{"cached_at":"2026-11-12T10:55:23.244672+00:00","cl_docket_id":"14811830","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","id":14811830,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/txed/","court_id":"txed","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9976157/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9976228/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":null,"referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/14811830/stry-v-mccrea/","date_created":"2019-03-27T11:22:16.486038-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-14T00:47:06.829764-08:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"William C. Bryson","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2021-11-10T21:30:00.343743-08:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2019-03-27","date_terminated":"2020-05-01","date_last_filing":"2020-05-01","case_name_short":"Stry","case_name":"Stry v. McCrea","case_name_full":"","slug":"stry-v-mccrea","docket_number":"2:19-cv-00104","docket_number_core":"1900104","docket_number_raw":"2:19-cv-00104","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"","federal_dn_case_type":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"188670","cause":"17:501 Copyright Infringement","nature_of_suit":"Copyright","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2019-03-27T11:22:16.483308-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/9125156/","id":9125156,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6070744/","attorney_id":6070744,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","docket_id":14811830,"role":10}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","docket_id":14811830,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"teamcoltra@gmail.com","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-01-19T09:38:48.055692-08:00","date_modified":"2020-01-19T09:38:48.055735-08:00","name":"Travis McCrea","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/8459997/","id":8459997,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","docket_id":14811830,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":"2019-06-13","extra_info":"TERMINATED: 06/13/2019","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2019-07-15T10:44:05.882251-07:00","date_modified":"2019-07-15T10:44:05.882273-07:00","name":"Mr.  Francisco Humberto Dias","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/8459995/","id":8459995,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/5724548/","attorney_id":5724548,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","docket_id":14811830,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/5724549/","attorney_id":5724549,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","docket_id":14811830,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","docket_id":14811830,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2019-07-15T10:44:05.815448-07:00","date_modified":"2019-07-15T10:44:05.815482-07:00","name":"Mr.  John  Van Stry","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/127828395/","id":127828395,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/132300991/","id":132300991,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/14811830/67/stry-v-mccrea/","date_created":"2020-05-01T14:21:03.204412-07:00","date_modified":"2022-01-18T02:01:50.776521-08:00","sha1":"bcba2c0a3fb10d5dd00c0a3414dc8aeb4cfb2c1c","page_count":3,"file_size":152823,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.188670/gov.uscourts.txed.188670.67.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.188670/gov.uscourts.txed.188670.67.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:19-cv-00104-WCB Document 67 Filed 05/01/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1500\n\n\n\n\n                       IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                        FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n\nJOHN VAN STRY,                                  \u00a7\n                                                \u00a7\n        Plaintiff,                              \u00a7\n                                                \u00a7\n        v.                                      \u00a7          Case No. 2:19-CV-00104-WCB\n                                                \u00a7\nTRAVIS ROBERT McCREA,                           \u00a7\n                                                \u00a7\n        Defendant.                              \u00a7\n\n\n             AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION\n\n       This action came on for summary judgment before the Court. A decision having been duly\n\nrendered in the Court\u2019s orders on April 9, 2020 and April 20, 2020,\n\n       It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED\n\n       (1)     that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37(b)(2)(c) the Court\u2019s April\n\n9, 2020, order, Defendant Travis Robert McCrea shall pay Plaintiff John Van Stry $3,605 as a\n\nsanction for Mr. McCrea\u2019s failure to comply with his discovery obligations;\n\n       (2)     that pursuant to the Court\u2019s April 9, 2020, order, Mr. McCrea has been found to\n\nhave willfully infringed the following of Mr. Van Stry\u2019s copyrighted works: Portals of Infinity:\n\nBook One: Champion for Hire; Perfect Strangers; Portals of Infinity: Kaiju; Portals of Infinity:\n\nBook Two: The God Game; Portals of Infinity: Book Three: Of Temples and Trials; Portals of\n\nInfinity: Book Four: The Sea of Grass; Portals of Infinity: Book Five: Demigods and Deities;\n\nPortals of Infinity: Reprisal; When It Falls; Stand On It; Black Friday; and Over Our Heads;\n\n       (3)     that pursuant to 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 504(c) and the Court\u2019s April 20, 2020, order, Plaintiff\n\nis awarded statutory damages from the Defendant in the amount of $9,000;\n\fCase 2:19-cv-00104-WCB Document 67 Filed 05/01/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1501\n\n\n\n\n       (4)     that pursuant to 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 502 and the Court\u2019s April 20, 2020 order, Defendant\n\nis hereby permanently and immediately enjoined from: Copying, reproducing, or distributing,\n\neither directly or vicariously, plaintiff\u2019s copyrighted works, whether now in existence or hereafter\n\ncreated, without the authorization of the copyright owner, including:\n\n               Portals of Infinity: Book One: Champion for Hire\n\n               Perfect Strangers\n\n               Portals of Infinity: Kaiju\n\n               Portals of Infinity: Book Two: The God Game\n\n               Portals of Infinity: Book Three: Of Temples and Trials\n\n               Portals of Infinity: Book Four: The Sea of Grass\n\n               Portals of Infinity: Book Five: Demigods and Deities\n\n               Portals of Infinity: Reprisal\n\n               When It Falls\n\n               Stand On It\n\n               Black Friday\n\n               Over Our Heads\n\n       Costs, including attorney\u2019s fees, are awarded to the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in\n\naccordance with 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 505 and the Court\u2019s April 20, 2020, order. Mr. Van Stry submitted\n\nan affidavit setting forth the amount of his requested costs and attorney\u2019s fees. Mr. Van Stry did\n\nnot include in the affidavit the expenses that have been separately assessed against Mr. McCrea as\n\na result of the Court\u2019s sanctions. Mr. McCrea has not objected to the requested amounts. The\n\nCourt is satisfied that the request for fees and costs is reasonable and in accordance with law. In\n\naddition to the statutory damages, therefore, the Court enters an award of costs in favor of the\n\n\n\n\n                                               -2-\n\fCase 2:19-cv-00104-WCB Document 67 Filed 05/01/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1502\n\n\n\n\nplaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $1,476.86. The Court also enters an award of\n\nattorney\u2019s fees in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $60,795.\n\n       This Court will retain jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this litigation\n\nfor the purpose of interpretation, enforcement, or modification of this Amended Final Judgment\n\nand Permanent Injunction.\n\n       IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n       SIGNED this 1st day of May, 2020.\n\n\n\n\n                                              _____________________________\n                                              WILLIAM C. BRYSON\n                                              UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n                                               -3-\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2022-01-17T05:17:20.022414-08:00","document_number":"67","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175011170787","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Judgment","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-05-01T14:21:03.195140-07:00","date_modified":"2020-05-01T14:21:03.196499-07:00","date_filed":"2020-05-01","time_filed":null,"entry_number":67,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-05-01.001","pacer_sequence_number":192,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/126944511/","id":126944511,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/131408612/","id":131408612,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/14811830/66/stry-v-mccrea/","date_created":"2020-04-23T07:11:48.693682-07:00","date_modified":"2020-04-23T07:11:48.698099-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"66","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175011155136","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Affidavit in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-04-23T07:11:48.686790-07:00","date_modified":"2020-04-23T07:11:48.687789-07:00","date_filed":"2020-04-23","time_filed":null,"entry_number":66,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-04-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":189,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/126595247/","id":126595247,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/131056229/","id":131056229,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/14811830/64/stry-v-mccrea/","date_created":"2020-04-20T09:17:40.670645-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-14T00:47:06.875828-08:00","sha1":"e8beeeeaa01e383e57932fd0a41cf9279453e755","page_count":8,"file_size":194622,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.188670/gov.uscourts.txed.188670.64.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.188670/gov.uscourts.txed.188670.64.