Laura Larson v. Warner Bros Entertainment, Inc, et al

Filing 53

Filed (ECF) Appellant Laura Siegel Larson citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/25/2012. [8226243]--[COURT UPDATE: Spread filing to 11-56034, resent notice. 06/25/2012 by ASW] (MT)

Download PDF
TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 22337 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY #348 MARC TOBEROFF* PABLO D. ARREDONDO* DAVID HARRIS MALIBU, CALIFORNIA 90265 TELEPHONE (310) 246-3333 FACSIMILE (310) 246-3101 * Also admitted in New York June 25, 2012 Via ECF SYSTEM Molly Dwyer, Clerk of Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 95 Seventh Street San Francisco, California 94103-1518 Re: Larson v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. et al., Appeal No. 11-55863 Dear Ms. Dwyer: Appellant/Cross-Appellee Laura Siegel Larson submits this FRAP 28(j) letter in connection with her Motion to Strike Appellees’ Supplemental Excerpts of Record and Portions of Principal and Response Brief (Dkt. No. 42) and her Response to Appellees’ Motion for Judicial Notice (Dkt. No. 52). As in this action, DC Comics attempted to inject dozens of extra-record documents into the record on appeal in the related matter of DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corporation et al. (Appeal No. 11-56934). DC Comics tried to do this by a motion to supplement the record, and by requesting judicial notice of extra-record documents in the footnotes of its Supplemental Excerpts of Record. In an order dated June 22, 2012, this Court swiftly denied DC Comics’ motion to supplement, and struck DC Comics’ offending answering brief and supplemental excerpts of record. Appeal 11-56934, Dkt No. 27. A copy of this order is attached. Respectfully submitted, Marc Toberoff Toberoff & Associates, P.C. Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant Laura Siegel Larson Case: 11-56934 06/22/2012 ID: 8224868 DktEntry: 27 Page: 1 of 2 FILED JUN 22 2012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DC COMICS, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PACIFIC PICTURES CORPORATION; et al., MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS No. 11-56934 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ Central District of California, Los Angeles ORDER Defendants - Appellants. The appellee’s motion to supplement the record on appeal with “documents recently produced by defendants or otherwise relevant to the ongoing district court proceedings” is denied. Kirshner v. Uniden Corp., 842 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1988). The Clerk shall strike the appellee’s previously filed answering brief and supplemental excerpts of record, which included the proposed supplementation to the record. The appellee shall file a substitute answering brief and supplemental excerpts of record on or before July 23, 2012. The court has received the appellants’ notice of joint reply brief. The joint optional reply brief is due within 35 days after service of the substitute answering brief. tah/6.18.12/Pro M o Case: 11-56934 06/22/2012 ID: 8224868 DktEntry: 27 Page: 2 of 2 The appellee’s proposed supplemental excerpts of record includes requests for judicial notice. The appellee is informed that any renewed requests for judicial notice should be made in the form of separate filings. The court has received the appellee’s unopposed motion to seal a portion of the proposed supplemental excerpts of record, as well as Exhibit O to the declaration appended to the instant motion, under seal. The instant motion includes a copy of the district court’s May 23, 2012 order granting the appellee’s motion to seal the noted material in that court. Accordingly, the motion to seal is granted pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 27-13(b) as to the exhibit to the motion. The Clerk shall destroy the volume of proposed supplemental excerpts of record comprising pages SER 47 through SER 51. For the Court: MOLLY C. DWYER Clerk of the Court Teresa A. Haugen, Deputy Clerk 9th Circuit Rules 27-7, 27-10 tah/6.18.12/Pro Mo 11-56934

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?