Cecelia Rose Sansone v. Realnetworks, Inc.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CECELIA ROSE SANSONE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
REALNETWORKS, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-35927
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00119-MJP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Cecelia Rose Sansone appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in her copyright infringement action. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the grant of summary judgment, Benay v.
Warner Bros. Entm’t, Inc., 607 F.3d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 2010), and review for an
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-35927 2
abuse of discretion the denial of a request for a continuance under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56(f), Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendant because
Sansone failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant
copied protected elements of her works. See Benay, 607 F.3d at 624-25
(discussing requirements for copyright infringement claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sansone’s request
for a continuance under Rule 56(f) because Sansone failed to demonstrate that the
facts sought actually existed. See Family Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home
Loan Mortgage Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008) (to obtain a continuance
under Rule 56(f), a party must show, inter alia, that “the facts sought exist”); see
also Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1018 (“Denial of a Rule 56(f) application is proper where
it is clear that the evidence sought is almost certainly nonexistent or is the object of
pure speculation.”).
Sansone’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Sansone’s motion to expedite and request to file supplemental excerpts of
record are denied.

-- 2 of 3 --

09-35927 3
Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --