Sie sind auf Seite 1von 28

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 28 Page ID #:2210

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)


DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME
TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 2 of 28 Page ID #:2211

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES..............................................1

1.

INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1

2.

PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED ..................................3

4
5
6

(a)

February 25, 2016 Filing and March 28, 2016 Hearing Dates and

the Resulting Opposition Deadlines and Used those Dates for His

Own Motion .............................................................................................3

9
10

At the LR 7-3 Pre-Filing Conference, Plaintiff Agreed to the

(b)

Since August 2015, Plaintiff Has Known the Time that He Would

11

Have to File a Response to Defendants Motion, and Plaintiff

12

Delayed Until He Could Not Seek Relief by Noticed Motion ................4

13

(c)

14
15

Plaintiff Fails to Address the Consequences to the Courts


Scheduled Dates if His Application Were Granted .................................5

(d)

Implicitly Acknowledging that His Application Would Interfere

16

with the Courts Scheduled Dates, Plaintiff Relies on FRCP 16(b),

17

But He Cannot Show the Required Diligence and Good Cause ..............6

18

(1)

19

Plaintiff Has Not Been Diligent: He Failed to Promptly Seek


the Relief He Now Requests and Failed to Promptly Pursue

20

Discovery and the Allegedly Deficient Discovery Responses ......6

21
22

(2)

Plaintiffs Claim that Defendants Failed to Provide Discovery ....7


i.

23

Motion for Summary Judgment ...........................................7

24
25
26
27

The Discovery Plaintiff Refers to Is Irrelevant to the

ii.
(3)

Plaintiffs Accusations Are False ........................................8

Plaintiffs Conclusory Reference to a Plethora of Witnesses


and Experts Does Not Establish Good Cause ............................10

28
i

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 3 of 28 Page ID #:2212

(4)

Plaintiffs Request .......................................................................10

2
3

Defendants Would Be Substantiality Prejudiced by

3.

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................11

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
ii

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 4 of 28 Page ID #:2213

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

1
2

Cases

In re Intermagnetics America, 101 B.R. 191 (C.D. Cal. 1989) ....................................5

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) ............ 6, 7, 10

Mission Power Engg v. Continental Casualty, 883 F. Supp. 488

(C.D. Cal. 1995) .........................................................................................................5

Ojo v. Farmers Group, Inc., 565 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2009) .......................................3

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Rules
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 ..................................................................... 5, 6, 7
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 ................................................................... 4, 6, 14
Local Rule 6-1 ..........................................................................................................3, 4
Local Rule 7-3 ..........................................................................................................1, 3
Local Rule 16-2 ............................................................................................................5

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

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 5 of 28 Page ID #:2214

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1
2
3
4

1.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs ex parte application is remarkable for what it omits and what it

misstates.

Plaintiff omits that in the parties February 18, 2016 Local Rule 7-3 pre-filing

conference, plaintiffs counsel agreed to defendants filing their summary judgment

motion on February 25, 2016 for hearing on March 28, 2016 thereby establishing

March 7, 2016 as the deadline for plaintiffs response and plaintiff used those

same dates for his own motion for leave to amend his complaint. See, below at 3-4.

10

Plaintiff also omits that he is now asking for relief that the Court declined to

11

provide when it issued its August 17, 2015 Scheduling Order (Doc. 78). Not only is

12

plaintiff requesting anew relief previously denied, but he has known since August

13

2015 that defendants intended to move for summary judgment on February 25, 2016

14

and that his response would be due March 7, 2016. He cannot delay until there is

15

insufficient time to seek relief by noticed motion and then seek it by ex parte

16

application. See, below at 4-5.

17

Plaintiff also omits the consequences to the Courts scheduled dates, and the

18

resulting prejudice, if the application were to be granted. The Court set a tight

19

schedule and enlarging the briefing time would mean, for example, moving the

20

hearing on defendants motion so that it would be in the midst of the many deadlines

21

that precede the April 25, 2016 Pretrial Conference and May 10, 2016 Trial. That,

22

in turn, would mean that the parties would be unlikely to have the Courts ruling

23

before expending substantial effort and expense in trial preparation that will be

24

rendered moot if the motion is granted. See, below at 5-6. In addition to that

25

substantial prejudice, defendants and their counsel have made commitments and

26

incurred expenses in reliance on the scheduled dates. See, below at 10-11.

27
28

And, ultimately, plaintiffs application is based on a red herring contrived


from demonstrably untrue statements.
1

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 6 of 28 Page ID #:2215

The red herring is that allegedly-late discovery responses from defendants are

relevant to defendants pending motion for summary judgment.

defendants motion is based on documents and information either from plaintiff and

his witnesses or that plaintiff should have had before filing this case.

defendants motion raises that the musical composition Taurus is either a work for

hire (and plaintiffs claims barred on that ground) or was assigned to Hollenbeck

Music (and his claims barred by laches) or was waived or abandoned by plaintiffs

predecessors, and in any event that plaintiffs musicologist failed to opine as to the

only relevant work, namely the registered 1967 Taurus transcription that plaintiff
Defendants SJ Memo. (Doc. 97-1).

Actually,

Thus,

10

also never produced.

Discovery from

11

defendants is irrelevant to all of that. Instead, plaintiffs ownership of the allegedly-

12

infringed copyright and the Taurus transcription in which that copyright was

13

registered, are all matters within plaintiffs province and, indeed since he bears the

14

burden of proof on his claims matters for which he was required by Federal Rule

15

of Civil Procedure 11 to have evidence in hand before filing suit. See, below at 7-8.

16

As to plaintiffs demonstrably untrue statements, they include, for example,

17

that defendants produced no documents in discovery in November 2015 (they

18

produced over 600 pages of documents including 80 audio recordings), that the

19

additional documents and supplemental interrogatory responses they provided once

20

the Protective Order was entered bear on the pending motion (they relate to

21

revenues, expenses and profits, which are irrelevant to the pending motion) and that

22

plaintiff received only seven days to respond to the motion (not only was the motion

23

discussed in depth on February 18, 2016, but it was filed on February 25, 2016, with

24

plaintiffs response due eleven days later, on March 7, 2016, pursuant to the agreed

25

March 28, 2016 hearing date). See, below at 8-10.

26

Plaintiff, by omission and material misstatements, paints a false picture.

27

Defendants motion is straightforward, clear and based on matters that plaintiff if

28

he had a claim would have established before he even filed this case. Under the
2

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 7 of 28 Page ID #:2216

agreed filing and hearing dates he received more time than provided by the Local

Rules to submit his response, and giving him even more time is not justified and

would conflict with the Courts scheduled dates and prejudice defendants.

Defendants respectfully submit that plaintiff fails to carry his burden and his

application should be denied.1

2.

PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION SHOULD BE DENIED


(a)

At the LR 7-3 Pre-Filing Conference, Plaintiff Agreed to the

February 25, 2016 Filing and March 28, 2016 Hearing Dates and

the Resulting Opposition Deadlines and Used those Dates for His

10

Own Motion

11

As shown below, plaintiff has known since August 2015 that under this

12

Courts Scheduling Order and Local Rules defendants would be filing their motion

13

for summary judgment on February 25, 2016 and that his response would be due on

14

March 7, 2016. Moreover, he fails to disclose that in the Local Rule 7-3 pre-filing

15

conference he agreed to the filing and hearing dates that trigger the March 7, 2016

16

deadline.

17

In the parties February 18, 2016 pre-filing conference, plaintiffs and

18

defendants counsel discussed their respective motions and when they would be filed

19

and heard. Defendants counsel advised that they intended to file on February 25,

20

2016 for hearing on March 28, 2016, and plaintiffs counsel not only agreed to those

21

dates, but advised that he would use them for plaintiffs motion to amend his

22

complaint to add additional defendants. This agreement which makes the parties

23

respective opposition papers due March 7, 2016 (LR 6-1) is proven both by the

24

attached Declarations and by the fact that plaintiff also filed his motion on February

25

25, 2016 for hearing on March 28, 2016. Pltfs Motion (Doc. 98); Anderson Decl. at

26

13, 4; Freeman Decl. at 1, 3.

27
28

Plaintiff cannot try to do by reply what he failed to do in his application. Ojo v.


