` Viacheslav SHLAPATSKYI Hommevegen, 96 Valle, Agder 4747, Norway +4793965827 Email: hiarttuhill@gmail.com Viacheslav Shlapatskyi, In Pro Per
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
` VIACHESLAV SHLAPATSKYI Plaintiff,
`vs.
` YOUTUBE, LLC, et al.,
` Defendants.
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`Case No.: 3:26-cv-00279-RFL PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE REGARDING CIRCUMSTANTIAL COPYING, STRIKING SIMILARITY, AND ACCESS Judge: Hon. Rita F. Lin
`
` Plaintiff Viacheslav Shlapatskyi respectfully submits this Reply in support of his Motion
`for
`
`Leave
`
`to
`
`File
`
`Supplemental
`
`Evidence
`
`Regarding
`
`Circumstantial
`
`Copying,
`
`Striking
`
`Similarity,
`
`and
`
`Access,
`
`ECF
`
`No.
`
`25,
`
`and
`
`in
`
`response
`
`to
`
`Defendants’
`
`Opposition,
`
`ECF
`
`No.
`
`27.
`
` At this stage, the tone and manner of Defendants’ filings have reached a critical point that
`requires
`
`Plaintiff
`
`to
`
`direct
`
`the
`
`Court’s
`
`attention
`
`to
`
`repeated
`
`inaccuracies,
`
`speculation,
`
`prejudicial
`
`characterizations,
`
`and
`
`improper
`
`legal
`
`tactics
`
`that
`
`risk
`
`confusing
`
`the
`
`issues
`
`before
`
`the
`
`Court.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`does
`
`not
`
`raise
`
`these
`
`points
`
`to
`
`multiply
`
`proceedings,
`
`but
`
`because
`
`Defendants’
`
`Opposition
`
`to
`
`ECF
`
`No.
`
`25
`
`repeats
`
`and
`
`intensifies
`
`the
`
`same
`
`improper
`
`framing
`
`already
`
`used
`
`in
`
`Defendants’
`
`Motion
`
`to
`
`Dismiss,
`
`ECF
`
`No.
`
`20,
`
`and
`
`Defendants’
`
`Reply,
`
`ECF
`
`No.
`
`23.
`
`- 1 -
`PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CASE NO.: 3:26-CV-00279-RFL
`
`Case 3:26-cv-00279-RFL Document 28 Filed 05/13/26 Page 1 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiff’s present Reply is limited to ECF No. 27. However, where Defendants repeat the
`same
`
`mischaracterizations
`
`from
`
`ECF
`
`Nos.
`
`20
`
`and
`
`23,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`identifies
`
`that
`
`pattern
`
`because
`
`it
`
`directly
`
`affects
`
`whether
`
`Plaintiff
`
`should
`
`be
`
`permitted
`
`to
`
`file
`
`supplemental
`
`materials
`
`that
`
`respond
`
`to
`
`Defendants’
`
`access,
`
`authorship,
`
`and
`
`alternative-source
`
`arguments.
`
` I. Defendants Mischaracterize Plaintiff’s Motion as an Improper Surreply
` Defendants begin by calling Plaintiff’s motion an “improper attempt to save his copyright
`infringement
`
`Complaint.”
`
`ECF
`
`No.
`
`27
`
`at
`
`1:2
`
`(с
`itations
`
`to
`
`page
`
`and
`
`line
`
`are
`
`in
`
`the
`
`format
`
`page:line).
`
`That
`
`language
`
`is
`
`prejudicial
`
`and
`
`inaccurate.
`
` Plaintiff did not file supplemental evidence as of right. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave,
`asking
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`for
`
`permission
`
`to
`
`submit
`
`limited
`
`materials
`
`directly
`
`responsive
`
`to
`
`issues
`
`Defendants
`
`placed
`
`before
`
`the
`
`Court:
`
`access,
`
`circumstantial
`
`copying,
`
`striking
`
`similarity,
`
`authorship
`
`attribution,
`
`and
`
`Defendants’
`
`asserted
`
`alternative-source
`
`theory.
`
` Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s filing is “a surreply which lacks prior court
`approval.”
`
`ECF
`
`No.
`
`27
`
`at
`
`1:9.
`
`This
`
`is
`
`a
`
`mischaracterization.
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
`motion
`
`is
`
`the
`
`request
`
`for
`
`approval.
