Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Miller v. Newsweek Inc. 660 F.supp. 852 1987
Miller v. Newsweek Inc. 660 F.supp. 852 1987
10.4 Battle of the forms Contract Sales and Lease Contracts: Formation, title and Risk
The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters,
West and their affiliates.
Page 1
660 F.Supp. 852, 4 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 685
(Cite as: 660 F.Supp. 852)
50k10 Care and Use of Property, and Negli- review them for publication was liable under
gence of Bailee Delaware law for reasonable value of the negatives
50k14 Bailments for Mutual Benefit which were subsequently lost; presumption of neg-
50k14(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases ligence arose by photographer's establishing that
Agreement by commercial photographer to deliver negatives were picked up by magazine's courier, re-
negatives to news magazine so that news magazine ceived in good condition by magazine, and never
could review them for publication constituted a returned to photographer; however, magazine failed
bailment contract for mutual benefit of both parties, to present any evidence to rebut presumption.
and news magazine owed a duty of reasonable care
under Delaware law in its handling of the negatives. [8] Federal Civil Procedure 170A 2492
[6] Federal Civil Procedure 170A 2470.1 170A Federal Civil Procedure
170AXVII Judgment
170A Federal Civil Procedure 170AXVII(C) Summary Judgment
170AXVII Judgment 170AXVII(C)2 Particular Cases
170AXVII(C) Summary Judgment 170Ak2492 k. Contract Cases in Gen-
170AXVII(C)1 In General eral. Most Cited Cases
170Ak2465 Matters Affecting Right to Summary judgment was precluded on damage issue
Judgment in suit alleging that news magazine breached its
170Ak2470.1 k. Materiality and duty as bailee of photographic negatives entrusted
Genuineness of Fact Issue. Most Cited Cases to it by losing the negatives; plaintiff and his expert
In order for an issue of fact to be genuine and thus submitted affidavits valuing each negative at
make summary judgment inappropriate, there must $1,500, while magazine's expert suggested that fig-
be sufficient evidence favoring nonmoving party ure was excessive since there was currently little or
for jury to return a verdict for that party on that is- no demand in the photojournalism industry for the
sue; existence of evidence which is merely color- negatives, and thus court was faced with clear dis-
able or not particularly probative will not render pute of fact in regard to value of negatives.
summary judgment inappropriate. Fed.Rules *853 Richard R. Wier, Jr., of Prickett, Jones, Elli-
Civ.Proc.Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A. ott, Kristol & Schnee, Wilmington, Del., for
plaintiff.
[7] Bailment 50 31(1)
Phebe S. Young of Bayard, Handelman & Mur-
50 Bailment doch, P.A., Wilmington, Del., for defendant.
50k24 Actions Between Bailor and Bailee
50k31 Evidence
50k31(1) k. Presumptions and Burden of
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Proof. Most Cited Cases
LATCHUM, Senior District Judge.
Bailment 50 32
50 Bailment I. INTRODUCTION
50k24 Actions Between Bailor and Bailee
50k32 k. Damages. Most Cited Cases Plaintiff Daniel Miller (“Miller”), a commercial
News magazine which entered into bailment agree- photographer, instituted this action against defend-
ment with commercial photographer whereby pho- ant Newsweek, Inc. (“Newsweek”), seeking
tographer delivered negatives so magazine could $108,000 in damages for the alleged loss of 72 pho-
tographic negatives sent by Miller to Newsweek. The Times planned to run an article with photos of
(Docket Item [“D.I.”] 1.) Miller's complaint con- Shapiro at work in his new career. (Id.) Miller ac-
sists of two counts. Count One is a breach of con- cepted the Times assignment and took 72 black and
tract claim, alleging that Newsweek breached its white photos of Shapiro at his law office. (Id.) The
contract with Miller by failing to return the negat- Times used one of the photos in its article (id. at
ives. (Id. at ¶¶ 1-6.) Count Two sounds in tort, and 22), but all of the photos remained Miller's prop-
asserts that Newsweek negligently breached its erty. (Id.)
duty as a bailee by losing the negatives. (Id. at ¶¶
1-11.) Newsweek filed an answer denying liability Sometime after the Times' article, Newsweek also
under both theories. (D.I. 16.) Jurisdiction in this decided to do a story on Shapiro and needed to ob-
Court is proper under the diversity jurisdiction pro- tain photos to illustrate the story. (D.I. 31 at 11-12;
vision of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (supp.1987), since the 32 at 16; 33 at 8-9.) After seeing the Shapiro photo
parties are citizens of different states and the in the Times, Newsweek's photo researcher, F.
amount in controversy exceeds $10,000. (D.I. 1 at Joseph Dwyer (“Dwyer”), contacted Miller in an at-
¶¶ 1-3.) tempt to acquire a Shapiro photo. (D.I. 31 at 11-12;
32 at 16; 33 at 8.)
Presently before this Court are the parties' cross
motions for summary judgment. (D.I. 37; 41.) Dwyer telephoned Miller at his Delaware residence
Miller requests a judgment on both counts of his and requested that he send all of his Shapiro negat-
complaint and Newsweek seeks dismissal of both ives to Newsweek so its photo editors could have
counts. (D.I. 38; 42.) For the reasons stated in this the “luxury of *854 editing it” themselves. (D.I. 30
Memorandum Opinion, the Court will take the fol- at 46; 32 at 17-18.) Miller responded favorably to
lowing action: (1) grant Newsweek's motion for Newsweek's request, and the parties agreed that
summary judgment as to Count One of Miller's Newsweek would send a courier to Delaware to
complaint, deny Miller's motion as to that count, pick up the negatives. (D.I. 30 at 46; 32 at 18.) The
and dismiss Count One of the complaint; (2) grant parties further agreed that Newsweek would pay
Miller's motion for summary judgment as to the li- Miller the space rate for any photos it used in its
ability issue of Count Two of his complaint, and article. (D.I. 30 at 46.) Newsweek dispatched a
deny Newsweek's motion as to Count Two; (3) courier to pick up the negatives and the negatives
deny both parties' motions for summary judgment arrived safely at Newsweek's New York office.
as to the damages issue of Count Two since a genu- (D.I. 32 at 18; 33 at 4-9.)
ine issue of material fact exists with regard to that
For reasons unrelated to this litigation, Newsweek
issue.
decided not to run the Shapiro story, and Miller's
photos were never used. (D.I. 33 at 6-9.) The 72
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Shapiro negatives were never returned to Miller.
(D.I. 30 at 50-59.) Newsweek still cannot find the
The facts of this case are straightforward and to a negatives and they are presumed lost. (D.I. 30 at
great extent not disputed. 58-59; 31 at 9-10; 32 at 10-14.)
In August of 1982, Miller was asked by the New Miller maintains that he sent a document known as
York Times (“the Times”) to photograph Irving a Delivery Memo to Newsweek along with the Sha-
Shapiro (“Shapiro”), the former chairman of the piro negatives. (D.I. 30 at 49.) Although News-
Board of the DuPont Company. (D.I. 30 at 15.) week's employees cannot recall one way or the oth-
Shapiro had recently resigned from DuPont and er whether they received Miller's Delivery Memo,
embarked on a career as a corporate attorney. (Id.) they admit that such memos are common in the
a state's highest court on an issue, a federal court would pay in the event it purchased the use of one
FN6
applying that state's law must predict how that court or more negatives. (D.I. 30 at 46.) The Court
would rule if presented with the issue. finds that this conversation manifested a clear and
Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corp. v. Caterpillar unambiguous intention on the part of both parties to
Tractor Co., 652 F.2d 1165, 1167 (3d Cir.1981). In enter into a binding agreement. Nothing more is re-
the present case, the Court need not apply this im- quired for a valid and enforceable contract to exist
precise procedure since the Delivery Memo does under Article II. See Del.Code Ann. tit. 6, §
not constitute a valid contract under either Article 2-204(1).
II or the common law and it is thus unnecessary to
decide whether Article II applies to bailment con- FN6. Miller's testimony is uncontroverted.
tracts. This is the preferred result since defining the Dwyer, the other party to the conversation,
scope of Article II is clearly a chore best left for the has little recollection of the exact words
Delaware courts. used. (D.I. 32 at 17-18.) He does recall that
the parties agreed that Miller would send
Turning to the parties' contentions, Miller offers the the negative of the Shapiro photo that ap-
following interpretation of the parties' dealings in peared in the Times and any other negat-
support of his position that the Delivery Memo con- ives of Shapiro. (Id.) Dwyer also recalls
stitutes a valid contract. Miller maintains that the dispatching a courier to Delaware to pick
first contact between the parties, the Dwyer tele- up the negatives pursuant to the parties'
phone call, was an invitation by Newsweek for agreement. (Id.)
Miller to submit an offer. (D.I. 47 at 9.) Miller's
conduct in sending the Shapiro negatives, accom- A valid and enforceable contract having been
panied by the Delivery Memo, then constituted an formed on the telephone, the Delivery Memo con-
offer to enter into a contract with the terms ex- stituted a written confirmation of an existing con-
pressed in the Delivery Memo. (Id.) Newsweek's tract under section 2-207 of the UCC. Section
conduct in accepting the negatives, without object- 2-207 applies in situations like the one herein
ing to the terms of the Delivery Memo, would then where an oral agreement has been reached and one
have constituted an acceptance of the contract and or both of the parties send written confirmation of
its terms under Section 2-204 of the UCC. (Id.) that agreement including additional terms not previ-
ously discussed. Uniform Commercial Code, com-
The Court has a totally different view of the legal ment 1 to 2-207; Leonard Pevar Co. v. Evans
significance of the parties' contacts. The uncontro- Products Co., 524 F.Supp. 546, 550 (D.Del.1981).
verted evidence demonstrates that a valid and en- The fact that the confirmation contains additional
forceable contract was formed during the initial terms has no affect on the validity of the original
telephone conversation between Miller and Dwyer. acceptance. Del.Code Ann. tit. 6, 2-207(1). As
FN7
between merchants, the additional terms be-
Miller's own deposition testimony suggests this res- come part of the contract unless they materially al-
ult. Miller testified that Dwyer telephoned him and ter it or the opposing party has previously objected
asked to review the Shapiro negatives for possible to them or does so within a reasonable time. Id. at
publication in a story that Newsweek was consider- 2-207(2); Evans Products Co., 524 F.Supp. at 550.
ing running on Shapiro. (D.I. 30 at 46.) Miller ac-
cepted this offer with an enthusiastic “why cer- FN7. The UCC defines a merchant as one
tainly.” (Id.) The parties then set many of the im- who deals in goods of the kind. Del.Code
portant terms of the contract. The parties agreed as Ann. tit. 6, § 2-104. Assuming arguendo as
to the quantity of negatives, time, place, and man- the Court has, that the UCC applies to the
ner of delivery, and even the price Newsweek transaction herein, the Court sees no reas-
on why both parties should not be con- expressly define the phrase “materially alter.” Even
sidered merchants since they deal in goods so, some courts have inferred one possible test from
FN10
(photographs) of the kind. the comments. A term materially alters a con-
tract if incorporation of that term would result in
*857 Miller contends that the additional terms ex- surprise or undue hardship to the party opposing the
pressed in the Delivery Memo were incorporated incorporation. Product Components Inc. v. Regency
FN8
into the contract under section 2-207 since the Door and Hardware Inc., 568 F.Supp. 651, 654
terms do not materially alter the contract and News- (S.D.Ind.1983); National Controls Inc. v. Com-
week never objected to them. (D.I. 47 at 10-12.) modore Business Machines Inc., 163 Cal.App.3d
Newsweek admits that it failed to object to the 688, 109 Cal.Rptr. 636 (1985).
terms, but insists that the terms would materially al-
ter the contract and thus were not incorporated into FN10. Comments 4 and 5 give examples of
FN9
it. The Court agrees with Newsweek. the types of additional terms which would
and would not materially alter a contract.
FN8. Miller does not concede the applicab- Both comments can be read as implying
ility of section 2-207. In his first argument the test referred to above. Comment 4 be-
Miller contends that section 2-207 does not gins: “Examples of typical clauses which
apply to the transaction at issue since the would normally ‘materially alter’ the con-
the Delivery Memo was an offer by him tract and so result in surprise or hardship if
and section 2-207 applies only to accept- incorporated without express awareness by
ances and written confirmations. (D.I. 47 the other party are....” Comment 5 contains
at 9.) However, if the Court finds that sec- the same language in reference to terms
tion 2-207 applies, Miller offers an argu- which would not materially alter the con-
ment under section 2-207 in the alternat- tract.
ive.
Both the liquidated damages and late penalty
FN9. Additional terms cannot be incorpor- clauses would result in surprise and undue hardship
ated into a contract unless the opposing to Newsweek if incorporated into the oral contract.
party fails to object and they would not In forming the original agreement the parties never
materially alter the contract. Del.Code discussed any liquidated damages or late penalty
Ann. tit. 6, § 2-207(2). Thus this Court's provisions. (D.I. 30 at 46.) The parties never fo-
conclusion that the additional terms con- cused on the possibility that the film might be re-
tained in the Delivery Memo would mater- turned late or not at all. (Id.) To include these terms
ially alter the contract makes it unneces- in the contract simply because they appeared in a
sary for it to consider Miller's argument re- unilateral proposal offered by Miller would surely
garding Newsweek's failure to object. result in a surprise to Newsweek, especially consid-
ering that Newsweek's employees never read the
The Delivery Memo contains numerous terms not
Delivery Memo (D.I. 32 at 35), as was the common
contained in the original oral contract. (D.I. 1 at at-
practice in the industry. (D.I. 46 at 2.)
tachment; 30 at 46.) However, Miller's contract
claim is based on the liquidated damages and late Incorporating these two terms would also result in
penalty clauses of the Delivery Memo only. Thus undue hardship to Newsweek. The contract contem-
the Court will limit its discussion of section 2-207 plated that Newsweek would review the 72 negat-
to those clauses. ives at no cost to it, with an option to purchase the
use of one or more of those negatives for
Neither the text of section 2-207 nor its comments
$100-$200. (D.I. 30 at 46.) It would be extremely
unfair for this Court to impose a liquidated dam- id consideration. De Cecchis v. Evers, 174 A.2d
ages figure of $1500 per negative or a late penalty 463, 464 (Del.Super.1961). As the discussion above
of $5.00 per negative per week on Newsweek when indicates, Newsweek never agreed to any of the
the contract clearly indicates that the negatives terms of the Delivery Memo and no additional con-
were only worth $100-$200 apiece to Newsweek. sideration was present. Thus, the terms of the De-
There is simply no evidence to suggest that News- livery Memo are unenforceable under common law
week would have entered into a contract which ex- as well.
posed it to such severe penalties when the value of
each negative to it was so low. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the
terms of the Delivery Memo are not enforceable
In sum, the Court finds that incorporation of the li- against Newsweek and Miller's claim for liquidated
quidated damages and late penalty clauses into the damages and late penalties under those terms must
contract would materially alter the contract, and fail. Accordingly, the Court will grant Newsweek's
they must therefore be disregarded. motion for summary judgment as to Count One of
Miller's complaint, deny Miller's summary judg-
[4] Miller's final argument in support of his Count ment motion as to Count One, and dismiss Count
One contract claim is based on the common law, One.
not Article II of the UCC. Miller maintains that
even if Article II is not applicable to the contract in
issue, Newsweek's conduct in receiving the negat- C. County Two: The Bailment Relationship
ives*858 and accompanying Delivery Memo con-
In Count Two, Miller contends that Newsweek is li-
stituted an acceptance of Miller's counteroffer and
able for the reasonable value of the lost negatives
the terms of the Delivery Memo. (D.I. 47 at 14.)
due to its negligent breach of its duties as a bailee.
This argument sounds all too familiar having been
(D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 1-11.) Newsweek denies the existence
advanced by Miller earlier in reference to section
of any bailment relationship obligating it to exer-
2-204 of the UCC. The Court rejected that argu-
cise reasonable care. (D.I. 45 at 11.) Moreover,
ment under the UCC since a valid contract was
Newsweek contends that even if such a relationship
formed during the telephone conversation between
is found, there is a genuine issue of fact concerning
Miller and Dwyer and the Delivery Memo was not
the alleged breach of its duties and thus summary
an offer or counteroffer by Miller but a written con-
judgment for Miller is inappropriate on Count Two.
firmation of the contract.
(Id.)
Under the common law, the result remains basically
The Court has previously held that a valid contrac-
the same. The oral agreement reached on the tele-
tual relationship exists between the parties. That re-
phone still constitutes a binding contract since the
lationship can best be described as a bailment. “A
parties demonstrated an unambiguous intent to
bailment may be defined as a delivery of personalty
enter into a contract, agreed on the essential terms
for some particular purpose ... upon a contract, ex-
of that contract, and supported the agreement with
pressed or implied, that after that purpose has been
valid consideration. Faw, Casson & Co. v. Cran-
fulfilled it shall be redelivered to the person that de-
ston, 375 A.2d 463, 466 (Del.Ch.1977).
livered it....” State v. Warwick, 108 A.2d 85, 89
A valid contract having been formed on the tele- (Del.Super.1954). In the case at bar, Miller agreed
phone, the Delivery Memo can only be considered to deliver the Shapiro negatives to Newsweek so
as an offer by Miller to modify the existing con- that Newsweek could review them for publication.
tract. An offer to modify a contract is ineffective (D.I. 30 at 46.) Once that purpose was achieved,
unless agreed to by all parties and supported by val- Newsweek was to return the negatives to Miller, as
they remained his property. (D.I. 30 at 22; 38 at 8.) a bailment as one for mutual benefit does not re-
Thus the contractual relationship between the quire a finding that both parties realized a specific
parties fits squarely within the definition of a bail- tangible benefit. It is sufficient if a possibility exis-
FN11
ment advanced by the Warwick court. ted of some benefit accruing from the relationship.
American Enka Co. v. Wicaco Machine Corp., 686
FN11. The fact that the contract also in- F.2d 1050, 1053 (3d Cir.1982) (applying
cluded a provision for the purchase of the Pennsylvania law, but accord 8 CJS Bailments, § 8
use of one or more negatives for publica- (1962)). Both parties in this case entered into the
tion does not change its nature as a bail- bailment relationship with an expectation of com-
ment contract. 8 Am.Jur.2d Bailments, § mercial benefit. Miller is a professional photo-
40 (1980). The parties' relationship actu- grapher who derives a profit from the publication of
ally envisioned two separate contracts, one his photographs in major publications. (D.I. 30.)
coming into existence at the expiration of His sole purpose for delivering the Shapiro negat-
the other: the bailment contract at issue in ives to Newsweek was the opportunity to sell the
this case, and a separate agreement in use of those negatives for $100-$200 each. (D.I. 30
which the defendant would purchase the at 46.) Similarly, Newsweek is a profit making
use of the negatives for its story on Sha- magazine publisher which accepted the negatives
piro. The second contract never took place solely for the purpose of reviewing them for public-
since the defendant never ran the story and ation. (D.I. 31; 31; 33.)
thus did not purchase the use of any negat-
ives. [5] Since the bailment contract is one for the mutu-
al benefit of both parties, Newsweek owed a duty
There are three types of bailment contracts, each of reasonable care in its handling of the negatives.
imposing a different standard of care on the bailee Senger Trucking Co., 506 Pa. 181, 484 A.2d at 749;
with respect to his care of the bailed property. A Lissie, 33 Conn.Super. 540, 359 A.2d at 189-90.
bailment for the sole benefit of the bailee (where a Miller claims Newsweek breached that duty by fail-
bailor lends property to a bailee at no charge) re- ing to employ adequate recordkeeping procedures
quires a great amount of care on *859 the bailee's for keeping track of black and white negatives sub-
part, and the bailee will be liable for the slightest mitted for publication. (D.I. 42 at 35-40.) In re-
negligence. Ferrick Excavating and Grading Co. v. sponse Newsweek insists that there is a genuine is-
Senger Trucking Co., 506 Pa. 181, 484 A.2d 744, sue of material fact regarding the reasonableness of
749 (1984). Conversely, a bailment for the sole be- its conduct, and summary judgment is thus inappro-
nefit of the bailor (where a bailee gratuitously holds priate. (D.I. 45 at 14.)
the property of another) requires a minimum degree
of care on the bailee's part, and the bailee will be li- Ordinarily a party alleging negligence bears the
able for gross negligence only. Bernstein v. Noble, burden of proving it at trial. However, if a bailment
487 A.2d 231, 234 (D.C.App.1985). Finally, a bail- contract exists, and the bailor establishes that the
ment for the mutual benefit of both parties (where bailed property was delivered to the bailee in good
both parties expect some benefit from the relation- condition and not returned, or returned in poor con-
ship) requires the bailee to exercise reasonable care dition, a presumption of negligence arises and the
in the handling of the bailed property. Lissie v. bailee bears the burden of rebutting that presump-
Southern New England Telephone Co., 33 tion. Balcar v. Aircrafters Inc., 360 A.2d 155, 157
Conn.Super. 540, 359 A.2d 187, 189-90 (1976). (Del.Super.1976); Morgan Millwork Co. v. Dover
Garage Co., 108 A. 62, 64 (Del.Super.1919.)