Farmers Group, Inc., 565 F.3d 1175, 1185, n. 13 (9th Cir. 2009).
3

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 8 of 28 Page ID #:2217

Plaintiff agreed to the filing and hearing date, which automatically set the

March 7, 2016 response deadline, and should be required to live up to his agreement.
(b)

Since August 2015, Plaintiff Has Known the Time that He Would

Have to File a Response to Defendants Motion, and Plaintiff

Delayed Until He Could Not Seek Relief by Noticed Motion

Plaintiff also omits from his application that this is not the first time in this

case that the issue of extra time to respond to dispositive motions was before the

Court.

In their August 10, 2015 Joint Rule 26(f) Report, the parties proposed a

10

briefing schedule for dispositive motions, enlarging the time provided by Local Rule

11

6-1, and to accommodate that modification the parties proposed additional time

12

between the dispositive motion cut-off and the pretrial conference and trial. Joint

13

Rule 26(f) Report (Doc. 75) at 5-6. The Court, however, declined to adopt that

14

proposal, setting a February 25, 2016 deadline to file dispositive motions and

15

leaving the parties briefing per the Local Rule, with the Pretrial Conference less

16

than 30 days after the dispositive motion hearing date. August 17, 2015 Scheduling

17

Order (Doc. 78). As a result, plaintiff has known since August 2015 that defendants

18

would be filing their motion for summary judgment on February 25, 2016 and he

19

would have until March 7, 2016 to file his reply.2

20

Yet plaintiff did nothing for six months and delayed until after defendants

21

filed their motion, before asking the Court to alter the briefing schedule flowing

22

from its August 2015 Scheduling Order. Knowing that defendants motion was

23

coming, plaintiff could and should have filed a noticed motion, rather than wait until

24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff accuses defendants of gamesmanship in filing on Thursday, February


25, 2016. Not only is that the scheduled date, it is the date that plaintiffs counsel
agreed to in the February 18, 2016 pre-filing conference, just eight days after the
close of fact discovery. Also, if defendants had filed on the preceding Monday for a
hearing 28 days hence, plaintiffs response would have been due in seven days rather
than the eleven days he received by defendants filing on February 25, 2016.
4

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 9 of 28 Page ID #:2218

there is insufficient time to do so. Ex parte applications are not intended to save the

day for parties who have failed to act diligently.

Continental Casualty, 883 F. Supp. 488, 493 (C.D. Cal. 1995), quoting In re

Intermagnetics America, 101 B.R. 191, 193 (C.D. Cal. 1989).

Mission Power Engg v.

For six months, plaintiff has known the briefing schedule he faced, he did

nothing about it and he cannot seek by ex parte application relief that he could and

should have sought by noticed motion. For that additional reason, his application is

properly denied.

(c)

10

Plaintiff Fails to Address the Consequences to the Courts


Scheduled Dates if His Application Were Granted

11

Plaintiff fails to even mention the consequences to this Courts scheduled

12

dates if his application were granted which is especially surprising since that was

13

the reason defendants provided for declining plaintiffs March 1, 2016 request that

14

they stipulate to modify the briefing schedule. Anderson Decl. at 13, 3.

15

Plaintiffs proposed order (Doc. 110-1) only mentions extending the March 7,

16

2016 deadline for plaintiff to file his response. But, extending that deadline would

17

also necessarily mean (1) moving the March 14, 2016 deadline for defendants to file

18

their reply and (2) moving the March 28, 2016 hearing date into April 2016.

19

However, the Courts scheduled dates include the April 25, 2016 Pretrial

20

Conference and May 10, 2016 Trial, and those dates trigger deadlines to conduct the

21

Local Rule 16-2 meeting of counsel and the deadlines to file, for example, motions

22

in limine, proposed jury instructions and memoranda of contentions of fact and law.

23

Those efforts, which will involve substantial time and expense, will be rendered

24

moot if defendants motion is granted. But if the hearing is moved to accommodate

25

plaintiff request, the hearing will be in the midst of those deadlines.

