Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 150 Filed 03/25/16 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:3645

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Francis Malofiy, Esq.

Francis Alexander, LLC
280 N. Providence Rd. | Suite 105
Media, PA 19063
T: (215) 500-1000; F: (215) 500-1005
E: francis@francisalexander.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
Glen L. Kulik, Esq. (SBN 082170)
Kulik Gottesman & Siegel LLP
15303 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
T: (310) 557-9200; F: (310) 557-0224
E: gkulik@kgslaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

MICHAEL SKIDMORE, as Trustee for

15 the RANDY CRAIG WOLFE TRUST,
16
17

20
21
22
23
24

v.
LED ZEPPELIN; JAMES PATRICK
PAGE; ROBERT ANTHONY PLANT;
JOHN PAUL JONES; SUPER HYPE
PUBLISHING, INC.; WARNER MUSIC
GROUP CORP., Parent of
WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC.;
ATLANTIC RECORDING
CORPORATION; RHINO
ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY,

25
26

Hon. R. Gary Klausner

Plaintiff,

18
19

Case No. 15-cv-03462 RGK (AGRx)

NOTICE OF MOTION AND

MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 RE
WOLFE INHERITANCE;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
THEREOF
Filed concurrently with Declaration of
Francis Malofiy; and [Proposed] Order
Date: May 10, 2016
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom: 850

Defendants.

27
28

PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 150 Filed 03/25/16 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:3646

1

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 10, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter

as this matter can be heard before the Honorable R. Gary Klausner of the United States

District Court for the Central District of California, at 255 East Temple Street, Los

Angeles, California, Courtroom 850, Plaintiff Michael Skidmore, Trustee for the Randy

Craig Wolfe Trust, will move and hereby moves to exclude any evidence, testimony, or

argument that Mary Quintin and/or Quinn Wolfe owns the copyrights in question or the

intellectual property that was the basis for the formation of the Trust.

9
10

Plaintiffs counsel makes this motion after a pre-filing conference held pursuant to
Local Rule 7-3 on March 22, 2016.

11

This motion is based on the attached memorandum of points and authorities in

12

support thereof, the declaration of Francis Malofiy in support thereof, and all files and

13

pleadings in this action.

14
15
16
17
18

Dated: March 25, 2016

FRANCIS ALEXANDER, LLC

/s/ Francis Alexander Malofiy
Francis Alexander Malofiy
Attorneys for Plaintiff

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 150 Filed 03/25/16 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:3647

1

I.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Plaintiff Michael Skidmore, Trustee for the Randy Craig Wolfe Trust (Skidmore

and Trust), seeks the Courts entry of an Order precluding at trial any evidence,

testimony, or argument concerning the subject of Quinn Wolfes inheritance or alleged

ownership of the copyrights in question as he does not own said copyrights and the

subject is irrelevant and highly prejudicial under Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403.

II.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This case is a copyright infringement case between Skidmore, as Trustee for the

Randy Craig Wolfe Trust, and Led Zeppelins members and the corporate entities that

10

exploit Stairway to Heaven. After Mr. Wolfes death in 1997 (his body was never found

11

after he drowned off the coast of Hawaii) a conservatorship for Mr. Wolfes estate was

12

created whose assets consisted of Randy Wolfes intellectual and related property, and

13

two certificates of deposit. On February 19, 2002, the Court approved the creation of a

14

Trust in Randy Wolfes name. See Exhibit 1 Court Order Approving Trust. In short, it

15

distributed Randy Wolfes intellectual and related property to the Trust, and the money in

16

the estate to his son Quinn Wolfe.1 Quinn Wolfes mother is a woman named Mary

17

Quinting. Over the years, Quinn Wolfe was given notice of the Trust in accordance with

18

the law and he never made any challenge to the authority of the Trust to own Mr. Wolfes

19

copyrights; nor could he do so given the Court order. Exhibit 2 Quinn Wolfe

20

Acknowledgement of Trust.

21

However, despite the unambiguous language in the Court order defense counsel

22

made the outrageous and deceitful accusation during Mr. Skidmores deposition that the

23

Trust had stripped Quinn Wolfe of his inheritance. Exhibit 3 Skidmore Deposition, at

24

p.128, 129. Plaintiffs counsel pointed out repeatedly that the language on the Court order

25

The Court appointed Bernice Pearl, Randy Wolfes mother, as the conservator of Randy
Wolfes estate and also appointed Bernice Pearl as the sole beneficiary of the Randy
Craig Wolfe Trust. Id. The Court order states that the Trust shall be funded with all
royalty, copyright and other intangible rights of the conservatee [Bernice Pearl]. Id. It
states that Pearl is authorized to transfer to herself as Trustee all of Randy Craig
Wolfes copyrights and other intangible rights. Id. at p.3, 3. In contrast Quinn Wolfe
was to receive the remaining assets of the conservatorship, the money, upon him
turning 18 years of age a few months later on May 6, 2002.
1

26
27
28

1
PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 150 Filed 03/25/16 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:3648

1

unequivocally authorized the Trust alone to own Mr. Wolfes property. Id. at p.108-09,

278-83. Despite this, defense counsel nonetheless spent hours dishonestly accusing Mr.