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:19-cv-00104-WCB Document 64 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1484\n\n\n\n                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                         FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                 MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n\nJOHN VAN STRY,                                     \u00a7\n                                                   \u00a7\n        Plaintiff,                                 \u00a7\n                                                   \u00a7\n        v.                                         \u00a7         Case No. 2:19-CV-00104-WCB\n                                                   \u00a7\nTRAVIS ROBERT McCREA,                              \u00a7\n                                                   \u00a7\n        Defendant.                                 \u00a7\n\n\n                          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER\n\n        Before the Court is plaintiff John Van Stry\u2019s Corrected Motion for Final Summary\n\nJudgment and Permanent Injunction, Dkt. No. 50, and Plaintiff\u2019s Election Regarding Trier of\n\nStatutory Damages and Contingent Reduction in Amount of Statutory Damages Sought. Dkt. No.\n\n63. Mr. Van Stry moves for summary judgment that Mr. McCrea willfully infringed several of\n\nMr. Van Stry\u2019s copyrights through the creation and operation of a website that enabled users to\n\ndownload copyrighted materials without the authors\u2019 permission. In his motion, Mr. Van Stry also\n\nrequests that I award statutory damages, enter a permanent injunction to stop future infringement,\n\nand award full costs, including attorney\u2019s fees.\n\n        I previously granted Mr. Van Stry\u2019s motion for summary judgment with respect to Mr.\n\nMcCrea\u2019s liability for willful copyright infringement. Dkt. No. 62. I declined, however, to address\n\nMr. Van Stry\u2019s requested remedy until I received more guidance from the parties on the issue of\n\nstatutory damages. In this order, I address Mr. Van Stry\u2019s requested remedy.\n\n   I.        BACKGROUND\n\n        In my summary judgment order, I noted that the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution\n\nprovides a right to a jury trial on all issues pertinent to an award of statutory damages under section\n\fCase 2:19-cv-00104-WCB Document 64 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 1485\n\n\n\n504(c) of the Copyright Act. Dkt. No. 62, at 14\u201315. There was some indication in the parties\u2019\n\nsummary judgment briefs that they both wanted the court, rather than a jury, to decide the issue of\n\nstatutory damages. Id. at 15. Given that the waiver of a right to a jury trial should not be found in\n\na \u201cdoubtful situation,\u201d I directed each of the parties to expressly advise me within seven days of\n\nmy order whether he was waiving his right to a jury trial on all issues pertinent to an award of\n\nstatutory damages. McAfee v. Martin, 63 F.3d 436, 437 (5th Cir. 1995); Jennings v. McCormick,\n\n154 F.3d 542, 545 (5th Cir. 1998); Littleton v. Passmore, 89 F. App\u2019x 471 (5th Cir. 2004).\n\n         Mr. Van Stry confirmed that he was waiving his right to a jury trial on all issues pertinent\n\nto the award of statutory damages. Dkt. No. 63. In the alternative, Mr. Van Stry stated that \u201c[i]n\n\nthe event that Defendant, Mr. Travis Robert McCrea, fails to similarly waive his right to a jury\n\ntrial, Plaintiff modifies the amount of statutory damages he seeks to be the minimum allowed,\n\n$750 per work, or $9,000 total . . . .\u201d Id. Mr. McCrea did not file a response.\n\n   II.       Remedy\n\n             A.   Statutory Damages\n\n         Given Mr. McCrea\u2019s pro se status and the importance of the jury right, I cannot conclude\n\nthat his silence is a knowing and voluntary relinquishment of his right to a jury trial. See, e.g., 3D\n\nGlob. Sols., Inc. v. MVM, Inc., 754 F.3d 1053, 1056 (D.C. Cir. 2014).1 Normally, that would\n\npreclude me from entering an award on the issue of statutory damages. See Feltner v. Columbia\n\nPictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340, 355 (1998).\n\n         The right to a jury trial on statutory damages, however, does not apply when the plaintiff\n\nseeks an award limited to the statutorily guaranteed minimum amount. BMG Music v. Gonzalez,\n\n\n         1\n          Although Mr. McCrea did not make a demand for a jury trial, he was entitled to rely on\nPlaintiff\u2019s timely and valid jury demand. Littleton, 89 F. App\u2019x at 471; Bennett v. Pippin, 74 F.3d\n578, 586\u201387 (5th Cir. 1996).\n\n\n                                                 -2-\n\fCase 2:19-cv-00104-WCB Document 64 Filed 04/20/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 1486\n\n\n\n430 F.3d 888, 892\u201393 (7th Cir. 2005); Simpleville Music v. Mizell, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1293, 1300\n\n(M.D. Ala. 2006); Cynthia Hunt Prods., Ltd. v. Evolution of Fitness Houston Inc., No. CIV.A. H-\n\n07-0170, 2007 WL 2363148, at *6 n.1 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2007).\n\n       Here, Mr. Van Stry stipulated that he would limit his request for statutory damages to $750\n\nper work if Mr. McCrea did not waive his right to a jury trial. That is the minimum amount\n\nguaranteed by section 504(c) of the Copyright Act, absent certain circumstances that neither party\n\nhas contended are present in this case. And Mr. McCrea has conceded that an award of $750 in\n\nstatutory damages per copyrighted book is appropriate. Dkt. No. 54, at 1 (\u201cAs per the Copyright\n\nAct 504(c)[,] the minimum a work can be worth is $750 and it\u2019s the defence\u2019s contention that if\n\nsummary judgment is issued, the works be valued at such a rate.\u201d).\n\n       I will therefore enter an award of $750 in statutory damages per copyrighted book for a\n\ntotal of $9,000.\n\n           B.      Permanent Injunction\n\n       In addition to requesting statutory damages, Mr. Van Stry requests that I enter a permanent\n\ninjunction to prevent further infringement by Mr. McCrea and his agents.\n\n       Under the Copyright Act, a court is authorized to grant a permanent injunction \u201con such\n\nterms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain\u201d further infringement of a copyright. 17\n\nU.S.C. \u00a7 502(a). Such relief, however, does not automatically issue upon a finding of liability. In\n\norder to obtain a permanent injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate\n\n       (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such\n       as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that,\n       considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy\n       in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a\n       permanent injunction.\n\neBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006); Merritt Hawkins & Assocs., L.L.C.\n\nv. Gresham, 861 F.3d 143, 157 (5th Cir. 2017). Mr. Van Stry contends that all four of those\n\n\n                                                -3-\n\fCase 2:19-cv-00104-WCB Document 64 Filed 04/20/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 1487\n\n\n\nrequirements are satisfied in this case. Mr. McCrea does not contest that the four requirements are\n\nsatisfied. I have reviewed Mr. Van Stry\u2019s arguments and agree that a permanent injunction is\n\nwarranted.\n\n       First, Mr. Van Stry has presented evidence that infringement harms his competitive\n\nposition on Amazon and, if continued in the future, could impede his writing career. Perhaps more\n\nimportantly, as Mr. Van Stry notes, Mr. McCrea\u2019s statements and conduct during this litigation\n\nindicate the monetary damages may well be uncollectable. I therefore agree that Mr. Van Stry has\n\nsuffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm, and that monetary damages are inadequate\n\nin this case. z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 434 F. Supp. 2d 437, 440 (E.D. Tex. 2006); Aspen\n\nTech., Inc. v. M3 Tech., Inc., 569 F. App\u2019x 259, 273 (5th Cir. 2014).\n\n       To be sure, Mr. McCrea has stated that he has taken down the website he was operating\n\nand has \u201cno intention to reinstate\u201d that website. Dkt. No. 57. But \u201c[v]oluntary cessation of the\n\nchallenged conduct does not render a case moot unless it can be said with assurance that there is\n\nno reasonable expectation . . . that the alleged violation will recur and interim relief or events have\n\ncompletely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.\u201d Oracle USA, Inc. v.\n\nRimini St., Inc., 783 F. App\u2019x 707, 710 (9th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citations\n\nomitted). In light of Mr. McCrea\u2019s past conduct and statements he has made during this case, the\n\nCourt finds Mr. McCrea\u2019s conclusory assertion insufficient to meet his heavy burden of persuading\n\n\u201cthe court that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to start up again.\u201d Id.\n\n(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).\n\n       Next, the balance of hardships favors an injunction. In his opposition, Mr. McCrea does\n\nnot claim that he would face any hardships as a result of an injunction. He was also asked in an\n\ninterrogatory whether he would face any hardship if he was forced to cease the accused activities,\n\n\n\n\n                                                 -4-\n\fCase 2:19-cv-00104-WCB Document 64 Filed 04/20/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 1488\n\n\n\nbut he did not answer that interrogatory. There is, therefore, no evidence that Mr. McCrea would\n\nface any hardship as a result of an injunction. I find that an injunction would not burden Mr.\n\nMcCrea beyond requiring him to comply with the law. Malibu Media, LLC v. Escobar, No. CV\n\nH-18-1042, 2019 WL 1003391, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2019); Dish Network, L.L.C. v. Del\n\nCarmen, No. SA-19-CV-01171-DAE, 2020 WL 1227311, at *7 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2020). But\n\nMr. Van Stry, as noted, has suffered and would continue to suffer if Mr. McCrea should continue\n\nhis infringing activities free of the restraint imposed by an injunction.\n\n       Finally, the public interest would not be disserved by an injunction. The public receives a\n\nbenefit when the legitimate rights of copyright holders are vindicated. Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.,\n\n673 F. Supp. 2d 943, 950 (N.D. Cal. 2009); Escobar, 2019 WL 1003391, at *4; Del Carmen, 2020\n\nWL 1227311, at *7; DSC Commc\u2019ns Corp. v. DGI Techs., Inc., 898 F. Supp. 1183, 1196 (N.D.