Case 1:22-cv-01564-BAH Document 11 Filed 09/26/22 Page 6 of 13
22. Defendants admit that the Copyright Office sent a second refusal letter to Plaintiff dated February 14, 2022. The letter speaks for itself. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 22 paraphrase or characterize the letter, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they are inconsistent with the letter. Any remaining allegations are denied.
23. The second refusal letter speaks for itself. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 23 paraphrase or characterize the letter, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they are inconsistent with the letter. Any remaining allegations are denied.
24. The second refusal letter speaks for itself. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 24 paraphrase or characterize the letter, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they are inconsistent with the letter. Any remaining allegations are denied.
25. The second refusal letter speaks for itself. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 25 paraphrase or characterize the letter, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they are inconsistent with the letter. Any remaining allegations are denied.
26. The second refusal letter speaks for itself. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 26 paraphrase or characterize the letter, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they are inconsistent with the letter. Any remaining allegations are denied.
27. The second refusal letter speaks for itself. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 27 paraphrase or characterize the letter, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they are inconsistent with the letter. Any remaining allegations are denied.
28. The second refusal letter speaks for itself. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 28 paraphrase or characterize the letter, Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they are inconsistent with the letter. Any remaining allegations are denied.
