Link to Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Ltd. v. Floerns, No. 1:24-cv-02939 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 31, 2025) (Kennelly, J.). Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Ltd. v. Floerns, No. 1:24-cv-02939 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 31, 2025) (Kennelly, J.).
Judge Kennelly denied plaintiff’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider an earlier summary judgment order that disposed of plaintiff’s copyright, Lanham Act, and state-law claims, emphasizing diligence and record consistency in post-judgment practice in this copyright dispute.
The Court previously held that no reasonable factfinder could find valid ownership of the photos at issue because plaintiff lacked the required written agreement for “work made for hire,” overcoming the registration presumption.
Plaintiff sought reconsideration with “newly discovered” evidence, including a declaration and a late-executed assignment. The Court held Rule 59(e) relief was unavailable because the evidence was discoverable with reasonable diligence before judgment and, in any event, the post-judgment assignment did not exist at the time of the ruling. The Court also noted plaintiff did not pursue Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) relief when ownership was squarely raised at summary judgment and highlighted inconsistencies between the new story and earlier interrogatory responses and briefing, which had described third-party studio photography and paid work outside the asserted employment structure.