Order | Filed: August 21, 2026
| Entered: August 21, 2026
Lawton v. Agence France-Presse et al
Copyright | New York Eastern
Order on Motion for Discovery
ORDER granting in part 29 , granting in part 30 , and denying as moot 34 : Plaintiff moves to compel Defendants' responses to requests for production of documents ("RFPs") seeking (1) Defendants' past settlement and licensing agreements and (2) Defendants' internal copyright policies and procedures. (See ECF Nos. 29, 30.) Plaintiff also seeks an extension of time to complete discovery and an expedited ruling on the discovery motions. (ECF Nos. 30, 34.) After carefully reviewing the discovery requests and responses in ECF No. 29-2, the motions are granted in part and denied in part.
(1) Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents concerning Defendants' past settlement and licensing arrangements is denied. RFP No. 20 requests "[a]ll documents and communications concerning payments made by [Defendants] to resolve or settle copyright infringement claims" from January 2002 to October 2025, the date of the request. (See Ex. 2, ECF No. 29-2 at 13.) Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to produce "all non-privileged information regarding prior litigation involving the same or similar works," meaning the "use and licensing of unauthorized photographs of 'street art,' including without limitation, murals, posters, sculptures, architecture and landscape design." (See ECF No. 29 at 1-2; ECF No. 30 at 2.) The request is overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case, and Defendants' past settlement or licensing agreements with third-parties regarding vaguely defined "street art" are not relevant to Plaintiff's claims. See Ravazzani v. Shop PO, LLC, No. 24-CV-9673 (AT)(JW), 2025 WL 3274223, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2025), reconsid. denied, 2025 WL 3170828 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2025) (denying motion to compel production of licenses and settlement agreements because the requested documents were not relevant to the claims and defenses, or to liability, and only went to damages). Defendants have already produced the settlement agreement from Plaintiff's 2021 lawsuit regarding the Subject Mural, which is relevant to demonstrate their willful infringement of Plaintiff's copyrighted work. Accordingly, the Court declines to direct Defendants to produce any additional documents responsive to RFP No. 20.
(2) Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents concerning Defendants' copyright policies and procedures is denied without prejudice. (ECF No. 30 at 1-2.) RFP No. 5 requests "[d]ocuments concerning [Defendants'] copyright protection and copyright infringement policies and procedures" from January 2002 to October 2025. (See ECF No. 29-1 at 9; ECF No. 30-1 at 7.) As with RFP No. 20, this request is overbroad. Further, Defendants produced responsive documents on January 22, 2026, and supplemented the production on January 28, 2026 after Plaintiff moved to compel. (ECF No. 31 at 2 (describing versions of Agence France-Presse's "Captions Guide").) However, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that internal policies regarding copyright protection are relevant circumstantial evidence to show Defendants' knowledge of copyright law and its obligations thereunder, and any steps Defendants took to detect and prevent violations. See Monroe v. NorthStar Source Grp., LLC, No. 23-CV-6220 (DRH), 2025 WL 1939027, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2025) (noting that "[c]ourts may consider a range of circumstantial evidence in assessing willfulness," including internal copyright policies). By 09/04/2026, Plaintiff may amend RFP No. 5 by defining its terms more precisely. Any responsive documents would be limited to the period from 2021, when Defendants settled their prior lawsuit with Plaintiff regarding the Subject Mural, through the date of the Complaint, and a response and production is due 09/25/2026. Counsel shall meaningfully meet and confer in good faith if they disagree over Amended RFP No. 5.
(3) Plaintiff appears to seek relief related to additional RFPs and Interrogatories based on Defendants' purported improper refusal to answer, but does not offer arguments for any requests besides RFPs 5 and 20. (See ECF No. 30 at 3.) This issue appears to have been resolved by Defendants' supplemental productions and this Order. (See ECF No. 31 at 3.) If not, the parties may address this issue in the joint status report described below.
(4) Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to complete discovery is granted in part at ... (truncated)