See also: Motion to Compel Discovery
In a decision issued just hours after a hearing, Federal Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick ordered CBS and Paramount to give Axanar’s attorneys documents the studios had so far resisted turning over in discovery.
In his order issued October 21 Eick told the studios’ attorneys they must accede to a number of the requests for documents made by the defendants in a recent Motion to Compel Discovery. He gave the studios an October 28 deadline to comply; the deadline for completing discovery was November 2.
On Twitter, Axanar producer Alec Peters, a named defendant, called the order “a big win in court today.” His surrogate’s blog, Fan Film Factor, summed it up like this:
DOWNLOAD Judge Eick’s order on the defense motion to compel discovery. Also: Defense attorney Erin Ranahan‘s request for a transcript of the October 21 hearing on the motion.
“Axanar got pretty much everything they wanted and the studios are going to have a very busy week ahead. … [It’s] a big win for Axanar during the discovery phase. The actual trial is completely separate, but for right now, the defense is going to have a very happy weekend.”1)
However, with the exceptions in discovery requests listed below, the order officially denied the defense motion to compel discovery.2)
The judge’s order formally noted what was reported last week that Axanar’s attorneys had withdrawn the part of the motion challenging the studios' chain of title to the ownership of Star Trek’s copyrights, as well as the defense’s complaint that plaintiffs’ attorneys had mischaracterized when the parties had met to confer about discovery.
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE allows a client to prevent disclosure of confidential communications between client and attorney. It is one of the oldest recognized privileges for confidential communications, intended to encourage clients to make full disclosures to their attorneys, who are then better able to provide candid advice and effective representation.3)
The order exempted the required studio documents covered under attorney-client privilege but rejected the plaintiffs’ general objection that the defense requests were “overbroad, unduly burdensome” and that the records being sought “are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense.”4)
Even though their attorneys may claim that many studio documents fall under the protection of attorney-client privilege, Eick ordered the plaintiffs to produce a privilege log specifically identifying all documents withheld under claim of attorney- client privilege. The defense would then be able to challenge withholding of any particular document.
The judge’s order goes on to specify what documents, communications or witnesses plaintiffs must produce that had been requested by the defense in the following areas:
Specifically, the court ordered the plaintiffs to supply:
Eick also required CBS and Paramount to produce the following documents, but only affecting the time period since 2009.
EXEMPT DOCUMENTS It should be noted that a large number of documents sought by the defense about legal action against fan films are likely to be covered by attorney-client privilege.
VULCAN SCENE No takedown order was ever issued by the studios for Prelude or the Vulcan Scene. Axanar itself voluntarily took down the Vulcan Scene, and then, ironically, issued takedown orders claiming copyright infringement when copies of the scene were posted by others. That order was successfully challenged and the Vulcan Scene remained on YouTube.
Notably, the judge allowed the defense request for records regarding the May 20, 2016, statements made by Star Trek producer J.J. Abrams and director Justin Lin at a publicity event for Star Trek Beyond, specifically relating to Abrams’ comments supporting Axanar as a fan production and claiming that “within the next few weeks, it will be announced this [lawsuit] is going away” so that “fans would be able to continue working on their project.”5)
However, as with the other documents, the court order exempted documents covered by attorney-client privilege, which is what the plaintiffs largely claimed explained their refusal to provide the documents in the first place. Given the plaintiffs’ assertion that documents on this topic were privileged under the ”common interest“ doctrine, this part of the discovery motion could continue to be disputed.
Eick also ordered the plaintiffs to provide written responses to questions posed by the defendants regarding:
Under copyright law, however, the studios can elect to specify the basis on which they want to calculate damages against Axanar. Plaintiffs can opt for either actual damages caused by the alleged infringement, which would be supported by the kinds of records the defense was seeking in discovery, or statutory damages of $150,000 per instance of infringement.
The judge granted the defense request for the studios to produce witnesses for deposition who could discuss communications between the studios, J.J. Abrams and Justin Lin regarding fan films generally, the lawsuit, and Axanar. Those witnesses could well include Abrams and Lin themselves.
At such depositions, however, it is likely the plaintiffs will object to specific questions requiring information protected by attorney-client privilege.
Defendants claim communications with Abrams and Lin are directly related to the studios’ allegation that Axanar and Peters willfully infringed on Star Trek copyrights, and that access to those communications would support the defense claim that Axanar was being produced under copyright law’s fair use exemptions, that the studios had somehow waived their copyright.6)
Finally, Eick ordered the plaintiffs to comply with all discovery-related promises previously made to defendants.
Despite what the defense successfully gained by the order, the judge turned down several of their requests:
In resisting the broader requests regarding their takedown policies, CBS and Paramount had argued that Axanar had “failed to establish how [the studios’] pursuit or lack of pursuit of legal action against other potentially infringing works is relevant, and have not provided any authority that supports their position.8)
Keywords