26

In addition, the settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Rosenberg is

27

set for March 23, 2016 (Doc. 94), and that date was specifically chosen because

28

///
5

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 10 of 28 Page ID


#:2219

under the currently scheduled dates it is after the close of all briefing of

defendants motion for summary judgment and before the March 28, 2016 hearing.

It is an understatement that there are multiple, fixed and important deadlines

that would be directly impacted if the Court were to grant plaintiffs request. That is

another reason plaintiffs application should be denied.

(d)

Implicitly Acknowledging that His Application Would Interfere

with the Courts Scheduled Dates, Plaintiff Relies on FRCP 16(b),

But He Cannot Show the Required Diligence and Good Cause

Implicitly recognizing his requests direct consequences to the Courts

10

Scheduling Order and the deadlines resulting from it, plaintiff cites Federal Rule of

11

Civil Procedure 16(b) as the governing standard. Application (Doc. 110) at 3:5-10,

12

citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

13

And, plaintiff cannot meet that standard.

14

(1)

Plaintiff Has Not Been Diligent: He Failed to Promptly Seek

15

the Relief He Now Requests and Failed to Promptly Pursue

16

Discovery and the Allegedly Deficient Discovery Responses

17

Plaintiff does not claim some unforeseen event recently occurred and

18

interferes with his ability to respond to defendants motion. Instead, he asserts

19

without any proof that he has been diligent, and then argues defendants failed to

20

respond to discovery.

21

But, plaintiff has known since August 2015 that under this Courts Scheduling

22

Order and Local Rules defendants would be filing their motion for summary

23

judgment on February 25, 2016 and that his response would be due on March 7,

24

2016. Yet, plaintiff did not act. Quite the contrary, at the February 18, 2016 pre-

25

filing conference he agreed to the filing and hearing dates.

26

Plaintiffs claimed diligence in discovery also is belied by the facts. The

27

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) hold on discovery was lifted when the

28

parties held their Rule 26(f) meeting of counsel on August 10, 2015, yet plaintiff
6

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 11 of 28 Page ID


#:2220

delayed until October 13, 2015 before serving his first discovery requests. Anderson

Decl. at 14, 5.

defendants compliance with discovery (see, below 8-10), even his misstatements

show a lack of diligence. Thus, he claims defendants produced no documents in

November 2015 (Application at 1:17-20) which is not true but then diligence

required that he file a motion to compel and, of course, he did not. Similarly, he

claims defendants provided inadequate interrogatory responses in November 2015

(Application at 1:25-26) which also is not true but then he should have filed a

motion to compel, and, again, he did not. Instead, and to this day, he has not

10

And, while there is no truth to plaintiffs accusations as to

identified any deficiencies in those responses.

11

Rule 16(b)s good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the

12

party seeking [relief] . . . . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.

13

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Plaintiff, knowing the motion and briefing schedule he

14

faced, failed to proceed diligently and, accordingly, his application should be denied.

15
16

(2)

Plaintiffs Claim that Defendants Failed to Provide Discovery


i.

The Discovery Plaintiff Refers to Is Irrelevant to the


Motion for Summary Judgment

17
18

Plaintiff accuses defendants of not complying with discovery, but he never

19

specifically explains how that discovery is relevant to his response to defendants

20

motion for summary judgment. The reason is simple: the discovery is irrelevant to

21

defendants motion.

22

Defendants motion for summary judgment is based on defects in plaintiffs

23

claimed ability to sue for infringement of the copyright in the Taurus musical

24

composition and relies largely on plaintiffs own documents and the testimony of his

25

own witnesses; plaintiffs failure to produce the 1967 Taurus transcription protected

26

by the copyright he sues upon; plaintiffs failure to disclose any expert opining as to

27

any claimed similarities between Stairway to Heaven and the 1967 transcription,

28

which is the only copyrighted work on which this case could be predicated; and
7

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 12 of 28 Page ID


#:2221

statements that plaintiffs predecessor, Randy Wolfe, made in 1991 and which were

included in a publicly-available album released that year. See, Defendants SJ

Memo.

Plaintiff complains that defendants produced 40,000 pages of documents on

December 29, 2015, once the Stipulated Protective Order was entered on December

28, 2015. But, that production consisted of documents such as contracts and royalty

statements relating to defendants respective revenues, expenses and profits, none of

which is relevant to plaintiffs claimed ability to sue for infringement of the

copyright in the Taurus musical composition. Anderson Decl. at 14-15, 8. Not

10

only did defendants produce the documents within a day of the entry of the

11

Protective Order, but the production has nothing to do with the pending motion for

12

summary judgment.

13

Plaintiff also complains that in January 2016 defendants provided

14

supplemental interrogatory responses. But, those supplemental responses merely

15

provided the confidential financial information that was not included in the initial

16

responses because the Protective Order was not yet in place. Anderson Decl. at 14-

17

15, 9. Plaintiff filed three of the Supplemental Interrogatory Responses under seal

18

(Doc. 103; Exhibits 3, 4 & 5) and the Court can see for itself that the information is

19

limited to revenues.
Defendants supposed failure to respond to discovery has nothing to do with

20
21

defendants summary judgment motion or plaintiffs response to it.


ii.

22

Plaintiffs Accusations Are False

23

And, plaintiffs accusations of discovery misuse are demonstrably false.

24

Plaintiff represents to the Court that after plaintiff served his discovery

25

requests in October 2015, defendants failed to produce any documents until

26

December 2015 and after entry of the Protective Order. Application at 1:18-20. In

27

truth, defendants timely produced in November 2015 non-confidential documents

28

///
8

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 13 of 28 Page ID


#:2222

consisting of over 600 pages of documents and audio recordings. Anderson Decl. at

14, 6, & Exh. 1.

Plaintiff represents to the Court that defendants November 2015 interrogatory

responses were not meaningful and defendants did not provide meaningful

responses until January 2016. However, defendants initial interrogatory responses

were full and complete and omitted only confidential financial information, which

was provided by supplemental responses once the Protective Order was in place.

Plaintiff never raised any deficiency in defendants interrogatory responses and, in

his application, does not identify any deficiency. Anderson Decl. at 14, 6-7.

10

Plaintiff filed one of the initial Interrogatory Responses under seal (Doc. 103;

11

Exhibit 2) and the Court can see for itself that substantive responses were provided

12

except as to confidential financial information, which was provided by a

13

supplemental response (Doc. 103; Exhibit 3) once the Protective Order was in place.

14

Plaintiff represents to the Court that when it was determined that many

15

crucial documents had not been produced, Defendants have continued to produce

16

documents right up until the last two weeks. Application at 1:21-24. That is also

17

untrue: the documents recently provided were simply a late production by a

18

subpoenaed non-party. Anderson Decl. at 15, 11.

19

Plaintiff represents to the Court that Defendants did not produce any expert

20

reports, . . . and that, as a result, when [defendants] motion was filed [on February

21

25, 2016], Plaintiff did not have the benefit of seeing any expert report from the

22

Defendants.

23

provided initial expert disclosures on February 10, 2016. Anderson Decl. at 15,

24

10, & Exh. 2.

Application at 2:14-18.

That is also untrue: defendants timely

25

Plaintiff represents to the Court that defendants delayed until February 25,

26

2016 to file their motion for summary judgment and that plaintiff has been afforded

27

a mere seven (7) days to respond to defendants motion. Application at 2:24-25.

28

But as plaintiffs counsel agreed in the pre-filing conference defendants filed on


9

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 14 of 28 Page ID


#:2223

Thursday, February 25, 2016, for hearing on March 28, 2016, giving plaintiff eleven

days to file his response.

It is difficult to find a factual assertion in plaintiffs application that is true.

Instead, plaintiff relies on misstatements to obscure that plaintiff failed to act

diligently and has no grounds for his request, which will only interfere with the

Courts scheduled dates and prejudice defendants.

(3)

Plaintiffs Conclusory Reference to a Plethora of Witnesses


and Experts Does Not Establish Good Cause

8
9

Apparently as an afterthought, plaintiff adds in passing that [t]here are a

10

plethora of witnesses and expert witnesses located all over the country in this case, .

11

. . . Application at 2:27-28. That bare assertion cannot be credited nor does it

12

make any sense given the narrow and targeted grounds of defendants motion. For

13

example, no number of witnesses or experts is going to change the fact that the

14

Taurus musical composition is a work for hire; that Randy Wolfe consented to the

15

alleged use; that plaintiffs claim as beneficial owner of the copyright is barred by

16

laches; that plaintiff failed to produce the 1967 Taurus transcription that constitutes

17

the sole copyrighted work upon which his infringement claim could be predicated;

18

and that he failed to disclose any expert as to the 1967 Taurus transcriptions

19

supposed similarities with Stairway to Heaven.

20

grounds is, alone, confirmation that plaintiffs claims lack merit, and the threat to

21

submit declarations from an unidentified plethora of witnesses changes nothing.

22
23

(4)

Each of these straightforward

Defendants Would Be Substantiality Prejudiced by Plaintiffs


Request

24

Prejudice to the opposing party is not required where, as here, the moving

25

party has not been diligent. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. But, defendants and their

26

counsel would be substantially prejudiced if plaintiffs application were granted.

27

As discussed above, granting plaintiffs application would also mean moving

28

defendants deadline to file their reply and moving the hearing date, interfering with
10

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 15 of 28 Page ID


#:2224

the Courts scheduled dates and deprive defendants of a ruling before the parties

incur substantial effort and expense in pretrial procedures. In addition, defendants

and their counsel have acted in reliance on the currently-scheduled dates. For

example, defendants representatives have already purchased tickets to attend the

March 23, 2016 settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Rosenberg.

individual defendants New York counsel has already purchased tickets to be present

at that settlement conference and the March 28, 2016 hearing on defendants motion.

In addition, the individual defendants arranged to be available for the May 10, 2016

trial, if one is had, and cannot appear in the subsequent months. Freeman Decl. at

The

10

17, 4-5.

Also, defendants local counsel has depositions in another case

11

scheduled for the week after defendants reply is currently due, and moving the reply

12

date would result in defendants counsel being unable to both attend those

13

depositions and prepare defendants reply. Anderson Decl. at 16, 13.


Plaintiffs request to modify the scheduled dates would also prejudice

14
15

defendants, which is yet another reason his application should be denied.

16

3.

CONCLUSION

17

Plaintiff has known since August 2015 that he stood to have only seven days

18

to file his response to defendants motion for summary judgment. As it turns out,

19

that time was increased to eleven days when as plaintiffs counsel agreed in the

20

pre-filing conference defendants filed their motion on Thursday, February 25,

21

2016 with a March 28, 2016 hearing date. Yet, plaintiff belatedly seeks by ex parte

22

application a briefing schedule that he could and should have sought by noticed

23

motion. Further, plaintiff fails to even mention, let alone address, that the extension

24

he seeks would interfere with the Courts scheduled dates. And, he relies on false

25

statements of fact as a smokescreen to cover not only his lack of diligence, but a

26

fatal flaw in his application: defendants motion is based on documents and

27

information either from plaintiff and his witnesses or that plaintiff should have had

28

before filing this case.


11

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 16 of 28 Page ID


#:2225

Defendants respectfully submit that plaintiffs application should be denied.

2
3

Dated: March 3, 2016

4
5
6
7
8
9

/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 INC.

10
11

/s/ Helene M. Freeman


Helene M. Freeman, Esq.
PHILLIPS NIZER LLP
Attorney for Defendants
JAMES PATRICK PAGE,
ROBERT ANTHONY PLANT and
JOHN PAUL JONES

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Attestation Regarding Signatures


The undersigned attests that all signatories listed, and on whose behalf this
filing is submitted, concur in this filings content and have authorized its filing.

19
20

Dated: March 3, 2016

/s/ Peter J. Anderson


Peter J. Anderson, Esq.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 17 of 28 Page ID


#:2226

DECLARATION OF PETER J. ANDERSON

1
2

I, Peter J. Anderson, declare and state:

1.

I am an attorney admitted to practice before this Court and all Courts of

the State of California. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and could

competently testify to these facts if called upon to do so.

2.