`
`A
`
`party
`
`who
`
`asks
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`for
`
`leave
`
`has
`
`not
`
`bypassed
`
`leave;
`
`he
`
`has
`
`sought
`
`it.
`
` This same procedural framing continues Defendants’ broader pattern of portraying
`Plaintiff’s
`
`filings
`
`as
`
`improper
`
`rather
`
`than
`
`addressing
`
`their
`
`substance.
`
`The
`
`Court
`
`should
`
`reject
`
`that
`
`framing.
`
` II. Defendants Take Inconsistent Positions Regarding Materials Outside the
`Complaint
`
` Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s supplemental materials should not be considered because
`they
`
`are
`
`“beyond
`
`the
`
`Complaint”
`
`or
`
`“outside
`
`the
`
`Complaint”.
`
`ECF
`
`No.
`
`27
`
`at
`
`1:10,
`
`4:21,
`
`4:24–25.
`
` But Defendants’ own Motion to Dismiss ECF No. 20 relied on materials and factual
`assertions
`
`outside
`
`the
`
`Complaint,
`
`including
`
`YouTube
`
`URLs,
`
`view
`
`counts,
`
`the
`
`Reed
`
`Declaration,
`
`and
`
`- 2 -
`PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CASE NO.: 3:26-CV-00279-RFL
`
`Case 3:26-cv-00279-RFL Document 28 Filed 05/13/26 Page 2 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`assertions about the popularity and alleged source function of the infringing video. ECF No. 20,
`where:
`
`1) Page 3, lines 16–23 — Defendants cite the YouTube URL for “joyful - chess.” 2) Page 3, lines 22–23 — Defendants assert the original video had “more than 3.8 million”
`views.
` 3) Page 3, lines 23–24 — Defendants assert that “Chess sparked a trend.” 4) Page 3, lines 26–28; Page 4, lines 1–8 — Defendants rely on the Reed Declaration, Exhibit D,
`to
`
`introduce
`
`additional
`
`YouTube
`
`URLs
`
`and
`
`view
`
`counts.
` 5) Page 4, lines 1–3 — Defendants cite “chess (slowed)” and assert “more than 25 million
`views.”
` 6) Page 4, lines 3–5 — Defendants cite “RAT DANCE…” and assert “more than 11 million
`views.”
` 7) Page 4, lines 5–8 — Defendants cite “Incredibox Sprunki…” and assert “more than 270
`million
`
`views.”
` 8) Page 4, lines 8–10 — Defendants assert that the Chess takeoffs were viewed “hundreds of
`millions
`
`of
`
`times.”
` 9) Page 5, lines 16–28; Page 6, lines 1–2 — Defendants rely on Reed Declaration exhibits
`concerning
`
`communications
`
`between
`
`the
`
`parties.
` 10) Page 9, lines 12–18 — Defendants assert the “obvious explanation” that the later videos were
`derived
`
`from
`
`“the
`
`viral
`
`hit,
`
`Chess”.
` 11) Page 9, lines 15–17 — Defendants use “millions of views” to reinforce that theory. 12) Page 9, lines 17–20 — Defendants assert Plaintiff’s video had only “114 views.” 13) Page 9, lines 20–23 — Defendants draw an inference of implausibility from those outside
`facts.
`
` Under Defendants’ own logic, those extra-pleading factual assertions should not be used
`to
`
`support
`
`dismissal
`
`under
`
`Rule
`
`12(b)(6).
`
`If
`
`materials
`
`outside
`
`the
`
`Complaint
`
`cannot
`
`be
`
`considered
`
`at
`
`this
`
`stage,
`
`then
`
`Defendants’
`
`own
`
`extra-pleading
`
`factual
`
`narrative
`
`cannot
`
`support
`
`dismissal
`
`either.
`
`- 3 -
`PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CASE NO.: 3:26-CV-00279-RFL
`
`Case 3:26-cv-00279-RFL Document 28 Filed 05/13/26 Page 3 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendants cannot rely on extra-pleading factual narratives offensively to support
`dismissal
`
`with
`
`prejudice,
`
`while
`
`simultaneously
`
`asking
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`to
`
`exclude
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
`responsive
`
`materials
`
`because
`
`they
`
`are
`
`outside
`
`the
`
`pleadings.
`
` This inconsistency matters because Defendants’ central theory is factual: that John Doe 1
`independently
`
`created
`
`“Chess,”
`
`that
`
`“Chess”
`
`became
`
`the
`
`viral
`
`source,
`
`and
`
`that
`
`later
`
`accused
`
`works
`
`derived
`
`from
`
`“Chess”
`
`rather
`
`than
`
`from
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
`work.
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
`supplemental
`
`materials
`
`respond
`
`directly
`
`to
`
`that
`
`factual
`
`narrative.
`
` III. Defendants Misuse the Phrase “Chess Family” as a False Concession
` Defendants improperly introduce and manipulate the phrase “the ‘chess’ family of
`uploads.”
`
`as
`
`if
`
`it
`
`were
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
`concession
`
`that
`
`all
`
`later
`
`accused
`
`uploads
`
`originated
`
`from
`
`John
`
`Doe
`
`1’s
`
`“Chess.”
`
`ECF
`
`No.
`
`20
`
`at
`
`9:18.
`
`That
`
`is
`
`not
`
`what
`
`Plaintiff
`
`alleged.
`
` Defendants’ argument rests on their improper conversion of Plaintiff’s descriptive label
`into
`
`a
`
`factual
`
`concession.
`
`In
`
`their
`
`Opposition,
`
`Defendants
`
`assert
`
`that,
`
`by
`
`referring
`
`to
`
`the
`
`accused
`
`uploads
`
`as
`
`the
`
`“‘chess
`
`type
`
`beat’
`
`family
`
`of
`
`uploads”
`
`and
`
`the
`
`“‘chess’
`
`family
`
`of
`
`uploads,”
`
`Plaintiff
`
`“ascribed
`
`the
`
`origin”
`
`of
`
`later
`
`accused
`
`uploads
`
`to
`
`Chess,
`
`and
`
`they
`
`further
`
`characterize
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
`pleading
`
`as
`
`alleging
`
`a
`
`“shared
`
`genealogy
`
`tracing
`
`back
`
`to
`
`Chess.”
`
`ECF
`
`No.
`
`27
`
`at
`
`2:18–21.
`
`But
`
`that
`
`is
`
`Defendants’
`
`inference,
`
`not
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
`concession.
`
` Defendants never investigated or established why the accused group was labeled with the
`word
`
`“chess.”
`
`They
`
`did
`
`not
`
`identify
`
`John
`
`Doe
`
`1.
`
`They
`
`did
`
`not
`
`provide
`
`any
`
`declaration
`
`from
`
`John
`
`Doe
`
`1.
`
`They
`
`did
`
`not
`
`provide
`
`project
`
`files,
`
`DAW
`
`metadata,
`
`distributor
`
`records,
`
`Content
`
`ID
`
`logs,
`
`chain-of-title
`
`evidence,
`
`or
`
`the
`
`actual
`
`creation
`
`date
`
`of
`
`the
`
`accused
`
`melody.
`
`A
`
`YouTube
`
`upload
`
`date
`
`and
`
`a
`
`title
`
`do
`
`not
`
`prove
`
`authorship,
`
`originality,
`
`lawful
`
`ownership,
`
`independent
`
`creation,
`
`or
`
`source
`
`genealogy.
`
` Moreover, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged that the accused “Chess” cluster was derivative of
`Plaintiff’s
`
`work,
`
`not
`
`that
`
`Plaintiff
`
`accepted
`
`“Chess”
`
`as
`
`the
`
`lawful
`
`source
`
`ECF
`
`No.
`
`1
`
`at
`
`¶¶13–14.
`
`
`- 4 -
`PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CASE NO.: 3:26-CV-00279-RFL
`
`Case 3:26-cv-00279-RFL Document 28 Filed 05/13/26 Page 4 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The word “Chess” is also connected to Plaintiff’s own personal first name Via ches lav and
`authorship
`
`context,
`
`including
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
`position
`
`that
`
`the
`
`accused
`
`family
`
`was
`
`named
`
`and
`
`circulated
`
`in
`
`a
`
`way
`
`that
`
`reflects
`
`derivation
`
`from
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
`work.
`
`Defendants
`
`cannot
`
`take
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
`descriptive
`
`label
`
`for
`
`an
`
`accused
`
`infringement
`
`cluster
`
`and
`
`convert
`
`it
`
`into
`
`a
`
`binding
`
`admission
`
`that
`
`Plaintiff
`
`agrees
`
`with
`
`Defendants’
`
`alternative-source
`
`theory.
`
` The Court should therefore reject Defendants’ attempt to use the phrase “Chess family” as
`a
`
`factual
`
`concession.
`
`At
`
`most,
`
`the
`
`phrase
`
`identifies
`
`the
`
`accused
`
`group
`
`of
`
`uploads.
`
`It
`
`does
`
`not
`
`resolve
`
`who
`
`authored
`
`the
`
`source,
`
`when
`
`the
`
`source
`
`was
`
`created,
`
`whether
`
`John
`
`Doe
`
`1
`
`had
`
`access,
`
`whether
`
`later
`
`uploaders
`
`copied
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
`work,
`
`or
`
`whether
`
`Defendants’
`
`“viral
`
`Chess
`
`source”
`
`theory
`
`is
`
`true.
`
` The same applies to labels such as “Rat Dance,” “Rat Song,” or any alleged “Rat Dance
`family.”
`
`Those
`
`labels
`
`do
`
`not
`
`prove
`
`source,
`
`authorship,
`
`independent
`
`creation,
`
`or
`
`lawful
`
`derivation
`
`from
`
`“Chess.”
`
`Plaintiff
`
`does
`
`not
`
`concede
`
`that
`
`the
`
`rat-related
`
`titles
`
`are
`
`connected
`
`to
`
`John
`
`Doe
`
`1,
`
`originated
`
`from
`
`John
`
`Doe
`
`1,
`
`or
`
`derive
`
`from
`
`any
`
`work
`
`authored
`
`by
`
`John
`
`Doe
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`has
`
`a
`
`competing
`
`explanation
`
`for
`
`those
`
`labels,
`
`including
`
`their
`
`possible
`
`connection
`
`to
`
`the
`
`visual
`
`cover-art
`
`context
`
`associated
`
`with
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
`work.
`
`Defendants,
`
`by
`
`contrast,
`
`have
`
`not
`
`explained
`
`the
`
`relationship
`
`between
`
`“chess”
`
`and
`
`the
`
`rat-related
`
`titles
`
`or
`
`imagery.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`these
`
`labels
`
`raise
`
`factual
`
`questions;
`
`they
`
`do
`
`not
`
`resolve
`
`them
`
`at
`
`the
`
`pleading
`
`stage.
`
` IV. Defendants Ask the Court to Presume Independent Creation by an Unidentified
`Non-Party
`
` Defendants’ Opposition again rests on the same unsupported factual premise used in their
`Motion
`
`to
`
`Dismiss
`
`and
`
`Reply:
`
`that
`
`John
`
`Doe
`
`1
`
`independently
`
`created
`
`“Chess,”
`
`and
`
`that
`
`all
`
`later
`
`accused
`
`works
`
`derive
`
`from
`
`that
`
`source.
`
`ECF
`
`No.
`
`27
`
`at
`
`2:17;
`
`see
`
`also
`
`ECF
`
`Nos.
`
`20,
`
`23.
`
` But John Doe 1 remains unidentified. Defendants may argue that Plaintiff has not yet
`proven
`
`access,
`
`but
`
`they
`
`cannot
`
`affirmatively
`
`establish
`
`independent
`
`creation
`
`by
`
`an
`
`unidentified
`
`third
`
`party
`
`at
`
`the
`
`pleading
`
`stage.
`
`Independent
`
`creation
`
`is
`
`an
`
`evidentiary
`
`defense
`
`requiring
`
`facts
`
`uniquely
`
`within
`
`the
`
`possession
`
`of
`
`John
`
`Doe
`
`1,
`
`YouTube,
`
`Google,
`
`distributors,
`
`or
`
`Content
`
`ID
`
`systems.
`
`- 5 -
`PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CASE NO.: 3:26-CV-00279-RFL
`
`Case 3:26-cv-00279-RFL Document 28 Filed 05/13/26 Page 5 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` At the pleading stage, the Court cannot resolve whether John Doe 1 independently created
`the
`
`accused
`
`work,
`
`because
`
`Defendants
`
`have
`
`provided
`
`no
`
`admissible
`
`creation
`
`evidence
`
`from
`
`John
`
`Doe
`
`1.
`
`Defendants’
`
`theory
`
`asks
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`to
`
`presume
`
`the
`
`originality
`
`and
`
`independent
`
`authorship
`
`of
`
`an
`
`absent,
`
`unidentified
`
`uploader
`
`while
`
`denying
`
`Plaintiff
`
`discovery
`
`into
`
`the
`
`very
`
`records
`
`that
`
`would
`
`confirm
`
`or
`
`refute
`
`that
`
`theory.
