Opinion and Order. OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. v. Anna's Archive (2:24-cv-00144). District Court, S.D. Ohio.

Conclusion

The Court is sympathetic to OCLC's situation: a band of copyright scofflaws cloned WorldCat's hard-earned data, gave it away for free, and then ignored OCLC when it sued them in this Court. But mindful that bad facts sometimes make bad law, the Court requests that an Ohio court intervene before this Court makes any new state tort, contract, property, or criminal law.

The Court resolves to CERTIFY the novel Ohio-law issues identified above to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Plaintiff's counsel and Matienzo's counsel are ORDERED to propose an order containing all the information Ohio Supreme Court Practice Rule 9. 02 requires by April 11, 2025. The parties may file their proposed orders separately, or, if they so choose, they may file one joint proposed order. The Court will finalize a certification order afterward.

OCLC's motion for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. See Lammert v. Auto-Owners (Mut. ) Ins., 286 F. Supp. 3d 919, 928-29 (M. D. Tenn. 2017) (adopting this same disposition). Because the answers to the certified questions may also determine Matienzo's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), ECF No. 21, the Court DENIES without prejudice that motion too. See id. The Court invites the parties to reraise their motions after the certification proceeding. See id.

The Court also grants OCLC leave to amend its Complaint to correct any of the above-identified pleading deficiencies.