I represent defendants Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., Syperhype

Publishing, Inc., Atlantic Recording Corp., Rhino Entertainment Company, James

Patrick Page, Robert Plant and John Paul Jones in this action. This Declaration is

submitted in support of their opposition to the ex parte Application of plaintiff

10

Michael Skidmore for an Order extending the time for him to file his response,

11

presently due March 7, 2016, to defendants February 25, 2016 motion for summary

12

judgment or partial summary judgment.

13

3.

In my March 1, 2016 e-mail to plaintiffs counsel, Glen Kulik, Esq.,

14

responding to his request that the parties agree to a briefing schedule giving plaintiff

15

more time to file his reply, I stated [w]e cant agree to that, including because it

16

would interfere with the scheduled dates. Although I raised the point, plaintiffs

17

application does not address that his request would interfere with the scheduled

18

dates.

19

4.

Fact discovery closed on February 10, 2016. On February 18, 2016,

20

plaintiffs other counsel, Francis Malofiy, Esq., and Helene Freeman, Esq., and I

21

conducted our pre-filing conference with respect to defendants motion for summary

22

judgment or partial summary judgment and plaintiffs motion for leave to amend his

23

complaint to add additional defendants. I told Mr. Malofiy that we would be filing

24

defendants motion on February 25, 2016 for hearing on March 28, 2016. Mr.

25

Malofiy said that the hearing date worked for him and he would file plaintiffs

26

motion for leave to amend for hearing on the same day, March 28, 2016. At no

27

point did Mr. Malofiy suggest that plaintiff would need any additional time to file

28

his response, which under the Local Rules is due March 7, 2016, providing plaintiff
13

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 18 of 28 Page ID


#:2227

1
2

eleven days to respond.


5.

The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference of counsel was

held on August 10, 2015, and, as a result, the Rule 26(d)(1) hold on discovery was

lifted that same day.

discovery directed to plaintiff on August 14, 2015. Plaintiffs counsel, however, did

not serve any discovery until October 13, 2015, when they served interrogatories and

requests for production.

6.

On behalf of defendants, I caused to be served written

On November 23, 2015, defendants timely responded to plaintiffs

October 13, 2015 discovery. Those responses were substantive and omitted only

10

confidential financial information and documents because plaintiff, although

11

agreeing that a stipulated protective order is appropriate, never prepared one. On

12

November 23, 2015 and with defendants responses, I produced documents and 80

13

audio recordings, bearing control numbers from 1 through 603. Attached to this

14

Declaration as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of my November 23, 2015 letter

15

to plaintiffs counsel and a photocopy of the CD that accompanied that letter.

16

Although in his application plaintiff states that defendants November 2015

17

interrogatory responses were not meaningful, plaintiffs counsel has never raised

18

any deficiency in defendants interrogatory responses and, in his application, does

19

not identify any deficiency.

20

7.

Because plaintiffs counsel had not prepared a Stipulated Protective

21

Order, I prepared one and sent it to plaintiffs counsel on December 3, 2015.

22

However, they did not approve it until several weeks later, and it was then submitted

23

to the Court and filed on December 28, 2015. The very next day I sent plaintiffs

24

counsel a hard drive with some 40,000 pages of confidential contracts and financial

25

information.

26

8.

In his application, plaintiff complains that the approximately 40,000

27

pages were not produced until December 29, 2015. Plaintiff omits his own delay in

28

connection with the Protective Order and omits that the documents produced on
14

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 19 of 28 Page ID


#:2228

December 29, 2015 do not relate to the grounds of defendants motion for summary

judgment. While defendants motion is directed to defects in plaintiffs claims, the

documents produced December 29, 2015 relate to defendants respective revenues,

expenses and profits, which become relevant only if summary judgment is not

granted.

9.

In his application, plaintiff also complains that in January 2016

defendants provided supplemental interrogatory responses.

supplemental responses provided the confidential financial information that was not

included in the initial responses because the Protective Order was not yet in place. I

10

note that three of those Supplemental Interrogatory Responses were filed under seal

11

by plaintiff (Doc. 103) and the Court can see that the information is limited to

12

revenues.

13

interrogatory responses were deficient.


10.

14

However, those

Also, plaintiffs counsel has never suggested that defendants

Plaintiff advises the Court that Defendants did not produce any expert

15

reports, . . . and that, as a result, when [defendants] motion was filed [on February

16

25, 2016], Plaintiff did not have the benefit of seeing any expert report from the

17

Defendants. Application at 2:14-18; Kulik Decl. at 2:11-14. That also is not true.