`
` As of today, the core factual questions remain unresolved: whether “Chess” was copied
`from
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`copied
`
`from
`
`another
`
`source,
`
`or
`
`distributed
`
`through
`
`a
`
`false
`
`authorship
`
`chain;
`
`whether
`
`John
`
`Doe
`
`1
`
`held
`
`any
`
`valid
`
`copyright
`
`interest
`
`in
`
`“Chess”;
`
`whether
`
`the
`
`phrase
`
`“free
`
`for
`
`profit”
`
`in
`
`the
`
`video
`
`description
`
`licensed,
`
`limited,
`
`waived,
`
`or
`
`otherwise
`
`affected
`
`any
`
`claimed
`
`rights.
`
`These
`
`questions
`
`require
`
`discovery
`
`and
`
`cannot
`
`be
`
`resolved
`
`by
`
`accepting
`
`Defendants’
`
`unsupported
`
`“viral
`
`Chess
`
`source”
`
`theory
`
`at
`
`the
`
`pleading
`
`stage.
`
` V. Defendants Improperly Ask the Court to Draw Factual Inferences in Their Favor
` Defendants repeatedly argue that it is “far more likely” that later accused works derived
`from
`
`“Chess”
`
`rather
`
`than
`
`from
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
`work.
`
`ECF
`
`No.
`
`27
`
`at
`
`2:27.
`
`That
`
`is
`
`a
`
`factual
`
`inference
`
`in
`
`Defendants’
`
`favor.
`
` At the pleading stage, factual inferences must be drawn in Plaintiff’s favor, not against
`him.
`
`Defendants’
`
`“far
`
`more
`
`likely”
`
`theory
`
`asks
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`to
`
`weigh
`
`competing
`
`explanations
`
`before
`
`discovery.
`
`That
`
`is
`
`improper.
`
` The same improper inference appears in ECF Nos. 20 and 23, where Defendants
`repeatedly
`
`treat
`
`“Chess”
`
`as
`
`the
`
`source
`
`of
`
`the
`
`later
`
`accused
`
`works
`
`based
`
`on
`
`upload
`
`date,
`
`popularity,
`
`and
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
`descriptive
`
`use
`
`of
`
`the
`
`phrase
`
`“Chess
`
`family.”
`
`But
`
`popularity
`
`is
`
`not
`
`authorship.
`
`An
`
`upload
`
`date
`
`does
`
`not
`
`establish
`
`a
`
`creation
`
`date,
`
`and
`
`a
`
`title
`
`cluster
`
`does
`
`not
`
`establish
`
`a
`
`chain
`
`of
`
`title.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CASE NO.: 3:26-CV-00279-RFL
`
`Case 3:26-cv-00279-RFL Document 28 Filed 05/13/26 Page 6 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` VI. Defendants Wrongly Claim the Supplemental Materials Have “Nothing to Do
`With
`
`Access”
`
` Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s proposed exhibits “have nothing to do with access at all.”
`ECF
`
`No.
`
`27
`
`at
`
`2:1.
`
`That
`
`statement
`
`is
`
`overbroad
`
`and
`
`legally
`
`misleading.
`
` Plaintiff’s supplemental materials are relevant to:
`1) circumstantial copying; 2) striking similarity; 3) protected musical expression; 4) authorship; 5) fixation; 6) conflicting attribution; 7) the reliability of Defendants’ “Chess source” theory.
` Similarity evidence may support copying and, in appropriate circumstances, striking
`similarity.
`
`A
`
`copyright
`
`deposit
`
`bears
`
`on
`
`authorship,
`
`fixation,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`scope
`
`of
`
`the
`
`protected
`
`work.
`
`Sheet
`
`music
`
`and
`
`technical
`
`analysis
`
`bear
`
`on
`
`structure,
`
`sequence,
`
`motif,
`
`rhythm,
`
`interval
`
`relationship,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`comparison
`
`between
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
`work
`
`and
`
`the
`
`accused
`
`works.
`
`Defendants,
`
`by
`
`contrast,
`
`repeatedly
`
`and
`
`aggressively
`
`rely
`
`on
`
`the
`
`unsupported
`
`premise
`
`that
`
`the
`
`accused
`
`motif
`
`was
`
`independently
`
`created
`
`by
`
`John
`
`Doe
`
`1,
`
`while
`
`providing
`
`no
`
`U.S.
