Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
supplemental_discovery [2016/10/09 06:03] – changes splash image, adds graphics throughout Carlos Pedrazasupplemental_discovery [2018/06/26 22:20] (current) – [Gene Roddenberry] Carlos Pedraza
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 26: Line 25:
 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." //Photo/Memory Alpha//}}]+[{{ ::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 32: 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 50: 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 64:
  
 Twenty minutes later, Loeb attorney David Grossman assured Ranahan the completed interrogatories would be delivered in a few days. Twenty minutes later, Loeb attorney David Grossman assured Ranahan the completed interrogatories would be delivered in a few days.
- 
-<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> 
  
 === Internal Discussions About the Lawsuit === === Internal Discussions About the Lawsuit ===
  
 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 73: 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 142: Line 150:
 > 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|}} {{:axamonitor-ico.gif?nolink|}}
 +
 +----
 +**Keywords** {{tag>fact_check lawsuit players defendants plaintiffs defense}}