Elliott v. Cartagena, 84 F.4th 481

Background

Elliott alleges he co-created the song “All the Way Up” with Fat Joe (Joseph Cartagena) in 2015–2016 and signed a piece of paper at an IHOP meeting after receiving a $5,000 check.
Elliott says the paper he signed promised credit, promotion, and further payment; defendants produced a separate Draft purporting to be an assignment transferring all Elliott’s rights to R4 So Valid, LLC.
The executed, signed agreement has never been produced and defendants admit the Draft is “not a copy of the executed Agreement.”
The District Court admitted the Draft as a duplicate under Fed. R. Evid. 1003, later admitted it under Rule 1004 (lost original), denied Elliott any discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), and granted summary judgment to defendants.
The Second Circuit held the District Court abused its discretion admitting the Draft as a Rule 1003 duplicate and erred in denying pre-summary-judgment discovery, but did not abuse its discretion admitting the Draft under Rule 1004.
Court VACATED the judgment and REMANDED for further proceedings (including discovery and factfinding on authorship/assignment issues).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 1003 (duplicate)	Draft is not identical to the paper Elliott signed; sworn testimony raises authenticity dispute	Draft is identical in substance; declarations from Cartagena and counsel support authenticity	Admission as a Rule 1003 duplicate was an abuse of discretion because genuine authenticity issues exist
Admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 1004 (other evidence when original lost)	Defendants failed to show diligent search / might have bad faith loss	Defendants conducted months-long search and could not obtain original (possibly held by third party Pacheco)	Admission under Rule 1004 was proper: court did not clearly err that original was lost or beyond reach and defendants made diligent search
Denial of Rule 56(d) discovery before summary judgment	Elliott’s Rule 56(d) affidavit identified 18 categories of discovery likely to produce facts disputing the Draft and consideration	District Court viewed this as speculative and categorized case as one of the "rarest" where pre-discovery summary judgment is appropriate	Denial of discovery was an abuse of discretion; Meloff/56(d) factors satisfied and discovery was necessary
Grant of summary judgment on assignment/ownership	Signed paper did not reflect a full irrevocable assignment; contemporaneous promises and undefined consideration raise disputes	Draft (as evidence of the agreement) precludes Elliott’s claims	Summary judgment was improper: genuine disputes of material fact exist about terms, consideration, and whether assignment encompassed Elliott’s rights

Key Cases Cited

Hellstrom v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 201 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2000) (pre-discovery summary judgment appropriate only in the rarest cases)
Gayle v. Gonyea, 313 F.3d 677 (2d Cir. 2002) (verified complaint may be treated as an affidavit for summary judgment if it meets Rule 56(c)(4))
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1997) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Zhong, 26 F.4th 536 (2d Cir. 2022) (abuse-of-discretion review explanation)
United States v. Chang An-Lo, 851 F.2d 547 (2d Cir. 1988) (burden on opponent to show genuine question as to trustworthiness of duplicate)
Opals on Ice Lingerie v. Bodylines Inc., 320 F.3d 362 (2d Cir. 2003) (genuine issue as to trustworthiness can preclude admission as duplicate)
Burt Rigid Box, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Corp., 302 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2002) (diligent but unsuccessful search required to admit secondary evidence under Rule 1004)
Meloff v. New York Life Ins. Co., 51 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1995) (elements of an affidavit under former Rule 56(f)/now Rule 56(d))
Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2003) (review of denial of 56(d) discovery for abuse of discretion)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and refusal when essential discovery is lacking)