George Clinton v. Will Adams et al

Filing 92

Objections to Evidence Offered by Plaintiff in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment 75 filed by Defendants Will Adams, Stacy Ferguson, Jaime Gomez, Allan Pineda, Tab Magnetic, Inc., Will I Am Music, Inc.. (Grodsky, Allen)

ALLEN B. GRODSKY (SBN 111064)
GRODSKY & OLECKI LLP
2 2001 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 210
Santa Monica, California 90403
3 310.315.3009 (phone)
310.315.1557 (fax)
4 [e-mail] (e-mail)
1

5

Attorneys for Defendants
WILLIAM ADAMS, et al.

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

GEORGE CLINTON, an individual,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WILL ADAMS, p/k/a will.i.am,
)
individually and d/b/a WILL.I.AM MUSIC )
PUBLISHING, an individual; ALLAN
)
PINEDA, p/k/a apl.de.ap, individually and )
d/b/a JEEPNEY MUSIC PUBLISHING, )
an individual; JAIME GÓMEZ, p/k/a
)
Taboo, individually and d/b/a NAWASHA )
NETWORKS PUBLISHING, an
)
individual; STACY FERGUSON, p/k/a
)
Fergie, an individual; GEORGE PAJON, )
JR., an individual; JOHN CURTIS, an
)
individual; UNIVERSAL MUSIC
)
GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation;
)
UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware )
corporation; WILL I AM MUSIC, INC., a )
California corporation; CHERRY LANE )
MUSIC PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., )
a New York corporation; EL CUBANO
)
MUSIC, INC., a California corporation;
)
EMI BLACKWOOD MUSIC INC., a
)
Connecticut corporation; TAB
)
MAGNETIC, INC., a California
)
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________ )

Case No. CV 10-9476 ODW (PLAx)
Honorable Otis D. Wright II, Ctrm 11
OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
OFFERED BY PLAINTIFF IN
OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
[Filed concurrently with Defendants’
Reply in support of their motion for
partial summary judgment]
Date:
Time:
Place:

April 16, 2012
1:30 p.m.
Courtroom 11

Pre-Trial Conf.: May 7, 2012
Trial Date: June 5, 2012

Defendants William Adams, Jamie Gomez, Allan Pineda, Stacy Ferguson,

1
2

will.i.am music, inc., and Tab Magnetic, Inc. (the “Moving Defendants”) submit the

3

following objections to evidence offered by Plaintiff in opposition to Moving

4

Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment:
Plaintiff’s Statement of Genuine Disputes of Material Fact, Paragraphs 32 & 33.

5
6

Objection to Exhibit E to the Declaration of Jeffrey P. Thennisch (Dkt. 88-5).1/

7

Exhibit E consist of (1) settlement communications between Plaintiff’s counsel and

8

Moving Defendants’ counsel (pages 2-4); a financial analysis that Moving

9

Defendants’ counsel received from counsel for Defendant Universal and provided to

10

Plaintiff’s counsel for settlement purposes only (pages 5-7, the “Financial Analysis”);

11

and a SoundScan report, which Moving Defendants’ counsel also received from

12

counsel for Defendant Universal and provided to Plaintiff’s counsel for settlement

13

purposes only (pages 8-9, the “SoundScan Report”). (Grodsky Reply Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.)

14

Page 10 is a duplicate of page 8.

15

Moving Defendants object to Exhibit E on the following grounds:

16

1. Lacks authentication (FRE 901). Thennisch does not authenticate Exhibit E,

17

and the most to which he could testify based on his personal knowledge is that these

18

documents are true and correct copies of documents he received from counsel for

19

Moving Defendants, Mr. Grodsky.
2. Lacks foundation (FRE 602). Thennisch has no personal knowledge

20
21

regarding the origins of the Financial Analysis or the SoundScan Report, including

22

when they were generated and for what purpose. Nor does Thennisch have personal

23

knowledge sufficient to explain the dollar amounts stated in the Financial Analysis.

24

3. Relevance (FRE 401). The dollar amounts listed in the Financial Analysis

25

are not self-explanatory, and Thennisch has no personal knowledge sufficient to

26
27

1/

In response to UFs 32 and 33, Plaintiff refers to “sales data” that “counsel for
28 Will Adams” provided to Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff appears to be referring to
Exhibit E of the Thennisch Declaration, although he does not expressly cite it.
-1-

1

explain them. The Financial Analysis is irrelevant because there is no testimony that

2

the dollar amounts represent revenues received by any of the Moving Defendants.

3

Indeed, they do not. (Grodsky Reply Decl. ¶ 8.) Separately, the SoundScan Report is

4

irrelevant toward establishing any of the Moving Defendants’ revenues because it only

5

lists unit sales and does not contain dollar amounts.

6

4. Hearsay (FRE 801). To the extent the Financial Analysis or SoundScan

7

Report say anything about any of the Moving Defendants’ revenues, it is hearsay for

8

which there is no exception. Thennisch does not and cannot establish any portion of

9

Exhibit E as a “business record” under FRE 803(6).

10

5. Settlement communications (FRE 408). All portions of Exhibit E are

11

evidence of “conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations,” and are

12

thus inadmissible to prove the “amount of a disputed claim.” All portions of Exhibit E

13

were provided to Plaintiff’s counsel solely for use in settlement discussions. (Grodsky

14

Reply Decl. ¶ 6.)

15
16

Dated: March 26, 2012

GRODSKY & OLECKI LLP

17
18
19

By

20

Attorneys for Defendants William Adams,
Allan Pineda, Jamie Gomez, Stacy
Ferguson, will.i.am music, inc., and Tab
Magnetic, Inc.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-

/ Allen B. Grodsky /
Allen B. Grodsky