Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Next revision		Previous revision
supplemental_discovery [2016/10/09 04:50] – created Carlos Pedrazasupplemental_discovery [2018/06/26 22:20] (current) – [Gene Roddenberry] Carlos Pedraza
Line 1: Line 1:
 <WRAP rightalign> <WRAP rightalign>
-{{::courthouse-lobby.jpg|Courthouse lobby/Flickr}} \\ +{{::gene-cage.jpg|}} \\ 
-<wrap lo>Courthouse lobby. //Photo/Anita Gould//</wrap>+<wrap lo>Jeffrey Hunter, Gene Roddenberry on set of "The Cage" (1964). //Photo/Memory Alpha//</wrap>
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
Line 16: Line 16:
 On October 7, 2016, following up on a [[compel_discovery|motion to compel discovery]] filed a week prior by Axanar attorney [[Erin Ranahan]], the defense told the court that plaintiffs continued to stonewall the defense by "refusing to produce any responsive documents relating to Defendants’ investigation." On October 7, 2016, following up on a [[compel_discovery|motion to compel discovery]] filed a week prior by Axanar attorney [[Erin Ranahan]], the defense told the court that plaintiffs continued to stonewall the defense by "refusing to produce any responsive documents relating to Defendants’ investigation."
  
-The court documents offered a public peek at what had been going on behind the scenes during the lawsuit's [[discovery]] period. +The court documents offered a public peek at what had been going on behind the scenes during the lawsuit's [[discovery]] period. The next step for this motion was an October 21 hearing before [[federal_magistrate_judge_charles_f._eick|Federal Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick]]
 ===== Trek's Copyright Ownership ===== ===== Trek's Copyright Ownership =====
  
Line 25: Line 24:
  
 Throughout the motion to compel, Ranahan asserted that Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry had [[compel_discovery#Gene Roddenberry|originally owned]] the copyright, and that the studios' refusal to date to provide documentation of the chain of title raised questions over whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring suit against producer [[Alec Peters]] and his company [[Axanar Productions]] Inc. Throughout the motion to compel, Ranahan asserted that Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry had [[compel_discovery#Gene Roddenberry|originally owned]] the copyright, and that the studios' refusal to date to provide documentation of the chain of title raised questions over whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring suit against producer [[Alec Peters]] and his company [[Axanar Productions]] Inc.
 +
 +[{{ ::gene-nimoy-spock.jpg?300|**Gene Roddenberry** (right) with Leonard Nimoy on the set of Star Trek's first pilot, "The Cage." //<wrap lo>Photo/Memory Alpha</wrap>//}}]
  
 In the newest filing, the defense admitted the studios' attorneys had provided documents authenticating CBS and Paramount indeed owned Star Trek's copyrights: In the newest filing, the defense admitted the studios' attorneys had provided documents authenticating CBS and Paramount indeed owned Star Trek's copyrights:
Line 30: Line 31:
 > Plaintiffs produced the missing chain of title documents on September 27, 2016 (long after they agreed to do so). … Thus, Defendants withdraw their Motion with respect to … documents related to copyright ownership.((Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery, p. 5, 10/7/16.)) > Plaintiffs produced the missing chain of title documents on September 27, 2016 (long after they agreed to do so). … Thus, Defendants withdraw their Motion with respect to … documents related to copyright ownership.((Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery, p. 5, 10/7/16.))
  
-While the supplemental motion did not explicitly state the defense would abandon this line of argument, the documents presumably authenticated the studios' ownership.+While the supplemental motion did not explicitly state the defense would abandon this line of argument, the documents presumably confirmed the studios' ownership.
  
