Slate v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
12 F. Supp. 3d 30
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiff Slate sued for alleged copyright infringement of under-a-minute video footage; court granted summary judgment to defendants and dismissed for bad-faith litigation conduct (April 23, 2013).
- Slate’s counsel withdrew; case reassigned; Slate proceeded pro se with numerous discovery disputes and sanctions arguments.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment and for dismissal based on bad-faith conduct; motions granted; Order 102 denied Slate’s requests.
- Slate sought reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and related rules, filed objections to costs, and moved for judicial notice; motions challenged as untimely and unfounded.
- Court found no intervening controlling-law change or new evidence; reaffirmed that reconsideration is improper to relitigate prior arguments or present previously available evidence.
- Judgment remains; sanctions upheld; bill of costs deemed appropriate; judicial notice denied as untimely and irrelevant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reconsideration is warranted under Rule 59(e). | Slate contends Rule 59(e) permits correction of errors or new evidence. | Defendants argue no intervening law change or new evidence; arguments are rehashing prior disputes. | Denied; no clear error or manifest injustice; proper reconsideration standard not met. |
| Whether equitable estoppel bars Slate’s copyright claims. | Slate argues equitable estoppel should not bar his ownership claim. | Defendants maintain estoppel applies to infringement claims and ownership issues. | Rejected; equitable estoppel bars the infringement claims as held in the Opinion. |
| Whether sanctions for bad-faith litigation conduct were properly upheld. | Slate claims denial of hearing and misapplication of standard. | Defendants urge clear-and-convincing evidence and observed conduct warrant dismissal. | Sanctions affirmed; dismissal upheld. |
| Whether judicial notice of related proceedings was proper or timely. | Slate seeks notice of external proceedings to bolster reconsideration. | Exhibits pre-date briefing and are irrelevant; not timely. | Judicial notice denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (U.S. 2008) (Rule 59(e) limits; not a vehicle to relitigate old matters; demands intervening changes or new evidence)
- Messina v. Krakower, 439 F.3d 755 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Rule 59(e) discretionary; must show intervening change or manifest injustice)
- Danielson, Inc. v. Winchester-Conant Properties, Inc., 322 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2003) (New case citation insufficient to trigger reconsideration when not binding)
- Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (not cited in opinion; placeholder example not used here)
- Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (manifest injustice standard; sanctions context)