Joanne Siegel et al v. Warner Bros Entertainment Inc et al

Filing 296

OBJECTIONS to Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other) 295 of New Evidence filed by Defendants filed by Plaintiff Laura Siegel Larson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Marc Toberoff)(Toberoff, Marc)

Joanne Siegel et al v. Warner Bros Entertainment Inc et al

Doc. 296

Case 2:04-cv-08400-SGL-RZ

Document 296

Filed 04/10/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 Marc Toberoff (CA State Bar No. 188547)

2 LAW OFFICES OF MARC TOBEROFF, PLC 3 Los Angeles, CA 90067

Nicholas C. Williamson (CA State Bar No. 231124) 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2720 Telephone: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA- EASTERN DIVISION JOANNE SIEGEL, an individual; and Case No. CV 04-8400 SGL (RZx) LAURA SIEGEL LARSON, an [Consolidated for Discovery with individual, Case No. 04-8776 SGL (RZx)] Plaintiffs, vs. Honorable Stephen G. Larson, U.S.D.J. Honorable Ralph Zarefsky, U.S.M.J. WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., a corporation; TIME WARNER INC., a PLAINTIFFS JOANNE SIEGEL AND LAURA SIEGEL LARSON'S corporation; DC COMICS, a general OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS' partnership; and DOES 1-10, NOTICE OF NEW EVIDENCE RE: DEFENDANTS' DECLARATION FILED Defendants. PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 ORDER RE: "ESCROW DOCUMENTS" DC COMICS, Counterclaimant, vs. JOANNE SIEGEL, an individual; and LAURA SIEGEL LARSON, an individual, Counterclaim Defendants. [Complaint filed: October 8, 2004] DISCOVERY MATTER LOCAL RULE 37

4 Facsimile: [phone] 5

6 JOANNE SIEGEL and LAURA SIEGEL LARSON 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:04-cv-08400-SGL-RZ

Document 296

Filed 04/10/2008

Page 2 of 3

1

Plaintiffs Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson ("Plaintiffs") hereby

2 object to the purported Notice of New Evidence ("Notice") filed by Defendants 3 on April 9, 2008, which is a thinly veiled and unauthorized brief or motion 4 regarding the disputed documents stolen from the legal files of Plaintiffs' 5 counsel (the "Escrow Documents"). The Notice is highly objectionable for 6 several reasons. Firstly, Defendants have ignored all procedural formalities 7 regarding this filing: they did not meet and confer regarding their putative 8 motion pursuant to L.R. 7-3, nor did they respect the Court's December 12, 2007 9 order forbidding such ex parte applications under penalty of sanctions. 10

The Court clearly ordered that with respect to any further discovery issues

11 or briefing that the parties submit a "singular document (a `Joint Stipulation') 12 submitted to the Court containing both sides respective positions." See 13 Declaration of Marc Toberoff Filed in Support of Plaintiffs' Objection to Notice 14 of New Evidence ("Toberoff Decl."), Ex. A. Moreover, in two letters dated 15 April 4, 2008, Plaintiffs reminded Defendants of this obligation and demanded 16 that any briefing to the Court regarding Judge Solomon Oliver Jr.'s April 1, 17 2008 decision in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio be in 18 the form of a joint stipulation or a notice in which both parties could reasonably 19 set forth their respective positions, not by way of an ex parte communication.
1

20 See Toberoff Decl., Exs. B, C. Defendants have obviously chosen to flout the 21 Court's order, and the Local Rules. See Toberoff Decl., Ex. E. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

In fact, the first time Plaintiffs were made aware of the possibility of this filing was through an e-mail communication forwarded from Defendants' counsel Adam Hagen on April 4, 2008, regarding communications between himself and Court Clerk James Holmes on March 28, 2008. Toberoff Decl., Ex. D. While communications with the court clerk are not improper per se, the substance of this communication clearly drifted beyond the typical subject matter: Mr. Hagen was seeking to communicate with the Court regarding alterations to the Court's March 26, 2008 summary judgment order, without either advising Plaintiffs' counsel that such contact was occurring or giving plaintiffs' counsel any notice or opportunity to participate or respond until more than a week after the fact. Moreover, with respect to the non-typographical alterations suggested for the Court's order, Mr. Hagen's e-mail failed to point to any evidence of the accuracy of the proposed corrections in the record, instead implying that the Court should rely on off-the-record and ex parte out-of-Court suggestions by defense counsel.

1
Objection To Notice Of New Evidence

Case 2:04-cv-08400-SGL-RZ

Document 296

Filed 04/10/2008

Page 3 of 3

1

Secondly, the Notice far exceeds the scope of such a filing by using

2 misleading statements and sweeping generalizations to argue for greatly 3 expanding the contours of Judge Oliver Jr.'s ruling, which denied Defendants' 4 motion regarding the privilege log of Don Bulson, Esq., the attorney of third 5 party Michael Siegel (now deceased), with the sole exception of fifteen (15) 6 specific communications, of which all but one were between Plaintiffs' counsel 7 and Mr. Bulson. For example, on the basis of that limited ruling, Defendants are 8 asking that "all remaining communications with Michael Siegel for which 9 privilege has been claimed should be immediately produced." Notice at 5:1-2. 10 This broad reading, unsupported by any authority, is absurd and further 11 highlights the sanctionable nature of Defendants' ex parte communication and 12 why Plaintiffs must be afforded a full opportunity to respond to Defendants' 13 Notice. 14

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that they be given a

15 reasonable amount of time to respond to Defendants' Notice. Given that 16 Defendants filed their Notice on April 9, 2008, eight (8) days after Judge Oliver 17 issued his ruling and five (5) days after their communication to Plaintiffs' 18 counsel of their intent to file a "Notice" of unidentified scope and substance, 19 Plaintiffs request that the Court give Plaintiffs at least seven (7) days, until April 20 16, 2008, to oppose Defendants' Notice on the merits. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
Objection To Notice Of New Evidence

DATED: April 10, 2008

LAW OFFICES OF MARC TOBEROFF, PLC /s/ Marc Toberoff Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOANNE SIEGEL and LAURA SIEGEL LARSON