Laura Larson v. Warner Bros Entertainment, Inc, et al
Filed (ECF) Appellant Laura Siegel Larson citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/25/2012. --[COURT UPDATE: Spread filing to 11-56034, resent notice. 06/25/2012 by ASW] (MT)
TOBEROFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
22337 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY #348
PABLO D. ARREDONDO*
MALIBU, CALIFORNIA 90265
* 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
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.
Toberoff & Associates, P.C.
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant
Laura Siegel Larson
Page: 1 of 2
JUN 22 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff - Appellee,
PACIFIC PICTURES CORPORATION;
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03633-ODW-RZ
Central District of California,
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 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
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
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?