Cortés-Ramos v. Martin-Morales — First Circuit Vacates Summary Judgment in 12-Year Ricky Martin Copyright Dispute

Background

This case — now on its fifth circuit court appearance after twelve years of litigation — asks a deceptively simple question: can a federal court grant summary judgment in a copyright case when neither party has conducted any discovery, and when all the evidence bearing on the central disputed issue is in the opposing party’s control?

The plaintiff, Puerto Rican songwriter Luis Adrián Cortés-Ramos, entered a 2013 songwriting contest co-sponsored by Sony and the well-known entertainer Enrique Martín-Morales (a/k/a Ricky Martin). The contest asked entrants to compose and submit an original song and music video for possible inclusion on the 2014 FIFA World Cup Official Album. Cortés was selected as one of twenty finalists and signed several documents at Sony’s request. A different entrant won. Shortly afterward, in April 2014, Martín released a song and music video called “Vida” — which, Cortés alleges, is substantially similar to the song and video he had submitted to the contest.

Cortés has pursued copyright infringement claims since 2014. Prior proceedings addressed whether he had a valid copyright registration (the Supreme Court’s 2019 Fourth Estate decision — requiring registration before suit — complicated his standing), whether claims against Sony belonged in arbitration, and whether the contest documents assigned his rights to Sony. After several dismissals and remands, the case returned to the District of Puerto Rico, where Judge Silvia L. Carreño-Coll referred the matter to a magistrate judge who recommended granting summary judgment for Martín before any discovery had taken place.

The Court’s Holding

The First Circuit vacated summary judgment and remanded. The majority held that the district court committed reversible error by ruling on summary judgment before permitting any discovery.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), when a party cannot adequately respond to a summary judgment motion because discovery hasn’t occurred, the court may — and often must — defer judgment, allow discovery, or issue another appropriate order. The rule is designed to “safeguard against judges swinging the summary judgment axe too hastily.”

Cortés never formally cited Rule 56(d) by name, but the majority held that his repeated requests for discovery — in motions to reconsider, in oral argument, in filings opposing summary judgment — were sufficient to preserve the issue. The critical fact: all the evidence on whether Martín or Sony copied Cortés’s submission was in Martín’s and Sony’s control. Cortés had no access to the documents, communications, and records that would show whether the “Vida” song and video were derived from his contest entry. Requiring him to oppose summary judgment without that material would be fundamentally unfair.

The court also vacated the district court’s declaration that Cortés’s copyright registration was invalid — finding that ruling arose from the same premature summary judgment analysis and could not stand on its own.

Judge Aframe dissented in part, arguing that because Cortés did not invoke Rule 56(d) by name and did not satisfy the rule’s requirements even under a liberal reading, the appeal lacked merit and he would have affirmed.

Key Takeaways

• Rule 56(d) protects parties from being forced to oppose summary judgment without discovery — even if the party hasn’t formally cited the rule by name, repeated discovery requests preserved the issue in this case.
• When key evidence is entirely in the opposing party’s control, summary judgment is premature without at least some opportunity for discovery.
• Copyright registration validity cannot be adjudicated as a side effect of summary judgment on ownership/assignment if discovery hasn’t been conducted on the underlying question.
• This is the fifth First Circuit appeal in twelve years. The case is remanded for discovery and potentially a sixth round of proceedings in the District of Puerto Rico.

Why It Matters

Copyright cases often turn on access — whether the accused infringer had access to the plaintiff’s protected work before creating the allegedly infringing work. That question is usually entirely within the defendant’s control. This decision affirms that a copyright plaintiff is entitled to discovery before a court resolves a summary judgment motion grounded in the defendant’s own documents and records.

The procedural posture here — a lower court moving to summary judgment to “avoid discovery and unnecessary litigation” — is a pattern that appears in cases where one side is more resourced than the other. The First Circuit’s ruling, though specific to its facts, signals that efficiency rationales do not justify skipping discovery when the plaintiff has diligently pursued it and the evidence is inaccessible without it.

Surfaced via newsletter intake: Copyright Laws (erin@copyrightlaws.com).