 ===== Plaintiffs Stonewalling ===== ===== Plaintiffs Stonewalling =====
Line 38: Line 39:
   * **Fair Use** The [[fair use]] defense Axanar wants to mount against copyright infringement.   * **Fair Use** The [[fair use]] defense Axanar wants to mount against copyright infringement.
   * **Willfulness** The defendants' willfulness in committing the alleged copyright infringement. Willfulness has a specific legal meaning with regard to copyright infringement.(([[http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=9a9c5c1d-9d27-4465-9cd4-bd85815025cd|"Copying Copyright's Willful Infringement Standard: A Comparison of Enhanced Damages in Patent Law and Copyright Law," Rachel L. Emsley, Suffolk University Law Review]], 11/25/08.))   * **Willfulness** The defendants' willfulness in committing the alleged copyright infringement. Willfulness has a specific legal meaning with regard to copyright infringement.(([[http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=9a9c5c1d-9d27-4465-9cd4-bd85815025cd|"Copying Copyright's Willful Infringement Standard: A Comparison of Enhanced Damages in Patent Law and Copyright Law," Rachel L. Emsley, Suffolk University Law Review]], 11/25/08.))
 +
 +[{{ ::abram-lin.jpg?300|**WITNESSES?** Axanar's attorneys want to know what Star Trek producer J.J. Abrams and director Justin Lin discussed with Paramount.}}]
  
 ==== J.J. Abrams and Justin Lin ==== ==== J.J. Abrams and Justin Lin ====
Line 46: Line 49:
  
 The disputed issues were chronicled in a chain of emails exchanged between attorneys on the two sides. The disputed issues were chronicled in a chain of emails exchanged between attorneys on the two sides.
 +
 +<WRAP right round download 50%>
 +<wrap lo><wrap em>DOWNLOAD</wrap> these court documents (PDF) regarding the defense [[compel_discovery|motion to compel]] discovery: \\ 
 +[[https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzmetJxi-p0VOXJ4TnByY1pqOVk|Defendants' Supplemental Memo]] \\
 +[[https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzmetJxi-p0VOXJ4TnByY1pqOVk|Declaration by Axanar Attorney Erin Ranahan]] \\
 +[[https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzmetJxi-p0Vb2FtWHMwSFUzZWs|Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memo]]</wrap>
 +</WRAP>
  
 === Delayed Responses from Plaintiffs === === Delayed Responses from Plaintiffs ===
Line 58: Line 68:
  
 Throughout discovery, Loeb has asserted that many of the documents and communication sought by the defense are protected by privilege, such as plaintiffs' communications with their attorneys.(([[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/attorney-client_privilege|Attorney-Client Privilege, Legal Information Institute]], Cornell University School of Law, retrieved 10/7/16.)) Throughout discovery, Loeb has asserted that many of the documents and communication sought by the defense are protected by privilege, such as plaintiffs' communications with their attorneys.(([[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/attorney-client_privilege|Attorney-Client Privilege, Legal Information Institute]], Cornell University School of Law, retrieved 10/7/16.))
 +
 +{{page>fact check}}
  
 But the defense specifically sought communications, not with their attorneys but among the plaintiffs themselves. Ranahan asked Loeb's Grossman if the plaintiffs were continuing to assert "communications between non‐lawyers at CBS and Paramount about the lawsuit are covered by a 'comment [sic] interest' privilege. … If you are standing by this, please provide the authority for this."((Email from Erin Ranahan, Winston & Strawn, to David Grossman, Loeb & Loeb, 9/26/16.)) But the defense specifically sought communications, not with their attorneys but among the plaintiffs themselves. Ranahan asked Loeb's Grossman if the plaintiffs were continuing to assert "communications between non‐lawyers at CBS and Paramount about the lawsuit are covered by a 'comment [sic] interest' privilege. … If you are standing by this, please provide the authority for this."((Email from Erin Ranahan, Winston & Strawn, to David Grossman, Loeb & Loeb, 9/26/16.))
Line 65: Line 77:
 The //common interest privilege// Loeb asserted is sometimes known as the “joint defense privilege." It extends privilege beyond just an attorney and client to a third party. The privilege generally allows “persons who have common interests to coordinate their positions without destroying the privileged status of their communications with their lawyers,” and the other persons need not be parties to a suit.((Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 76 cmt. b [hereinafter Rest. 3d].)) (([[http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/fall2014-0914-common-interest-privilege.html|"The Common Interest Privilege," Matthew D. LaBrie, American Bar Association]], Trial Evidence Committee, retrieved 10/7/16.)) The //common interest privilege// Loeb asserted is sometimes known as the “joint defense privilege." It extends privilege beyond just an attorney and client to a third party. The privilege generally allows “persons who have common interests to coordinate their positions without destroying the privileged status of their communications with their lawyers,” and the other persons need not be parties to a suit.((Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 76 cmt. b [hereinafter Rest. 3d].)) (([[http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/fall2014-0914-common-interest-privilege.html|"The Common Interest Privilege," Matthew D. LaBrie, American Bar Association]], Trial Evidence Committee, retrieved 10/7/16.))
  
-In his emailed reply, Grossman told Ranahan the common interest discussion to which she referred was only about whether the principle extended to discussions taking place before the suit was filed. "I believe that it does," Grossman wrote. "Purely non‐legal communications … would likely not fall under that category. However, I don't believe any documents [that] have been withheld that fall into that latter category."((Email from David Grossman, Loeb & Loeb, to Erin Ranahan, Winston & Strawn, 9/26/16.))+<WRAP right round box 50%> 
 +//**__« Defendants’ counsel did not ask what the revenue for that [Star Trek] film was … but only what Paramount’s 'expectations' were. »__**// — //Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memo// 
 +</WRAP> 
 + 
 +In his emailed reply, Grossman told Ranahan the common interest discussion to which she referred was only about whether the principle extended to discussions taking place before the suit was filed. "I believe that it does," Grossman wrote. "Purely non‐legal communications … would likely not fall under that category. However, I don't believe any documents have been withheld that fall into that latter category."((Email from David Grossman, Loeb & Loeb, to Erin Ranahan, Winston & Strawn, 9/26/16.))
  
 === Privilege Log === === Privilege Log ===
Line 72: Line 88:
  
 For example, Ranahan reminded Grossman that plaintiffs had agreed to produce a "privilege log" that listed what documents Loeb was withholding on the common interest basis.  Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as the party citing the privilege, plaintiffs must detail the nature of the documents, communications, or items not produced in a manner that, without revealing the privileged information, enables other parties to assess the claim.(([[wp>Privilege_log|"Privilege log," Wikipedia]], retrieved 10/7/16.)) For example, Ranahan reminded Grossman that plaintiffs had agreed to produce a "privilege log" that listed what documents Loeb was withholding on the common interest basis.  Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as the party citing the privilege, plaintiffs must detail the nature of the documents, communications, or items not produced in a manner that, without revealing the privileged information, enables other parties to assess the claim.(([[wp>Privilege_log|"Privilege log," Wikipedia]], retrieved 10/7/16.))
 +
 +<WRAP right round box 50%>
 +//**__« It sounds like you have taken a far broader interpretation of privilege; hence, the need to review your privilege log. »__**// — //Axanar attorney Erin Ranahan to plaintiffs//
 +</WRAP>
  
 While a privilege log may have been discussed at the June meeting to which Ranahan referred, Grossman said, "I don't recall any agreement on a privilege log. They are generally not productive but if you are demanding that a log be provided, let us know when the defendants intend to provide theirs."((Email from David Grossman, Loeb & Loeb, to Erin Ranahan, Winston & Strawn, 9/26/16.)) While a privilege log may have been discussed at the June meeting to which Ranahan referred, Grossman said, "I don't recall any agreement on a privilege log. They are generally not productive but if you are demanding that a log be provided, let us know when the defendants intend to provide theirs."((Email from David Grossman, Loeb & Loeb, to Erin Ranahan, Winston & Strawn, 9/26/16.))
Line 84: Line 104:
  
 Also, based on public statements by defendant Peters, Grossman pushed back against Ranahan's claim that no privilege log for the defense was required: Also, based on public statements by defendant Peters, Grossman pushed back against Ranahan's claim that no privilege log for the defense was required:
 +
 +[{{ ::renegades-banner.jpg?300|**FAN FILMS** like //Star Trek: Renegades// are the object of questions by attorneys, who believe CBS and Paramount's treatment of such productions will be an important part of Axanar's defense.}}]
  
 > As for your assertion that there is nothing privileged that has been withheld by Alec Peters and Axanar, I am not sure that is correct as <wrap hi>Alec has publicly stated that he has spoken with other attorneys other than you — both before and after you were retained</wrap>. If you are demanding a privilege log, the defendants need to provide one as well.((Email from David Grossman, Loeb & Loeb, to Erin Ranahan, Winston & Strawn, 9/26/16.)) > As for your assertion that there is nothing privileged that has been withheld by Alec Peters and Axanar, I am not sure that is correct as <wrap hi>Alec has publicly stated that he has spoken with other attorneys other than you — both before and after you were retained</wrap>. If you are demanding a privilege log, the defendants need to provide one as well.((Email from David Grossman, Loeb & Loeb, to Erin Ranahan, Winston & Strawn, 9/26/16.))
Line 100: Line 122:
  
 For their part, the studios had one of their attorneys, Jennifer Jason, filed a supplemental motion repeating the major points in their original response to the defense motion to compel: For their part, the studios had one of their attorneys, Jennifer Jason, filed a supplemental motion repeating the major points in their original response to the defense motion to compel:
 +
 +[{{ :vulcan-scene-1.jpg?300|**CHARACTERS & COSTUMES** are among the features which CBS and Paramount are interested in learning what served as the sources of //Axanar//.}}]
 +
   * The defense seeks documents that do not exist.   * The defense seeks documents that do not exist.
   * The plaintiffs have already agreed to provide the requested information.   * The plaintiffs have already agreed to provide the requested information.
Line 114: Line 139:
  
 > I requested that you speak to your clients and provide confirmation that all such documents have been produced. Your email is not responsive to that request. Please respond and confirm that all documents that were used to create the Axanar works have been produced, and that you have confirmed that fact with your clients (including Rob Burnett and Bill Hunt).((Email from David Grossman, Loeb & Loeb, to Erin Ranahan, Winston & Strawn, 10/4/16.)) > I requested that you speak to your clients and provide confirmation that all such documents have been produced. Your email is not responsive to that request. Please respond and confirm that all documents that were used to create the Axanar works have been produced, and that you have confirmed that fact with your clients (including Rob Burnett and Bill Hunt).((Email from David Grossman, Loeb & Loeb, to Erin Ranahan, Winston & Strawn, 10/4/16.))
 +
 +[{{ :locked-script.jpg?300|**OTHER WITNESSES** //Axanar// co-writer Bill Hunt (left) and director Rob Burnett (right) appear to have accepted attorney Erin Ranahan's offer to represent them during depositions, despite the risk of conflicts of interest.}}]
  
 ==== Representing Third-Party Witnesses ==== ==== Representing Third-Party Witnesses ====
Line 122: Line 149:
  
 > You have not responded to my question from last week regarding the third-party witnesses you are representing and whether you will be producing their documents this week. These deponents were [served subpoenas] several weeks ago and while we agreed to move the depositions at your firm's request to October, we did not agree to delay the production of documents and I requested your agreement that those documents would be produced ahead of time.((Email from David Grossman, Loeb & Loeb, to Erin Ranahan, Winston & Strawn, 9/26/16.)) > You have not responded to my question from last week regarding the third-party witnesses you are representing and whether you will be producing their documents this week. These deponents were [served subpoenas] several weeks ago and while we agreed to move the depositions at your firm's request to October, we did not agree to delay the production of documents and I requested your agreement that those documents would be produced ahead of time.((Email from David Grossman, Loeb & Loeb, to Erin Ranahan, Winston & Strawn, 9/26/16.))
 +{{:axamonitor-ico.gif?nolink|}}
  
-  * Produced a "corporate representative" for deposition that was unprepared to answer questions put to them.+---- 
 +**Keywords** {{tag>fact_check lawsuit players defendants plaintiffs defense}}