Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
discovery_order [2016/10/22 00:27]
Carlos Pedraza Adds see also link
discovery_order [2009/05/26 00:24] (current)
Line 15: Line 15:
  
 On Twitter, Axanar producer [[Alec Peters]], a named defendant, called the order "a big win in court today." His surrogate's blog, [[http://fff.trekbloggers.com/2016/10/21/breaking-news-magistrate-judge-rules-in-axanars-favor-regarding-discovery/|Fan Film Factor]], summed it up like this: On Twitter, Axanar producer [[Alec Peters]], a named defendant, called the order "a big win in court today." His surrogate's blog, [[http://fff.trekbloggers.com/2016/10/21/breaking-news-magistrate-judge-rules-in-axanars-favor-regarding-discovery/|Fan Film Factor]], summed it up like this:
 +
 +<WRAP right round download 50%>
 +<wrap lo><wrap em>DOWNLOAD</wrap> Judge Eick's [[driv>0BzmetJxi-p0VaG9EeFBrWW1KWU0|order on the defense motion]] to compel discovery. Also: Defense attorney [[Erin Ranahan]]'s request [[driv>0BzmetJxi-p0VTWcta2pzSHpFWUk|for a transcript]] of the October 21 hearing on the motion.</wrap>
 +</WRAP>
  
 > "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."(([[http://fff.trekbloggers.com/2016/10/21/breaking-news-magistrate-judge-rules-in-axanars-favor-regarding-discovery/|"Breaking news!!! Magistrate Judge rules in AXANAR’s favor regarding discovery!" Jonathan Lane, Fan Film Factor]], 10/21/16.)) > "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."(([[http://fff.trekbloggers.com/2016/10/21/breaking-news-magistrate-judge-rules-in-axanars-favor-regarding-discovery/|"Breaking news!!! Magistrate Judge rules in AXANAR’s favor regarding discovery!" Jonathan Lane, Fan Film Factor]], 10/21/16.))
  
 However, with the exceptions in discovery requests listed below, the order officially denied the defense motion to compel discovery.((Judge Eick wrote: "Except as expressly stated herein, the Motion is denied.")) However, with the exceptions in discovery requests listed below, the order officially denied the defense motion to compel discovery.((Judge Eick wrote: "Except as expressly stated herein, the Motion is denied."))
- 
---> Read the Full Text of the Court Order# 
-<wrap lo>The Court has read and considered all papers filed in support of and in opposition to "Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery from Plaintiffs" ("the Motion"), filed September 29, 2016. The Court heard oral argument on October 21, 2016. \\ 
-\\ 
-Defendants have withdrawn the Motion as to those matters subsumed under "Issue 3." See "Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum, etc.," filed October 7, 2016, at p. 5; see also "Joint Stipulation, etc.," filed September 29, 2016, at pp. 51-58. \\ 
-\\ 
-On or before October 28, 2016, Plaintiffs shall: (1) serve supplemental responses without objection, and produce all documents responsive to, the following requests (except documents withheld under claim of attorney-client privilege): 14, 35, 36, 37 (limited to the works allegedly infringed and also limited to documents (which may be summary documents) sufficient to show revenues and profitability), 17 (limited to 2009 to the present, 18 (limited to 2009 to the present), 21, 25, and 29; (2) serve supplemental answers without objection to Interrogatories Nos. 8 and 9; (3) produce for deposition a witness or witnesses prepared to testify as to Deposition Testimony Subject No. 28; (4) serve a privilege log identifying with particularity all documents withheld under claim of attorney-client privilege; and (5) to the extent not otherwise ordered herein, fulfill all discovery-related promises previously made by Plaintiffs to Defendants. \\ 
-\\ 
-Except as expressly stated herein, the Motion is denied. \\ 
-\\ 
-Any party seeking review of this Order shall cause the preparation and filing of a transcript of the October 21, 2016 hearing. \\ 
-\\ 
-//Hon. Charles F. Eick, Judge//</wrap> 
-\\ 
-\\ 
-<-- 
  
 ===== Withdrawals and Exemptions ===== ===== Withdrawals and Exemptions =====
 +
 +The judge's order formally noted what was reported last week that Axanar's attorneys had withdrawn the part of the motion challenging the [[supplemental_discovery|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.
  
 <WRAP right round info 50%> <WRAP right round info 50%>
 <wrap lo>**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.(([[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney–client_privilege|Wikipedia, "Attorney-client privilege"]]. retrieved 10/21/16.))</wrap> <wrap lo>**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.(([[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney–client_privilege|Wikipedia, "Attorney-client privilege"]]. retrieved 10/21/16.))</wrap>
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
- 
-The judge's order formally noted what was reported last week that Axanar's attorneys had withdrawn the part of the motion challenging the [[supplemental_discovery|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. 
  
 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."((“Discovery Motion, Joint Stipulation Regarding Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery from Plaintiffs,” p. 31, 9/29/16.)) 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."((“Discovery Motion, Joint Stipulation Regarding Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery from Plaintiffs,” p. 31, 9/29/16.))