Case 2:20-cv-03129-MEMF-GJS Document 222 Filed 08/15/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:6283
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES,
`INC., et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ALEJANDRO GALINDO, et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Case No.: 2:20-cv-03129-MEMF (GJSx)
`
`
`ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND
`RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED
`STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the files, records, and parties’ filings
`
`in this case, including the underlying motions brought by Plaintiffs Columbia Pictures Industries,
`Inc., Amazon Content Services, LLC, Disney Enterprises, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation,
`Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Universal City Studios Productions LLLP, Universal Television
`LLC, and Universal Content Productions LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) (ECF Nos. 57, 82, 164,
`177, and 177-1), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No.
`209, “Report”), Defendant Alejandro Galindo’s (“Galindo”) Response to the Report (ECF No.
`210, “Galindo’s Response”), and Plaintiffs’ Response to Galindo’s Response (ECF No. 219, “Pls.’
`Response”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the
`Court has conducted a de novo review of the matters to which objections have been stated.
` Galindo’s assertions and arguments have been reviewed carefully. The Court, however,
`concludes that nothing set forth in Galindo’s Response or otherwise in the record for this case
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-03129-MEMF-GJS Document 222 Filed 08/15/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:6284
`
`
`affects or alters, or calls into question, the findings and analysis set forth in the Report. Having
`completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report.
`An entry of default, however, does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to its requested
`damages. See FED. R. CIV. P. 55 (b)(2). Instead, the Court has “considerable leeway as to what it
`may require as a prerequisite to the entry of a default judgment” and may require that a plaintiff
`submit of evidence in support of a damage amount. Televideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d
`915, 917–18 (9th Cir. 1987). In this case, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have neither provided a
`complete enumeration of the copyrighted works at issue, a full accounting of the corresponding
`amount of statutory damages sought pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), nor evidence to support
`either of the above. In the absence of these items, the Court declines to enter Judgment at this
`time.
`Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
`1. The Court accepts the Report;
`2. Plaintiffs are awarded fees and costs in the amount of $88,080 in attorneys’ fees
`and costs for motion practice associated with their discovery motion (ECF Nos.
`57, 82);
`3. Plaintiffs are awarded $93,000 for its fees and costs associated with litigating
`their sanctions motion (ECF Nos. 164, 177, 177-1);
`4. Galindo shall pay the foregoing ordered monetary sanctions to Plaintiffs within
`sixty (60) days of this Order;
`5. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions (ECF No. 164) is GRANTED;
`6. Within sixty (60) days of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file a supplemental brief
`identifying:
`i. The works for which they are seeking statutory damages, supported by a
`sworn declaration and competent evidence, see FED. R. EVID. 1006;
`ii. The factors the Court should consider when calculating statutory
`damages, supported by case law; and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-03129-MEMF-GJS Document 222 Filed 08/15/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:6285
`
`
`iii. The amount of statutory damages they are seeking, supported by a
`sworn declaration and competent evidence, see FED. R. EVID. 1006.
`7. The schedule for the supplemental briefing is as follows:
`Plaintiffs’ Brief: October 3, 2022
`i.
`ii. Opposition to be filed by Galindo: October 24, 2022
`iii. Reply: October 31, 2022
`iv. Hearing: November 7, 2022
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: August 15, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`___________________________________
`MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG
`United States District Judge
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`