Melissa Scott v Timothy Briggs

Melissa Scott has filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Timothy Briggs. According to the filings, Scott has decided to take Briggs’ default after settlement discussions failed. Scott is seeking the statutory damages for the infringements, which is $150,000 for each work. The complaint alleges 125 works were infringed, entitling Scott to $18,750,000, plus attorney’s fees and costs of $31,767.93.

Because Briggs failed to file a timely Answer to Scott’s Complaint, he has not appeared in the action. At this stage, Briggs has forfeited his right to be heard in court. Therefore, Scott can ask for any damages and there is no opposition. This is a bad position to be in for Briggs. This is why you always want to appear in the action and be heard. At least you can make your arguments against the opposing party, even if you are unsuccessful. But now Briggs is liable, even if he had a valid defense against the infringement cause of action. It’s too late for any defenses, all Briggs can do is wait for the court to issue its order.

In the filings, Scott also asks the court to issue a permanent injunction to prevent Briggs from future infringement on the copyrighted works of Dr. Gene Scott. In addition to an order for Briggs to preserve all copies of the works that Briggs has downloaded onto hard drive or server or any other devices. This is where default gets dicey for Briggs: the judge, in his own discretion, may or may not award the full amount of damages or attorney’s fees, but I believe the judge will grant the injunction. That leaves me to question the integrity of Briggs. Did he preserve all the evidence? This is unknown but there are restraining orders that follow the complaint which specifically prohibit destroying any evidence. Since he never appeared in the action, we don’t know what he may have done. Would he delete all the evidence, to cover his tracks? If so, this action is far from over.

If the judge grants the injunction and orders Briggs to preserve all evidence, but Briggs has already deleted the evidence, he could be held in contempt of court. Now the question is, how will the judge decide to proceed for a violation of a court order? He could fine Briggs $1,000.00 per contempt charge, this could mean 125 counts of contempt. Imagine if Briggs were to get slapped with a $18,750,000 judgment for copyright infringement, then a $31,767 attorney’s fee. Now imagine if Briggs were to disobey the court’s order or has already deleted evidence and the court found him in contempt 125 times, costing him an additional $125,000, the latter is owed to the federal government, and therefore cannot be discharged by any means. This isn’t a prediction, just a review of the dangers of failing to appear in an action.

What causes a person to act this way, to blow off responsibility? This is real life, with real consequences and it appears that Briggs is acting like nothing is happening. He didn’t file a response, or a motion to dismiss, or negotiate a settlement. If you know that you’re on the losing end, either you have no money, or you don’t have the time to fight the legal battle. But if you have been sued for copyright infringement and you can’t answer, you make every attempt to negotiate and make things right. According to the Declaration of Kevin J Leichter, it seems that Briggs entered into settlement discussions but allowed the discussions to break down at the end of May. This is counterintuitive to a person who has not filed an answer and has already had a notice of entry of default taken. I can only assume that this is willful and blatant, and Briggs seems to think that there will be no consequences for his actions. This cannot be further from the truth and he will find out the extent of the consequences very soon.

All of the filings mentioned in this report are available for download at Pacer.gov.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is Patrick Robinson Going to Free Up Dr. Gene Scott's Copyrights?

Will an effective defense by Patrick Robinson in a copyright infringement case “free up the copyrights” of Dr. Gene Scott’s works? Read on to find out the answer. I’ve been watching this battle play out with concern, as should anyone with an interest in copyright law, whether they be a small-time production or even Walt Disney Company. The claims being made, and defenses raised in this complicated issue of copyright infringement and claims of copyright abandonment could have a wide range of effects on copyright law. But are any of them favorable to Patrick Robinson’s group? This case has gone up and down the proverbial field of play, from the initial copyright infringement cases being dismissed to the abandonment theory being defeated in cross-motions for summary judgment. You may be asking, what is a motion for summary judgment, let alone a cross-motion? It’s not that difficult to understand and I’ll walk you through it if you’ll read on. On one side of the playi
Read more

Patrick Robinson Gives an Update in His FUMS #41

In his FUMS #41 video Patrick Robinson gives another victory update. But is this an accurate report? It is correct that the court did rule on the motion for consolidation. This was a motion brought by Dolores/Scott and opposed by Robinson. Therefore, I cannot comprehend Robinson’s update. In the video, Robinson says a few things that are inaccurate: 1) The cases are being consolidated under his first case. 2) Robinson acts like this consolidation is a victory for his group. 3) The undisputed fact that “It is undisputed that Dr. Gene Scott permitted downloads and encouraged the sharing and distribution of his teachings.” The first point is false. The cases are being assigned under Dolores Press’ first filed case, as evidenced by the court’s order Granting Dolores Press’ Motion for Consolidation, document 164 filed on 08/13/2019 page 4 of 4, wherein the Judge ordered the cases be consolidated under: Dolores Press Inc. v Patrick Robinson, et al. 2:15-cv-02562-R-PLA. Furthe
Read more

Did Anthony Todd Testify Against Himself?

Is it possible to testify against yourself in a trial in which you did not appear? Anthony Todd may find out soon enough. On Friday, September 27, 2019 Melissa Scott’s attorneys filed a Motion for Reconsideration regarding the denied injunction against Todd. In Scott’s proposed judgment it was requested that Todd be enjoined from further infringement, and among other things, for Todd to preserve every file of Dr. Scott’s works. Judge Klausner denied the injunction reasoning that Scott had not proven that Todd was likely to continue to infringe. He further denied the preservation of all files because that was not what the complaint requested. In Friday’s moving papers, Scott’s attorneys request the Judge reconsider his previous orders and issue the injunction. The documents contain screenshots of Posts by Todd wherein he is conversing with other people online in google groups and Facebook. In these posts Todd promises Scott that he will not stop sharing the files
Read more