Stringer v. Richard

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

: GAIL STRINGER, et al., : CASE NO. 4:21-cv-00632 : Plaintiffs, : OPINION & ORDER : [Resolving Docs. 58] v. : : DAWN RICHARD, et al., : : Defendants. : :

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:

Plaintiffs Gail Stringer, Debra Jordan, Venice Andrews, and Eddie Howard sue Defendants Dawn Richard and Derek Bergheimer for copyright infringement, violation of publicity, and invasion of privacy.1 On August 19, 2022, the Court granted Defendant Dawn Richard’s summary judgment motion.2 Plaintiffs now move for reconsideration of the Court’s grant of summary judgment.3 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a court may grant a motion to amend or alter its judgment if there is: (1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) manifest injustice.4 A reconsideration motion, however, is not an opportunity to re-litigate previously decided matters or present the case under new theories.5 Such a reconsideration motion is extraordinary and rarely granted.6

1 Doc. 1. 2 Doc. 55. 3 Doc. 58. 4 , 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). 5 , 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998). In their reconsideration motion, Plaintiffs argue that newly discovered evidence shows intentional copyright infringement.7 However, the evidence Plaintiffs presented in their reconsideration motion does not affect the Court’s original conclusions that (1) Plaintiffs

did not hold a sound recording copyright for the arguably copied song, “Abundance of Rain,” and that (2) the composition at issue is not original because Plaintiffs did not independently create the arguably-copied phrasing. As a result, Plaintiffs’ sound recording and composition copyright claims still fail. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2022 JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE