Fahmy v. Jay-Z et al

Filing 75

ANSWER to Complaint - (Discovery), Complaint - (Discovery), Complaint - (Discovery) 1 filed by Defendant MTV Networks Enterprise Inc.(Lewis, Alexa)

5

RUSSELL J. FRACKMAN (SBN 49087)
[e-mail]
ALEXA L. LEWIS (SBN 235867)
[e-mail]
MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
11377 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90064-1683
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

6

Attorneys for MTV Networks Enterprises Inc.

1
2
3
4

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

10
11

Osama Ahmed Fahmy, an individual,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

CASE NO. CV 07-05715 CAS (PJWx)
The Honorable Christina A. Snyder

v.
Jay-Z (aka Shawn Carter), Timothy
Mosely, Kyambo Joshua, Rob Bourdon,
Brad Delson, Mike Shinoda, Dave
Farrell, Joseph Hahn, Chester
Bennington, Big Bad Mr. Hahn Music,
Chesterchaz Publishing, EMI Blackwood
Music, Inc., EMI Music Publishing Ltd.,
Kenji Kobayashi Music, Lil Lulu
Publishing, Machine Shop Recordings,
LLC, Marcy Projects Productions II,
Inc., MTV Networks Enterprises Inc.,
Nondisclosure Agreement Music,
Paramount Home Entertainment, Inc.,
Paramount Pictures Corporation, Radical
Media, Rob Bourdon Music, Roc-AFella Records, LLC, Timbaland
Productions, Inc., UMG Recordings,
Inc., Universal Music and Video
Distribution, Inc., and Warner Music
Inc.,

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF
DEFENDANT MTV NETWORKS
ENTERPRISES INC.

Defendants.

26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1779124.1

28
29
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1
2

Defendant MTV Networks Enterprises Inc. (“Defendant”), answers the
Complaint of Osama Ahmed Fahmy (“Plaintiff”) as follows:

3
4

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

The allegations contained in paragraph 1 are legal conclusions to

5

which a response is not required. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 1 are

6

factual in nature, Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth therein.

7
8

PARTIES
2.

Answering the first and second sentences of paragraph 2, Defendant

9

lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and

10

on that basis denies each and every allegation set forth therein; and answering the

11

third sentence of paragraph 2, denies each and every allegation set forth therein.

12

3.

Answering paragraph 3, Defendant admits the allegations in the first

13

sentence of paragraph 3; lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

14

of the allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 3, and on that basis denies

15

each and every allegation set forth therein; and denies each and every remaining

16

allegation set forth in paragraph 3.

17

4.

Answering paragraph 4, Defendant admits that Rob Bourdon, Brad

18

Delson, Mike Shinoda, Dave Farrell, Joseph Hahn, and Chester Bennington are

19

entertainers who record, produce, and perform music as members of the band

20

“Linkin Park,” but lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

21

the remaining allegations of paragraph 4 and on that basis denies each and every

22

allegation set forth therein.

23

5.

Defendant admits that the product packaging of the album entitled

24
25

remaining allegation set forth in the first sentence of paragraph 5. Answering the

27

1779124.1

that it is presented by MTV Ultimate Mash-Ups, but denies each and every

26
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP

Collision Course, which contained a track entitled “Big Pimpin’/Papercut,” states

second sentence of paragraph 5, Defendant lacks information sufficient to form a

28
29

1
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1

belief as to the truth of said allegations and on that basis denies each and every

2

allegation set forth therein.

3

6.

Answering paragraph 6, Defendant lacks information sufficient to

4

form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and on that basis denies each and

5

every allegation set forth therein.

6

7.

Answering paragraph 7, Defendant lacks information sufficient to

7

form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and on that basis denies each and

8

every allegation set forth therein.

9
10

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
8.

Answering the final sentence of paragraph 8, Defendant denies each

11

and every allegation set forth therein. Answering the remainder of paragraph 8,

12

Defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said

13

allegations and on that basis denies each and every allegation set forth therein.

14

9.

Answering paragraph 9, Defendant lacks information sufficient to

15

form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and on that basis denies each and

16

every allegation set forth therein.

17

10.

Answering paragraph 10, Defendant lacks information sufficient to

18

form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and on that basis denies each and

19

every allegation set forth therein.

20

11.

Answering paragraph 11, Defendant lacks information sufficient to

21

form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and on that basis denies each and

22

every allegation set forth therein.

23

12.

Answering paragraph 12, Defendant lacks information sufficient to

24

form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and on that basis denies each and

25

every allegation set forth therein.

26

13.

Answering paragraph 13, Defendant lacks information sufficient to

27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1779124.1

form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and on that basis denies each and

28

every allegation set forth therein.

29

2
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1

14.

Answering paragraph 14, Defendant admits that, in or about July

2

2004, Linkin Park and Jay-Z performed a concert at the Roxy Theater in West

3

Hollywood; that, during said concert Jay-Z and Linkin Park performed a song

4

entitled “Big Pimpin’/Papercut;” and that, in approximately late November 2004, a

5

work entitled Collision Course, which jointly packaged a DVD recording of said

6

concert and a CD containing an in-studio recording of “Big Pimpin’/Papercut,”

7

was released, which continues to be distributed today. Defendant denies each and

8

every remaining allegation set forth in paragraph 14.

9

15.

Answering paragraph 15, Defendant lacks information sufficient to

10

form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and on that basis denies each and

11

every allegation set forth therein.

12

16.

Answering the first sentence of paragraph 16, Defendant denies each

13

and every allegation set forth therein. Answering the second sentence of paragraph

14

16, Defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said

15

allegations and on that basis denies each and every allegation set forth therein.

16

17.

The allegations contained in paragraph 17 are legal conclusions to

17

which a response is not required. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 17 are

18

factual in nature, Defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the

19

truth of said allegations and on that basis denies each and every allegation set forth

20

therein.

21

18.

The allegations contained in paragraph 18 are legal conclusions to

22

which a response is not required. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 18 are

23

factual in nature, Defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the

24

truth of said allegations and on that basis denies each and every allegation set forth

25

therein.

26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1779124.1

28
29

ANSWER TO FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
19.

Answering paragraph 19, Defendant incorporates by reference its

answers to paragraphs 1 through 18 above, as if set forth in full herein.
3
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1

20.

The allegations contained in paragraph 20 are not directed against

2

Defendant and as such no answer to paragraph 20 is required. To the extent any

3

answer is required, Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth therein.

4

21.

The allegations contained in paragraph 21 are not directed against

5

Defendant and as such no answer to paragraph 21 is required. To the extent any

6

answer is required, Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth therein.

7

22.

The allegations contained in paragraph 22 are not directed against

8

Defendant and as such no answer to paragraph 22 is required. To the extent any

9

answer is required, Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth therein.

10

23.

The allegations contained in paragraph 23 are not directed against

11

Defendant and as such no answer to paragraph 23 is required. To the extent any

12

answer is required, Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth therein.

13

24.

The allegations contained in paragraph 24 are not directed against

14

Defendant and as such no answer to paragraph 24 is required. To the extent any

15

answer is required, Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth therein.

16

25.

The allegations contained in paragraph 25 are not directed against

17

Defendant and as such no answer to paragraph 25 is required. To the extent any

18

answer is required, Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth therein.

19

26.

The allegations contained in paragraph 26 are not directed against

20

Defendant and as such no answer to paragraph 26 is required. To the extent any

21

answer is required, Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth therein.

22

27.

The allegations contained in paragraph 27 are not directed against

23

Defendant and as such no answer to paragraph 27 is required. To the extent any

24

answer is required, Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth therein.

25
26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1779124.1

ANSWER TO SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
28.

Answering paragraph 28, Defendant incorporates by reference its

answers to paragraphs 1 through 18 above, as if set forth in full herein.