`
`copyright
`
`registration,
`
`copyright
`
`application,
`
`deposit
`
`record,
`
`chain-of-title
`
`evidence,
`
`creation
`
`metadata,
`
`project
`
`files,
`
`distribution
`
`records,
`
`Content
`
`ID
`
`records,
`
`or
`
`declaration
`
`from
`
`John
`
`Doe
`
`1
`
`to
`
`establish
`
`authorship,
`
`ownership,
`
`or
`
`independent
`
`creation.
`
` The question is not whether each exhibit conclusively proves access by itself. The
`question
`
`is
`
`whether
`
`the
`
`materials
`
`are
`
`relevant
`
`to
`
`the
`
`issues
`
`Defendants
`
`raised
`
`and
`
`whether
`
`they
`
`show
`
`that
`
`dismissal
`
`with
`
`prejudice
`
`would
`
`be
`
`improper.
`
`They
`
`are
`
`relevant.
`
`
`- 7 -
`PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CASE NO.: 3:26-CV-00279-RFL
`
`Case 3:26-cv-00279-RFL Document 28 Filed 05/13/26 Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendants mischaracterize Plaintiff’s supplemental materials as an improper attempt to
`add
`
`a
`
`new
`
`theory.
`
`They
`
`are
`
`not.
`
`Paragraph
`
`93
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Complaint
`
`already
`
`pleaded
`
`the
`
`PMI
`
`comparison,
`
`the
`
`47.62%
`
`result,
`
`the
`
`high-similarity
`
`classification,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`allegation
`
`that
`
`the
`
`“chess
`
`type
`
`beat”
`
`uploads
`
`reproduce
`
`a
`
`substantial
`
`and
`
`protectable
`
`portion
`
`of
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
`Motif.
`
`The
`
`proposed
`
`materials
`
`merely
`
`provide
`
`the
`
`supporting
`
`technical
`
`and
`
`notational
`
`foundation
`
`for
`
`allegations
`
`that
`
`were
`
`already
`
`in
`
`the
`
`Complaint.
`
` At the pleading stage, Plaintiff did not yet have a reliable sheet-music source for the
`accused
`
`melody
`
`sufficient
`
`to
`
`prepare
`
`a
`
`complete
`
`exhibit.
`
`After
`
`filing,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`located
`
`such
`
`a
`
`source,
`
`and
`
`that
`
`source
`
`attributes
`
`the
`
`accused
`
`material
`
`to
`
`persons
`
`other
`
`than
`
`John
`
`Doe
`
`1.
`
`This
`
`directly
`
`bears
`
`on
`
`Defendants’
`
`repeated
`
`unsupported
`
`premise
`
`that
`
`John
`
`Doe
`
`1
`
`independently
`
`created
`
`the
`
`accused
`
`motif.
`
`The
`
`supplemental
`
`exhibit
`
`therefore
`
`does
`
`not
`
`change
`
`the
`
`case;
`
`it
`
`clarifies
`
`and
`
`supports
`
`the
`
`existing
`
`allegations
`
`concerning
`
`similarity,
`
`copying,
`
`attribution,
`
`and
`
`Defendants’
`
`alternative-source
`
`theory.
`
` Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 25, presents an appropriate procedural moment to request
`leave
`
`to
`
`complete
`
`the
`
`record.
`
`The
`
`motion
`
`to
`
`dismiss
`
`remains
`
`pending,
`
`the
`
`case
`
`has
`
`not
`
`proceeded
`
`into
`
`discovery,
`
`and
`
`no
`
`case
`
`schedule
`
`has
`
`been
`
`entered.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`therefore
`
`respectfully
`
`seeks
`
`leave
`
`to
`
`file
`
`the
`
`limited
`
`supplemental
`
`materials
`
`identified
`
`in
`
`ECF
`
`No.
`
`25,
`
`without
`
`prejudice
`
`to
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
`ability
`
`to
`
`address
`
`any
`
`remaining
`
`exhibits
`
`referenced
`
`in
`
`ECF
`
`No.
`
`1,
`
`Section
`
`III,
`
`“Table
`
`of
`
`Exhibits,”
`
`if
`
`and
`
`when
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`so
`
`orders
`
`or
`
`permits.
`
` VII. Defendants Cherry-Pick Musical Differences While Ignoring Structured
`Similarities
`
` Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s materials undermine striking similarity because “Chess”
`allegedly
`
`“contains
`
`only
`
`9
`
`of
`
`the
`
`18
`
`notes”,
`
`appears
`
`in
`
`a
`
`“different
`
`key”,
`
`and
`
`includes
`
`bass-line
`
`or
`
`texture
`
`additions.
`
`ECF
`
`No.
`
`27
`
`at
`
`3:25–27.
`
` This is selective and incomplete.
`- 8 -
`PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CASE NO.: 3:26-CV-00279-RFL
`
`Case 3:26-cv-00279-RFL Document 28 Filed 05/13/26 Page 8 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` A different key does not defeat copying. Transposition can preserve the same melodic
`structure.
`
`Bass-line
`
`or
`
`texture
`
`additions
`
`do
`
`not
`
`defeat
`
`copying
`
`of
`
`an
`
`underlying
`
`protected
`
`motif.
`
`Derivative
`
`works
`
`often
`
`add
`
`instrumentation,
`
`texture,
`
`tempo
`
`changes,
`
`bass,
`
`or
`
`surface
`
`production
`
`elements
`
`while
`
`preserving
`
`protectable
`
`expression.
`
` Defendants focus on isolated differences while ignoring Plaintiff’s allegations and
`proposed
`
`materials
`
`concerning:
`
`1) structured sequence; 2) rhythm; 3) interval pattern; 4) melodic contour; 5) characteristic pause; 6) pitch-shift relationship; 7) motif placement; 8) repeated use of the same protectable motif across accused uploads.
` Those issues should not be weighed against Plaintiff on a motion to dismiss or on a motion
`for
`
`leave
`
`to
`
`file
`
`supplemental
`
`evidence.
`
` VIII. Defendants Ignore Conflicting Authorship Attribution
` Plaintiff’s supplemental materials address conflicting authorship attribution associated
`with
`
`the
`
`accused
`
`works
`
`and
`
`related
`
`uploads.
`
`This
`
`directly
`
`undermines
`
`Defendants’
`
`simplified
`
`narrative
`
`that
`
`John
`
`Doe
`
`1
`
`is
`
`the
`
`stable
`
`independent
`
`source
`
`of
`
`the
`
`“trend”.
`
`ECF
`
`No.
`
`27
`
`at
`
`2:26–28.
`
` Defendants do not identify who John Doe 1 actually is, whether “Joyful” refers to a single
`individual,
`
`a
`
`group
`
`of
`
`persons,
`
`a
`
`channel
`
`name,
`
`a
`
`distributor-facing
`
`alias,
`
`or
`
`an
`
`entity
`
`operating
`
`through
`
`or
`
`under
`
`a
`
`larger
`
`music-distribution
`
`structure.
`
`Nor
`
`do
`
`Defendants
`
`provide
`
`any
`
`declaration,
`
`creation
`
`metadata,
`
`project
`
`files,
`
`copyright
`
`registration,
`
`copyright
`
`application,
`
`chain-of-title
`
`- 9 -
`PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CASE NO.: 3:26-CV-00279-RFL
`
`Case 3:26-cv-00279-RFL Document 28 Filed 05/13/26 Page 9 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`evidence, distributor records, Content ID records, or other materials establishing that John Doe 1
`independently
`
`authored
`
`the
`
`accused
`
`motif.
`
` Plaintiff does not ask the Court to resolve these issues now. The point is that Defendants’
`“independent
`
`source”
`
`theory
`
`depends
`
`on
`
`facts
`
`that
`
`remain
`
`unknown
`
`and
`
`require
`
`discovery.
`
`In
`
`the
`
`digital
`
`music
`
`environment,
`
`access
`
`may
`
`occur
`
`through
`
`ordinary
`
`or
`
`unauthorized
`
`digital
`
`pathways,
`
`including
`
`pre-release
`
`links,
`
`distributor
`
`systems,
`
`shared
`
`files,
`
`collaborators,
`
`metadata
`
`pipelines,
`
`or
`
`compromised
`
`digital
`
`access
`
`points.
`
`Where
`
`two
`
`similar
`
`musical
`
`motifs
`
`appear
`
`within
`
`a
`
`short
`
`time
`
`period,
`
`and
`
`where
`
`the
`
`accused
`
`works
`
`carry
`
`conflicting
`
`authorship
`
`attributions,
`
`the
`
`identity,
`
`role,
`
`access,
`
`and
`
`rights
`
`of
`
`the
`
`alleged
`
`source
`
`cannot
`
`be
`
`presumed
`
`at
`
`the
`
`pleading
`
`stage.
