Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
supplemental_discovery [2016/10/09 07:14] – adds download links Carlos Pedrazasupplemental_discovery [2018/06/26 22:20] (current) – [Gene Roddenberry] Carlos Pedraza
Line 16: Line 16:
 On October 7, 2016, following up on a [[compel_discovery|motion to compel discovery]] filed a week prior by Axanar attorney [[Erin Ranahan]], the defense told the court that plaintiffs continued to stonewall the defense by "refusing to produce any responsive documents relating to Defendants’ investigation." On October 7, 2016, following up on a [[compel_discovery|motion to compel discovery]] filed a week prior by Axanar attorney [[Erin Ranahan]], the defense told the court that plaintiffs continued to stonewall the defense by "refusing to produce any responsive documents relating to Defendants’ investigation."
  
-The court documents offered a public peek at what had been going on behind the scenes during the lawsuit's [[discovery]] period. +The court documents offered a public peek at what had been going on behind the scenes during the lawsuit's [[discovery]] period. The next step for this motion was an October 21 hearing before [[federal_magistrate_judge_charles_f._eick|Federal Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick]]
 ===== Trek's Copyright Ownership ===== ===== Trek's Copyright Ownership =====
  
Line 26: Line 25:
 Throughout the motion to compel, Ranahan asserted that Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry had [[compel_discovery#Gene Roddenberry|originally owned]] the copyright, and that the studios' refusal to date to provide documentation of the chain of title raised questions over whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring suit against producer [[Alec Peters]] and his company [[Axanar Productions]] Inc. Throughout the motion to compel, Ranahan asserted that Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry had [[compel_discovery#Gene Roddenberry|originally owned]] the copyright, and that the studios' refusal to date to provide documentation of the chain of title raised questions over whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring suit against producer [[Alec Peters]] and his company [[Axanar Productions]] Inc.
  
-[{{ ::gene-nimoy-spock.jpg?300|**Gene Roddenberry** (right) with Leonard Nimoy on the set of Star Trek's first pilot, "The Cage." //Photo/Memory Alpha//}}]+[{{ ::gene-nimoy-spock.jpg?300|**Gene Roddenberry** (right) with Leonard Nimoy on the set of Star Trek's first pilot, "The Cage." //<wrap lo>Photo/Memory Alpha</wrap>//}}]
  
 In the newest filing, the defense admitted the studios' attorneys had provided documents authenticating CBS and Paramount indeed owned Star Trek's copyrights: In the newest filing, the defense admitted the studios' attorneys had provided documents authenticating CBS and Paramount indeed owned Star Trek's copyrights:
Line 32: Line 31:
 > Plaintiffs produced the missing chain of title documents on September 27, 2016 (long after they agreed to do so). … Thus, Defendants withdraw their Motion with respect to … documents related to copyright ownership.((Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery, p. 5, 10/7/16.)) > Plaintiffs produced the missing chain of title documents on September 27, 2016 (long after they agreed to do so). … Thus, Defendants withdraw their Motion with respect to … documents related to copyright ownership.((Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery, p. 5, 10/7/16.))
  
-While the supplemental motion did not explicitly state the defense would abandon this line of argument, the documents presumably authenticated the studios' ownership.+While the supplemental motion did not explicitly state the defense would abandon this line of argument, the documents presumably confirmed the studios' ownership.
  
 ===== Plaintiffs Stonewalling ===== ===== Plaintiffs Stonewalling =====
Line 52: Line 51:
  
 <WRAP right round download 50%> <WRAP right round download 50%>
-<wrap lo><wrap em>DOWNLOAD</wrap> these court documents (PDF) regarding the defense motion to compel discovery: \\ +<wrap lo><wrap em>DOWNLOAD</wrap> these court documents (PDF) regarding the defense [[compel_discovery|motion to compel]] discovery: \\ 
 [[https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzmetJxi-p0VOXJ4TnByY1pqOVk|Defendants' Supplemental Memo]] \\ [[https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzmetJxi-p0VOXJ4TnByY1pqOVk|Defendants' Supplemental Memo]] \\
 [[https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzmetJxi-p0VOXJ4TnByY1pqOVk|Declaration by Axanar Attorney Erin Ranahan]] \\ [[https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzmetJxi-p0VOXJ4TnByY1pqOVk|Declaration by Axanar Attorney Erin Ranahan]] \\
Line 69: Line 68:
  
