MGA Entertainment Inc v. Mattel Inc et al

Filing 16

MATTEL'S AND ROBERT A ECKERT'S OPPOSITION re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Discovery regarding APPLICATION TO ACCESS "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" DOCUMENTS 15 filed by Defendants Robert A Eckert, Mattel Inc. (Proctor, Brett)

MGA Entertainment Inc v. Mattel Inc et al

Doc. 16

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP John B. Quinn (Bar No. 090378) 2 ([e-mail]) Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417) 3 ([e-mail]) 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor 4 Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 5 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 6 7 Attorneys for Mattel, Inc. and Robert A. Eckert 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SOUTHERN DIVISION CASE NO. CV 11-01063 Hon. David O. Carter MATTEL, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ACCESS "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" DOCUMENTS Hearing Date: TBD Time: TBD Place: Courtroom 9D

12 MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC., 13 14 15 MATTEL, INC. and ROBERT A. 16 ECKERT, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 vs. Plaintiff,

MATTEL, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION Dockets.Justia.com

1 2

Memorandum of Points and Authorities The Court should reject MGA's ex parte application. It flouts the Court's

3 prior directives, and the relief it seeks is unjustified. 4 I. 5 6 MGA'S EX PARTE APPLICATION IGNORES THE COURT'S PRIOR DIRECTIVES While its application ignores this, MGA has previously raised this same

7 request with the Court. During a discussion with the Court and Mattel's counsel, 8 counsel for MGA in the ongoing trial raised MGA's request that its counsel in the 9 11-01063 case, Blecher & Collins, be permitted access to Mattel's Attorneys' Eyes 10 Only ("AEO") produced materials. The Court instructed MGA's counsel that Mr. 11 Blecher should come to the Courthouse and discuss the matter with the Court and 12 Mattel's counsel. Rather than follow the Court's directive, MGA filed this improper 13 ex parte application. As the Court directed, if MGA wants to pursue this request, its 14 counsel in this case, Mr. Blecher, should appear in Santa Ana to address the matter 15 with the Court and Mattel. 16 II. 17 18 MGA'S EX PARTE APPLICATION IS UNNECESSARY AND UNJUSTIFIED There is no basis for granting MGA's request in any case. First, on March 17,

19 2011, Mattel moved to dismiss this action. Dkt. No. 11. In order to avoid dismissal, 20 MGA must show that its existing complaint states valid claims against Mattel. 21 MGA's separate counsel in this case does not need access to Mattel's AEO 22 materials produced in the cases being tried presently to meet that burden. The 23 hearing on Mattel's Motion to Dismiss has been extended to early June based on 24 MGA's request for a more than one-month period of time to oppose Mattel's motion 25 to dismiss. Dkt. No. 10-1, at 2. Given that briefing and hearing schedule, MGA 26 clearly has no need for expedited access to Mattel's confidential information even if 27 MGA's complaint could survive Mattel's Rule 12 motion, which it cannot. Indeed, 28 MGA has made no showing whatsoever, in its abbreviated application, that it has
MATTEL, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

-1-

1 any need, let alone a compelling one, for ex parte relief. Nowhere has it shown that 2 its "cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according 3 to regular noticed motion procedures." Securities and Exchange Com'n v. Private 4 Equity Management Group, LLC, 2009 WL 1463439 at *1 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 5 2009); see Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 6 (C.D. Cal. 1995). 7 Second, MGA's application conflicts with the Court's prior rulings. Liberal

8 discovery is provided under the Federal Rules for the purpose of litigating existing 9 claims. In accordance, the Court has ruled, on several occasions, that discovery in 10 this case cannot be used to promote or create new claims in separate cases. In fact, 11 the Court held in camera proceedings to determine whether Mattel violated this rule 12 by promoting proceedings in Mexico. MGA also opposed a Mattel motion to 13 compel by arguing, in language it attributed to the Court, that "materials in this case 14 should not be used to file new lawsuits." Sep. 2, 2010 Hearing Tr. at 8:2-7. MGA 15 now seeks to do precisely what it argued Mattel should be precluded from doing. It 16 has filed a new action with new claims that should have been part of the Mattel v. 17 MGA cases being tried presently, but which MGA tactically chose not to file as part 18 of those cases, and it now seeks to use existing discovery to further those separate, 19 new claims. Under the Court's rulings, MGA's request to do so is improper and 20 should be rejected. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
MATTEL, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

-2-

1 2

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Mattel respectfully requests that that the Court

3 deny MGA's ex parte application in its entirety. 4 5 DATED: April 4, 2011 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
MATTEL, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP By /s/ Michael T. Zeller Michael T. Zeller Attorneys for Mattel, Inc. and Robert A. Eckert

-3-