28
29

4
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1

29.

Answering paragraph 29, Defendant denies each and every allegation

2

set forth therein.

3

30.

Answering the first sentence of paragraph 30, Defendant denies each

4

and every allegation set forth therein. Defendant lacks information sufficient to

5

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the second sentence of paragraph

6

30 and on that basis denies each and every allegation set forth therein.

7

31.

Answering paragraph 31, Defendant lacks information sufficient to

8

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations that Linkin Park and Jay-Z have

9

performed “Big Pimpin’/Papercut” at venues and on occasions other than the July

10

2004 performance at the Roxy, and on that basis denies those allegations.

11

Defendant denies each and every remaining allegation set forth in Paragraph 31.

12

32.

13

set forth therein.

14

33.

15

set forth therein.

16

34.

17

set forth therein.

18

35.

19

set forth therein..

20
21
22
23

Answering paragraph 32, Defendant denies each and every allegation
Answering paragraph 33, Defendant denies each and every allegation
Answering paragraph 34, Defendant denies each and every allegation
Answering paragraph 35, Defendant denies each and every allegation
ANSWER TO THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

36.

Answering paragraph 36, Defendant incorporates by reference its

answers to paragraphs 1 through 18 above, as if set forth in full herein.
37.

The allegations contained in paragraph 37 are not directed against

24

Defendant and as such no answer to paragraph 37 is required. To the extent any

25

answer is required, Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth therein.

26

38.

The allegations contained in paragraph 38 are not directed against

27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1779124.1

Defendant and as such no answer to paragraph 38 is required. To the extent any

28

answer is required, Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth therein.

29

5
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1

39.

The allegations contained in paragraph 39 are not directed against

2

Defendant and as such no answer to paragraph 39 is required. To the extent any

3

answer is required, Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth therein.

4

40.

The allegations contained in paragraph 40 are not directed against

5

Defendant and as such no answer to paragraph 40 is required. To the extent any

6

answer is required, Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth therein.

7

41.

The allegations contained in paragraph 41 are not directed against

8

Defendant and as such no answer to paragraph 41 is required. To the extent any

9

answer is required, Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth therein.

10

42.

The allegations contained in paragraph 42 are not directed against

11

Defendant and as such no answer to paragraph 42 is required. To the extent any

12

answer is required, Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth therein.

13
14

ANSWER TO FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
43.

This claim for relief has been dismissed pursuant to the Court’s Order

15

of March 20, 2008, and as such no answer to paragraph 43 is required. To the

16

extent any answer is required, Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to

17

paragraphs 1 through 37 above, as if set forth in full herein.

18

44.

This claim for relief has been dismissed pursuant to the Court’s Order

19

of March 20, 2008, and as such no answer to paragraph 44 is required. To the

20

extent any answer is required, Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth

21

therein.

22

45.

This claim for relief has been dismissed pursuant to the Court’s Order

23

of March 20, 2008, and as such no answer to paragraph 45 is required. To the

24

extent any answer is required, Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth

25

therein.

26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1779124.1

46.

This claim for relief has been dismissed pursuant to the Court’s Order

of March 20, 2008, and as such no answer to paragraph 46 is required. To the

28
29

6
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1

extent any answer is required, Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth

2

therein.

3

47.

This claim for relief has been dismissed pursuant to the Court’s Order

4

of March 20, 2008, and as such no answer to paragraph 47 is required. To the

5

extent any answer is required, Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth

6

therein.

7
8
9

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
48.

Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to recover any of the

10

damages, injunctive or other relief sought in his Prayer for Relief, and denies each

11

and every allegation contained therein.

12
13

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

14

(Failure to State a Claim for Relief)

15
16

49.

The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted.

17
18

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

19

(Statute of Limitations)

20
21

50.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable

statute(s) of limitations.

22
23

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24

(Standing)

25
26

51.

Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action or any claim against

Defendant for the relief sought herein.

27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1779124.1

28
29

7
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2

(Failure to Join Necessary and Indispensable Parties)

3

52.