 Throughout discovery, Loeb has asserted that many of the documents and communication sought by the defense are protected by privilege, such as plaintiffs' communications with their attorneys.(([[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/attorney-client_privilege|Attorney-Client Privilege, Legal Information Institute]], Cornell University School of Law, retrieved 10/7/16.)) Throughout discovery, Loeb has asserted that many of the documents and communication sought by the defense are protected by privilege, such as plaintiffs' communications with their attorneys.(([[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/attorney-client_privilege|Attorney-Client Privilege, Legal Information Institute]], Cornell University School of Law, retrieved 10/7/16.))
 +
 +{{page>fact check}}
  
 But the defense specifically sought communications, not with their attorneys but among the plaintiffs themselves. Ranahan asked Loeb's Grossman if the plaintiffs were continuing to assert "communications between non‐lawyers at CBS and Paramount about the lawsuit are covered by a 'comment [sic] interest' privilege. … If you are standing by this, please provide the authority for this."((Email from Erin Ranahan, Winston & Strawn, to David Grossman, Loeb & Loeb, 9/26/16.)) But the defense specifically sought communications, not with their attorneys but among the plaintiffs themselves. Ranahan asked Loeb's Grossman if the plaintiffs were continuing to assert "communications between non‐lawyers at CBS and Paramount about the lawsuit are covered by a 'comment [sic] interest' privilege. … If you are standing by this, please provide the authority for this."((Email from Erin Ranahan, Winston & Strawn, to David Grossman, Loeb & Loeb, 9/26/16.))
Line 80: Line 81:
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
-In his emailed reply, Grossman told Ranahan the common interest discussion to which she referred was only about whether the principle extended to discussions taking place before the suit was filed. "I believe that it does," Grossman wrote. "Purely non‐legal communications … would likely not fall under that category. However, I don't believe any documents [that] have been withheld that fall into that latter category."((Email from David Grossman, Loeb & Loeb, to Erin Ranahan, Winston & Strawn, 9/26/16.))+In his emailed reply, Grossman told Ranahan the common interest discussion to which she referred was only about whether the principle extended to discussions taking place before the suit was filed. "I believe that it does," Grossman wrote. "Purely non‐legal communications … would likely not fall under that category. However, I don't believe any documents have been withheld that fall into that latter category."((Email from David Grossman, Loeb & Loeb, to Erin Ranahan, Winston & Strawn, 9/26/16.))
  
 === Privilege Log === === Privilege Log ===
Line 149: Line 150:
 > You have not responded to my question from last week regarding the third-party witnesses you are representing and whether you will be producing their documents this week. These deponents were [served subpoenas] several weeks ago and while we agreed to move the depositions at your firm's request to October, we did not agree to delay the production of documents and I requested your agreement that those documents would be produced ahead of time.((Email from David Grossman, Loeb & Loeb, to Erin Ranahan, Winston & Strawn, 9/26/16.)) > You have not responded to my question from last week regarding the third-party witnesses you are representing and whether you will be producing their documents this week. These deponents were [served subpoenas] several weeks ago and while we agreed to move the depositions at your firm's request to October, we did not agree to delay the production of documents and I requested your agreement that those documents would be produced ahead of time.((Email from David Grossman, Loeb & Loeb, to Erin Ranahan, Winston & Strawn, 9/26/16.))
 {{:axamonitor-ico.gif?nolink|}} {{:axamonitor-ico.gif?nolink|}}
 +
 +----
 +**Keywords** {{tag>fact_check lawsuit players defendants plaintiffs defense}}