## Facts

- A dispute arose over U.S. exploitation rights in approximately 1,500 animated films created by a Soviet-era animation studio between 1946 and 1991.
- Films by Jove, Inc. (FBJ) and Soyuzmultfilm Studio (SMS), the privatized successor entity, sued Joseph Berov and related defendants for copyright infringement and related claims based on alleged unauthorized U.S. distribution and exploitation.
- A consent preliminary injunction barred defendants from reproducing films in which plaintiffs owned copyrights.
- A Russian state enterprise, FSUESMS, intervened asserting state “operative management” rights and contending the copyrights belonged to the Russian state.
- In an earlier order, the court granted summary judgment to FBJ and SMS on ownership, relying on expert evidence regarding Soviet/Russian law and Russian commercial-court decisions addressing privatization and successor rights.
- After that order, (1) the Presidium of the High Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation issued a decision said to conflict with some Russian decisions previously considered, and (2) a Paris Court of Appeals decision was issued that defendants claimed supported their position.
- Defendants and FSUESMS moved for relief from the prior summary-judgment order under Rule 60(b)(2) and sought a stay of enforcement under Rule 62(b), arguing the later foreign decisions were newly discovered evidence and required deference as a matter of international comity.

## Issues

1. Whether post-judgment Russian and French decisions materially contradicted the Soviet/Russian-law premises supporting the earlier ownership ruling.
2. Whether international comity required the court to adopt the High Arbitrazh Court’s later interpretation in place of the court’s prior foreign-law determination.
3. Whether the later foreign decisions qualified as “newly discovered evidence” under Rule 60(b)(2) warranting relief from the earlier judgment and a stay under Rule 62(b).

## Decision

- The court denied the Rule 60(b)(2) motion for reconsideration and denied the requested Rule 62(b) stay.
- The court held that the later foreign decisions did not justify setting aside or modifying the prior ownership determination.
- The court declined to defer, as a matter of comity, to the High Arbitrazh Court decision where the record supported findings that its analysis was erroneous and tainted by improper governmental pressure.
- The court found the Paris decision did not decide the same legal and factual questions and did not require any change to the prior ruling.
- The earlier summary judgment in favor of FBJ and SMS remained valid and enforceable.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 60(b)(2) relief is extraordinary and requires newly discovered evidence that could not have been found with reasonable diligence and would probably change the outcome.
- Under Rule 44.1, foreign law is determined by the court as a question of law; foreign judicial decisions are relevant evidence of foreign law but are not binding on a U.S. court.
- International comity generally supports respect for foreign adjudications, but it does not require deference to foreign decisions that are unreliable, erroneous, procedurally suspect, or incompatible with U.S. public policy concerns about fairness and judicial independence.
- Post-judgment foreign rulings do not warrant reopening a U.S. judgment absent a showing that they truly undermine the legal foundation of the decision and satisfy Rule 60(b)(2)’s requirements.
- A stay of enforcement under Rule 62(b) is unwarranted where the movant fails to show entitlement to relief from judgment.

## Conclusion

The court refused to reopen its prior summary judgment awarding copyright ownership to FBJ and SMS, holding that later Russian and French decisions neither satisfied Rule 60(b)(2) nor compelled deference under comity, and therefore enforcement of the existing judgment could proceed.


Films by Jove, Inc. v. Berov, 250 F. Supp. 2d 156 (E.D.N.Y. 2003)