Urantia Foundation Response to
Petition for Rehearing
in Maaherra Case
| July 16, 1997 Plaintiff Urantia Foundation's Answer to Maaherra's Petition for Rehearing In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION II. ARGUMENT
III. CONCLUSION
I. Introduction The Court below ruled after the parties filed various motions for summary judgment, and after the matters were fully briefed, that: 1. The Urantia Book is a copyrightable work of authorship; and This Court found that the plaintiff-appellant is the proprietor of the copyright. Since there were no issues left for decision, the Court entered judgment for the plaintiff. The Defendant-Appellee Kristen Maaherra ("Maaherra") filed a petition for rehearing on the grounds that she has not been afforded a full and fair opportunity to "ventilate" the issues concerning whether: 1. The Urantia Book is a copyrightable work of authorship; and However, given that both of these issues were before the district court and that there is no dispute of material fact with respect to the issues, it is appropriate for the Court to enter judgment in the Foundation's favor that it possesses a valid renewal copyright in the book. First National Bank in Yonkers v. Maryland Casualty Co., 290 F.2d 246, 251-52 ((2d Cir.), .), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 939 (1961) (ordering entry of summary judgment sue sponte). The Court's decision brought closure to over six years' worth of litigation regarding Maaherra's infringement of the copyright of the Plaintiff-Appellee Urantia Foundation (the "Foundation"). As shown below, there is no basis in law or in fact for Maaherra to claim that she was deprived of an opportunity to show this Court or the lower court her evidence as it relates to these issues. Accordingly there is no need to revisit the Court's judgment or opinion in this case. II. ARGUMENT A. Maaherra fully litigated whether the Urantia Book is a copyrightable work of authorship before the district court. Maaherra spends the vast majority of her petition for rehearing attempting to reargue whether the Urantia Book qualifies for copyright protection since the parties believe that the book is non-human in origin. This is the same issue to which she devoted eight pages of her appellate brief (pp. 28-35). It is also the same issue that the district court decided against her on summary judgment. R-336-337. Given the fact that this issue was fully briefed by Maaherra In response to the Foundation's motion for summary judgment (see R-407, docket entry no. 265- brief in opposition to motion for summary judgment on her Section 102 counterclaim), it is completely disingenuous for her to now contend that this Court and the court below did not fully hear this issue. To the contrary, as this Court properly held upon consideration of the district court's holding below that the book is a product of sufficient creativity to constitute copyrightable authorship, "[t]herefore, the Papers were works amenable to common law copyright protection, and the district court correctly so held. " Opinion, p. 6756, (emphasis added). The evidence that Maaherra asserts raises a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of copyrightable authorship either was or could have been submitted to the district court in opposition to the Foundation's Motion for Summary Judgment on this issue. Moreover, none of this evidence raises a doubt as to the role of the Contact Commission, and later the Forum, in asking questions that "materially contributed to the structure of the Papers, to the arrangement of the revelations in each Paper, and to the organizations and order in which the Papers followed one another. Id at 6755. In fact, Maaherra admitted the name of the questioning process she now seeks to relitigate below. R-211-212 (paragraphs 34. 35, 41). In her own "Defendant's Statement of Facts in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Claim for Copyright Infringement" (beginning at R-207), Maaherra states with citation to the evidence of record that one of the facts upon which her own summary judgment motion relies is that: "41. Questions were provided by members of the contact commission and forum, and the subject matter of portions of the Urantia Papers was suggested in part by these questions. The questions were part of the process by which the Urantia papers were delivered." R-212 (paragraph 41, internal citation to evidence of record omitted). In light of this statement of fact made to the district court by Maaherra, her statement in the petition far rehearing (p. 3) that "[s]he did not agree with the Foundation's statement of faces about the 'questions' supposedly submitted" is totally inaccurate. She filed her statement of facts before the Foundation even filed its statement of facts in opposition to her motion. Compare R-401 (docket entry 205 -- Maaherra's statement of facts in support of her summary judgment motion, fled December 13, 1994) with R-404 (docket entries 243 and 244 -- the Foundation's opposition and statement of facts in support of its opposition to Maaherra's summary judgment motion, filed January 9, 1955). This Court has held that a statement of fact made by a movant for summary judgment may establish grounds for the entry of summary judgment against the movant (in this case, Maaherra). In Lloyd v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 245 F.2d 896, 897 (9th Cir. 1957), a party attempted to condition an admitted statement of fact on the grounds that it was admitted only for purposes of deciding its own motion for summary judgment. However, affirming the entry of summary judgment against that party, Lloyd held the condition invalid and stated: "A concession of fact on motion for summary judgment establishes the fact for all time between the parties. The party cannot gamble on such a conditional admission and take advantage thereof when judgment has gone against him. . . Of this all practitioners should take notice. The facts should be established first, and the law can only be laid down in light thereof." Id. [Footnote 1: This rule is similar to the cardinal rule in summary judgment proceedings that a party may not contradict prior sworn testimony in an effort to defeat