\n\nTex. 1995). Mr. McCrea has not identified any other competing public interests.\n\n       Accordingly, each factor supports Mr. Van Stry\u2019s entitlement to relief. I will therefore\n\ngrant Mr. Van Stry\u2019s motion for a permanent injunction. Mr. McCrea2 will be permanently and\n\nimmediately enjoined from:\n\n       Copying, reproducing, or distributing, either directly or vicariously, plaintiff\u2019s copyrighted\n\nworks, whether now in existence or hereafter created, without the authorization of the copyright\n\nowner, including:\n\n       Portals of Infinity: Book One: Champion for Hire\n\n       Perfect Strangers\n\n       Portals of Infinity: Kaiju\n\n\n\n       2\n         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2) will govern the full scope of the persons bound\nby the permanent injunction.\n\n\n\n                                                 -5-\n\fCase 2:19-cv-00104-WCB Document 64 Filed 04/20/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 1489\n\n\n\n       Portals of Infinity: Book Two: The God Game\n\n       Portals of Infinity: Book Three: Of Temples and Trials\n\n       Portals of Infinity: Book Four: The Sea of Grass\n\n       Portals of Infinity: Book Five: Demigods and Deities\n\n       Portals of Infinity: Reprisal\n\n       When It Falls\n\n       Stand On It\n\n       Black Friday\n\n       Over Our Heads\n\n           C. Costs\n\n       Finally, Mr. Van Stry contends that the Court should award him full costs, including\n\nattorney\u2019s fees. Mr. McCrea does not object to the award of costs.\n\n       Section 505 of the Copyright Act provides that \u201cthe court in its discretion may allow the\n\nrecovery of full costs by or against any party.\u201d 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 505. \u201cCongress has specified six\n\ncategories of litigation expenses that qualify as \u2018costs.\u2019\u201d Rimini St., Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., 139\n\nS. Ct. 873 (2019) (citing 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1821, 1920). Section 505 of the Copyright Act also provides\n\nthe Court may \u201caward a reasonable attorney\u2019s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.\u201d 17\n\nU.S.C. \u00a7 505.\n\n       I agree with Mr. Van Stry that costs, including attorney\u2019s fees, are warranted in this case.\n\nIn analyzing a request for attorney\u2019s fees in a copyright case, courts have considered several\n\nfactors, including \u201cfrivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness (both in the factual and\n\nin the legal components of the case) and the need in particular circumstances to advance\n\nconsiderations of compensation and deterrence.\u201d Virgin Records Am., Inc. v. Thompson, 512 F.3d\n\n\n\n\n                                                -6-\n\fCase 2:19-cv-00104-WCB Document 64 Filed 04/20/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 1490\n\n\n\n724, 726 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 534 n.19 (1994)); see\n\nalso Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1979, 1985 (2016). A court \u201cshould give\n\nsubstantial weight to the objective reasonableness of the losing party\u2019s position,\u201d but \u201cmust also\n\ngive due consideration to all other circumstances relevant to granting fees; and it retains discretion,\n\nin light of those factors, to make an award even when the losing party advanced a reasonable claim\n\nor defense.\u201d Kirtsaeng, 136 S. Ct. at 1983. \u201cObjective unreasonableness is generally used to\n\ndescribe claims that have no legal or factual support.\u201d Geophysical Serv., Inc. v. TGS-NOPEC\n\nGeophysical Co., No. CV H-14-1368, 2020 WL 821879, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2020) (citations\n\nand quotation marks omitted).\n\n       Mr. McCrea\u2019s positions in this case have been distinctly lacking in both legal and factual\n\nsupport, and Mr. Van Stry has prevailed on all his claims. Moreover, Mr. McCrea\u2019s lack of\n\ndiligence in this case and his conduct during discovery have unnecessarily extended the\n\nproceedings and have driven up the costs of the litigation for Mr. Van Stry. And Mr. McCrea\u2019s\n\nactions resulting in this lawsuit were willful, not innocent. Indeed, Mr. McCrea has said that he\n\ndid \u201cnot care if the website was illegal and would do it either way.\u201d Dkt. No. 32, at 4.\n\n       Considerations of compensation and deterrence also favor an award of attorney\u2019s fees. Mr.\n\nVan Stry has experienced significant and sometimes unnecessary litigation expenses in\n\nmaintaining this lawsuit. Without compensation for incurred attorney\u2019s fees, persons in Mr. Van\n\nStry\u2019s position would likely not be motivated to pursue meritorious claims. On the other side of\n\nthe ledger, if fees are not assessed against willful infringers such as Mr. McCrea, it is likely that\n\nthey may be tempted to unnecessarily prolong litigation even in the absence of any meritorious\n\ndefense. Awarding fees in a clear-cut case such as this one does not give rise to any countervailing\n\ninterests, such as the risk of discouraging others to build on an author\u2019s work.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 -7-\n\fCase 2:19-cv-00104-WCB Document 64 Filed 04/20/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 1491\n\n\n\n         After considering the applicable factors, I conclude that an award of fees is appropriate. I\n\nwill also award costs. Mr. Van Stry is directed submit affidavits setting forth his costs and\n\nattorney\u2019s fees within fourteen days of this order. Mr. Van Stry should not include in the affidavit\n\nthe expenses that were already assessed against Mr. McCrea for work covered by the court\u2019s prior,\n\nseparate sanctions order. See Dkt. No. 47, at 14; Dkt. No. 62, at 9. Mr. McCrea will be given\n\nseven days to object to the fee request, and if he objects, Mr. Van Stry will be given five days to\n\nreply.\n\n         IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n         SIGNED this 20th day of April, 2020.\n\n\n\n\n                                               _______________________________\n                                               WILLIAM C. BRYSON\n                                               UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n                                                 -8-\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2020-04-21T01:29:32.979443-07:00","document_number":"64","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175011148858","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum & Opinion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-04-20T09:17:40.660487-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-14T00:47:06.848861-08:00","date_filed":"2020-04-20","time_filed":null,"entry_number":64,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-04-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":185,"description":"MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER.  Signed by Judge William C. Bryson on 4/20/2020. (nkl, )","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/126595224/","id":126595224,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/131056206/","id":131056206,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/14811830/65/stry-v-mccrea/","date_created":"2020-04-20T09:17:40.562693-07:00","date_modified":"2022-01-18T02:01:47.029537-08:00","sha1":"092a7d27d63eb646968d03fc2a72aeec3afb9d3c","page_count":3,"file_size":152148,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.188670/gov.uscourts.txed.188670.65.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.188670/gov.uscourts.txed.188670.65.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:19-cv-00104-WCB Document 65 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1492\n\n\n\n\n                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                         FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                 MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n\nJOHN VAN STRY,                                  \u00a7\n                                                \u00a7\n        Plaintiff,                              \u00a7\n                                                \u00a7\n        v.                                      \u00a7          Case No. 2:19-CV-00104-WCB\n                                                \u00a7\nTRAVIS ROBERT McCREA,                           \u00a7\n                                                \u00a7\n        Defendant.                              \u00a7\n\n\n                     FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION\n\n       This action came on for summary judgment before the Court. A decision having been duly\n\nrendered in the Court\u2019s orders on April 9, 2020 and April 20, 2020,\n\n       It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED\n\n       (1)     that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37(b)(2)(c) the Court\u2019s April\n\n9, 2020, order, Defendant Travis Robert McCrea shall pay Plaintiff John Van Stry $3,605 as a\n\nsanction for Mr. McCrea\u2019s failure to comply with his discovery obligations;\n\n       (2)     that pursuant to the Court\u2019s April 9, 2020, order, Mr. McCrea has been found to\n\nhave willfully infringed the following of Mr. Van Stry\u2019s copyrighted works: Portals of Infinity:\n\nBook One: Champion for Hire; Perfect Strangers; Portals of Infinity: Kaiju; Portals of Infinity:\n\nBook Two: The God Game; Portals of Infinity: Book Three: Of Temples and Trials; Portals of\n\nInfinity: Book Four: The Sea of Grass; Portals of Infinity: Book Five: Demigods and Deities;\n\nPortals of Infinity: Reprisal; When It Falls; Stand On It; Black Friday; and Over Our Heads;\n\n       (3)     that pursuant to 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 504(c) and the Court\u2019s April 20, 2020, order, Plaintiff\n\nis awarded statutory damages from the Defendant in the amount of $9,000;\n\fCase 2:19-cv-00104-WCB Document 65 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1493\n\n\n\n\n       (4)     that pursuant to 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 502 and the Court\u2019s April 20, 2020 order, Defendant\n\nis hereby permanently and immediately enjoined from: Copying, reproducing, or distributing,\n\neither directly or vicariously, plaintiff\u2019s copyrighted works, whether now in existence or hereafter\n\ncreated, without the authorization of the copyright owner, including:\n\n               Portals of Infinity: Book One: Champion for Hire\n\n               Perfect Strangers\n\n               Portals of Infinity: Kaiju\n\n               Portals of Infinity: Book Two: The God Game\n\n               Portals of Infinity: Book Three: Of Temples and Trials\n\n               Portals of Infinity: Book Four: The Sea of Grass\n\n               Portals of Infinity: Book Five: Demigods and Deities\n\n               Portals of Infinity: Reprisal\n\n               When It Falls\n\n               Stand On It\n\n               Black Friday\n\n               Over Our Heads\n\n       Costs, including attorney\u2019s fees, are awarded to the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in\n\naccordance with 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 505 and the Court\u2019s April 20, 2020, order. Mr. Van Stry shall submit\n\naffidavits setting forth his costs and attorney\u2019s fees within fourteen days of the entry of this\n\njudgment. Mr. Van Stry should not include in the affidavit the expenses that have been separately\n\nassessed against Mr. McCrea as a result of the Court\u2019s sanctions. Mr. McCrea will be given seven\n\ndays to object to the requested costs and attorney\u2019s fees, and if he objects, Mr. Van Stry will be\n\ngiven five days to reply.