question appropriate for summary judgment.” Lipton v. Nature Co., 71 F.3d 464, 472 (2d Cir. 1995).
IcC puts forth enough evidence to allow a reasonable jury to find willfulness. Defendants undisputedly copied the I-Codes without ICC’s authorization, and ICC cites multiple statements suggesting Defendants knew doing so would displease ICC and possibly harm ICC’s business. (See Wise Decl. Ex. 12 at 196:1–198:16; Wise Decl. Ex. 19; Wise Decl. Ex. 45 at UPCODES00090698.) ICC also argues that Defendants were at least reckless insofar as they posted the I-Codes without seeking the advice of counsel. (ICC SUMF ¶ 168; Wise Decl. Ex. 12 at 122:1–8.)
However, Defendants have raised contrary arguments, reflecting the existence of a genuine dispute on this issue. Even though Defendants copied the I-Codes and may have known doing so would displease ICC, they may nevertheless have believed their actions were entirely legal based on their understanding of the law. (Defs. Resp. ¶ 154; G. Reynolds Opp. Decl. ¶¶ 8, 11–14; S. Reynolds Opp. Decl. ¶¶ 8–12.) Defendants also argue that they could not afford to hire a lawyer because they used their savings to start UpCodes. They add that they still share a studio apartment to cut their expenses and did not pay themselves
99
