• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Case 2:13-cv-06004-JAK-AGR Document 385 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 38 Page ID #:11528 1 KING, HOLMES, PATERNO & BERLINER, LLP HOWARD E. KING, ESQ., STATE BARNO. 77012 2 STEPHEN D. ROTHSCHILD, ESQ., STATE BARNO. 132514 [email protected] 3 SETHMILLER,ESQ., STATEBARNO. 175130 [email protected] 4 1900 A VENUE OF THE STARS, 25TH FLOOR Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-4506 5 TELEPHONE: (31 0) 282-8989 FACSIMILE: (31 0) 282-8903 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counter- 7 Defendants PHARRELL WILLIAMS, ROBIN THICKE and CLIFFORD 8 HARRIS, JR. and Counter-Defendants MORE WATER FROM NAZARETH 9 PUBLISHING, INC., PAULA MAXINE PATTON individ}l~ly and d/b/a 10 HADDINGTON MUSIC, STAR TRAK ENTERT~NT GEFFEN 11 RECORDS, INTERSCOPE RECORDS, 12 BM~~~R~~~f5tftr{ilfuTION 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 15 PHARRELL WILLIAMS, an CASE NO. CV13-06004-JAK ~AGRx) individual; ROBIN THICKE, an Hon. John A. Kronstadt, Ctrm 50 16 individua~ and CLIFFORD HARRIS, JR., an in ividual, CORRECTED NOTICE OF 17 MOTION AND MOTION OF Plaintiffs, PHARRELL WILLIAMS, ROBIN 18 THICKE AND MORE WATER vs. FROM NAZARETH PUBLISHING, 19 INC. FOR JUDGMENT AS A BRIDGEPORT MUSIC INC., a MATTER OF LAW, 20 Michi§an CODJoration; FRAN:KiE DECLARATORY RELIEF, A NEW CHRI TIAN GAYE, an individual; TRIAL, OR REMITTITUR; 21 MARVIN GAYE lib an individual; NONA MARVISA AYE, an MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 22 individual; and DOES 1 through 10, AUTHORITIES inclusive, 23 Date: June 29, 2015 Defendants. Time: 8:30a.m. 24 Ctrm.: 750 25 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. Action Commenced: August 15, 2013 Trial Date: February 24, 2015 26 27 Ill 28 Ill 4112.060/896948.1 Case 2:13-cv-06004-JAK-AGR Document 385 Filed 05/11/15 Page 2 of 38 Page ID #:11529 1 NOTICE OF MOTION 2 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on June 29, 2015, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon 4 thereafter as the matter may be heard in Courtroom 750 of the above-entitled court, 5 located at 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, plaintiffs and 6 counter-defendants PHARRELL WILLIAMS and ROBIN THICKE, individually 7 and d/b/a I LIKE 'EM THICKE MUSIC, and counter-defendant MORE WATER 8 FROM NAZARETH PUBLISHING, INC. (collectively, "Counter-Defendants"), 9 will and hereby do move for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of 10 Civil Procedure 50(b) and for declaratory relief, or, alternatively, a new trial under 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59( a), with regard to the first claim for relief in the 12 respective counterclaims filed by counter-claimants NONA MARVISA GA YE, 13 FRANKIE CHRISTIAN GAYE, and MARVIN GAYE III (collectively, "Counter­ 14 IS Claimants"), for alleged copyright infringement of "Got to Give It Up" by "Blurred Lines," or for a remittitur of the profits awarded to Counter-Claimants.1 16 The grounds for this motion are that the jury's verdict finding that Counter- 17 18 Defendants infringed "Got to Give It Up" and the damages and profits awarded by the jury are unsupported by any evidence, let alone substantial evidence, and are 19 contrary to law; and evidentiary errors and legal errors in the jury instructions were 20 prejudicial and prevented Counter-Defendants from receiving a fair trial. 21 This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying 22 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Seth Miller and exhibits 23 thereto filed previously, the Court's files and records in this action, and such other 24 evidence, argument, or other matter as may be presented prior to or at the hearing on 25 the Motion. 26 27 1 This Motion is brought solely on behalf of counter-defendants Williams, Thicke, and More Water From Nazareth. All other counter-defendants prevailed at 28 trial, were found not liable, and do not seek a new trial or any other relief herein. 4112.060/896948.1 -1- Case 2:13-cv-06004-JAK-AGR Document 385 Filed 05/11/15 Page 3 of 38 Page ID #:11530 1 Counter-Defendants are filing the corrected memorandum that follows in 2 excess of the 25-page limit set forth in Local Rule 11-6 in furtherance of the Court's 3 Order Granting in Part Request of Counter-Defendants Pharrell Williams and Robin 4 Thicke for Permission to File Memorandum in Excess of 25 Pages in Support of 5 May 1, 2015, Post-Trial Motions, Dkt. 383. 6 7 DATED: May 11, 2015 KING, HOLMES, PATERNO & BERLINER, LLP 8 9 10 By: ----\--~-; ~-y(-~ \\ ----"------_) __ 11 HowARD E. KING 12 SETH MILLER Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants 13 PHARRELL WILLIAMS, et al. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4112.060/896948.1 -2- Case 2:13-cv-06004-JAK-AGR Document 385 Filed 05/11/15 Page 4 of 38 Page ID #:11531 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................. 1 INSTRUCTIONAL ERRORS MANDATE A NEW TRIAL .......................... 2 EVIDENTIARY ERRORS MANDATE A NEW TRIAL ............................... 5 A. Ms. Finell's Testimony Was Inadmissible and Prejudicial.. .................. 6 1. Testimony About Theme X Was Inadmissible ............................ 9 2. Testimony About the Keyboard Parts Was Inadmissible .......... 11 3. Testimony About the Bass Melody Was Inadmissible .............. 13 4. Testimony About the Signature Phrase Was Inadmissible ........ 14 5. Testimony About Lyrics Was Inadmissible ............................... 14 6. Testimony About Edited and Transcribed Versions of the Sound Recording Was Inadmissible .......................................... 15 B. Testimony About the Gayes' Mash-Ups Was Inadmissible ................ 16 c. Testimony About Press Statements Was Inadmissible ........................ 18 D. The Court's Rulings Regarding Evidence of Lay Opinions On Similarity Were Erroneous, Unfair and Prejudicial ............................. 19 E. Nancie Stem's Opinions About Infringement Were Inadmissible ...... 20 THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE INFRINGEMENT VERDICT ....................................................................................................... 21 A. B. 61e s~~~~~~Iafsllitri~s~~~~1I~~i::. ..~~~~~~:. ..~.~~~.~~~~~ .. ~~~~~~~~····· 24 THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE DAMAGES AWARDS ....................................................................................................... 25 A. The Jury's Actual Damages Award Is Not Supported By Evidence ............................................................................................... 25 1. Ms. Stem's Testimony Should Have Been Excluded ................ 25 2. Even In Consideration Of Ms. Stem's Testimony, the Actual Damages Award Is Unsupported By Evidence .............. 26 4112.060/896948.1 -1- Case 2:13-cv-06004-JAK-AGR Document 385 Filed 05/11/15 Page 5 of 38 Page ID #:11532 1 B. The Jury's Profits Awards Are Not Supported By Evidence ............... 28 2 C. At a Minimum, the Court Should Remit the Profits Awards ............... 30 3 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 30 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4112.060/896948.1 -11- Case 2:13-cv-06004-JAK-AGR Document 385 Filed 05/11/15 Page 6 of 38 Page ID #:11533 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Cases 3 4 Ad212f.~3~if~~1 cfi:d.. ~i~·. 2o~o).~.~~~~~. ~~~~·.~ ......................................................... 2 5 Estate ofBarabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., 740 F.3d 457 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................. 5, 6, 7, 13, 17 6 Barabin v. Astenjohnson, Inc., 7 700 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................. 6 8 Bro%o ~~fdSf{25a[9th·cf(r~f9J2) ~~~~.".'...................................................................... 4 9 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 10 509 u.s. 579 (1985) ..................................................................... 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 17 11 Dr561 ¥.3d981c~r~zci~· {089)"..~~.~~~~~~:............................................................... 3 12 13 FT953 ~23~78~~hici~: 2014) .................................................................................. 6 14 Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 u.s. 340 (1991) .......................................................................................... 1, 18 15 Harper House, Inc. v. Thomas Nelson, Inc., 16 889 F.2d 197 (9th Cir. 1989) ........................................................................... .4, 16 17 Interactive Pictures Cor!!_. v. Infjnite Pictures, Inc., 274 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ .25 18 Jessen Elec. & Serv. Co. v. Gen. Tel. Co., 19 106 F.3d 407 (9th Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 2, 30 20 L.A. Printex Industries, Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc., 676 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................. 3 21 Lakeside-Scott v. Multnomah Cty., 22 556 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................. 1 23 Matte!, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 616 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 3, 12 24 25 Mc~J~nF~{ls8qe{Jt~'Ci~.1~s·s) ............................................................................... .25 26 Molski v. MJ. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) .................................................................................

Load more

  232

Copy Link