\n\n\n\n\n                                               -2-\n\fCase 2:19-cv-00104-WCB Document 65 Filed 04/20/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1494\n\n\n\n\n       This Court will retain jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this litigation\n\nfor the purpose of interpretation, enforcement, or modification of this Final Judgment and\n\nPermanent Injunction and to determine the reasonable amount of Mr. Van Stry\u2019s fees and costs.\n\n       IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n       SIGNED this 20th day of April, 2020.\n\n\n\n\n                                              _____________________________\n                                              WILLIAM C. BRYSON\n                                              UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n                                               -3-\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2022-01-17T05:16:06.847141-08:00","document_number":"65","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175011148867","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Judgment","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-04-20T09:17:40.553483-07:00","date_modified":"2020-04-20T09:17:40.554658-07:00","date_filed":"2020-04-20","time_filed":null,"entry_number":65,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-04-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":187,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/126304994/","id":126304994,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/130763369/","id":130763369,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/14811830/63/stry-v-mccrea/","date_created":"2020-04-16T11:21:54.528923-07:00","date_modified":"2020-04-16T11:21:54.532407-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"63","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175011144023","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response to Non-Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-04-16T11:21:54.523268-07:00","date_modified":"2020-04-16T11:21:54.524159-07:00","date_filed":"2020-04-16","time_filed":null,"entry_number":63,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-04-16.001","pacer_sequence_number":182,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/125612663/","id":125612663,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/130062493/","id":130062493,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/14811830/62/stry-v-mccrea/","date_created":"2020-04-09T07:14:49.512649-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-14T00:44:36.512948-08:00","sha1":"6e5db3a14cf88ef0cb2c177062d55bae87fec5b1","page_count":17,"file_size":233471,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.188670/gov.uscourts.txed.188670.62.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.188670/gov.uscourts.txed.188670.62.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.txed.188670/130062493.thumb.1068.jpeg","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":"                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                         FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                 MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n\nJOHN VAN STRY,                                  \u00a7\n                                                \u00a7\n        Plaintiff,                              \u00a7\n                                                \u00a7\n        v.                                      \u00a7         Case No. 2:19-CV-00104-WCB\n                                                \u00a7\nTRAVIS ROBERT McCREA,                           \u00a7\n                                                \u00a7\n        Defendant.                              \u00a7\n\n\n                          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER\n\n        Before the Court is plaintiff John Van Stry\u2019s Corrected Motion for Final Summary\n\nJudgment and Permanent Injunction, Dkt. No. 50, and his reply in support of that motion, Dkt. No.\n\n59. Defendant Travis Robert McCrea filed an opposition on March 29, 2020, and a sur-reply on\n\nApril 6, 2020. Dkt. No. 54; Dkt. No. 61. Mr. McCrea also filed two other related documents on\n\nMarch 29, 2020. One is entitled Defendant\u2019s Reply to Plaintiff\u2019s Motion to Compel Defendant to\n\nRespond to Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Dkt. No. 56. The other is entitled\n\nDefendant\u2019s Reply to Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant for Failure to Obey the\n\nCourt\u2019s Order to Produce Discovery by a Date Certain. Dkt. No. 55.\n\n   I.        BACKGROUND\n\n             A. Plaintiff\u2019s Allegations\n\n        Plaintiff Van Stry filed his complaint on March 27, 2019. In the complaint, Mr. Van Stry,\n\nan author of numerous copyrighted books, alleged that Mr. McCrea operated a website that enabled\n\nusers to download copyrighted materials without the authors\u2019 permission. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1, at\n\n19\u201344. Mr. Van Stry alleged that Mr. McCrea had willfully infringed Mr. Van Stry\u2019s copyrights\n\fthrough his creation, operation, and maintenance of that website. Id. at 44\u201350. Mr. Van Stry has\n\nnow moved for summary judgment on liability.\n\n       Mr. Van Stry has also set forth the remedy he seeks. Under the Copyright Act, a copyright\n\nowner may elect either actual damages or statutory damages as a remedy for copyright\n\ninfringement. Mr. Van Stry has elected to pursue statutory damages in the amount of $15,000 per\n\nbook. The maximum amount of statutory damages Mr. Van Stry could have sought for willful\n\ninfringement is $150,000 per book. Mr. Van Stry also seeks a permanent injunction to prevent\n\nfurther infringement of his copyrighted books. And finally, Mr. Van Stry asks the Court to award\n\nhim \u201cfull costs,\u201d including attorney\u2019s fees.\n\n           B. Procedural History\n\n       Mr. Van Stry previously requested that I sanction Mr. McCrea for his failure to provide\n\nany discovery in this litigation, even after I ordered Mr. McCrea to do so. Dkt. No. 44. In my\n\norder addressing that motion, I summarized numerous indications that Mr. McCrea was not being\n\nsufficiently attentive to his responsibilities in this litigation, despite my repeated warnings that his\n\ncontinued lack of responsiveness could result in sanctions or even default. Dkt. No. 47, at 1\u20137.\n\nAs a result of Mr. McCrea\u2019s repeated failings, including his failure to respond to any of the\n\nplaintiff\u2019s interrogatories or requests for production, I concluded that sanctions against Mr.\n\nMcCrea were appropriate and necessary. I held that \u201cthe prima facie elements of Mr. Van Stry\u2019s\n\nwillful copyright infringement claim are established for purposes of this action, and Mr. Van Stry\n\nwill be given all reasonable adverse inferences against Mr. McCrea on the issue of damages.\u201d Id.\n\nat 13. I did not, however, strike Mr. McCrea\u2019s affirmative defenses, as Mr. Van Stry requested.\n\nInstead, I stated that Mr. Van Stry could file a motion for summary judgment addressing Mr.\n\nMcCrea\u2019s affirmative defenses. Id. I also directed that if Mr. Van Stry chose to file a motion for\n\n\n\n\n                                                 -2-\n\fsummary judgment, he should address the proposed remedy he sought at that time because Mr.\n\nMcCrea had not been participating in this litigation. Id. Finally, I noted that while certain requests\n\nfor admission that had been served on Mr. McCrea were deemed admitted under Federal Rule of\n\nCivil Procedure 36, Mr. McCrea would be permitted to move to withdraw his admissions if he so\n\nchose.\n\n         Mr. Van Stry filed a motion for summary judgment on March 6, 2020. Dkt. No. 50.\n\nSeveral days later, Mr. McCrea filed a one-page response. Dkt. No. 52. Mr. McCrea\u2019s response\n\ndid not address the merits of Mr. Van Stry\u2019s motion. Instead, Mr. McCrea acknowledged that the\n\nmotion for summary judgment was a \u201creasonable request\u201d because he had not responded to \u201cvalid\n\nrequests in a timely fashion.\u201d Mr. McCrea nonetheless contended that he had \u201cmade good faith\n\nefforts to stay on top of this trial,\u201d so he should be given some unspecified measure of leniency.\n\n         Due to the lack of clarity in Mr. McCrea\u2019s response, I held a telephonic status conference\n\non March 19, 2020, to determine the exact nature Mr. McCrea\u2019s assertions. At that conference,\n\nMr. McCrea stated that he had been receiving notices of electronic filings when Mr. Van Stry\u2019s\n\ncounsel filed a document, and that he had received a notification when I ordered the\n\nteleconference.1 But Mr. McCrea said he had not been receiving notices of electronic filings when\n\nthe Court entered various other orders in the case. The implication of Mr. McCrea\u2019s assertion was\n\nthat his lack of diligence should be excused, at least in part, because of technical difficulties\n\nresulting in his not receiving certain orders issued in the case.\n\n\n\n\n         1\n          When either the court or a party files a document on the docket, it triggers a notice of\nelectronic filing, an email that is sent to all the parties at the email address they have provided to\nthe clerk\u2019s office. When a party receives a notice of electronic filing, the party can click on a link\nin that email to download one free copy of the document that was filed.\n\n\n\n                                                 -3-\n\f       I find it difficult to credit Mr. McCrea\u2019s assertion for several reasons. First, it seems\n\nimplausible that the court\u2019s system of notifying parties of filings in the case would work except\n\nfor some subset of the orders I have entered. Second, the clerk\u2019s office in the Marshall Division\n\nof the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas confirmed that notices of\n\nelectronic filing were being sent to the email address that Mr. McCrea had provided to the court.\n\nThird, the motions filed by the plaintiff, which Mr. McCrea said he received, alluded to several of\n\nmy orders, yet Mr. McCrea made no attempt to gain access to those orders prior to Mr. Van Stry\u2019s\n\nmotion for summary judgment.2\n\n       Nonetheless, in order to ensure that Mr. McCrea had an opportunity to be heard with\n\nrespect to the orders that he claims not to have received, I gave him ten days to respond to any\n\norder as to which he alleged that he had not been notified. I sent copies of each of those orders to\n\nMr. McCrea by email, and he confirmed that he received them. I also told Mr. McCrea that the\n\nCourt did not have the ability to give him access to the Public Access to Court Electronic Records\n\nsystem (\u201cPACER\u201d), a system that he could use to download documents after he had used his first\n\nfree download, and that it was his responsibility to register through PACER if he so chose. I have\n\nalso directed opposing counsel to email Mr. McCrea copies of all documents subsequently filed in\n\nthe case.\n\n       Mr. McCrea filed four documents on March 29, 2020. First, he filed a response to Mr. Van\n\nStry\u2019s motion to compel discovery. In that response, Mr. McCrea stated that he \u201chas now provided\n\n\n\n       2\n          Mr. McCrea asserted that he had unsuccessfully tried to reach my former law clerk by\nemail at some point in time after that clerk was no longer working for me. However, Mr. McCrea\nalso exchanged emails and had a telephone conversation with my current law clerk. He therefore\nhad both the email address and telephone number of my current law clerk, yet he admitted that he\ndid not attempt to reach my current law clerk or anyone else in chambers in an effort to obtain\ncopies of the orders that he claims not to have been able to access.\n\n\n\n                                               -4-\n\fthe prosecution all documents related to TUEBL, EbookBike, and other requested material as per\n\ntheir discovery.\u201d Dkt. No. 56. He also said that while that production \u201cwas delayed and not with\n\ngood reason,\u201d he had now produced the materials in order to have \u201can open, good faith\u201d\n\nproceeding. Id. Finally, he requested that I suspend the sanctions that I had previously entered.\n\nHe wrote:\n\n               While I believe in precedent I am lacking, I would ask that the court hold\n       off on any sanctions for the tardiness of this reply. Perhaps sanctions can, instead,\n       be \u201csuspended\u201d and if the defence misses any future deadline or screws up in any\n       way they can be instantly applied.\n\nId.\n\n       Second, Mr. McCrea filed a response to Mr. Van Stry\u2019s motion for sanctions for failure to\n\ncomply with this Court\u2019s order to provide the discovery demanded by Mr. Van Stry. Dkt. No. 55.\n\nIn that response, Mr. McCrea said that he had not \u201cchosen\u201d to proceed pro se and that he could not\n\nafford a lawyer. Id. at 1. Mr. McCrea also said that at times during the pendency of this case he\n\nhas been homeless and fighting depression, so it has been difficult representing himself, but that\n\n\u201cthe [March 19] conference call . . . really snapped me back into shape and I am fully back in this\n\nand ready to engage.\u201d Id. at 3. He also apologized to the Court and opposing counsel because he\n\n\u201chas failed multiple times to adequately respond in this case . . . .\u201d Id. at 1. Next, Mr. McCrea\n\nsaid he has taken down the website, Ebook.Bike, that Mr. Van Stry alleges was used to facilitate\n\nthe downloading of Mr. Van Stry\u2019s copyrighted materials without his permission. Id. at 3. Finally,\n\nMr. McCrea said that he has produced the requested discovery that was at issue in the motion for\n\nsanctions. Id.\n\n       Third, Mr. McCrea filed a second response to Mr. Van Stry\u2019s motion for summary\n\njudgment. Dkt. No. 54. In that response, Mr. McCrea denied any wrongdoing because there was\n\nno evidence, according to Mr. McCrea, that there had been any downloads of copyrighted material.\n\n\n\n                                               -5-\n\fId. at 3. At the same time, Mr. McCrea said that he was \u201cpractising [his] religion by helping\n\nauthors connect with their readers.\u201d Id. at 2. Mr. McCrea also claimed that his actions were\n\nprotected by the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. And, in the event\n\nof liability, Mr. McCrea disputed Mr. Van Stry\u2019s contention as to the appropriate amount to be\n\nawarded in damages. Id. at 1\u20132.\n\n         The fourth filing Mr. McCrea made was a request for a continuance \u201cof any further pre-\n\ntrial and trial matters until at least July 1, 2020 due to the 2019 novel coronavirus known as\n\nCOVID-19 . . . .\u201d Dkt. No. 57. In that motion, Mr. McCrea stated that had \u201cno intention to\n\nreinstate\u201d the website that is at issue in this case. I granted that motion in part, removing the\n\npretrial conference and trial from the schedule. Dkt. No. 58. I did not, however, stay the resolution\n\nof the pending motions that had already been filed.\n\n   II.      DISCUSSION\n\n   Below, I address the pending matters before the Court. I will first address Mr. McCrea\u2019s\n\nresponses to the discovery and sanctions motions, because their resolution implicates the\n\nframework for assessing Mr. Van Stry\u2019s motion for summary judgment. I will then address Mr.\n\nVan Stry\u2019s motion for summary judgment and his request for relief.\n\n            A. Sanctions\n\n         Mr. McCrea asks that I \u201csuspend\u201d the sanctions that I ordered unless and until \u201cthe defence\n\nmisses any future deadline or screws up in any way.\u201d Dkt. No. 56. In his responses to Mr. Van\n\nStry\u2019s motion to compel and motion for sanctions, however, Mr. McCrea has not provided a\n\njustification that would warrant the suspension of the sanctions I previously ordered.\n\n         To begin with, Mr. McCrea acknowledged during the March 19 teleconference and in his\n\nmost recent filings that he received the plaintiff\u2019s discovery requests, and that he received both the\n\n\n\n\n                                                -6-\n\fplaintiff\u2019s motion to compel compliance with those requests and the plaintiff\u2019s motion for\n\nsanctions for failing to make discovery.      Yet Mr. McCrea did not provide any discovery\n\nwhatsoever in response to the discovery requests, and he did not respond to either the motion to\n\ncompel or the motion for sanctions. As a result of his failure to take any steps whatever to meet\n\nhis discovery obligations, Mr. McCrea caused the plaintiff to have to move to compel discovery,\n\nand ultimately to move for sanctions. As a result, the plaintiff incurred attorney fees that should\n\nnot have been unnecessary. That burden has not been erased by Mr. McCrea\u2019s untimely insistence\n\nthat he is now prepared to comply with those obligations.\n\n       To be sure, Mr. McCrea has claimed that he did not receive my order compelling discovery.\n\nEven if true, however, that does not change the outcome. Mr. McCrea acknowledges that he\n\nreceived Mr. Van Stry\u2019s motion for sanctions. On the first page of that motion, Mr. Van Stry said\n\n\u201cPlaintiff moves for sanctions against Defendant for failure to provide any response to Plaintiff\u2019s\n\ninterrogatories and requests for production by the December 30, 2019 deadline set by the Court\u2019s\n\norder compelling Defendant to respond to the same.\u201d Dkt. No. 44, at 1 (emphasis added). Mr.\n\nMcCrea was thus on notice at that point, at the latest, that the Court had entered an order\n\ncompelling him to produce discovery by December 30, 2019, even if he had not seen the order\n\nwhen it was issued. Nonetheless, Mr. McCrea did not respond to the motion for sanctions or make\n\nany effort at that time to rectify the situation, nor did he attempt to obtain a copy of the Court\u2019s\n\norder referred to in Mr. Van Stry\u2019s motion for sanctions. Under these circumstances, the\n\ndisposition of Mr. Van Stry\u2019s motion for sanctions does not depend on Mr. McCrea\u2019s claim that\n\nhe did not obtain access to some of the Court\u2019s orders.\n\n       I note that Mr. McCrea says in his response that he was \u201cgoing homeless\u201d and fighting\n\ndepression at some point during the pendency of this case. At the time of the motions, however,\n\n\n\n\n                                               -7-\n\fMr. McCrea never requested a delay in responding to the plaintiff\u2019s discovery requests or an\n\nextension of any filing deadlines from the Court due to those alleged extenuating circumstances.\n\nNor does it appear that Mr. McCrea told Mr. Van Stry\u2019s counsel about these issues. To the\n\ncontrary, Mr. McCrea told Mr. Van Stry\u2019s counsel in a November 18, 2019, email that he was\n\n\u201cmoving\u201d at the end of the month and \u201cunavailable [for a deposition] due to work.\u201d Dkt. No. 39-\n\n3, at 2\u20133. Even though Mr. McCrea\u2019s responses to the discovery requests were substantially\n\noverdue at that point, Mr. Van Stry\u2019s counsel offered to give Mr. McCrea more time to respond.\n\nIt does not appear that Mr. McCrea engaged with Mr. Van Stry\u2019s counsel any further after that\n\ntime. Under these circumstances, I find that Mr. McCrea has not offered a satisfactory explanation\n\nfor his failure to meet his discovery obligations, and I will therefore not alter or suspend the\n\nimposition of sanctions for his discovery violations.\n\n       Beyond the fact Mr. Van Stry\u2019s prima facie case of willful copyright infringement is\n\nestablished as a result of the Court\u2019s sanctions order, Mr. McCrea\u2019s challenge to liability on the\n\nmerits is not supported. He contends that summary judgment should not be granted because the\n\nplaintiff \u201chas no evidence that any of their work was actually available on the website\u201d and no\n\nevidence that the books were \u201cdownloaded from the site.