Laura Larson v. Warner Bros Entertainment, Inc, et al
Filed (ECF) Appellants DC Comics and Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. in 11-56034 citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 07/02/2012  [11-55863, 11-56034]--[COURT UPDATE: Edited docket text to reflect content of filing. Resent NDA. 07/02/2012 by RY] (DP)
1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-6035
OUR FILE NUMBER
July 2, 2012
VIA ECF SYSTEM
WRITER’S DIRECT DIAL
Molly Dwyer, Clerk of Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
95 Seventh Street
San Francisco, California 94103-1518
WRITER’S E-MAIL ADDRESS
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.
/s/ Daniel M. Petrocelli
Daniel M. Petrocelli
of O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Counsel for DC Comics
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?