Case 2:19-cv-02507-PA-MRW Document 113-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 1 of 28 Page ID #:1154 1 Peter Anderson, Esq., Cal. Bar No. 88891 [email protected] 2 Nicolette Vairo, Esq., Cal. Bar No. 311592 [email protected] 3 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400 4 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566 Tel: (213) 633-6800 5 Fax: (213) 633-6899 6 Attorney for Defendants ABEL M. TESFAYE, KARL MARTIN 7 SANDBERG, SAVAN HARISH KOTECHA, AHMED BALSHE, JASON QUENNEVILLE, 8 WASSIM SALIBI, THE WEEKND XO, LLC, THE WEEKND XO, INC., THE WEEKND XO 9 MUSIC, ULC, DAHEALA & CO., LLC, SAL & CO MANAGEMENT LP, SAL & CO LP, XO&CO., 10 INC., UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, INC., UMG RECORDINGS, INC., UNIVERSAL MUSIC 11 PUBLISHING, INC., UNIVERSAL MUSIC CORPORATION, KOBALT MUSIC PUBLISHING 12 AMERICA, INC., WARNER CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC., W CHAPPELL MUSIC CORP., SONGS MUSIC 13 PUBLISHING, LLC, ARTIST NATION MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., MXM, LLC, MXM MUSIC, AB, 14 and WOLF COUSINS 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 WESTERN DIVISION 18 William Smith, et al., ) Case No. 2:19-cv-02507-PA-MRWx ) 19 Plaintiffs, ) ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 20 v. ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY 21 Abel M. Tesfaye, etc., et al., ) JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ) ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL 22 Defendants. ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT ) 23 ) Date: July 6, 2020 Time: 1:30 p.m. 24 25 Courtroom of the Honorable Percy Anderson 26 United States District Judge 27 28 Case 2:19-cv-02507-PA-MRW Document 113-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 2 of 28 Page ID #:1155 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1 3 (a) Summary of Argument............................................................................. 1 4 (b) Summary of Uncontroverted Facts .......................................................... 2 5 (1) In 2004-05, the UK Plaintiffs Composed the Song I Need to 6 Love in the UK ............................................................................... 2 7 (2) In 2005, Plaintiffs Assigned I Need to Love to a UK Music 8 Publisher, Which Never Exploited I Need to Love and, in 2016, Relinquished All Rights to it ............................................... 2 9 (3) The February 2016 Creation of A Lonely Night in Los Angeles, 10 California ....................................................................................... 3 11 (4) A Lonely Night’s Creators Did Not Have Access to I Need to 12 Love ................................................................................................ 3 13 (5) Plaintiffs’ Filing of this Action ...................................................... 4 14 2. THERE IS NO GENUINE DISPUTE THAT PLAINTIFFS CANNOT 15 ESTABLISH REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF THEIR CLAIMS ........................ 5 16 (a) The Standards Applicable to the Motion ................................................. 5 17 (b) Plaintiff’s First Claim for Direct Copyright Infringement ...................... 5 18 (1) Plaintiffs Do Not Raise a Genuine Issue as to Whether 19 Copying Occurred .......................................................................... 6 20 (i) Access Plus Substantial Similarity Probative of Copying .. 6 21 a. Access – a Reasonable Opportunity to Copy ............ 6 22 b. Substantial Similarity Probative of Copying ............ 9 23 (ii) Striking Similarity Rendering Independent Creation 24 Impossible..........................................................................10 25 (2) Plaintiffs Fail to Raise a Genuine Dispute as Whether A 26 Lonely Night Copies Protected Aspects of I Need to Love . 1 2 27 (i) The Extrinsic Test to Determine Whether the Works Are Substantially Similar in Protected Expression ..................12 28 i Case 2:19-cv-02507-PA-MRW Document 113-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 3 of 28 Page ID #:1156 (ii) Plaintiffs Fail to Raise a Genuine Dispute Under the 1 Extrinsic Test .....................................................................14 2 (c) Plaintiffs’ Second and Third Claims for, Respectively, Contributory and 3 Vicarious Infringement ..........................................................................17 4 (d) Plaintiffs’ Fourth through Sixth Claims for an Accounting, Constructive 5 Trust, and Unjust Enrichment, Respectively .........................................18 6 (e) Defendants’ Alternative Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ..........20 7 3. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................21 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii Case 2:19-cv-02507-PA-MRW Document 113-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 4 of 28 Page ID #:1157 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Cases 3 A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 4 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 17, 18 5 Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Entm’t Inc., 6 581 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................. 6 7 Batts v. Adams, No. CV 10-8123-JFW (RZX), 2011 WL 13217923 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2011) ...... 14 8 9 Benay v. Warner Bros. Entm’t, 607 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2010), overruled on other grounds by Sidmore v. Led 10 Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020) .................................................................. 9 11 Berg v. Kincheloe, 12 794 F.2d 457 (9th Cir. 1986) .................................................................................... 5 13 Bernal v. Paradigm Talent & Literary Agency, 14 788 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (C.D. Cal. 2010) .................................................................. 10 15 Bikram’s Yoga Coll. of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC, 803 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................ 14 16 17 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) ............................................................................................... 14 18 Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 19 297 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................. 12 20 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 21 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ................................................................................................. 5 22 Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 23 499 U.S. 340 (1991) ............................................................................................... 12 24 Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P., 25 462 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 14, 16 26 Gaste v. Kaiserman, 27 863 F.2d 1061 (2d Cir.1988) .................................................................................. 13 28 iii Case 2:19-cv-02507-PA-MRW Document 113-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 5 of 28 Page ID #:1158 1 Gray v. Perry, No. 215CV05642CASJCX, 2020 WL 1275221 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2020) .... 14, 16 2 Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 3 383 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 400 F.3d 658 4 (9th Cir. 2005) ........................................................................................................ 20 5 Johannsongs-Publ’g Ltd. v. Lovland, 6 No. CV 18-10009-AB (SSX), 2020 WL 2315805 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2020) ... 15, 16 7 Johnson v. Gordon, 409 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2005) .................................................................................... 13 8 9 King v. Najm, No. CV084164DSFVBKX, 2011 WL 13186238 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2011) ............ 8 10 Kodadek v. MTV Networks, Inc., 11 152 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................ 19 12 Kouf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television, 13 16 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 12, 17 14 Loomis v. Cornish, 15 836 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................... 7 16 Luvdarts, LLC v. AT & T Mobility, LLC, 17 710 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................ 17 18 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) ................................................................................................. 5 19 20 Meta-Film Assocs., Inc. v. MCA, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 1346 (C.D. Cal. 1984) ......................................................................... 7 21 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 22 545 U.S. 913 (2005) ............................................................................................... 17 23 Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc., 24 649 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................. 20 25 Morrill v. Stefani, 26 338 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (C.D. Cal. 2018) .................................................................. 16 27 Newton v. Diamond, 28 204 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (C.D. Cal. 2002), aff’d 388 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2004) ....... 13 iv Case 2:19-cv-02507-PA-MRW Document 113-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 6 of 28 Page ID #:1159 1 Oddo v. Ries, 743 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 1984) .................................................................................. 18 2 Perfect 10, Inc., v. Giganews, Inc., 3 847 F.3d (9th Cir. 2017) ......................................................................................... 17 4 Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, 5 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007) .................................................................................