Fahmy v. Jay-Z et al

Filing 76

ANSWER to Complaint - (Discovery), Complaint - (Discovery), Complaint - (Discovery) 1 filed by Defendants Mike Shinoda, Dave Farrell, Joseph Hahn, Chester Bennington, Big Bad Mr Hahn Music, Chesterchaz Publishing, Kenji Kobayashi Music, Machine Shop Recordings LLC, Nondisclosure Agreement Music, Rob Bourdon Music, Rob Bourdon, Brad Delson.(Lewis, Alexa)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

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]
Attorneys for Rob Bourdon, Brad Delson, Mike
Shinoda, Dave Farrell, Joseph Hahn, Chester
Bennington, Big Bad Mr. Hahn Music,
Chesterchaz Publishing, Kenji Kobayashi Music,
Machine Shop Recordings LLC, Nondisclosure
Agreement Music and Rob Bourdon Music

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

12

Osama Ahmed Fahmy, an individual,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

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

v.

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF
DEFENDANTS ROB BOURDON,
Jay-Z (aka Shawn Carter), Timothy
BRAD DELSON, MIKE SHINODA,
Mosely, Kyambo Joshua, Rob Bourdon, DAVE FARRELL, JOSEPH HAHN,
Brad Delson, Mike Shinoda, Dave
CHESTER BENNINGTON, BIG BAD
Farrell, Joseph Hahn, Chester
MR. HAHN MUSIC,
Bennington, Big Bad Mr. Hahn Music,
CHESTERCHAZ PUBLISHING,
Chesterchaz Publishing, EMI Blackwood KENJI KOBAYASHI MUSIC,
Music, Inc., EMI Music Publishing Ltd., MACHINE SHOP RECORDINGS
Kenji Kobayashi Music, Lil Lulu
LLC, NONDISCLOSURE
Publishing, Machine Shop Recordings,
AGREEMENT MUSIC AND ROB
LLC, Marcy Projects Productions II,
BOURDON MUSIC
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.,
Defendants.

27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1

28
29
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1

Defendants Rob Bourdon, Brad Delson, Mike Shinoda, Dave Farrell, Joseph

2

Hahn, Chester Bennington, Big Bad Mr. Hahn Music, Chesterchaz Publishing,

3

Kenji Kobayashi Music, Machine Shop Recordings LLC, Nondisclosure

4

Agreement Music and Rob Bourdon Music (“Defendants”), answer the Complaint

5

of Osama Ahmed Fahmy (“Plaintiff”) as follows:

6
7

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

The allegations contained in paragraph 1 are legal conclusions to

8

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

9

factual in nature, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.

10
11

PARTIES
2.

Answering the first and second sentences of paragraph 2, Defendants

12

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

13

that basis deny each and every allegation set forth therein; and answering the third

14

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

15

3.

Answering paragraph 3, Defendants admit the allegations in the first

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

allegation set forth in paragraph 3.

20

4.

Answering paragraph 4, Defendants admit that Rob Bourdon, Brad

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

remaining allegations of paragraph 4 and on that basis deny each and every

25

allegation set forth therein.

26

5.

Defendants admit that Warner Bros. Records, Inc., a Warner Music

27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1

Group Company, has been identified in product packaging as a record label that

28

participated in the release of an album entitled Collision Course, which contained a

29

1
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1

track entitled “Big Pimpin’/Papercut,” but deny each and every remaining

2

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

3

sentence of paragraph 5, Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief as

4

to the truth of said allegations and on that basis deny each and every allegation set

5

forth therein.

6

6.

Answering paragraph 6, Defendants lack information sufficient to

7

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

8

every allegation set forth therein.

9

7.

Answering paragraph 7, Defendants lack information sufficient to

10

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

11

every allegation set forth therein.

12
13

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
8.

Answering the final sentence of paragraph 8, Defendants deny each

14

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

15

Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said

16

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

17

9.

Answering paragraph 9, Defendants lack information sufficient to

18

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

19

every allegation set forth therein.

20

10.

Answering paragraph 10, Defendants lack information sufficient to

21

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

22

every allegation set forth therein.

23

11.

Answering paragraph 11, Defendants lack information sufficient to

24

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

25

every allegation set forth therein.

26

12.

Answering paragraph 12, Defendants lack information sufficient to

27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1

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

28

every allegation set forth therein.

29

2
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1

13.

