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 [2016/10/10 04:24] – [Gene Roddenberry] edit to clarify Carlos Pedrazasupplemental_discovery [2018/06/26 22:20] (current) – [Gene Roddenberry] Carlos Pedraza
Line 25: 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 51: Line 51:
  
 <WRAP right round download 50%> <WRAP right round download 50%>
-<wrap lo><wrap em>DOWNLOAD</wrap> these court documents (PDF) regarding the defense motion to compel discovery: \\ +<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|Defendants' Supplemental Memo]] \\
 [[https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzmetJxi-p0VOXJ4TnByY1pqOVk|Declaration by Axanar Attorney Erin Ranahan]] \\ [[https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzmetJxi-p0VOXJ4TnByY1pqOVk|Declaration by Axanar Attorney Erin Ranahan]] \\
Line 68: 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 79: Line 81:
 </WRAP> </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 [that] have been withheld that fall into that latter category."((Email from David Grossman, Loeb & Loeb, to Erin Ranahan, Winston & Strawn, 9/26/16.))+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 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 ===