Lack of Discovery Sends World Cup Copyright Spat to Extra Time
What part of litigation matches the creativity of soccer legend Pelé with a soccer ball? Is it as reliable as Brazil in World Cup competition? Or as outcome-determinative as Lionel Messi’s left foot?
Give up? Pretrial discovery, of course! So, it’s for good reason that federal courts rarely decide courtroom contests without giving both teams a fair opportunity to exchange and review relevant documents, depose facts and expert witnesses, and thoroughly explore the factual bases for the claims and defenses asserted in the pleadings.
Rule 56(b) opens the door to early dismissal motions. But Rule 56(d) keeps that door from closing on a party who needs evidence to fight back.
That didn’t happen in Cortes-Ramos v. Martin-Morales, No. 24-1805 (1st Cir., June 12, 2026), a case in which the parties have been out on the courthouse pitch contesting copyright claims ever since the 2014 FIFA World Cup soccer tournament. Now, thanks to the First Circuit’s determination that the plaintiff was unlawfully denied an opportunity to conduct pretrial discovery before the district court summarily dismissed his several lawsuits, that match will be heading for extra time.
Way back in 2013, international recording star Ricky Martin and music publisher Sony Corporation of America co-sponsored a “SuperSong” contest, inviting anyone to compose, record, and submit an original musical composition and accompanying music video. The winning composition would potentially be included on the 2014 FIFA World Cup Official Album. The plaintiff, Luis Cortes-Ramos, submitted a song for the contest. Less than a week later, Sony informed Cortes-Ramos that he had been selected as one of 20 finalists. Sony asked Cortes-Ramos to sign several documents and return them to Sony, which he did.
Cortes-Ramos did not win the contest. However, roughly two months after the contest winner was announced, Ricky Martin released a song and music video that was allegedly similar to the music video that Cortes-Ramos had submitted. Copyright litigation ensued. A lot of it. According to the First Circuit, its June 12 opinion marked the fifth appeal in 12 years across three cases arising from the same set of facts.
Game Winner: No Discovery Whatsoever
During all that time, Cortes-Ramos was not able to obtain any discovery materials from Sony or Martin. Instead, he was playing defense the entire time: tied up fending off summary judgment motions from Sony and Martin. One summary judgment motion, as described in the appellate court’s opinion, was supported by testimony in the form of affidavits from Sony employees. But Cortes-Ramos never got to challenge these affidavits by deposing the affiants, nor was he able to review the affidavits until he first encountered them attached to Sony’s motion to dismiss. Also, the court noted, Sony’s summary judgment motion was based on documents that were in Sony’s control – documents that Cortes-Ramos had not seen in a long time.
This case turned on the court’s interpretation of the federal summary judgment rule, Rule 56 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Rule 56(b) provides that a party can move for summary judgment “at any time.” But Rule 56(d) provides that summary judgment is not proper if the opposing party demonstrates a need for discovery to “present facts essential to justify its opposition.”
According to the court:
Much of the information sought was within defendants’ control, a factor which weighs heavily in favor of relief under Rule 56([d]). We see no statement from Martin (either here or below) that he’s provided all the relevant documents related to the case (remember, we’re talking about the defendant here, and not any statement made by third-party Sony). So, both the district court and Cortes-Ramos only saw what became the dispositive documents because of Martin’s largesse; Martin might as well have said, “Trust me, there’s nothing else to see.” Yet the formalities of discovery exist precisely so that Cortes-Ramos could (to quote President Reagan) “trust, but verify” that there really wasn’t anything more.
In this case, Cortes-Ramos failed to articulate what evidence he was looking for, or how that evidence could refute the defendants’ argument that he had contractually assigned his copyrights to Sony by signing both a paper contract and an online “clickwrap” agreement containing the rights assignment provisions. Cortes-Ramos’ argument was simply that he was entitled to discovery, he had asked for discovery, and he hadn’t gotten any. And that was enough.
It didn’t help Sony that the district court had remarked that the case was heading towards summary judgment and that such a path was being taken “[t]o avoid discovery.” Avoiding discovery, it appears, is not a proper consideration when weighing a summary judgment motion.
“In the discovery process, district courts should fairly balance the interests of the parties, particularly when one party has access to/control over all the documents and the other has no more than a vague memory of what documents were exchanged many years ago,” the court said. “We don’t think such a balancing of interests happened here.”
Playing by the Rules
There are several lessons to be learned from the Cortes-Ramos case, it seems. The first is the importance of pretrial discovery in modern litigation, particularly depositions as a means to uncover case-critical information.
Other lessons can be gleaned by observing Cortes-Ramos’ behavior and resolving to do better. In this case, Cortes-Ramos was “lucky” in the sense that he had obtained no discovery whatsoever, and the district court seemed determined to resolve the case early, without the need for what it saw as unnecessary pretrial discovery. These facts led the appellate court to overlook whatever fumbles Cortes-Ramos might have committed when trying to protect his rights.
In all other cases, however, parties facing an early motion to dismiss should move quickly to preserve their discovery rights. Courts reward parties that pursue discovery promptly and punish those that sleep on their rights. When faced with a summary judgment motion, the opposing party should promptly file a Rule 56(d) affidavit describing the sought-after facts, the witnesses who may possess relevant testimony, and the type(s) of discovery that will yield the necessary information. Anything less invites dismissal. Rule 56(b) opens the door to early dismissal motions. But Rule 56(d) keeps that door from closing on a party who needs evidence to fight back.