Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Next revision		Previous revision
seal_denied [2016/12/10 16:55] – created Carlos Pedrazaseal_denied [Unknown date] (current) – external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
 <WRAP rightalign> <WRAP rightalign>
-{{::less-is-more-redacted.jpg?nolink|}} \\+{{::less-is-more-redacted.jpg|}} \\
 <wrap lo><wrap lo>//Photo/Flickr/Stallio//</wrap></wrap> <wrap lo><wrap lo>//Photo/Flickr/Stallio//</wrap></wrap>
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
Line 10: Line 10:
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
 +<wrap lo>//Main article: [[summary_judgment|Parties in Axanar Case Oppose Summary Judgment]]//</wrap> \\
 <wrap lo>//See also: [[summary_replies|Defense, Plaintiffs Rebut Opposition to Summary Judgment]]//</wrap> <wrap lo>//See also: [[summary_replies|Defense, Plaintiffs Rebut Opposition to Summary Judgment]]//</wrap>
  
Line 16: Line 17:
 The judge, who recently warned attorneys that without adequate justification he would automatically deny such attempts, rejected the defense's effort to submit two documents under seal. The judge, who recently warned attorneys that without adequate justification he would automatically deny such attempts, rejected the defense's effort to submit two documents under seal.
  
-<WRAP right box 50%> +===== Rejected Redactions =====
-//**__It remains unclear why a production its lawyers continually characterize as a non-commercial fan film has trade secrets to protect.__**// +
-</WRAP>+
  
-===== Rejected Redactions =====+{{page>summary judgment box}}
  
-The documents at issue were:+The documents at issue were part of the evidence both sides filed to support their own motions for [[summary judgment]]:
  
   * **Exhibit 2** to the declaration by Axanar attorney Brian Li-A-Ping Declaration (in its entirety),((Order Granting Defendants' Unopposed Application to File Under Seal (Dkt. 105), p. 2, 12/9/16.)) identified by the defense as excerpts from the deposition of witness Daniel O’Rourke, who testified for plaintiffs [[CBS]] and [[paramount_pictures|Paramount Pictures]]. Li-A-Ping is an attorney for [[Winston & Strawn]], the firm representing Axanar pro bono in the [[lawsuit]].   * **Exhibit 2** to the declaration by Axanar attorney Brian Li-A-Ping Declaration (in its entirety),((Order Granting Defendants' Unopposed Application to File Under Seal (Dkt. 105), p. 2, 12/9/16.)) identified by the defense as excerpts from the deposition of witness Daniel O’Rourke, who testified for plaintiffs [[CBS]] and [[paramount_pictures|Paramount Pictures]]. Li-A-Ping is an attorney for [[Winston & Strawn]], the firm representing Axanar pro bono in the [[lawsuit]].
 +
   * **Exhibit MMM** to the declaration by studio attorney David Grossman of an Axanar casting document which Defendants wanted hidden from the public.((Order Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Application for Leave to File Documents Under Seal in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 101), p. 1, 12/9/16.))   * **Exhibit MMM** to the declaration by studio attorney David Grossman of an Axanar casting document which Defendants wanted hidden from the public.((Order Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Application for Leave to File Documents Under Seal in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 101), p. 1, 12/9/16.))
 +
 +<WRAP right box 50%>
 +//**__It remains unclear why a production its lawyers continually characterize as a non-commercial fan film has trade secrets to protect.__**//
 +</WRAP>
  
 ==== O'Rourke Deposition ==== ==== O'Rourke Deposition ====
  
-The defense wanted to file under seal the entire September 30 deposition the plaintiffs’ witness, Daniel O’Rourke, Paramount's vice-president of rights and research. The studios had designated his testimony as "confidential," and Axanar attorney [[Erin Ranahan]] had told the judge:+The defense wanted to file under seal all the excerpts from the September 30 deposition of the plaintiffs’ witness, Daniel O’Rourke, Paramount's vice-president of rights and research. The studios had designated his testimony as "confidential," and Axanar attorney [[Erin Ranahan]] had told the judge:
  
 > Counsel for Defendants conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs on whether Exhibit 2 … could be de-designated to avoid the need to file the Exhibit under seal. … Plaintiffs requested that Defendants file Exhibit 2 under seal.((Defendants' Axanar Productions Inc. and Alec Peters' Unopposed Application to File Under Seal, Docket 105.0, p. 3, 12/5/16.)) > Counsel for Defendants conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs on whether Exhibit 2 … could be de-designated to avoid the need to file the Exhibit under seal. … Plaintiffs requested that Defendants file Exhibit 2 under seal.((Defendants' Axanar Productions Inc. and Alec Peters' Unopposed Application to File Under Seal, Docket 105.0, p. 3, 12/5/16.))
Line 43: Line 47:
 == What Happens to Unredacted Documents? == == What Happens to Unredacted Documents? ==
  
-It's not clear what will happen to the documents the judge refused to bar from the public — whether the parties will get another chance to justify filing under seal, whether they will be released unredacted to the public, or if the parties can withdraw the documents.+The excerpt from O'Rourke's unredacted deposition was filed with the court on December 13. It's not clear what will happen to the other document the judge refused to bar from the public — whether the parties will get another chance to justify filing under seal, whether it will be released unredacted to the public, or if the defense can withdraw the document.
  