\u201d Dkt. No. 54, at 3. Mr. Van Stry replies\n\nthat Mr. McCrea admitted (by failing to respond to requests for admission) that all twelve\n\ncopyrighted books at issue in this litigation available for distribution on Mr. McCrea\u2019s website and\n\nthat they were distributed into the United States. Dkt. No. 59, at 3. Mr. Van Stry\u2019s counsel also\n\nsubmitted an affidavit stating that as part of his pre-suit investigation, he downloaded all twelve\n\nbooks from Mr. McCrea\u2019s website. Id.\n\n       In his sur-reply, Mr. McCrea questions whether Mr. Van Stry\u2019s counsel\u2019s affidavit is\n\ntruthful, but he does not deny that admitted (by failing to respond to requests for admission) that\n\n\n\n\n                                               -8-\n\fall twelve copyrighted books at issue in this litigation were available on his website and were\n\ndistributed into the United States. Dkt. No. 61, at 1\u20132. Nor does he affirmatively assert that Mr.\n\nVan Stry\u2019s books were not available for download on his website. Consequently, Mr. McCrea\u2019s\n\n\u201cno evidence\u201d challenge is not supported.\n\n       Finally, as part of my order granting sanctions, I directed Mr. Van Stry\u2019s counsel to submit\n\nan affidavit detailing the reasonable expenses incurred as a result of Mr. McCrea\u2019s failure to\n\ncomply with the Court\u2019s order to provide discovery responses. Dkt. No. 47, at 14. Mr. Van Stry\u2019s\n\ncounsel submitted an affidavit detailing the expenses incurred, and then requested a sanctions\n\naward for half that amount, which totaled $3,605. Dkt. No. 48. Although Mr. McCrea has\n\nrequested the suspension of the sanctions, he has not objected to the reasonableness of the amount\n\nof the requested expenses. I have reviewed the supporting materials Mr. Van Stry submitted, and\n\nagree that the expenses are reasonable. Mr. McCrea is therefore ordered to pay Mr. Van Stry\n\n$3,605 as a sanction for his failure to comply with his discovery obligations.\n\n           B. Affirmative Defenses\n\n       Although I held in my sanctions order that the prima facie elements of Mr. Van Stry\u2019s\n\nwillful copyright infringement claim are established for purposes of this action, it is still necessary\n\nto determine whether summary judgment should be granted with respect to Mr. McCrea\u2019s\n\naffirmative defenses. For the reasons discussed below, I will grant Mr. Van Stry\u2019s motion for\n\nsummary judgment with respect to Mr. McCrea\u2019s remaining affirmative defenses.\n\n                     1. Digital Millennium Copyright Act\u2019s Safe Harbor Provisions\n\n       The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (\u201cDMCA\u201d) includes several safe harbor provisions\n\nthat shield service providers from liability from copyright infringement under certain\n\ncircumstances. See 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512(a)\u2013(d). The safe harbor that Mr. McCrea contends applies in\n\n\n\n\n                                                 -9-\n\fthis case is found in section 512(c). Dkt. No. 32 (Answer), at 1 (\u201cDefendant . . . asserts their Safe\n\nHarbour provided by the DMCA within 17 U.S. Code \u00a7 512 (c).\u201d). Subsection 512(c) covers\n\ninfringement claims that arise \u201cby reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that\n\nresides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider.\u201d 17 U.S.C.\n\n\u00a7 512(c)(1); see also Viacom Int\u2019l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19, 27 (2d Cir. 2012).\n\n       Mr. Van Stry contends that Mr. McCrea is not eligible for that safe harbor provision\n\nbecause Mr. McCrea did not designate an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement.\n\nDkt. No. 50, at 24\u201325. Mr. McCrea responds that he has a \u201creasonable claim to DMCA safe\n\nharbour where I feel a jury should be able to decide how much notification should be required to\n\nbe given to a party when an improperly filed DMCA request is issued.\u201d Dkt. No. 54, at 3. Mr.\n\nMcCrea also contends that he has \u201cmade every effort to follow the DMCA\u201d and that Mr. Van Stry\n\nhas \u201cnever provided a valid DMCA request.\u201d Id. The safe harbor, according to Mr. McCrea,\n\nshould only penalize individuals acting in bad faith. Dkt. No. 61, at 2\u20133. Finally, Mr. McCrea\n\ncontends that the \u201cRegistered Agent section\u201d of the statute is irrelevant in this case because Mr.\n\nVan Stry\u2019s counsel was able to find a valid contact address. Id. at 4.\n\n       The Court agrees with Mr. Van Stry that Mr. McCrea is not eligible for subsection 512(c)\u2019s\n\nsafe harbor provision. Subsection 512(c) of the DMCA states that the \u201climitations on liability\n\nestablished in this subsection apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated\n\nan agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement described in paragraph (3), by making\n\navailable through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by\n\nproviding to the Copyright Office\u201d certain contact information for that designated agent. 17 U.S.C.\n\n\u00a7 512(c)(2). Subsection 512(c) also requires the Register of Copyrights to maintain a directory of\n\ndesignated agents that is available to the public for inspection. Id.\n\n\n\n\n                                                - 10 -\n\f       Mr. Van Stry has submitted evidence that there are no designated agents for Mr. McCrea\n\nlisted in the Copyright Office\u2019s DMCA Designated Agent Directory. Dkt. No. 50, at 25. Mr.\n\nMcCrea does not dispute that he did not designate an agent with the Copyright Office. See\n\ngenerally Dkt. No. 54. To the contrary, Mr. McCrea previously admitted that he had no designated\n\nagent by failing to respond to a request for admission directed to that very issue. Dkt. No. 39-1,\n\nat 26 (RFA 39).3\n\n       Mr. McCrea\u2019s contention that providing the contact information for a designated agent to\n\nthe Copyright Office is \u201cirrelevant\u201d is contrary to the plain language of the statute. As other courts\n\nhave recognized, the statute expressly requires that the designated agent must be listed in the\n\nCopyright Office\u2019s directory, even if that information is available elsewhere. BWP Media USA\n\nInc. v. Hollywood Fan Sites LLC, 115 F. Supp. 3d 397, 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (\u201cAs stated above,\n\nthe statutory scheme expressly requires two publicly available, parallel sources of a service\n\nprovider's DMCA agent information (the service provider\u2019s website and the USCO directory) in\n\norder for that provider to be shielded by the \u00a7 512(c) safe harbor.\u201d); Perfect 10, Inc. v. Yandex\n\nN.V., No. C 12-01521 WHA, 2013 WL 1899851, at *8 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2013) (\u201cThe statute\n\nplainly specifies that a registered agent is a predicate, express condition\u2014the safe harbor will apply\n\n\u2018only if\u2019 such agent has been designated and identified to the Copyright Office for inclusion in the\n\ndirectory of agents.\u201d).\n\n\n\n\n       3\n         I previously advised Mr. McCrea that the first set of requests for admission had been\ndeemed admitted because he did not respond to them. Dkt. No. 41, at 1\u20132. I gave him the option\nto move to withdraw the admission, but he has not done so. Id.; see also Dkt. No. 47, at 13.\n\n\n                                                - 11 -\n\f       Because there is no dispute that Mr. McCrea failed to satisfy one of the conditions\n\nnecessary to invoke subsection 512(c)\u2019s safe harbor, I will grant Mr. Van Stry\u2019s motion for\n\nsummary judgment on Mr. McCrea\u2019s safe harbor affirmative defense.4\n\n                     2. Religious Exemption\n\n       Mr. McCrea has also raised \u201creligious exemption\u201d as an affirmative defense. Mr. Van Stry\n\nresponds that there is no legal authority that \u201cprovides Mr. McCrea a \u2018religious exemption\u2019 from\n\nliability for infringing Mr. Van Stry\u2019s\u201d copyrighted works. Dkt. No. 50, at 25. Mr. Van Stry\n\nfurther contends that Mr. McCrea has not demonstrated that compliance with the copyright laws\n\nhas imposed any burden on or hindrance to Mr. McCrea\u2019s ability to practice his religion. Id. at\n\n26\u201328. Mr. McCrea replies that his \u201creligion should be protected by the 1993 Protecting Religious\n\nFreedom Act,\u201d and that he is \u201cpractising my religion by helping authors connect with their\n\nreaders.\u201d Dkt. No. 54, at 2\u20133. He also states that \u201c[i]t is the position of the Kopimist Church that\n\ncopying is a holy act, to share files is a holy act, to share knowledge is a supremely holy act.\u201d Dkt.\n\nNo. 61, at 3.\n\n       There are several problems with Mr. McCrea\u2019s \u201creligious exemption\u201d defense. Mr.\n\nMcCrea relies on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (\u201cRFRA\u201d), which prohibits the\n\n\u201cGovernment [from] substantially burden[ing] a person\u2019s exercise of religion even if the burden\n\nresults from a rule of general applicability\u201d unless the Government \u201cdemonstrates that application\n\nof the burden to the person\u2014(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2)\n\nis the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.\u201d 42 U.S.C.\n\n\n\n       4\n         In a footnote, Mr. Van Stry contends that there are several other reasons Mr. McCrea\u2019s\nsafe harbor affirmative defense should be limited or rejected. Dkt. No. 50, at 25 n.8. Because I\nam granting Mr. Van Stry\u2019s motion for the reason given in this order, I do not reach those other\narguments.\n\n\n\n                                                - 12 -\n\f\u00a7\u00a7 2000bb\u20131(a), (b); see also Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 690\u201391 (2014)\n\n(noting that RFRA \u201cprohibits the Federal Government from taking any action that substantially\n\nburdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means of serving\n\na compelling government interest.\u201d). As Mr. Van Stry notes, however, RFRA does not apply when\n\nthe \u201cgovernment,\u201d as defined by RFRA, is not a party to the action. Listecki v. Official Comm. of\n\nUnsecured Creditors, 780 F.3d 731, 737 (7th Cir. 2015); Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med.\n\nCtr., 192 F.3d 826, 834, 837\u201343 (9th Cir. 1999); Gen. Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists\n\nv. McGill, 617 F.3d 402, 410 (6th Cir. 2010). Because this case is a dispute between private parties,\n\nRFRA is inapplicable here.