`
` IX. Defendants Use Rule 15(d) Too Rigidly Against a Pro Se Plaintiff
` Defendants argue that Rule 15(d) does not authorize Plaintiff’s requested relief because
`the
`
`materials
`
`do
`
`not
`
`concern
`
`post-Complaint
`
`events.
`
`ECF
`
`No.
`
`27
`
`at
`
`5:9–10.
`
` Even if the Court concludes that Rule 15(d) is not the precise procedural vehicle,
`Plaintiff’s
`
`pro
`
`se
`
`motion
`
`should
`
`be
`
`construed
`
`liberally.
`
`The
`
`Court
`
`may
`
`treat
`
`the
`
`request
`
`as
`
`seeking
`
`leave
`
`to
`
`supplement
`
`the
`
`record,
`
`leave
`
`to
`
`file
`
`a
`
`limited
`
`response,
`
`leave
`
`to
`
`amend,
`
`or
`
`permission
`
`to
`
`submit
`
`materials
`
`relevant
`
`to
`
`whether
`
`amendment
`
`would
`
`be
`
`futile.
`
` Plaintiff’s request does not introduce a new claim. It provides technical and factual detail
`responsive
`
`to
`
`Defendants’
`
`arguments.
`
`That
`
`narrow
`
`purpose
`
`supports,
`
`rather
`
`than
`
`defeats,
`
`leave.
`
` X. Defendants Seek Dismissal With Prejudice While Blocking the Evidence Needed
`to
`
`Test
`
`Their
`
`Theory
`
` Defendants’ position creates a procedural trap.
` They argue that Plaintiff cannot prove access. They oppose supplemental materials
`relevant
`
`to
`
`access,
`
`copying,
`
`authorship,
`
`and
`
`striking
`
`similarity.
`
`They
`
`oppose
`
`consideration
`
`of
`
`materials
`
`outside
`
`the
`
`Complaint.
`
`They
`
`seek
`
`dismissal
`
`with
`
`prejudice.
`
`They
`
`also
`
`rely
`
`on
`
`their
`
`own
`
`extra-pleading
`
`factual
`
`narrative
`
`to
`
`argue
`
`that
`
`“Chess”
`
`is
`
`the
`
`more
`
`likely
`
`source.
`
`- 10 -
`PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CASE NO.: 3:26-CV-00279-RFL
`
`Case 3:26-cv-00279-RFL Document 28 Filed 05/13/26 Page 10 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` This is circular.
` Defendants should not be permitted to obtain dismissal with prejudice based on factual
`assumptions
`
`while
`
`blocking
`
`Plaintiff
`
`from
`
`submitting
`
`materials
`
`that
`
`directly
`
`challenge
`
`those
`
`assumptions.
`
` At minimum, the supplemental materials show that dismissal with prejudice would be
`improper
`
`and
`
`that
`
`Plaintiff
`
`should
`
`be
`
`granted
`
`leave
`
`to
`
`amend
`
`if
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`finds
`
`the
`
`current
`
`Complaint
`
`insufficient.
`
` XI. Requested Relief
` For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
`1) grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Evidence, ECF No. 25; 2) reject Defendants’ characterization of Plaintiff’s motion as an unauthorized surreply; 3) reject Defendants’ inconsistent position that they may rely on extra-pleading materials while
`Plaintiff
`
`may
`
`not
`
`submit
`
`responsive
`
`materials;
` 4) decline to presume independent creation by unidentified John Doe 1 at the pleading stage; 5) decline to treat Plaintiff’s use of the phrase “Chess family” as an admission of lawful origin or
`chain
`
`of
`
`title;
` 6) consider Plaintiff’s supplemental materials at least for the limited purpose of determining
`whether
`
`dismissal
`
`with
`
`prejudice
`
`or
`
`denial
`
`of
`
`leave
`
`to
`
`amend
`
`would
`
`be
`
`improper.
`
`
` DATED: May 13, 2026 Respectfully submitted,
` /s/ Viacheslav SHLAPATSKYI Plaintiff In Pro Per
`- 11 -
`PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CASE NO.: 3:26-CV-00279-RFL
`
`Case 3:26-cv-00279-RFL Document 28 Filed 05/13/26 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`