The bailment relationship in this case was for the
mutual benefit of both parties. The classification of Miller has established by uncontroverted evidence
that the 72 Shapiro negatives were picked up by a verdict in its favor. On the contrary, the absence
Newsweek's courier (D.I. 30 at 47; 32 at 18), re- of any evidence rebutting the presumption of negli-
ceived in good condition by Newsweek (D.I. 33 at gence would require the jury to honor the presump-
4-6), and never returned to Miller. (D.I. 30 at tion and find for Miller on this issue. Bernstein, 487
50-59.) This is enough to create a presumption of A.2d at 234; Smith's Transfer and Storage Co. v.
negligence and place the burden on Newsweek to Murphy, 115 A.2d 300, 303 (D.C.App.1955).
come forward with some evidence of the reasonable
care it employed in order to rebut the presumption. Based on the above, the Court will grant Miller's
Balcar, 360 A.2d at 157; Dover Garage Co., 108 A. motion for summary judgment with regard to the li-
at 64. Miller contends that Newsweek has failed to ability issue of Count Two of his complaint and
present such evidence and summary judgment is deny Newsweek's summary judgment motion on
thus appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Pro- that count.
cedure 56. (D.I. 42 at 35-40.)
D. Damages
[6] The United States Supreme Court has recently
shed additional light on the standards applicable to [8] Having determined that Newsweek is liable for
summary judgment motions under Federal Rule 56. the loss of the Shapiro negatives, the Court must
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 consider whether a proper damage figure can be de-
S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The rule has al- termined at this stage of the litigation. Miller and
ways been that a court may not grant summary his expert have submitted affidavits valuing each
judgment on an issue unless there is no genuine is- negative at $1500. (D.I. 42 at Exs. A, p. 3, H p. 2.)
sue of material fact with regard to that issue, and Newsweek's expert suggests that this figure is ex-
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter cessive since there is currently little or no demand
of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (1986). After Anderson, it in the photojournalism industry for these negatives.
is clear that in order for an issue of fact to be genu- (D.I. 46 at 2.) The Court is thus faced with a clear
ine and thus make summary judgment inappropri- dispute of fact with regard to the value of the Sha-
ate, there *860 must be sufficient evidence favoring piro negatives. Since this dispute of fact is both
the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict genuine and material under the standard advanced
for that party on that issue. Anderson, 477 U.S. 242, by the Anderson Court, the Court will deny both
106 S.Ct. at 2511. The existence of evidence which parties' motions for summary judgment on the dam-
is merely colorable or not particularly probative age issue of Count Two.
will not render summary judgment inappropriate.
Id.
IV. CONCLUSION
[7] In the instant case, Newsweek has failed to
present any evidence to rebut the presumption of For the reasons advanced above, the Court will take
negligence. The testimony of Newsweek's own em- the following action: (1) grant Newsweek's motion
ployees indicates that Newsweek had no procedures for summary judgment as to Count One, deny
for recording the receipt of black and white negat- Miller's motion as to that count, and dismiss Count
ives (D.I. 33 at 19), tracking the negatives while in One of the complaint; (2) grant Miller's motion for
its possession (D.I. 32 at 48; 33 at 11), or ascertain- summary judgment on the liability issue of Count
ing if the negatives were safely returned to the pho- Two, and deny Newsweek's motion on that issue;
tographer (D.I. 32 at 20). Thus summary judgment and (3) deny both parties' motions for summary
is appropriate under Anderson since Newsweek has judgment as to the damage issue of Count Two.
not established the existence of any facts to support
An order will be entered in accordance with this
Memorandum Opinion.
D.Del.,1987.
Miller v. Newsweek, Inc.
660 F.Supp. 852, 4 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 685
END OF DOCUMENT