The Complaint fails to name necessary or indispensable parties,

4

including persons and entities that own the allegedly infringed works, as alleged in

5

the Complaint.

6
7

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

8

(Independent Creation)

9
10

53.

Defendant’s works were the result of Defendant’s independent

creation.

11
12

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13

(Adequate Remedy at Law)

14

54.

Plaintiff's causes of action, and each of them, and his injunctive and

15

restitution remedies, are barred in light of the fact that Plaintiff has an adequate

16

remedy at law.

17
18

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

19

(Attorneys’ Fees Not Recoverable)

20

55.

Plaintiff is barred from any recovery of attorneys’ fees, because, in

21

bringing this action, Plaintiff has not alleged any basis upon which attorneys’ fees

22

are recoverable.

23
24

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

25

(Laches)

26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1779124.1

56.

Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of laches from asserting any of his

claims for relief.

28
29

8
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2

(Waiver)

3
4

57.

Plaintiff has, through his actions, conduct, delay, and failure to act,

waived any right to relief.

5
6

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7

(Estoppel)

8
9

58.

Plaintiff is estopped by his own acts and omissions from asserting any

claims in this action.

10
11

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

12

(De Minimis)

13

59.

To the extent any copyrightable elements from any of the allegedly

14

infringed works were used in allegedly infringing works and were not

15

independently created, such use is de minimis and not actionable.

16
17

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

18

(Authorization, License, Acquiescence, Ratification, Consent)

19

60.

To the extent any of the acts or omissions averred in the Complaint

20

occurred, those acts were authorized, licensed, acquiesced in, ratified, or consented

21

to it, expressly, by implication, or by conduct.

22
23

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24

(Lack of Willfulness)

25
26

61.

Defendant has not willfully infringed any alleged copyright in the

Plaintiff’s purported work.

27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1779124.1

28
29

9
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2

(Failure to Comply with Statutory Requirements)

3

62.

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the registration, deposit, and other

4

statutory requirements that are conditions precedent to maintaining this action

5

and/or to the recovery of statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.

6
7

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

8

(Work for Hire)

9
10

63.

To the extent Baligh Hamdy wrote or contributed to “Khosara

Khosara,” such contribution was a work made for hire.

11
12

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13

(Unclean Hands)

14

64.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.

15
16

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

17

(Good Faith)

18
19

65.

To the extent Defendant engaged in any act averred by Plaintiff, it did

so innocently and in good faith.

20
21

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

22

(Lack of Originality)

23
24

66.

Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred as the portion of the Plaintiff’s

work alleged to have been infringed is not original.

25
26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1779124.1

28
29

10
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2

(Lack of Protectability)

3
4

67.

Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred as the portion of the Plaintiff’s

work alleged to have been infringed is not protectable.

5
6

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7

(Forfeiture by General Publication)

8
9

68.

Plaintiff’s works are in the public domain by reason of the alleged

author’s sale of said works without affixing any copyright notice thereto.

10
11

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

12

(Fair Use)

13

69.

To the extent any copyrightable elements from the allegedly infringed

14

work was used in allegedly infringing works and were not independently created,

15

such use constituted fair use.

16
17

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

18

(Not Copyrightable Expression)

19
20

70.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because there is no

infringement of copyrightable expression.

21
22

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays:

23
24
25

1.

That Plaintiff take nothing by the Complaint, and that the Complaint,

and each claim for relief therein, be dismissed with prejudice;

26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1779124.1

2.

For Defendant’s attorneys’ fees and full costs incurred herein; and

28
29

11
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1

3.

For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

2
3
4

DATED: April 3, 2008

RUSSELL J. FRACKMAN
ALEXA L. LEWIS
MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP

5
6
7
8

By: /s/ Alexa L. Lewis
Alexa L. Lewis
Attorneys for Defendant MTV Networks
Enterprises Inc.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1779124.1

28
29

12
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT