Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 75 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:2859 1 Erin R. Ranahan (SBN: 235286) [email protected] 2 Diana Hughes Leiden (SBN: 267606) [email protected] 3 Kelly N. Oki (SBN: 304053) [email protected] 4 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 South Grand Avenue 5 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 615-1700 6 Facsimile: (213) 615-1750 7 Attorneys for Defendants, AXANAR PRODUCTIONS, INC., 8 and ALEC PETERS 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 PARAMOUNT PICTURES Case No. 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E CORPORATION, a Delaware 13 corporation; and CBS STUDIOS INC., a Assigned to: Hon. R. Gary Klausner Delaware corporation, 14 DEFENDANTS AXANAR Plaintiffs, PRODUCTIONS, INC., AND ALEC 15 PETERS’ NOTICE OF MOTION vs. AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY 16 JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF AXANAR PRODUCTIONS, INC., a POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 17 California corporation; ALEC PETERS, SUPPORT THEREOF an individual; and DOES 1-20, 18 FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c) Defendants. 19 Date: 12/19/16 Time: 9:00 a.m. 20 Place: Courtroom 850, 8th Floor 255 East Temple Street 21 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Judge: Hon. R. Gary Klausner 22 Original Complaint Filed: 12/29/15 23 First Amended Complaint Filed: 3/11/16 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 75 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 26 Page ID #:2860 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 2 TO THE COURT, PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 3 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on December 19, 2016 at 9:00 a.m., or as 4 soon thereafter as counsel may be heard by the above-entitled court, located at 255 5 East Temple Street, Los Angeles CA 90012, on the eighth floor in Courtroom 850, 6 before the Honorable R. Gary Klausner, Defendants Axanar Productions, Inc. and 7 Alec Peters (“Defendants”) will and hereby do move the Court or an order granting 8 summary judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs on all of Plaintiffs’ 9 claims. 10 Defendants bring this motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Local Rule 56 11 on the grounds that they are entitled to summary judgment because: (1) Plaintiffs’ 12 claims are premature with respect Defendants’ evolving plans to pursue a non- 13 commercial film project, and their creation of scripts for that project; (2) none of 14 Plaintiffs’ alleged works in this action are substantially similar to Defendants’ works; 15 and/or (3) Defendants’ works are fair use. 16 Defendants’ Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the 17 accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Statement of Uncontroverted 18 Facts and Conclusions of Law, the Declarations of Alec Peters, Reece Watkins, 19 Jonathan Lane, and Kelly N. Oki filed herewith and the exhibits attached thereto, the 20 pleadings and papers on file herein, other records on file in this matter, and any further 21 material and argument presented to the Court at the time of the hearing. 22 This Motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to Local 23 Rule 7-3, which took place on November 7, 2016. 24 Dated: November 16, 2016 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 25 By: /s/ Erin R. Ranahan Erin R. Ranahan 26 Diana Hughes Leiden Kelly N. Oki 27 Attorneys for Defendants, AXANAR PRODUCTIONS, INC. 28 and ALEC PETERS 1 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 75 Filed 11/16/16 Page 3 of 26 Page ID #:2861 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 4 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................... 2 5 A. Plaintiffs’ Copyrights Are Limited ............................................................ 2 6 B. Defendants’ Axanar Works ........................................................................ 3 7 C. Plaintiffs Have Not Been Damaged By Defendants .................................. 5 8 D. This Lawsuit ............................................................................................... 6 9 E. The Longstanding Tradition of Star Trek Fan Fiction ............................... 7 10 III. JUDICIAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ................................ 8 11 IV. ARGUMENT........................................................................................................ 8 12 A. Plaintiffs’ Claims Regarding The Unmade Potential Fan Film Are Premature ................................................................................................... 8 13 B. None of Defendants’ Works Are Substantially Similar to Plaintiffs’ 14 Works ....................................................................................................... 10 15 C. Defendants’ Works Are Protected As Fair Use ....................................... 12 16 1. As Defendants’ Works Have No Effect Upon the Potential Market For or Value of Plaintiffs’ Works, This Factor 17 Strongly Weighs In Favor of Fair Use ........................................... 13 18 2. As They Are Transformative and Noncommercial in Nature, the Purpose and Character of Defendants’ Works Weighs 19 Strongly in Favor of Fair Use ........................................................ 15 20 3. Defendants’ Works Do Not Use a Substantial Portion of Plaintiffs’ Works ............................................................................ 17 21 4. The Nature of Plaintiffs’ Works Weighs In Favor of Fair 22 Use ................................................................................................. 19 23 5. The Totality of the Circumstances Favors Fair Use ...................... 20 24 V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 20 25 26 27 28 i DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 75 Filed 11/16/16 Page 4 of 26 Page ID #:2862 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 Cases 4 Adjmi v. DLT Entm’t Ltd., 5 97 F. Supp. 3d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), appeal withdrawn (June 25, 2015) ........ 14, 20 6 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 7 477 U.S. 242 (1986)................................................................................................... 8 8 Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 9 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 18, 19 10 Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 11 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006) .................................................................................... 13 12 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994).......................................................................................... passim 13 14 Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................... 11 15 Chase-Riboud v. DreamWorks, Inc., 16 987 F. Supp. 1222 (C.D. Cal. 1997) .......................................................................... 9 17 Clinton v. Acequia, Inc., 18 94 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 1996) ....................................................................................... 8 19 DC Comics v. Towle, 20 802 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................. 11 21 Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Passport Video, 22 349 F.3d 622 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds as stated in Flexible Lifeline Sys., Inc. v. Precision Lift, Inc., 654 F.3d 989 (9th 23 Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................................. 13 24 Ent. Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 25 122 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 1997) ................................................................................. 11 26 Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 27 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................................... 19 28 ii DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Case 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E Document 75 Filed 11/16/16 Page 5 of 26 Page ID #:2863 1 Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Svc. Co., 2 499 U.S. 340 (1991)................................................................................................. 11 3 Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., 462 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006) ............................................................................. 9, 11 4 5 Gilbert v. New Line Prods., Inc., No. CV 09-02231 RGK, 2009 WL 7422458 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2009) .................. 9 6 Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 7 471 U.S. 539 (1985).......................................................................................... passim 8 Hudson v. Universal Pictures Corp., 9 No. 03-CV-1008(FB)(LB), 2004 WL 1205762 (E.D.N.Y. April 29, 10 2004) .......................................................................................................................... 9 11 Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................... 14 12 13 Marshall v. Yates, No. CV-81-1850-MML, 1983 WL 1148 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 1983) ......................... 9 14 Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc., 15 688 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................