\n\n       Even assuming the sincerity of Mr. McCrea\u2019s beliefs and even if RFRA were applicable to\n\nthis case, Mr. McCrea\u2019s affirmative defense would still fail because has provided no evidence that\n\nthe government, or any entity, has substantially burdened his practicing of his religion. The only\n\nreligious practices Mr. McCrea identifies is \u201chelping authors connect with their readers\u201d and\n\ncopying and sharing information. Dkt. No. 54, at 2; Dkt. No. 61, at 3. I fail to see the suggested\n\nconflict between those practices and abiding by the Copyright Act. Mr. McCrea certainly could\n\nhave approached Mr. Van Stry to obtain a license to copy, make available, and distribute Mr. Van\n\nStry\u2019s copyrighted works, if that was how Mr. McCrea chose to help connect Mr. Van Stry with\n\nhis readers. Mr. McCrea\u2019s conclusory assertion that licensing would be \u201cimpractical\u201d does not\n\nalter the analysis. As the Ninth Circuit has explained \u201c[a] substantial burden must be more than\n\nan inconvenience.\u201d Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God, Inc., 227 F.3d\n\n1110, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).\n\n       Here, there is a complete lack of evidence that enforcement of the Copyright Act would\n\nhave imposed a substantial burden on Mr. McCrea\u2019s alleged religious beliefs and practices. Even\n\n\n\n\n                                                - 13 -\n\fif Mr. McCrea had introduced some evidence of burden in his opposition to the summary judgment\n\nmotion, that evidence would have been foreclosed by Mr. McCrea\u2019s failure to respond to an\n\ninterrogatory asking him to describe \u201cany hardships You would have faced if You were required\n\nto cease copying, distributing, or importing into the United States any of [Mr. Van Stry\u2019s books].\u201d\n\nDkt. No. 59, at 6 n.10.\n\n       I will therefore grant Mr. Van Stry\u2019s motion for summary judgment on Mr. McCrea\u2019s\n\n\u201creligious exemption\u201d affirmative defense.\n\n       For completeness, I note that Mr. McCrea referenced the Free Exercise Clause of the First\n\nAmendment in earlier proceedings. He did not raise that issue in his opposition to Mr. Van Stry\u2019s\n\nmotion for summary judgment, however. Although I construe Mr. McCrea\u2019s pro se brief liberally,\n\nI cannot adduce factual allegations or arguments beyond those in the brief. Morse v. Codilis &\n\nStawiarski, PC, No. 4:16-CV-279, 2017 WL 7050644, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2017) (\u201calthough\n\npro se briefs must be liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to\n\npreserve them\u201d). I therefore find that Mr. McCrea has waived any argument based on the Free\n\nExercise clause. In any event, the Copyright Act is a neutral, generally applicable law, and Mr.\n\nMcCrea has not established that it has burdened the exercise of his alleged religion. As such, the\n\nFree Exercise Clause does not support Mr. McCrea\u2019s affirmative defense either. See Holt v.\n\nHobbs, 574 U.S. 352, 356\u201357 (2015); Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v.\n\nSmith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).\n\n           C. Remedy\n\n       Although the issues of liability and willfulness are resolved, I require more guidance from\n\nthe parties before I can address Mr. Van Stry\u2019s requested remedy. The first remedy Mr. Van Stry\n\nseeks is statutory damages. The Supreme Court has held that \u201cthat the Seventh Amendment\n\n\n\n\n                                              - 14 -\n\fprovides a right to a jury trial on all issues pertinent to an award of statutory damages under\n\n\u00a7 504(c) of the Copyright Act, including the amount itself.\u201d Feltner v. Columbia Pictures\n\nTelevision, Inc., 523 U.S. 340, 355 (1998); see also BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888, 892\n\n(7th Cir. 2005) (noting that amount of statutory damages within the statutorily permissible range\n\n\u201cis a question for the jury, unless both sides agree to decision by the court\u201d).\n\n       In their briefs, both parties appeared to agree that I should decide the appropriate amount\n\nof statutory damages (in the event that I granted summary judgment with respect to liability). See\n\nDkt. No. 50 (Motion for Summary Judgment), at 12\u201316; Dkt. No. 54 (Opposition), at 1 (\u201cAs per\n\nthe Copyright Act 504(c)[,] the minimum a work can be worth is $750 and it\u2019s the defence\u2019s\n\ncontention that if summary judgment is issued, the works be valued at such a rate.\u201d); Dkt. No. 61\n\n(Sur-reply), at 5 (\u201cWe should, instead, base damages on damages or what is lowest prescribed by\n\nlaw. If the court deemed punitive damages necessary on top of that, the court should determine\n\nthat by the flagrancy of the offense and establish its own value. . . . Furthermore, punitive damages\n\nmay be assessed by the court \u2013 That is a fair outcome.\u201d).\n\n       In order to ensure that the parties want me\u2014as opposed to a jury\u2014to decide the issue of\n\nstatutory damages, I am going to direct each party to file a response within seven days of this order\n\nexpressly and unequivocally indicating their election. In their filings, each party should indicate\n\nwhether he waives his right to a jury trial on all issues pertinent to an award of statutory damages.\n\n       In this regard, I note that the right to a jury trial on the issue of statutory damages does not\n\napply when the plaintiff seeks an award limited to the statutorily guaranteed minimum amount.\n\nBMG Music, 430 F.3d at 892\u201393; GoPets Ltd. v. Hise, 657 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2011);\n\nSimpleville Music v. Mizell, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1293, 1300 (M.D. Ala. 2006); Cynthia Hunt Prods.,\n\nLtd. v. Evolution of Fitness Houston Inc., No. CIV.A. H-07-0170, 2007 WL 2363148, at *6 n.1\n\n\n\n\n                                                - 15 -\n\f(S.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2007). In light of Mr. Van Stry\u2019s acknowledgement that damages in this case\n\nare likely to be illusory, Dkt. No. 50, at 22, he may wish to limit his request for statutory damages\n\nto the statutory minimum award of $750 per work\u2014an amount that Mr. McCrea has already agreed\n\nwould be appropriate. In that event, a jury trial on damages would not be necessary. Mr. Van Stry\n\nmay, if he chooses, make the request to limit the award of statutory damages in the alternative.\n\nThe request, that is, would only control in the event that Mr. McCrea does not waive his right to a\n\njury trial.\n\n        I have also reviewed Mr. Van Stry\u2019s requests for a permanent injunction and costs,\n\nincluding attorney\u2019s fees.      Mr. McCrea has not objected to those requests.          Based on a\n\nconsideration of the relevant circumstances, I intend to grant Mr. Van Stry\u2019s requests for a\n\npermanent injunction and costs, including attorney\u2019s fees, after the statutory damages issue has\n\nbeen resolved.\n\n                                               ***\n\n        In sum, I will not alter my sanctions in which I ordered that the prima facie elements of\n\nMr. Van Stry\u2019s willful copyright infringement claim are established for purposes of this action. I\n\nhave also granted Mr. Van Stry\u2019s motion for summary judgment with respect to Mr. McCrea\u2019s\n\nremaining affirmative defenses. There is, therefore, no remaining issues with respect to liability\n\nor willfulness that will be sent to a jury.\n\n        The parties are directed to advise the Court within seven days of this order whether they\n\nwish to have the Court resolve all issues pertinent to an award of statutory damages in excess of\n\nthe statutorily guaranteed minimum amount of $750 per work.\n\n\n\n\n                                               - 16 -\n\fIT IS SO ORDERED.\n\nSIGNED this 9th day of April, 2020.\n\n\n\n\n                                      _____________________________\n                                      WILLIAM C. BRYSON\n                                      UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n                                      - 17 -\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"62","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175011132425","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum & Opinion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-04-09T07:14:49.504266-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-14T00:44:36.500423-08:00","date_filed":"2020-04-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":62,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-04-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":180,"description":"MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER.  Signed by Judge William C. Bryson on 4/9/2020. (nkl, )","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/125339698/","id":125339698,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/129787229/","id":129787229,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/14811830/61/stry-v-mccrea/","date_created":"2020-04-06T17:08:03.347456-07:00","date_modified":"2020-04-06T17:08:03.350106-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"61","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175011127374","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Sur-Reply to Reply to Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-04-06T17:08:03.339694-07:00","date_modified":"2020-04-06T17:08:03.340936-07:00","date_filed":"2020-04-06","time_filed":null,"entry_number":61,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-04-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":177,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/124868546/","id":124868546,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/129312598/","id":129312598,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/14811830/59/stry-v-mccrea/","date_created":"2020-04-01T14:22:36.954610-07:00","date_modified":"2020-04-01T14:22:36.958169-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"59","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175011119194","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply to Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-04-01T14:22:36.946886-07:00","date_modified":"2020-04-01T14:22:36.948040-07:00","date_filed":"2020-04-01","time_filed":null,"entry_number":59,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-04-01.001","pacer_sequence_number":171,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/124868529/","id":124868529,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/129312581/","id":129312581,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/14811830/60/stry-v-mccrea/","date_created":"2020-04-01T14:22:36.610464-07:00","date_modified":"2020-04-01T14:22:36.615243-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"60","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175011119217","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply to Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-04-01T14:22:36.601665-07:00","date_modified":"2020-04-01T14:22:36.602920-07:00","date_filed":"2020-04-01","time_filed":null,"entry_number":60,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-04-01.001","pacer_sequence_number":174,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/124579794/","id":124579794,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/129021491/","id":129021491,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/14811830/58/stry-v-mccrea/","date_created":"2020-03-30T10:17:34.248154-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-30T10:17:34.252478-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"58","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175011113074","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Continue","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-03-30T10:17:34.239592-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-30T10:17:34.241039-07:00","date_filed":"2020-03-30","time_filed":null,"entry_number":58,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-03-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":169,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/124508603/","id":124508603,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/128949647/","id":128949647,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/14811830/57/stry-v-mccrea/","date_created":"2020-03-29T14:16:53.093071-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-29T14:16:53.096591-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"57","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175011112138","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Continue","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-03-29T14:16:53.087106-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-29T14:16:53.087926-07:00","date_filed":"2020-03-29","time_filed":null,"entry_number":57,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-03-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":167,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/124507255/","id":124507255,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/128948284/","id":128948284,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/14811830/54/stry-v-mccrea/","date_created":"2020-03-29T13:16:06.812297-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-29T13:16:06.814890-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"54","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175011112126","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-03-29T13:16:06.804214-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-29T13:16:06.805390-07:00","date_filed":"2020-03-29","time_filed":null,"entry_number":54,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-03-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":157,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/124507254/","id":124507254,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/128948283/","id":128948283,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/14811830/55/stry-v-mccrea/","date_created":"2020-03-29T13:16:06.772405-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-29T13:16:06.774999-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"55","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175011112132","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Affidavit in Opposition to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-03-29T13:16:06.763056-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-29T13:16:06.764155-07:00","date_filed":"2020-03-29","time_filed":null,"entry_number":55,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-03-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":161,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/124507253/","id":124507253,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/128948282/","id":128948282,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/14811830/56/stry-v-mccrea/","date_created":"2020-03-29T13:16:06.724783-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-29T13:16:06.730220-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"56","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175011112135","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-03-29T13:16:06.712898-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-29T13:16:06.714672-07:00","date_filed":"2020-03-29","time_filed":null,"entry_number":56,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-03-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":164,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/122726822/","id":122726822,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/127155686/","id":127155686,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2020-03-12T09:10:55.653790-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-12T09:10:55.657487-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-03-12T09:10:55.646014-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-12T09:10:55.646042-07:00","date_filed":"2020-03-12","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-03-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/122726764/","id":122726764,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/127155628/","id":127155628,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/14811830/53/stry-v-mccrea/","date_created":"2020-03-12T09:10:55.225260-07:00","date_modified":"2022-01-18T02:01:50.492170-08:00","sha1":"f142cb731f23502c7199f8a294e63a0cae446277","page_count":1,"file_size":975207,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.188670/gov.uscourts.txed.188670.53.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.188670/gov.uscourts.txed.188670.53.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"  Case 2:19-cv-00104-WCB Document 53 Filed 03/12/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 997\n\n\n\n\nUN ED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n    EASTERN IS RICT OF TEXAS\nROOM3125, lOO E ST.HOUSTON STREET\n     MARSHALL, TEXAS 75670\n         rMrcrir-i Al ri IcilNESQ\n\n\n\n\n                                                        Xovbd 1\n\n\n\n                                                       us* S6?0' c reuit\n\n\n                                                                \u00ae,/,\n\n\n\n\n                                    7!5&'?D:l:4i44\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2022-01-17T05:17:46.193377-08:00","document_number":"53","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175011081843","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Mail Returned","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-03-12T09:10:55.217466-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-12T09:10:55.218606-07:00","date_filed":"2020-03-12","time_filed":null,"entry_number":53,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-03-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":155,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/122670653/","id":122670653,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/127098606/","id":127098606,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/14811830/52/stry-v-mccrea/","date_created":"2020-03-11T21:22:36.192643-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-11T21:22:36.197239-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"52","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175011081150","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response in Opposition to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-03-11T21:22:36.183367-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-11T21:22:36.184704-07:00","date_filed":"2020-03-12","time_filed":null,"entry_number":52,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-03-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":149,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/122484555/","id":122484555,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/126911227/","id":126911227,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2020-03-10T15:17:18.454321-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-10T15:17:18.457892-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Docket Correction","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-03-10T15:17:18.447812-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-10T15:17:18.447843-07:00","date_filed":"2020-03-10","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-03-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/122471816/","id":122471816,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/126898373/","id":126898373,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/14811830/51/stry-v-mccrea/","date_created":"2020-03-10T14:16:30.304246-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-10T14:16:30.307182-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"51","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175011077275","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply to Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-03-10T14:16:30.298435-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-10T14:16:30.299352-07:00","date_filed":"2020-03-10","time_filed":null,"entry_number":51,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-03-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":142,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/122051793/","id":122051793,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/14811830/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/126474882/","id":126474882,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/14811830/50/stry-v-mccrea/","date_created":"2020-03-06T09:20:28.397748-08:00","date_modified":"2020-03-06T09:20:28.402519-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"50","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175011070411","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Summary Judgment","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2020-03-06T09:20:28.390476-08:00","date_modified":"2020-03-06T09:20:28.391300-08:00","date_filed":"2020-03-06","time_filed":null,"entry_number":50,"recap_sequence_number":"2020-03-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":140,"description":"","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=14811830&page_size=40"}