Skidmore of stealing Quinn Wolfes inheritance. The Court order in question is only two

pages and is an exceedingly simple legal document to read. There is no way that defense

counsel could have misinterpreted it.

III.

SOMEHOW STRIPPED QUINN WOLFE OF HIS INHERITANCE MUST BE

BARRED AT TRIAL

ARGUMENT - DEFENDANTS ACCUSATIONS THAT THE TRUST

Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 402. Even if evidence is

10

relevant, [t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially

11

outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the

12

issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting

13

cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403. The Ninth Circuit states: Evidence is unduly

14

prejudicial if it creates a genuine risk that the emotions of the jury will be excited to

15

irrational behavior and "this risk is disproportionate to the probative value of the

16

offered evidence. Where the evidence is of very slight (if any) probative value, it's an

17

abuse of discretion to admit it if there's even a modest likelihood of unfair prejudice or a

18

small risk of misleading the jury. Accordingly, trial courts should exclude marginally

19

relevant but extremely prejudicial evidence. US v. Curtin, 489 F. 3d 935, 963-64 (9th

20

Cir. 2007).

21

It is anticipated on the basis of defense counsels conduct during Mr. Skidmores

22

deposition that Defendants will make utterly unsubstantiated and outrageous accusations

23

at trial that the Randy Craig Wolfe Trust stole Quinn Wolfes inheritance, otherwise

24

deceived him, and that Quinn Wolfe owns Randy Wolfes copyrights. Nothing could be

25

further from the truth. The California Superior Court explicitly approved the distribution

26

of Randy Wolfes assets in 2002. The pertinent court order is explicit that the Trust was

27

to receive the intellectual and related property of Randy Wolfe, while Quinn Wolfe

28

received the money in the conservatorship created after Randy Wolfes death in 2002
2
PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 150 Filed 03/25/16 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:3649

1

when he turned 18 years of age. Defendants accusations to the contrary have no merit

whatsoever and are completely unsupported by evidence. As the Trust indisputably owns

the copyrights in question, and not Quinn Wolfe, such an accusation would be entirely

irrelevant to this action. Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402 (prohibiting irrelevant evidence)

Defendants should be barred from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument based on

Quinn Wolfes alleged inheritance or his alleged right to own Randy Wolfes intellectual

property.

Even if the argument is somehow construed as marginally relevantalthough

there is no evidence whatsoever to support itthe false and outrageous accusation that

10

the Trust stripped Quinn Wolfe of his rights is unfairly prejudicial, confuses the issues,

11

and would mislead the jury and must be precluded.

12

IV.

13

Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court exclude any evidence, testimony, or

14

argument concerning Quinn Wolfes falsely alleged right own any of the copyrights in

15

question or the intellectual property that was the basis for the formation of the Trust.

CONCLUSION

16
17
18
19

DATED: March 25, 2016

FRANCIS ALEXANDER LLC

By
/s/ Francis Alexander
Francis Malofiy
Attorneys for Plaintiff

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 150 Filed 03/25/16 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:3650

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Plaintiff hereby represents that Plaintiffs Motion in Limine No. 2 Re Wolfes Inheritance has
been served upon counsel by email:
Helene Freeman, Esquire
666 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10103-0084
T: (212) 841-0547
F: (212) 262-5152
E: hfreeman@phillipsnizer.com
Attorneys for Defendants James Patrick Page, Robert Anthony Plant, and John Paul Jones
(collectively with John Bonham (Deceased), professionally known as Led Zeppelin)

10
11
12
13
14
15

Peter J. Anderson, Esquire

100 Wilshire Blvd. | Suite 2010
Santa Monica, CA 90401
T:(310) 260-6030
F: (310) 260-6040
E: pja@pjanderson.com
Attorney for Defendants Super Hype Publishing, Inc., Warner Music Group Corp.,
Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., Atlantic Recording Corporation, and
Rhino Entertainment Company

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

*****
Respectfully submitted,

Francis Alexander, LLC

/s/ Francis Alexander Malofiy
Francis Alexander Malofiy, Esquire
Attorney ID No.: 208494
280 N. Providence Road | Suite 105
Media, PA 19063
T: (215) 500-1000
F: (215) 500-1005
E: francis@francisalexander.com

/d/ March 25, 2016

25
26
27
28

4
PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2