Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Case 2:10-cv-08123-JFW -RZ Document 120 Filed 06/06/11 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1642 1 Dean A. Dickie (appearing Pro Hac Vice) [email protected] 2 Kathleen E. Koppenhoefer (appearing Pro Hac Vice) [email protected] 3 MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C. 225 West Washington Street, Suite 2600 4 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312.460.4200 5 Facsimile: 312.460.4288 6 Ira Gould (appearing Pro Hac Vice) [email protected] 7 Ryan L. Greely (appearing Pro Hac Vice) [email protected] 8 GOULD LAW GROUP 120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2750 9 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312.781.0680 10 Facsimile: 312.726.1328 11 George L. Hampton IV (State Bar No. 144433) [email protected] 12 Colin C. Holley (State Bar No. 191999) LLP [email protected] 13 HAMPTONHOLLEY LLP 2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 260 OL L EY 14 Corona del Mar, California 92625 H Telephone: 949.718.4550 15 Facsimile: 949.718.4580 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs AMPTON H EBONY LATRICE BATTS a/k/a Phoenix Phenom; Corona del Mar,17 California 92625 and MANFRED MOHR 2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 260 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 20 WESTERN DIVISION 21 EBONY LATRICE BATTS, an individual ) Case No. CV10-8123 JFW (RZx) a/k/a Phoenix Phenom, et al., ) 22 ) PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs, ) OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 23 ) IN SUPPORT OF THEIR v. ) OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ 24 ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY WILLIAM ADAMS, JR.; STACY ) JUDGMENT 25 FERGUSON; ALLAN PINEDA; and ) DATE: June 27, 2011 JAIME GOMEZ, all individually and ) TIME: 1:30 p.m. 26 collectively as the music group The Black ) Eyed Peas, et al., ) CTRM: 16 27 ) Defendants. ) 28 ) Case 2:10-cv-08123-JFW -RZ Document 120 Filed 06/06/11 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:1643 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 2 5 I. BACKGROUND FACTS ............................................................................... 2 6 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY............................................................................ 4 7 ARGUMENT............................................................................................................. 5 8 III. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE 9 PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCOVER ESSENTIAL INFORMATION.................................................. 5 10 A. Rule 56(D) Provides That A Court Must Deny A Motion For 11 Summary Judgment That Is Filed Before The Non-Moving Party Has Had The Opportunity To Discover Information That 12 Is Essential To The Motion’s Opposition ............................................. 5 13 B. Plaintiffs’ Response Will Require “Analytic Dissection” And “Expert Testimony” .............................................................................. 6 14 C. Plaintiffs Have Not Been Afforded The Opportunity To 15 Obtain Essential Evidence And Their Experts Have Not Been Afforded The Opportunity To Develop And Refine Their 16 Opinions ................................................................................................ 7 17 IV. PLAINTIFFS CAN AND WILL EASILY MEET THE STANDARD TO AVOID SUMMARY JUDGMENT ......................................................... 9 18 A. Defendants Confuse The Preliminary Injunction Standard With 19 The Summary Judgment Standard ...................................................... 10 20 B. After Obtaining Additional Discovery, Plaintiffs Will Be Able To Show That There Are, At The Very Least, Genuine Issues of 21 Material Fact On The Issue Of Substantial Similarity........................ 10 22 1. The Similar Elements and their Protected Nature .................... 10 23 2. The Differences Between The Songs That Are Both Explainable and Insignificant ................................................... 11 24 C. The Court Cannot Yet Determine the Standard For Substantial 25 Similarity as it is Directly Related to the Issue of Access Pursuant to the Inverse Ratio Rule...................................................... 12 26 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................ 