Answering paragraph 13, Defendants lack information sufficient to

2

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

3

every allegation set forth therein.

4

14.

Answering paragraph 14, Defendants admit that, in or about July

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

was released, which continues to be distributed today. Defendants deny each and

11

every remaining allegation set forth in paragraph 14.

12

15.

Answering paragraph 15, Defendants lack information sufficient to

13

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

14

every allegation set forth therein.

15

16.

Answering the first sentence of paragraph 16, Defendants deny each

16

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

17

16, Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said

18

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

19

17.

The allegations contained in paragraph 17 are legal conclusions to

20

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

21

factual in nature, Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the

22

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

23

therein.

24

18.

The allegations contained in paragraph 18 are legal conclusions to

25
26

1782547.1

factual in nature, Defendants lack information sufficient to form a belief as to the

27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP

which a response is not required. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 18 are
truth of said allegations and on that basis deny each and every allegation set forth

28

therein.

29

3
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4

ANSWER TO FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
19.

Answering paragraph 19, Defendants incorporate by reference their

answers to paragraphs 1 through 18 above, as if set forth in full herein.
20.

The allegations contained in paragraph 20 are not directed against

5

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

6

answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.

7

21.

The allegations contained in paragraph 21 are not directed against

8

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

9

answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.

10

22.

The allegations contained in paragraph 22 are not directed against

11

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

12

answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.

13

23.

The allegations contained in paragraph 23 are not directed against

14

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

15

answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.

16

24.

The allegations contained in paragraph 24 are not directed against

17

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

18

answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.

19

25.

The allegations contained in paragraph 25 are not directed against

20

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

21

answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.

22

26.

The allegations contained in paragraph 26 are not directed against

23

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

24

answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.

25

27.

The allegations contained in paragraph 27 are not directed against

26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1

Defendants and as such no answer to paragraph 27 is required. To the extent any
answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.

28
29

4
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1
2
3

ANSWER TO SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
28.

Answering paragraph 28, Defendants incorporate by reference their

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

4

29.

5

set forth therein.

6

30.

7

set forth therein.

8

31.

9

Answering paragraph 29, Defendants deny each and every allegation
Answering paragraph 30, Defendants deny each and every allegation
Answering paragraph 31, Defendants admit that Linkin Park and Jay-

Z have performed “Big Pimpin’/Papercut” at venues and on occasions other than

10

the July 2004 performance at the Roxy, but deny each and every remaining

11

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, Defendants deny each and every allegation
Answering paragraph 33, Defendants deny each and every allegation
Answering paragraph 34, Defendants deny each and every allegation
Answering paragraph 35, Defendants deny each and every allegation
ANSWER TO THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

36.

Answering paragraph 36, Defendants incorporate by reference their

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

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

25

answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.

26

38.

The allegations contained in paragraph 38 are not directed against

27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1

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

28

answer is required, Defendants deny 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

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

3

answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.

4

40.

The allegations contained in paragraph 40 are not directed against

5

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

6

answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.

7

41.

The allegations contained in paragraph 41 are not directed against

8

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

9

answer is required, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth therein.

10

42.

The allegations contained in paragraph 42 are not directed against

11

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

12

answer is required, Defendants deny 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, Defendants incorporate by reference their 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, Defendants deny 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, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth

25

therein.

26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1

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, Defendants deny 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, Defendants deny each and every allegation set forth

6

therein.

7
8
9

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
48.

Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to recover any of the

10

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

Defendants for the relief sought herein.

27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1

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.

Defendants’ works were the result of Defendants’ 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
1782547.1

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.

Defendants have not willfully infringed any alleged copyright in the

Plaintiff’s purported work.

27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1

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 Defendants engaged in any act averred by Plaintiff, they

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
1782547.1

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, Defendants pray:

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
1782547.1

2.

For Defendants’ 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
9
10
11

By: /s/ Alexa L. Lewis
Alexa L. Lewis
Attorneys for Defendants Rob Bourdon, Brad
Delson, Mike Shinoda, Dave Farrell, Joseph
Hahn, Chester Bennington, Big Bad Mr. Hahn
Music, Chesterchaz Publishing, Kenji Kobayashi
Music, Machine Shop Recordings LLC,
Nondisclosure Agreement Music and Rob
Bourdon Music

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Mitchell
Silberberg &
Knupp LLP
1782547.1

28
29

12
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT