Count Juan Raphael Dante, an enigmatic and eccentric martial artist who rose to prominence in
Chicago more than forty years ago. Mr. Webb has produced and released two trailers for the
film, which are the subject of this action. Mr. Aguiar contends that he owns copyrights in
material Mr. Webb used in the film trailers and he seeks injunctive and monetary relief for this
alleged infringement.
Mr. Webb denies that any of his work infringes any of Plaintiff’s copyrights. Mr. Webb
contends that the allegations in Mr. Aguiar’s complaint do not specify the materials owned by
1
Dockets.Justia.com
Plaintiff that Webb has allegedly infringed, and do not specify any work by Mr. Webb that
allegedly infringes Plaintiff’s copyrights. Mr. Webb further contends that his use of material
Mr. Webb has asserted counterclaims against Mr. Aguiar seeking a declaratory judgment
that Webb’s use of certain images and logos in the trailer for his upcoming documentary film
The Search for Count Dante (the “Trailer”) and on his website promoting the film,
copyrights or trademarks that Plaintiff owns. Mr. Webb also seeks injunctive relief and damages
for Plaintiff’s misrepresentation of copyright under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(“DMCA”).
a) Whether Mr. Aguiar is the owner of the copyrights he asserts in this litigation.
b) Whether Mr. Webb obtained a license to use certain materials at issue in his
documentary.
a) Whether Mr. Webb’s use of certain images and logos in the Trailer and on the
b) Whether Mr. Webb’s use of material owned by Mr. Aguiar, if any, is protected by fair
use.
c) Whether Mr. Aguiar misrepresented his ownership of copyrights under the DMCA.
2
f) Whether either party should be awarded fees and costs for the lawsuit.
4. Motion Practice
Mr. Webb intends to file a motion for summary judgment on the issue of fair use. The
motion will require little factual discovery. Mr. Webb proposes the following briefing schedule
There have been no ADR efforts to date. No settlement conference has been scheduled at
this time.
Defendant Webb does not want to go to mediation at this time. While Mr. Webb is
always open to reasoned proposals from Plaintiff Aguiar, he is not optimistic about the prospects
for productive settlement discussions at this time for several reasons. Most importantly, Plaintiff
Aguiar has produced no evidence that he is the owner of the copyrights he asserts. Indeed, he
has already admitted that he is not the owner of the film footage at issue here. Without
documentary proof that Mr. Aguiar is the true copyright owner of the works he alleges Mr. Webb
has infringed, there is no benefit to Mr. Webb of agreeing to license such works from Mr.
Aguiar. Production by Mr. Aguiar of documents demonstrating he owns the works at issue is a
prerequisite to any settlement discussions. In addition, the Court has ordered that Mr. Aguiar
amend his complaint against Mr. Webb to clarify the claims he asserts. Only after an amended
complaint is filed will it be clear exactly what works Mr. Aguiar alleges have been infringed, as
3
well as precisely what works of Mr. Webb are at issue. At that time, Mr. Webb will be in a
better position to know what information and documents are needed to establish the ownership of
professional legal advice has left him with a distorted sense of the rights and privileges of
copyright holders in general, and of the value and strength of his own case in particular. Perhaps
for the same reasons, Mr. Aguiar, who has filed no responsive pleading in this case, has given no
indication that he is aware of or has the ability to assess the strength of the counterclaims against
him. Under these circumstances the chances for a successful outcome to alternative dispute
Finally, Defendant Webb is neither a corporate party nor a wealthy individual, but an
independent artist. As of March 6, 2008, he will have already spent many hundreds of dollars to
fly from Chicago twice to attend court hearings. In order for Mr. Webb to be able to justify
investing more of his limited time and financial resources in the possibility of settlement, the
Defendant Webb consents to trial by magistrate. Mr. Aguiar does not consent.
Mr. Webb has agreed to nearly all dates set out in Plaintiff Aguiar’s “Plan for
Discovery” filed with the Court on December 4, 2007 (Docket #55). Where Mr. Webb
does not agree, each party’s proposal is indicated. Mr. Webb proposes the following:
on December 3, 2007.
4
b. Discovery will be needed on the following subjects: (i) plaintiff’s
damages.
d. The parties have agreed to, and the Court has approved, a
f. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules shall
g. At this time, the parties do not foresee the use of expert testimony.
complaint by March 14, 2008 clearly stating the factual and legal
5
b. All potentially dispositive motions should be filed by November
21, 2008.
d. Mr. Webb expects this case should be ready for trial by April 2009.
According to his Plan for Discovery, Mr. Aguiar expects this case