18

Defendants timely provided initial expert disclosures on February 10, 2016, and

19

attached to this Declaration as Exhibit 2 is a copy of my February 10, 2016 letter to

20

plaintiffs counsel and the first page and proof of service of defendants initial expert

21

disclosures. I also note that a copy of Dr. Ferraras Report is attached as Exhibit 1 to

22

his Declaration filed February 25, 2016 in support of defendants motion.


11.

23

In his application, plaintiff states that when it was determined that

24

many crucial documents had not been produced, Defendants have continued to

25

produce documents right up until the last two weeks. Application at 1:21-24. This

26

statement includes no specifics and I assume that plaintiff refers to the fact that when

27

I received additional documents from a third party to whom I had directed a

28

///
15

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 20 of 28 Page ID


#:2229

subpoena, I immediately literally within minutes forwarded them to plaintiffs

counsel.

12.

Plaintiff asserts that his principal attorney is Mr. Malofiy, who is

part of a two-attorney law firm . . . . Mr. Kulik, however, has been actively

involved in this case and, for example, took the last two depositions before the

discovery cut-off. Based on his firms website, Mr. Kulik is a principal of an

eleven-attorney firm. See, http://www.kgslaw.com/attorneys.

13.

In reliance on the scheduled dates and Mr. Malofiys failure to object or

raise any issue with defendants filing their motion on February 25, 2016 for hearing

10

on March 28, 2016, I blocked out the week of March 7, 2016 to work on defendants

11

reply papers for filing March 14, 2016. If plaintiffs application were to be granted,

12

that would cause a substantial problem for me because two depositions in another

13

action are set for the week of March 14, 2016 and I would be unable to both attend

14

or take those depositions and also prepare defendants reply papers that same week.

15
16

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on January 28, 2016 in Los Angeles County, California.

17
18

/s/ Peter J. Anderson


PETER J. ANDERSON

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 21 of 28 Page ID


#:2230

DECLARATION OF HELENE FREEMAN

1
2

I, Helene Freeman, declare and state:

1.

I am an attorney admitted to practice before all Courts of the State of

New York and admitted pro hac vice to appear in this action. I have personal

knowledge of the following facts and could competently testify to these facts if

called upon to do so.

2.

I represent defendants James Patrick Page, Robert Plant and John Paul

Jones in this action. This Declaration is submitted in support of their opposition to

the ex parte Application of plaintiff Michael Skidmore for an Order amended this

10
11

Courts Scheduling Order.


3.

I participated in the February 18, 2016 pre-filing conference call with

12

plaintiffs counsel, Francis Malofiy, Esq., and Peter J. Anderson, Esq., and confirm

13

the statements contained in Mr. Andersons Declaration, above.

14
15
16

4.

Moving the scheduled dates would cause substantial problems for my

clients, their other representatives and me.


5.

I and other of defendants representatives have already purchased

17

tickets to attend the March 23, 2016 settlement conference with Magistrate Judge

18

Rosenberg and, in my case, to also attend the March 28, 2016 hearing on

19

defendants motion.

20

settlement conference remains as set and the hearing moved, I would have to travel

21

across country a second time. In addition, the individual defendants arranged to be

22

available for the May 10, 2016 trial and moving the trial would be a substantial

23

hardship for them and others.

24
25

The tickets I purchased are non-refundable.

Also, if the

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on March 3, 2016 in New York, New York.
/s/ Helene Freeman
HELENE FREEMAN

26
27
28
17

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 22 of 28 Page ID


#:2231

EXHIBIT 1

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 23 of 28 Page ID


#:2232

(;+,%,7
18

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 24 of 28 Page ID


#:2233

(;+,%,7
19

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 25 of 28 Page ID


#:2234

EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 26 of 28 Page ID


#:2235

(;+,%,7
20

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 27 of 28 Page ID


#:2236

(;+,%,7
21

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 113 Filed 03/03/16 Page 28 of 28 Page ID


#:2237

(;+,%,7
22