Self-Represented Defendant Ordered to Destroy Infringing Videos
In November 2023, we published a post about Pima Community College v. Yuksel, a case in which Pima Community College ("Pima") sued former employee Edip Yuksel ("Yuksel") for recording class sessions without the college’s authorization during the course of his employment. Pima claimed that it owned the copyright in the unauthorized recordings and that Yuksel violated those copyrights by posting the recordings on YouTube. As a reminder, following Yuksel’s earlier motion to dismiss, the court denied the motion and ordered him to respond to Pima’s complaint.
On November 26, Yuksel attempted to file his answer by emailing it to the Court Clerk rather than submitting it through the required e-filing system or mailing it to the appropriate address. The court rejected his submission for failing to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and granted him a 14-day extension to refile correctly. Because Yuksel was representing himself pro se, the court again referred him to the Manual for Self-Represented Litigants and, at the same time, granted Pima’s Motion to Strike his improper motion to dismiss.
After the 14-day deadline passed without a proper response from Yuksel, Pima filed an Application for Entry of Default and a Motion for Default Judgment, outlining the reasons and legal basis for its request. A hearing was scheduled, during which Yuksel appeared and was allowed to respond to the court’s questions.
Based on the facts outlined in the complaint and the statements made at the hearing, the court ruled in favor of Pima and entered a default judgment against Yuksel. The judge agreed with Pima’s arguments that Yuksel had breached his employment agreement and ordered him to stop publishing and to destroy all copies of the recorded videos and materials in question. Yuksel was also instructed to provide Pima with proof that the materials had been destroyed and was ordered to pay $2,000 in damages, plus Pima’s attorney’s fees.
In its Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Pima requested $33,812.50 for legal services and $796.60 for court filing fees. The motion stated that Pima's attorney charged $375 per hour for copyright litigation and had worked a total of 109.4 hours on the case. The court found that the hourly rate and time spent were reasonable and aligned with market standards for similar cases and granted the full requested amount.
Yuksel disagreed with the court’s decision and appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However, his appeal was dismissed on April 21, 2025, due to failure to pay the required filing fee.
With the case now officially closed, more than two years of litigation leave Yuksel without rights to the disputed videos and facing a significant financial penalty.