Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 87 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:859

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Peter J. Anderson, Esq., Cal. Bar No. 88891

E-Mail: pja@pjanderson.com
LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. ANDERSON
A Professional Corporation
100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2010
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Tel: (310) 260-6030
Fax: (310) 260-6040
Attorneys for Defendants
JAMES PATRICK PAGE, ROBERT ANTHONY
PLANT, JOHN PAUL JONES, WARNER/CHAPPELL
MUSIC, INC., SUPER HYPE PUBLISHING, INC.,
ATLANTIC RECORDING CORP., RHINO
ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY and WARNER
MUSIC GROUP CORP.
Helene Freeman, Esq., admitted pro hac vice
E-Mail: hfreeman@phillipsnizer.com
PHILIPS NIZER LLP
666 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10103-0084
Tel: (212) 977-9700
Fax: (212) 262-5152
Attorneys for Defendants
JAMES PATRICK PAGE, ROBERT ANTHONY
PLANT and JOHN PAUL JONES

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

WESTERN DIVISION

18

MICHAEL SKIDMORE, etc.,

Plaintiff,

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

vs.
LED ZEPPELIN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-03462 RGK

(AGRx)
DISCOVERY MATTER
DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAL
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF
TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY
Date: February 2, 2016
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Courtroom of the Honorable
Alicia G. Rosenberg
United States Magistrate Judge
Discovery Cut-Off: February 11, 2016
Pretrial Conf. Date: April 25, 2016
Trial Date: May 10, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 87 Filed 01/19/16 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:860

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM

1
2

This Supplemental Memorandum is respectfully submitted in support of the

Motion to compel plaintiff to comply with Requests for Production Nos. 9, 10 and

18 and Interrogatory No. 2.

Plaintiffs opposition in his portions of the parties Joint Stipulation consists

of repeating four times the exact same argument, which fails to address the basis for

the Motion.

Plaintiff does not dispute that his standing to sue on behalf of the alleged Trust

is fundamental to his maintenance of this action. He does not dispute that the trust

10

documents he produced state that the Trust would continue to exist only on the

11

condition that it became qualified under federal income tax law as a charitable

12

organization and used its receipts to provide musical instruments to school children,

13

and that Requests for Production Nos. 9 and 10 are directed narrowly to the issue of

14

whether the Trust did in fact become qualified under federal income tax law. He

15

also does not dispute that Interrogatory No. 2 and Request for Production No. 18 are

16

directed not only to that issue, but also to the veracity of plaintiffs specific

17

allegations in his pleading and under oath as to his use of Trust funds. Joint

18

Stipulation (Document 86-1) at 11-12. Neither does he dispute that the requested

19

documents and information are not privileged and, if they were, any privilege was

20

waived. Id. at 4; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A). Contrary to plaintiffs conclusory

21

assertions, the discovery seeks relevant documents and information directly to his

22

standing and allegations. And, plaintiff does not even try to make a showing of any

23

burden, let alone undue burden, in providing the requested documents and

24

information, which are readily available to him.

25
26

Rather than meet the Motions grounds, plaintiff engages in hyperbole and
cites inapplicable cases.

27

In his portion of the parties Joint Stipulation, plaintiff argues, without

28

providing any proof, that trust beneficiaries, ASCAP and others have never
1

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 87 Filed 01/19/16 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:861

challenged the Trusts existence. Even if that unsworn assertion is taken at face

value, the claim that others have not had occasion to question the Trusts existence

does not mean it exists and does not preclude others from pursuing narrow discovery

on the issue.

Amendment was in fact complied with or, as seems even more likely, it was not and

the Trust ceased to exist and plaintiff lacks standing. Also, plaintiff focuses only on

the existence of the Trust and ignores that his sworn allegations in his own pleading

put in issue how the Trusts funds are used. Plaintiffs veracity is very much in issue

and defendants are entitled to discovery as to the facts he pleaded.

Moreover, plaintiff is noticeably silent as to whether the Trust

10

Plaintiff cites the Court to Malhotra v. Copa de Oro Realty, LLC, Case No.

11

CV13-4146 MWF (VBKx) (C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2014), and represents that there the

12

Court ruled that trust documents are confidential in nature.

13

docket in PACER, however, reveals there was no ruling issued on that date, let alone

14

a ruling on the discovery issue before this Court. And, if in fact the documents and

15

information sought by this discovery are confidential, plaintiff can designate them

16

CONFIDENTIAL under the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this case.

Reviewing that cases

17

Plaintiff also cites In re Estate of Giraldin, 55 Cal. 4th 1058, 290 P.3d 199

18

(2012) and In re Estate of Bowles, 169 Cal. App. 4th 684, 699, 87 Cal. Rptr. 3d 122,

19

133 (2008) for the proposition that beneficiaries of a trust have standing to sue the

20

trust. He again misses the mark. Defendants do not seek to sue the Trust, only to

21

determine whether it exists and whether plaintiffs sworn statements as to the use of

22

its funds are true. None of the cases plaintiff cites suggest that a party being sued on

23

behalf of a trust cannot inquire whether the trust exists, even after trust documents

24

are produced suggesting it may not.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 87 Filed 01/19/16 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:862

1
2

It is respectfully submitted that the Motion should be granted and plaintiff

directed to comply with Requests Nos. 9, 10 and 18 and Interrogatory No. 2.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Dated: January 19, 2016

/s/ Peter J. Anderson
Peter J. Anderson, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. ANDERSON
A Professional Corporation
Attorney for Defendants
JAMES PATRICK PAGE, ROBERT
ANTHONY PLANT, JOHN PAUL JONES,
WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC.,
SUPER HYPE PUBLISHING, INC.,
ATLANTIC RECORDING CORP., RHINO
ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY and
WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP.

11
12
13
14

Helene M. Freeman, Esq.

PHILLIPS NIZER LLP
Attorney for Defendants
JAMES PATRICK PAGE,
ROBERT ANTHONY PLANT and
JOHN PAUL JONES

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3