 ==== Axanar Casting Document ==== ==== Axanar Casting Document ====
Line 51: Line 55:
 In his declaration, Grossman's quotation from that casting document was completely redacted.((Declaration of David Grossman in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Docket 102.4, p. 1, 12/5/16.)) In his declaration, Grossman's quotation from that casting document was completely redacted.((Declaration of David Grossman in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Docket 102.4, p. 1, 12/5/16.))
  
-While references to the document are heavily redacted at the defendants' insistence, it is possible to deduce the realm in which it might have been used by the plaintiffs. Grossman refers to the document in his response to the defense's criticism of facts the plaintiffs believe are beyond dispute.+Judge Klausner rejected the request to keep the document hidden, leading Grossman to file the unredacted version on December 19. The full document makes clear why the plaintiffs cited the document and likely what the defendants sought to keep from public view.
  
-=== What Axanar is Hiding ===+=== What Axanar Was Hiding ===
  
-The fact at issue is completely redacted but it's known to refer to evidence from the plaintiffs' depositions of Peters and //Axanar// director [[robert_meyer_burnett|Robert Meyer Burnett]] and from the also-redacted Axanar marketing plan.+The studios' declaration of what they considered undisputed facts referred to evidence from the plaintiffs' depositions of Peters and //Axanar// director [[robert_meyer_burnett|Robert Meyer Burnett]] and from the also-redacted Axanar marketing plan.
  
-Grossman may be referring to Peters' grander plan to commercialize Axanar-produced Star Trek projects, to which the document may have alluded. In his deposition Gossett testified Peters had "repeatedly described to him the concept that he was interested in creating alternative ways for fans to view Star Trek, and a document [Exhibit MMM] produced by Defendants states: [//several lines redacted//]."((Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Opposition to Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, ¶108, pp. 85-86, 12/5/16.))+Grossman referred in the now-public casting notice Peters' grander plan to commercialize Axanar-produced Star Trek projects. In his deposition Gossett testified Peters had "repeatedly described to him the concept that he was interested in creating alternative ways for fans to view Star Trek, and a document [Exhibit MMM] produced by Defendants states: [//several lines redacted//]."((Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Opposition to Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, ¶108, pp. 85-86, 12/5/16.))
  
 <WRAP right round box 50%> <WRAP right round box 50%>
Line 71: Line 75:
 **Grossman**: And were those characters that you and Mr. Peters had included in the draft script that you were working on? \\ **Grossman**: And were those characters that you and Mr. Peters had included in the draft script that you were working on? \\
 **Gossett**: Yes. \\ **Gossett**: Yes. \\
-**Grossman**: If you look at the second page of this document it says, "Axanar" -- well, "Team Pitch." It says, "Axanar is a groundbreaking film meant to show that web features can be the equal of their TV/cinema counterparts. The crew is led by professionals with a large contingent of nonunion amateurs who have worked together for years on similar projects." \\+**Grossman**: If you look at the second page of this document it says, "Axanar" -- well, "Team Pitch." It says, "Axanar is a groundbreaking film <wrap hi>meant to show that web features can be the equal of their TV/cinema counterparts</wrap>. The crew is led by professionals with a large contingent of nonunion amateurs who have worked together for years on similar projects." \\
 <wrap indent>Did Mr. Peters ever describe to you the concept that he was interested in creating alternative ways for fans to view Star Trek content? \\ </wrap> <wrap indent>Did Mr. Peters ever describe to you the concept that he was interested in creating alternative ways for fans to view Star Trek content? \\ </wrap>
 **Gossett**: Repeatedly. \\ **Gossett**: Repeatedly. \\
Line 82: Line 86:
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
-This is supported by later redacted references by Grossman to Exhibit MMM surrounding the plaintiffs' allegation that Axanar's use of Star Trek intellectual property posed a business threat to its owners:+The document was used by Grossman to provide context for the plaintiffs' allegation that Peters' creation of //Axanar// as a derivative work of Star Trek intellectual property posed a business threat to its owners:
  
 > Plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses and deposition testimony … extensively discuss the harm to Plaintiffs from the unchecked creation of unauthorized derivative works.((Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Opposition to Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, ¶111, pp. 88-90, 12/5/16.)) > Plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses and deposition testimony … extensively discuss the harm to Plaintiffs from the unchecked creation of unauthorized derivative works.((Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Opposition to Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, ¶111, pp. 88-90, 12/5/16.))
 +
 +=== The Unredacted Casting Announcement ===
 +
 +The announcement, circulated amongst Hollywood talent agencies, read:
 +
 +> <wrap lo>Casting Announcement/Breakdown: Star Trek: Axanar \\ Title: Star Trek: Axanar \\ Producer: Alec Peters \\ Director: Christian Gossett \\ Description: Feature film. Science Fiction Drama. <wrap hi>Set in the Star Trek Universe</wrap> 20 years before the time of Kirk, Spock & McCoy. Axanar is the story of Garth of Izar, the legendary captain who won a decisive victory at the Battle of Axanar. \\ \\ Format: HD Video, SAG New Media</wrap>
 +
 +The announcement ([[https://www.dropbox.com/s/sk27ytj5dewymos/Paramount_Pictures_Corporation_v_Axanar_Productions_Inc_et_al__cacdce-15-09938__0146.1.pdf?raw=1|view PDF]]) goes on to describe three leadings roles (a first officer, a shape-shifting intelligence officer and a tactical officer) and three supporting roles. 
  
 == Justification == == Justification ==
Line 118: Line 130:
  
 ---- ----
-**Keywords** {{tag>lawsuit parties plaintiffs defendants defense motions}}+**Keywords** {{tag>lawsuit parties plaintiffs defendants defense motions summary_judgment}}