12 27 28 -i- Case 2:10-cv-08123-JFW -RZ Document 120 Filed 06/06/11 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:1644 1 2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3 Page(s) 4 CASES 5 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (1986).....................5 6 Centillium Communications, Inc. v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 528 F.Supp.2d 940 7 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ...................................................................................................6 8 Continental Maritime of San Francisco, Inc. v. Pacific Coast Metal Trades 9 Dist. Council, 817 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1987).......................................................5 10 Kroft Television v. McDonalds Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977) .....................6 11 Metabolife International, Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001).................6 12 LLP Morris v. Parke, Davis & Co., 667 F.Supp. 1332 (C.D. Cal. 1987) .........................9 13 Rice v. Fox Broad. Co., 330 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2003) ..........................................12 OL L EY 14 H 15 Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1990) ............................................10, 12 16 Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2004) ......................................................10 AMPTON H Corona del Mar,17 California 92625 2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 260 COURT RULES 18 Fed.R.Civ. P. 56(c) ....................................................................................................5 19 Fed.R.Civ. P. 56(d) ............................................................................................1, 5, 6 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii Case 2:10-cv-08123-JFW -RZ Document 120 Filed 06/06/11 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:1645 1 INTRODUCTION 2 Defendants filed this motion asserting that Plaintiffs have “come forth with no 3 new evidence” and therefore “cannot satisfy the extrinsic test for substantial 4 similarity,” a test that Defendants acknowledge requires “analytic dissection” and 5 “expert testimony.” [Dckt. #117 at pp. 12, 15]. This is an especially curious 6 assertion since Defendants have made every effort to thwart Plaintiffs’ oral discovery 7 efforts, there are 4 months remaining in the discovery process, and Defendants 8 themselves have not taken, nor even noticed, a single deposition. It must be 9 emphasized that Defendants have not deposed Plaintiffs’ expert and that Plaintiffs’ 10 expert reports are not due until July 15, 2011. 11 This motion is just the latest indication that Defendants have no intention of 12 participating in the discovery process or otherwise abiding by this Court’s orders or LLP 13 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They now attempt to capitalize impermissibly OL L EY 14 on their dilatory and obstructive tactics and to seek relief to which they are not H 15 entitled. 16 In the single “My Humps,” Defendant Stacy Ferguson derisively mocks a AMPTON H Corona del Mar,17 California 92625 suitor and dismisses his futile requests for her attention: 2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 260 18 “[Oh] Spending all your money on me and spending time on me.” 19 It is clear that Defendants’ litigation tactics follow the same guiding principle. This 20 latest motion is just another attempt to bully Plaintiffs to the point of surrender by 21 dramatically and needlessly increasing their costs and expenses. 22 Defendants’ motion must be denied because Plaintiffs have not yet been 23 afforded the opportunity to obtain discovery on the issues that are essential to the 24 motion’s opposition. Fed.R.Civ. P. 56(d) mandates the denial of their motion under 25 these circumstances. At the very least, Plaintiffs are entitled to a continuance until 26 they have had the opportunity to obtain the relevant discovery and their experts have 27 had the opportunity to opine on the issues of substantial similarity. 28 1 Case 2:10-cv-08123-JFW -RZ Document 120 Filed 06/06/11 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:1646 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS 2 I. BACKGROUND FACTS 3 In 2007, Plaintiffs wrote and recorded the song “Boom Dynamite.” (See, 4 Declaration of Manfred Mohr (“Mohr Decl.”) attached to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in 5 Support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction as Exhibit A at ¶ 3; see also 6 Declaration of Ebony Batts (“Phoenix Decl.”) attached to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in 7 support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction as Exhibit B at ¶ 3). After 8 Plaintiff Mohr registered a claim with the United States Copyright Office, a 9 Certificate of Registration was issued on April 10, 2009, Certification No. 10 SR0000625557 (see Exhibit C to Mohr Decl.). 11 A few months later, Mohr, acting as Phoenix’s producer and manager, was 12 approached by Pharris Thomas, a/k/a DJ Pharris (“DJ Pharris”) about using one of LLP 13 Phoenix’s songs, “Stuck Up,” on a compilation CD. Mohr Decl. at DJ Pharris OL L EY 14 suggested to Mohr that he should get another major female artist to collaborate with H 15 Phoenix on “Stuck Up” to give it more “star power.” He said that he had a good 16 relationship with Troy Marshall, VP of Interscope Records (“Interscope”), and he AMPTON H Corona del Mar,17 California 92625 suggested that they should submit “Stuck Up” to Interscope in an attempt to get 2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 260 18 defendant Stacy Ferguson (“Fergie”) to collaborate with Phoenix on the song. See 19 Mohr