Rupa Marya v. Warner Chappell Music Inc
Filing
101
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel (i) DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE WITHHELD DOCUMENTS; OR (ii) RELIEF FROM DISCOVERY CUTOFF TO CONDUCT COURT REVIEW IN CAMERA OF WITHHELD DOCUMENTS filed by plaintiffs Good Morning to You Productions Corp, Majar Productions LLC, Rupa Marya, Robert Siegel. Motion set for hearing on 6/25/2014 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Local Rule 37-2 Joint Stipulation, # 2 Exhibit A to Joint Stipulation, # 3 Exhibit B to Joint Stipulation, # 4 Declaration of Betsy C. Manifold in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion, # 5 Declaration of Kelly M. Klaus in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion, # 6 Exhibit A to Declaration of Kelly M. Klaus, # 7 Declaration of Jeremy Blietz in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion, # 8 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion)(Manifold, Betsy)
Exhibit A
Ramos, Lori
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Rifkin, Mark
Monday, March 03, 2014 1:13 PM
Klaus, Kelly
Manifold, Betsy; 'Randall S Newman'; Landes, Beth; Baghban, Giti
RE: Happy Birthday Litigation
That's fine.
Mark C. Rifkin | Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP | 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016
firm: 212.545.4600 | direct: 212.545.4762 | fax: 212.545.4653 | rifkin@whafh.com
From: Klaus, Kelly [mailto:Kelly.Klaus@mto.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 3:50 PM
To: Rifkin, Mark
Cc: Manifold, Betsy; 'Randall S Newman'; Landes, Beth; Baghban, Giti
Subject: RE: Happy Birthday Litigation
Can you give me until March 21 to serve the written objections to the document requests and then the rest of our deal
is as set forth?
From: Rifkin, Mark [mailto:rifkin@whafh.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 12:48 PM
To: Klaus, Kelly
Cc: Manifold, Betsy; 'Randall S Newman'; Landes, Beth; Baghban, Giti
Subject: RE: Happy Birthday Litigation
Actually, your first comment about point 1 is exactly the problem we were trying to avoid. If you object to producing whole
catetories of documents, there is no reason to delay that dispute. Let us know which categories you object to by March
14 when the responses are due. You said you needed extra time to collect documents from your client's office. All well
and good, we take you at your word that you need that time. But you never said that you needed Adam around to help
you figure out what categories of documents you would be objecting to rather than looking for. That seems to be easy
enough for you to do in his absence in 30 days, given that we have served only 12 document requests, practically all of
which are based on the categories of documents identified in the early disclosures. We deliberately sought not to burden
you with an excessive number of document requests right away, so there is no reason why we cannot move forward at
least on your objections while you collect the documents you are going to produce on April 11. Of course, we agree you
have an ongoing obligation to supplement your production if and when you locate additional responsive, non-privileged
documents.
I hope this accommodates your scheduling needs. Please let us know otherwise.
Mark C. Rifkin | Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP | 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016
firm: 212.545.4600 | direct: 212.545.4762 | fax: 212.545.4653 | rifkin@whafh.com
From: Klaus, Kelly [mailto:Kelly.Klaus@mto.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 3:05 PM
To: Rifkin, Mark
1
Cc: Manifold, Betsy; 'Randall S Newman'; Landes, Beth; Baghban, Giti
Subject: RE: Happy Birthday Litigation
Hi Mark –
Thanks for your email. I appreciate the courtesy. Regarding point 1, just to be clear, our agreement is to produce the
responsive, non-privileged documents that we agree to produce by April 11. If we object to producing certain categories
of documents in whole or in part, then we won’t be producing those by April 11. Of course you may move on our
objections, and of course this all may be a non-issue. Also, our agreement does not preclude the possibility that we may
locate additional documents after April 11 that we would produce as part of the supplemental discovery obligations
under the Federal Rules. Again, I don’t think there should be any issue there, but I wanted to be clear.
Again, I appreciate your courtesy in granting this request.
Best,
Kelly
From: Rifkin, Mark [mailto:rifkin@whafh.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 11:05 AM
To: Klaus, Kelly
Cc: Manifold, Betsy; 'Randall S Newman'; Landes, Beth; Baghban, Giti
Subject: Happy Birthday Litigation
Kelly, we agreed this afternoon to your request to extend the due date for defendants' responses to plaintiffs' first set of
discovery to April 11, 2014, on the following conditions:
1. Defendants will produce all responsive, non-privileged documents with their written responses to the discovery
requests on or before April 11, 2014.
2. Defendants have agreed that plaintiffs' response date for any discovery defendants serve upon them will not be
before April 11, 2014. Defendants have also agreed to grant plaintiffs a reasonable extension of time to respond to
written discovery (interrogatories or requests for admission) if requested by plaintiffs.
3. Defendants will attempt, in good faith, to begin producing responsive, non-privileged documents on a rolling basis
before April 11, 2014.
4. Defendants will promptly respond to plaintiffs' proposed protective order so that the issue of a protective order will not
delay the production of documents or the answers to any other written discovery beyond April 11, 2014.
We look forward to your response on the protective order and to receiving documents and responses to the discovery
from you in the near future.
Best, Mark
________________________________________________________________________________________
Mark C. Rifkin | Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP | 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016
firm: 212 545 4600 | direct: 212 545 4762 | fax: 212 545 4653 | rifkin@whafh.com
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?