summary judgment. It also finds support in the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which prohibits a party from attempting to change affirmative representations of fact made in pleadings to an earlier court. End of Footnote 1.] Lloyd resolves the question of whether Maaherra should now be allowed to relitigate an issue conceded -- to withdraw certain facts that she earlier represented to the district court as true -- in favor of the Foundation. Thus, in summary, the Court need not rehear the issue of whether The Urantia Book is a copyrightable work of authorship. First, Maaherra was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate this issue below ant did so on the very point at issue. Nevertheless, summary judgment was granted against her on this issue. Secondly, and independently, the so called "factual dispute" she now seeks to allege requires her to contradict statements of fact that she made to the lower court in support of her summary judgment motion. For both of the reasons. the Foundation submits that the Court need not reconsider its opinion on this issue. B. The Court should not reconsider its holding that the Foundation is the proprietor of a composite work. As a token afterthought to her primary argument on copyrightable authorship, Maaherra also asserts in a single paragraph that a genuine dispute exists for trial regarding whether The Urantia Book. which the parties agree is comprised of separate component Papers. is a composite work. Petition for Rehearing, p, 8. Both the lower court and this Court correctly held that the proprietor of a composite work who originally secured the copyright in the work is entitled to renew the copyright in the work pursuant to Section 24 of the Copyright Act of 1909 and 17 U.S.C. Section 304(a) (1983). Opinion, pp. 6758-6759; R-348. Maaherra does not take issue with this proposition. She only questions whether the Court's opinion that "the district court assumed that" the structure of The Urantia Book showed that it is a composite work leaves room for a trial on that issue. Opinion, p. 6759. However, her argument fails to demonstrate that there is a triable issue regarding the composite nature of the book. Maaherra states only that "the underlying question of whether the Book structurally qualities as a composite work can only be resolved after the facts regarding the Book's creation have been fully ventilated." Petition for Rehearing, p. 8. However, Maaherra offers the Court reason why any or all of the facts regarding the book's creation show a genuinely disputed issue of fact concerning whether The Urantia Book is a composite work. The Urantia Book was placed into the evidence of record before the district court (R-400, docket entry 194). Having fully reviewed the evidence of record, the district court concluded that "I agree that The Urantia Book may be considered a composite work.... The 'Urantia Papers' are obviously 'distinguishable parts' and the Copyright Office verifies that no other author of the book has 'separately registered.'" R-348. Thus, the book in and of itself shows that it is a composite work. Maaherra has not shown the Court any reason why the book itself is not dispositive as to the composite work issue. Moreover, she has not alleged or offered any proof that there is some fact regarding the book's creation which has escaped the Court 's attention and which creates an issue for trial. [Footnote 2: Maaherra could not muster any cogent rationale at oral argument why the resolution of the proprietorship issue one way or the other would dispose of the composite works theory of renewal on the basis that the district court had opined that the book was composite in nature. End of Footnote 2.] Maaherra's argument that she has more facts to show concerning the book's creation is also compromised by her prior representations of fact to the district court. In her statement of facts in support of her motion for summary judgment, Maaherra stated: "9. The essential facts which explain the origin of the Urantia Book are found in the book: itself....This is the most accurate information...." "10. However, neither the Foundation nor any other human "knows many of the details and specifics regarding the origin of the Urantia papers." R-208 (paragraphs 9-10, internal citations to evidence of record omitted). In her petition for rehearing, p. 6, Maaherra again asserts that the book itself is "the most authoritative source of information on its creation." These statements by Maaherra, the fact that The Urantia Book was introduced into the evidence of record in this case, and that both this Court and the lower court were at all times well aware of the parties beliefs about the origins of the book, show that there is no need for a trial to "ventilate" the facts concerning the book's origin. Both courts gave due consideration to these facts in holding that the book is a composite work as a matter of law. The futility of Maaherra's argument on this point is underscored by her inability to inform the Court what specific facts about the book's creation give rise to a triable issue of fact. In summary, Maaherra has not shown and cannot show the Court any genuinely disputed issue for trial as to whether the Urantia Book is a composite work. She admits that outside of the book itself, little is known about the origin of the work. However, without further explanation, she apparently contends that both courts' due consideration of the book is not enough to hold that the book is a composite work. The Foundation submits that the book shows that it is a composite work, and that Maaherra has no basis to contend that there are other probative facts which the Court has not considered on this issue. Accordingly, this issue was fully and fairly heard and decided. The petition for rehearing does not show any reason to revisit the issue. III. Conclusion The foregoing reasons show that the "copyrightable work of authorship" and "composite work" issues which Maaherra asks the Court to rehear were fully and fairly litigated and appropriately decided as a matter of law in favor of the Foundation. For these reasons, the Court should deny the petition for rehearing. Respectfully submitted, |