Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
lawsuit [2016/04/01 14:21] – adds material to MtD section Carlos Pedraza | lawsuit [Unknown date] (current) – external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
<wrap lo> | <wrap lo> | ||
</ | </ | ||
- | {{TOC}} | ||
{{page> | {{page> | ||
====== Lawsuit ====== | ====== Lawsuit ====== | ||
- | On December 29, 2015, [[CBS]] and [[Paramount Pictures]] filed a **lawsuit** in Federal District Court in California' | ||
- | {{ :paramount_logo.gif|}} | + | On December 29, 2015, [[CBS]] and [[Paramount Pictures]] filed a **lawsuit** in Federal District Court in California' |
===== The Players ===== | ===== The Players ===== | ||
+ | {{TOC}} | ||
+ | {{ : | ||
==== Plaintiffs ==== | ==== Plaintiffs ==== | ||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
Axanar Productions and Alec Peters are both represented pro bono by [[Winston & Strawn]], whose lead attorney is [[Erin Ranahan]]. | Axanar Productions and Alec Peters are both represented pro bono by [[Winston & Strawn]], whose lead attorney is [[Erin Ranahan]]. | ||
- | No [[other attorneys]] have yet been announced for any of the " | ||
==== Judge ==== | ==== Judge ==== | ||
Line 39: | Line 38: | ||
===== Legal Complaint ===== | ===== Legal Complaint ===== | ||
<WRAP round download> | <WRAP round download> | ||
- | On March 11, 2016, CBS and Paramount filed a more detailed, amended legal complaint, which is available for {{::paramount_pictures_corporation_v_axanar_productions_inc_et_al_cacdce-15-09938_0026.0.pdf|download [1.8 MB PDF]}}. | + | On March 11, 2016, CBS and Paramount filed a more detailed, amended legal complaint, which is available for [[https:// |
</ | </ | ||
<wrap lo>You can also read the original, | <wrap lo>You can also read the original, | ||
- | |||
==== Summary ==== | ==== Summary ==== | ||
Here's a [[summary of the lawsuit]], identifying the players and what's at stake, minus the legal mumbo-jumbo. | Here's a [[summary of the lawsuit]], identifying the players and what's at stake, minus the legal mumbo-jumbo. | ||
Line 49: | Line 47: | ||
==== Pre-Trial Order ==== | ==== Pre-Trial Order ==== | ||
[{{ : | [{{ : | ||
- | <wrap lo>//See also: [[Scheduling conference]]//</ | + | <wrap lo>//See also: [[Joint statement]] and [[Scheduling conference]]//</ |
- | On March 4, 2016, Judge Klausner issued a standard pre-trial order(({{:: | + | On March 4, 2016, Judge Klausner issued a standard pre-trial order(({{:: |
- | Each side's [[discovery|discovery plans]] are due in advance, on April 18, to be hashed out at the [[scheduling conference]]. It is unclear how the order affects the pending | + | The statement outlined the two parties' |
+ | |||
+ | The [[motion to dismiss]] the case filed by the defense | ||
==== Axanar' | ==== Axanar' | ||
+ | |||
The filing of the [[summary_of_the_lawsuit|amended complaint]], | The filing of the [[summary_of_the_lawsuit|amended complaint]], | ||
- | The original legal complaint gave the defendants 20 days to formally respond to the plaintiffs' | + | The original legal complaint gave the defendants 20 days to formally respond to the plaintiffs' |
+ | |||
+ | === Defendants' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Following two unsuccessful motions to dismiss the [[copyright infringement]] lawsuit against them, Axanar Productions and producer Alec Peters on May 23, 2016, filed a formal [[Answer]] to the legal complaint filed against them by CBS and Paramount Pictures. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Answer included a [[answer# | ||
=== Motions to Dismiss === | === Motions to Dismiss === | ||
- | Instead of an Answer, [[Winston & Strawn]] | + | Instead of an Answer, [[Winston & Strawn]] |
* Insufficient and implausible citations of instances of copyright infringement. | * Insufficient and implausible citations of instances of copyright infringement. | ||
Line 68: | Line 75: | ||
* Inability to sue based on a film that has not yet been produced.(([[https:// | * Inability to sue based on a film that has not yet been produced.(([[https:// | ||
- | While the motion | + | The plaintiffs [[dismissal_opposition|filed briefs]] opposing the second dismissal motion on April 11, arguing against all three points. |
+ | |||
+ | {{section> | ||
+ | |||
+ | While the motion | ||
+ | |||
+ | More hints about the emerging defense strategy appeared in the [[joint statement]] submitted May 2 by both sides to the judge. | ||
== Amended Legal Complaint == | == Amended Legal Complaint == | ||
- | Despite both sides' agreement on a two-week continuance(([[http:// | + | Despite both sides' agreement on a two-week continuance(([[http:// |
Instead of arguing over the original dismissal motion, the plaintiffs opted to file an amended legal complaint on March 11. According to a defense {{: | Instead of arguing over the original dismissal motion, the plaintiffs opted to file an amended legal complaint on March 11. According to a defense {{: | ||
Line 100: | Line 113: | ||
Following the March 11 filing of the plaintiff' | Following the March 11 filing of the plaintiff' | ||
- | That's where the case stood until March 28's new dismissal motion, which asks for a hearing date considering the motion on May 9, the same day as the [[scheduling conference]]. | + | That's where the case stood until March 28's new dismissal motion, which asked for a hearing date considering the motion on May 9, the same day as the [[scheduling conference]]. |
---- | ---- | ||
- | **Keywords** | + | **Keywords** {{tag> |
- | {{tag> | + |