DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corporation et al

Filing 593

ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO DC COMICS IMPROPER CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 591 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (lc) .Modified on 2/21/2013 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DC COMICS,

12

ORDER OVERRULING
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO
DC COMICS’ IMPROPER CROSSPACIFIC PICTURES CORPORATION et MOTION FOR SUMMARY
al.,
JUDGMENT [591]

13
14
15

v.

Case No. 2:10-cv-03633-ODW(RZx)
Plaintiff,

Defendants.

16
17

The Court is wholly unsurprised to learn that Defendants object to

18

Plaintiff DC Comics’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, which it joined with its

19

opposition to Defendants’ February 4, 2013 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as

20

to Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Claims for Relief. So says the pot to the kettle. As DC

21

points out, “[w]hen DC moved for summary judgment on its First and Third claims

22

last summer, defendants both opposed that motion and cross-moved for summary

23

judgment in their opposition papers. DN 462. DC replied to that opposition and

24

cross-motion in one week, and took no extra pages to do so. DN 468.” (ECF No.

25

592, at 2 (emphasis in original).) While Defendants’ joint opposition and “cross-

26

motion” DC refers to here was not formally noticed as a cross motion (as DC’s Cross-

27

Motion is here), its effect was the same. Because DC apparently intends to treat their

28

1

present Cross-Motion similarly, 1 the Court will do the same: Defendants shall file

2

their 12-page reply no later than February 25, 2012, as DC did with Defendants’

3

earlier “cross-motion.” The Court does not invite, nor will it accept, any further

4

briefing on the matter, regardless whether styled as a sur-reply to Defendants’ Motion

5

or a reply to DC’s Cross-Motion.
The Court also notes that the parties’ tireless bickering regarding nearly

6
7

every facet of this case—big and small—has become wearisome to say the least. The

8

parties apparently fail to recognize that this is not the only case on the Court’s docket.

9

Further, the Court expects the parties to any litigation to behave as responsible,

10

professional adults, especially on matters as mundane as Local Rule 7-3’s meet-and-

11

confer requirements. Obviously the Court has set its expectations far too high in this

12

matter. The Court will not continue to implicitly condone the parties’ thinly veiled

13

gamesmanship. Thus, any further noticed motions, ex parte applications (unless truly

14

an emergency), objections, and any similar filings related to motion timing, meet-and-

15

confer requirements, and other procedural deficiencies shall be preceded by an in-

16

person conference of all lead counsel in this matter prior to filing. The purpose of the

17

Federal Rules’ meet-and-confer requirement is to attempt an amicable resolution of

18

disputed matters to abrogate the necessity of needless Court intervention; the

19

requirement is not to be used as a sword to gain a tactical upper hand. Each filing

20

must therefore contain a detailed record of the parties in-person meeting explaining

21

///

22

///

23
1

24
25
26
27
28

To be fair, DC’s failure to formally notice its Cross-Motion 28 days in advance is a patent violation
of Local Rule 6-1. This is so regardless whether the Court has vacated the hearing on Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment, as DC’s motion is a separately noticed motion that itself must be
noticed 28 days in advance. Nevertheless, DC’s response to Defendants’ objections implies its
intent to treat its formal cross motion the same as Defendants’ implied cross motion last summer.
Thus in the interest of fairness and judicial efficiency, rather than striking DC’s improperly noticed
Cross-Motion, the Court will treat it the same as it treated Defendants’ opposition and “crossmotion” (ECF No. 462) before. That said, the parties are advised not to play quite so fast and loose
with the Federal Rules in the future.

2

1

what was discussed and precisely why the parties were unable to resolve the dispute

2

themselves without resort once again to the Court. Failure to do so will result in

3

sanctions.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

February 21, 2013

8
9
10

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3