Schneider v. YouTube, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARIA SCHNEIDER, et al., Case No. 20-cv-04423-JD

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE COUNTERCLAIMS v. 9

10 YOUTUBE, LLC, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Counterclaim defendant Pirate Monitor Ltd. (PML) was once a plaintiff in this case, but 14 dismissed all of its claims against defendants YouTube and Google (YouTube) with prejudice. 15 See Dkt. Nos. 1, 66. YouTube filed counterclaims against PML, Pirate Monitor LLC, and Gabor 16 Csupo for breach of contract, fraud, and violation of 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) of the Digital Millennium 17 Copyright Act (DMCA). Dkt. No. 160. PML and Csupo ask for summary judgment on the 18 counterclaims. Dkt. No. 260. 19 The case is on the eve of a jury trial. This order is based on the Court’s review of the 20 summary judgment motion, and the parties’ pretrial filings. 21 I. PIRATE MONITOR LLC 22 Counterdefendants say that Pirate Monitor LLC does not exist, which YouTube now 23 acknowledges. See Dkt. No. 295-1 at 4. Pirate Monitor LLC is dismissed as a party in all 24 respects. 25 II. CONTRACT AND FRAUD COUNTERCLAIMS 26 YouTube did not take substantive issue with PML and Csupo’s challenges to the breach of 27 contract and fraud counterclaims. To some extent, YouTube appeared to acknowledge that the 1 are the focus of the counterclaims.” Id. at 10. In any event, the parties’ pretrial filings indicate 2 that YouTube does not intend to pursue the contract and fraud counterclaims. They are dismissed 3 without prejudice. 4 III. DMCA COUNTERCLAIM 5 Summary judgment is denied for the counterclaim under section 512(f) of the DMCA, 17 6 U.S.C. § 512(f). Section 512(f) contemplates liability for persons that abuse the notice and 7 takedown procedures in the DMCA. See Dkt. No. 330 at 13-15 (DMCA takedown procedures). 8 Section 512(f)(1) applies when a person knowingly misrepresents in a takedown notice that the 9 accused material or activity is infringing. 17 U.S.C. § 512(f). Section 512(f)(2) applies when a 10 user knowingly mispresents in a counternotice that the accused material or activity was removed 11 or disabled by mistake or misidentification. Id. In either case, the offending party may be liable 12 for damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs. Id.; see also Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 13 F.3d 1145, 1151 (9th Cir. 2016). 14 YouTube’s counterclaim is alleged under Section 512(f)(1). Dkt. No. 160 ¶¶ 80-81. An 15 argument can be made that summary judgment should be denied because YouTube did not have a 16 full and fair opportunity to obtain discovery before the motion was filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) 17 (the Court may deny summary judgment “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, 18 for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition”). Intellectual 19 Property LLC (IPLLC) -- an entity owned and controlled by Csupo that he says was responsible 20 for submitting the allegedly fraudulent takedown notices -- did not complete its production to 21 YouTube until May 13, 2023. See YouTube, LLC et al. v. Intellectual Property LLC, No. 3:23-cv- 22 01100-JD, Dkt. No. 23 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2023). 23 Even so, the main barrier to summary judgment is the myriad of genuine disputes of fact 24 with respect to the DMCA counterclaim. Among other material issues, the parties dispute 25 Csupo’s involvement with the submission of the fraudulent takedown notices. Csupo testified that 26 he had nothing to do with submitting the notices, and that his instruction to remove videos after 27 YouTube froze his Pirate Monitor LLC and IPLLC accounts was misinterpreted by his associate 1 217:16. YouTube says the takedown notices bear Csupo’s name, electronic signature, phone 2 number, and home address, and that the fraudulent notices were submitted before his Pirate 3 Monitor LLC and IPLLC accounts were suspended. See Dkt. No. 295-1 at 11-12. The parties also 4 || dispute whether PML is an alter ego of Csupo or otherwise vicariously liable for the violations of 5 section 512(f). See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc., 847 F.3d 657, 677 (9th Cir. 2017) 6 (describing elements of alter ego liability under California law). 7 These issues are representative of a host of other factual disagreements with respect to the 8 DMCA counterclaim that a jury will need to decide. See FTC v. D-Link Sys., Inc., No. 17-cv- 9 |} 00039-JD, 2018 WL 6040192, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2018). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: May 31, 2023 12

JAMES PUNATO 14 United Plates District Judge 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28