Copyright Law Updates | New Judicial Opinions
February 23, 2009
DC Court Grants Universal Studios Reduced Attorney’s Fees in “Brokeback Mountain” Suit
Scott-Blanton v. Universal City Studios Productions LLLP
No. 07-0098 (RMU), U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1/15/2009
Holding:
In this copyright infringement suit against the producers of the film “Brokeback Mountain” led by Universal City Studios Productions LLLP (“defendants”), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the film makers reduced attorney’s fees. The pro se plaintiff, Janice Scott-Blanton, argued in her complaint that her novel, “My Husband Is On the Down Low and I Know About It” (“Down Low”), is the creative source for the short story, screenplay and motion picture “Brokeback Mountain.” The district court granted summary judgment on behalf of defendants. Defendants then filed a motion for attorney's fees in the total amount of $144,668.99. Plaintiff did not argue the hourly rates or number of hours billed were unreasonable, only the fees were outrageous. In granting in part defendants’ motion, the district court reasoned that an award of attorney’s fees should help deter frivolous suits. The district court however stated that if the plaintiff is a pro se litigant, courts should afford greater leniency. Based on a review of the billing records submitted and applying a reasonable rate, the district court reduced the total award of fees by 55% and costs by 55%. Accordingly, the district court awarded the defendants $65,101.04 ($144,668.99 x .45) in fees and $450.39 ($1000.88 x .45) in costs.
Detailed Summary:
Plaintiff argued in her complaint that her novel, “My Husband Is On the Down Low and I Know About It” (“Down Low”), is the creative source for the short story, screenplay and motion picture “Brokeback Mountain.”
After filing her complaint on January 16, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction less than a month later. The defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment to which the plaintiff responded with a motion for discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).
On July 19, 2007, the district court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction,…
To continue reading this article, subscribe now
It's FREE and only takes seconds