Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Previous revisionNext revision | |||
— | statement_fact_law [2016/12/22 00:49] – adds links and see also link Carlos Pedraza | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | ====== Filings Shine Light on Weaknesses of Axanar Defense ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | **// | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{TOC}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | //**__ __**// <wrap lo>**By [[user> | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | A new round of pre-trial filings on December 19, 2016, shed light on several emerging weaknesses of the defense case in [[Axanar Productions|Axanar]]' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Both sides filed summaries of what they contend are the facts and the law supporting their cases, as well as a joint list of [[witness_list|witnesses]] to be called and [[exhibit list|evidence]] to be admitted at trial, scheduled to begin January 31, 2017. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <wrap lo>See also: // | ||
+ | |||
+ | The new documents follow a number of pending motions filed in the previous couple of weeks asking federal [[judge_r._gary_klausner|Judge R. Gary Klausner]] to: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Issue a [[summary judgment]] in the case based on either of separate motions by the two sides claiming the material facts in the case are not in dispute, giving the judge leave to rule just on the applicable law, making a jury trial unnecessary. | ||
+ | * [[excluding_evidence|Exclude]] allegedly irrelevant or unfounded evidence from the trial, including Axanar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP right round box 50%> | ||
+ | //**__« Peters ‘reversed’ out certain [personal] expenses by attempting to offset them with the lease payments he was required to make on the studio he rented. »__**// — // | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Axanar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Records showing how much money Peters raised from Star Trek fans to make the feature film, //Axanar//, and then subsequently spent without making the movie at all, have been a central matter of contention between the plaintiffs and defense. | ||
+ | |||
+ | CBS and Paramount' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Peters' | ||
+ | |||
+ | [{{ : | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Altered Financials ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The plaintiffs' | ||
+ | |||
+ | > In response to Plaintiffs’ document requests, Defendants produced a financial statement. Then, after Mr. Peters’ first deposition, he altered the financial statement.< | ||
+ | |||
+ | Peters' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The defense' | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Direct Financial Benefit ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | However, the plaintiffs' | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Vicarious Copyright Infringement ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The allegations of vicarious copyright infringement require the studios to prove Peters; | ||
+ | - Directly financially benefitted (note the law does not use the term ' | ||
+ | - Supervised or controlled Axanar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP right round box 50%> | ||
+ | //**__At the time of their public statement, Abrams had only seen a short clip of ‘Prelude’ and Lin hadn't seen ' | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Abrams' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The December 19 filing also clarified why the defense wanted to have Star Trek producer J.J. Abrams and director Justin Lin testify on Axanar' | ||
+ | ==== For the Defense ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | At a publicity event for //Star Trek Beyond'//, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The defense construed the two directors' | ||
+ | |||
+ | [{{ : | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Irrelevant, After the Fact ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The studios, however, noted that Abrams and Lin had little actual | ||
+ | |||
+ | > A video showing Justin Lin and J.J. Abrams after this lawsuit is not relevant. <wrap hi> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Pre-Trial Conference ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The full set of documents filed December 19 are part of a package set for use at the final pre-trial conference in the case, scheduled for January 9. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Memorandum of Contention of Fact and Law, filed by each side, is required by court rules. It explains in brief form each side's theory of the case and a narrative of what they expect to prove. It also includes a discussion of the legal issues that should decide the case and any anticipated problems with evidence to be admitted.((General Order 96-15, California Central District Court, §9.5, pp. 5-7, retrieved 12/19/16.)) | ||
+ | |||
+ | Judges at a final pre-trial meeting between the parties often use this conference to encourage settling cases. At the conference, the judge and the lawyers can review the evidence and clarify the issues in dispute. They may also try to agree on undisputed facts or points of law in order to shorten the trial’s duration. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Other documents filed December 19 named the witnesses expected to be called and how long their testimony and cross-examination are expected to take. {{: | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | **Keywords** {{tag> |