United States District Court Central District of California

Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 163 Filed 01/03/17 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:10566 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:15-CV-09938-RGK-E Date January 3, 2017 Title Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Axanar Productions, Inc. Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Charles A. Rojas Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE 72) and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 75) I. INTRODUCTION On March 11, 2016, Paramount Pictures Corporation (“Paramount”) and CBS Studios Inc. (“CBS,” and, together with Paramount, “Plaintiffs”) filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Axanar Productions, Inc. and Alec Peters (“Peters,” and, together with Axanar Productions, “Defendants”). The FAC alleges copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious copyright infringement. Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to liability and injunctive relief, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (collectively “Motions”). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES both Motions. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The undisputed facts are as follows: Plaintiffs Paramount and CBS own the copyrights to Star Trek motion pictures and television series, respectively. Star Trek is a popular science fiction franchise. Since debuting it on television in 1966, CBS has produced six Star Trek television series totaling more than 700 episodes. A seventh series is scheduled to premiere in 2017. Paramount has produced thirteen full-length Star Trek motion pictures since 1979; the most recent was released in 2016. In addition, Plaintiffs have licensed numerous Star Trek derivative works (together with the Star Trek television series and the Star Trek motion pictures, the “Star Trek Copyrighted Works”), including books, games, merchandise, and audio-visual works such as documentaries. These Star Trek Copyrighted Works have transported the hearts of a legion of fans to the Star Trek universe. The original Star Trek television series (“The Original Series”) chronicle the adventures of the spaceship U.S.S. Enterprise and its crew as they explore space, the final frontier in the twenty-third century. U.S.S. Enterprise is one spaceship in the Starfleet of United Federation of Planets (the CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 15 Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 163 Filed 01/03/17 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:10567 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:15-CV-09938-RGK-E Date January 3, 2017 Title Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Axanar Productions, Inc. “Federation”). The Original Series feature humans and fictitious species such as Vulcans and Klingons. A human character known as Garth of Izar (“Garth”) appear in one episode. As depicted in The Original Series, Garth is a former starship captain and famous among Starfleet officers for his exploits in the Battle of Axanar. Planet Axanar seems to be the namesake of Defendant Axanar Productions. Axanar Productions’ president is Peters, a long-time Star Trek fan. Like many other Star Trek fans, Peters wants to make his own Star Trek production. However, going where no man has gone before in producing Star Trek fan films, Defendants sought to make “a professional production” “with a fully professional crew, many of whom have worked on Star Trek itself” and raised over a million dollars on crowdsourcing websites Kickstarter and Indiegogo to fund their projects. (Pls.’ Statement Uncontroverted Facts “Pls.’ SUF” ¶¶ 100, 102, ECF No. 72-1; Defs.’ Resp. Pls.’ SUF “Defs.’ Resp.” ¶ 83, ECF No. 87-1; Grossman Decl. Exs. CC, DD, ECF No. 72-32, 72-33.) Defendants first raised money and produced a twenty-one minute film Star Trek: Prelude to Axanar (“Prelude”). Defendants released Prelude on YouTube to promote and to raise funds for a full-length feature film (the “Axanar Motion Picture,” and, collectively with Prelude, the “Axanar Works”). In addition to releasing Prelude, Defendants have completed a script of the Axanar Motion Picture and have filmed and released a scene (the “Vulcan Scene”) therefrom. The Axanar Works are set in the Star Trek universe twenty-one years before The Original Series and depict the Battle of Axanar and the exploits of Garth. III. JUDICIAL STANDARD Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a court may grant summary judgment only where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Upon such a showing, the court may grant summary judgment on all or part of the claim. See id. Facts are “material” only if dispute about them may affect the outcome of the case under applicable substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant. Id. To prevail on a summary judgment motion, the movant must show that there are no genuine issues of material fact as to matters upon which it has the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Such showing “must establish beyond controversy every essential element of” the movant’s claim or affirmative defense. S. Cal. Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and quotation marks omitted). On issues where the movant does not have the burden of proof at trial, the movant needs to show only that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmovant’s case. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. To defeat a summary judgment motion, the nonmovant may not merely rely on its pleadings or on conclusory statements. Id. at 324. Nor may the nonmovant merely attack or discredit the movant’s evidence. See Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 701 F.2d 95, 97 (9th Cir. 1983). The nonmovant must affirmatively present specific admissible evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 15 Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 163 Filed 01/03/17 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:10568 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:15-CV-09938-RGK-E Date January 3, 2017 Title Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Axanar Productions, Inc. “[I]n ruling on a motion for summary judgment, ‘[t]he evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.’” Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1863 (2014) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255). The court may not determine credibility of witnesses or weigh the evidence. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. Nonmovant’s “version of any disputed issue of fact . is presumed correct.” Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 456 (1992). To grant summary judgment, the court should find that evidence is “so one-sided that [the movant] must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. IV. DISCUSSION Both Motions raise two core issues – whether the Axanar Works are substantially similar to the Star Trek Copyrighted Works, and whether Defendants have a valid fair use defense under the Copyright Act. The Court will discuss the two core issues after first addressing the jurisdictional issue of ripeness, and will afterward discuss Plaintiffs’ claims of Defendants’ willful, contributory, and vicarious infringement, and Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory and injunctive relief. A. The Action with Respect to the Axanar Motion Picture Is Not Premature Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ claims with respect to the Axanar Motion Picture are premature because the motion picture is not completed. The Court disagrees. Defendants’ assertion invokes the judicial doctrine of ripeness. The doctrine is derived from constitutional limitations on judicial power. Nat’l Park Hosp. Ass’n v. Dep’t of Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 808 (2003). “The ripeness doctrine is . designed to separate matters that are premature for review because the injury is speculative and may never occur from those cases that are appropriate for federal court action. Through avoidance of premature adjudication, the ripeness doctrine prevents courts from becoming entangled in abstract disagreements.” Ray Charles Found. v. Robinson, 795 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2015). Repeating the argument from their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants assert that without the completed Axanar Motion Picture, the Court cannot make the necessary comparisons to determine copyright infringement. The Court explained its rejection of this argument in the order denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Order Re: Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss 6-7, ECF No. 43.) The Court will not repeat its rationale here, except to note that evidence of a final shooting script satisfies the judicial standard for summary judgment. (See Pls.’ Reply Defs.’ Resp. “Pls.’ Reply” ¶ 57, ECF No. 102-1.) The final shooting script is factually distinguishable from the “screenplay adaptation . currently underway” in Team Angry Filmworks, Inc. v. Geer that Defendants cite to support their argument. 171 F. Supp. 3d 437, 446 (W.D. Pa. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). The claim against the Axanar Motion Picture is not based on “abstract disagreements” and is ripe for adjudication. Ray Charles Found., 795 F.3d at 1117. CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 3 of 15 Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 163 Filed 01/03/17 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:10569 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No.

Load more