The opinion of the court was delivered by: Charles P. Kocoras, District Judge
The following matter is before the court on the motion of Defendants McDougal Littell ("McDougal") and R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company ("Donnelley")(collectively referred to as "Defendants") for an extension of the stay of all proceedings. Although the motion for an extension of the stay of all proceedings was initially filed only by McDougal. Donnelley filed a motion to join on August 8, 2006. Because it is evident that Donnelley's potential liability is arguably dependant on McDougal's liability, Donnelley's motion to join is hereby granted.*fn1 Further, for the reasons set forth below, the motion for an extension of the stay of all proceedings is granted.
Neal Beidleman ("Beidleman") is a resident of Colorado. McDougal is a textbook publisher with its primary office in Geneva, Illinois. Donnelley is a textbook printer headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. The following facts, gleaned from the pleadings, are assumed to be true for the purposes of this motion only.
On November 11, 1998, McDougal requested and received a limited license in the form of an invoice from Beidleman's agent, Woodfin Camp and Associates ("WC&A") to reproduce his Mt. Everest photograph in 40,000 textbooks titled The Language of Literature, grade 9. The limited license was preceded by a July 21, 1998 Delivery Memorandum that provided in relevant part:
5. (a)...Upon submission of an invoice by WC&A, a license only is granted to use the photographs for the use specified on the invoice and for no other purpose, unless otherwise specified. Recipient does not acquire any right, title or interest in or to any photograph, including, without limitation, any electronic reproduction or promotional rights, and will not make, authorize or permit any use of the particular photograph(s) or plate(s) made therefrom other than as specified herein.
16. Any and all disputes arising out of, under or in connection with this agreement, including, without limitation, the validity, interpretation, performance and breach hereof, shall be settled by arbitration in New York City, New York, pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association...
Pursuant to the agreement, Beidleman made his photograph available for copying and McDougal paid the agreed price, returned the photograph, and produced 40,000 copies of its textbook. However, after printing the contemplated 40,000 copies of Beidleman's image, McDougal allegedly went on to produce in excess of 1,000,000 more copies without permission. Donnelley was the printer of all of the copies of the textbook.
On March 28, 2006, Beidleman filed the instant action against Defendants alleging copyright infringement, and on May 3, 2006 Beidleman filed a First Amended Complaint. Subsequently, on May 5, 2006, McDougal and Beidleman jointly moved for a stay of this action for the earlier of 120 days or pending a determination by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York of whether McDougal was entitled to compel arbitration in a related proceeding. The plaintiff in the related case is a photographer represented by the same attorneys who represent Mr. Beidleman in the instant action. On May 9, 2006, we granted the Joint Motion.
On May 22, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted McDougal's motion for an order compelling arbitration in the related case and denied the plaintiff's motion for a stay of arbitration. Thereafter, Beidleman indicated that despite that related decision he would not agree to arbitration of the instant matter. Consequently, on June 12, 2006, McDougal filed the present motion for an extension of the stay of all proceedings and, in so doing, informed the court that it would be filing an action to compel arbitration in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York within two weeks of the filing of the present motion.
The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") provides that an arbitration clause in a "contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce...shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." 9 U.S.C. § 2. It is well settled that arbitration is a favored means of dispute resolution, and the FAA established a clear policy favoring arbitration. See Kiefer Specialty Flooring, Inc. v. Tarkett, Inc., 174 F.3d 907, 909 (7th Cir.1999). To effect this policy, courts liberally construe any contractual language pertaining to arbitration and resolve doubts in favor of arbitrability. See Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Const. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1983).
A party contesting the submission of the claim to arbitration must clearly show that the presumption of arbitrability does not apply. See International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union 103 v. Indiana Const. Corp., 13 F.3d 253, 255-56 (7th Cir.1994). The arbitrability of a particular issue turns on principles of contract interpretation, as "a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agree[d] so to submit." United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582, 80 S.Ct. 1347 (1960)). A claim will be deemed arbitrable if an arbitration clause is capable of any interpretation that a claim is covered. See International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union 103 v. Indiana Const. Corp., 13 F.3d 253, 255-56 (7th Cir.1994). If parties have a contract ...