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

Filing 57

Filed (ECF) Appellants DC Comics and Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. in 11-56034 citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/02/2012 [8234666] [11-55863, 11-56034]--[COURT UPDATE: Edited docket text to reflect content of filing. Resent NDA. 07/02/2012 by RY] (DP)

Download PDF
BEIJING SAN FRANCISCO 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067-6035 BRUSSELS HONG KONG TELEPHONE LONDON FACSIMILE LOS ANGELES SHANGHAI SILICON VALLEY (310) 553-6700 (310) 246-6779 SINGAPORE TOKYO www.omm.com NEWPORT BEACH WASHINGTON, D.C. NEW YORK OUR FILE NUMBER July 2, 2012 905900-321 VIA ECF SYSTEM WRITER’S DIRECT DIAL (310) 246-6850 Molly Dwyer, Clerk of Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 95 Seventh Street San Francisco, California 94103-1518 Re: WRITER’S E-MAIL ADDRESS dpetrocelli@omm.com Larson v. Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., Nos. 11-55863, 11-56034 Dear Ms. Dwyer: Appellant Laura Siegel Larson recently submitted a FRAP 28(j) letter purporting to bring new authority to the Court’s attention. Dkt. No. 53. This “authority” was an order, issued by a clerk of this Court, denying DC’s Motion to Supplement the Record in a related case, DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp., No. 11-56934. DC writes to clarify two points. First, Larson suggests the denial of the Motion to Supplement in Pacific Pictures is relevant to two pending motions in this case, Larson’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 42) and DC’s Motion for Judicial Notice (Dkt. 48). But the motions in this case concern DC’s request that the Court take judicial notice of certain documents, while the Pacific Pictures motion concerned a request that the Court exercise its inherent authority to supplement the record; indeed, the order denying the Motion to Supplement in Pacific Pictures explicitly provided that DC could renew its request for judicial notice in a separate filing. Because the motions are different, the procedure for deciding them differs as well—the Pacific Pictures motion was decided by a clerk under Circuit Rule 27-7, while a motion for judicial notice should be “retained for review by the panel that will consider the merits of a case” pursuant to Circuit Rule 27-1(7). Second, the order in Pacific Pictures is still subject to further review, and DC intends to request reconsideration of a portion of the order. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Daniel M. Petrocelli Daniel M. Petrocelli of O’Melveny & Myers LLP Counsel for DC Comics cc: All Counsel

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?