Rupa Marya v. Warner Chappell Music Inc

Filing 234

STATEMENT Defendants' Statement Regarding Plaintiffs' Submission Of Supplemental Evidence With Their Reply Supporting Their Ex Parte Application filed by Defendants Summy-Birchard Inc, Warner Chappell Music Inc re: Reply (Motion related), 232 . (Klaus, Kelly)

GLENN D. POMERANTZ (State Bar No. 112503)
1 [e-mail]
KELLY M. KLAUS (State Bar No. 161091)
2 [e-mail]
MELINDA E. LeMOINE (State Bar No. 235670)
3 [e-mail]
ADAM I. KAPLAN (State Bar No. 268182)
4 [e-mail]
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
5 355 South Grand Avenue
Thirty-Fifth Floor
6 Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Telephone: [phone]
7 Facsimile: [phone]
8 Attorneys for Defendants
Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. and
9 Summy-Birchard, Inc.
10
11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION

13
GOOD MORNING TO YOU
14 PRODUCTIONS CORP.; et al.,

Lead Case No. CV 13-04460-GHK
(MRWx)

15

DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT
REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’
SUBMISSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL
EVIDENCE WITH THEIR REPLY
SUPPORTING THEIR EX PARTE
APPLICATION

Plaintiffs,

16 v.
17 WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC.,
et al.,
18
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24

Judge:

Hon. George H. King,
Chief Judge

Courtroom: 650
Fact Disc. Completion:
MSJ Hearings:
Pretrial Conference:
Trial:

July 11, 2014
March 23 and
July 29, 2015
N/A
N/A

25
26
27
28

DEFS.’ STATEMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’
SUBMISSION OF SUPP’L EVIDENCE ON REPLY
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)

1

Warner/Chappell reviewed the documents that Plaintiffs filed with their reply

2 in support of their ex parte application, when Plaintiffs sent us the documents this
3 past Monday. Dkt. Nos. 232-33. We do not oppose Plaintiffs’ request that the
4 Court consider this evidence on summary judgment. We do not think this evidence
5 changes or undermines the arguments that Warner/Chappell made in its opposition
6 to Plaintiffs’ ex parte application.
7

We explained to Plaintiffs our position on the significance—or lack thereof—

8 of their new documents in writing on Tuesday, before Plaintiffs filed their reply. If
9 the Court would like to review Warner/Chappell’s position on these documents, or
10 any of the other arguments that Plaintiffs make in their reply, we would be pleased
11 to submit a short supplemental brief. If the Court does not believe further briefing is
12 necessary at this time, we will not burden the Court with additional paper.
13
14

DATED: August 7, 2015

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

15
16
17
18

By:

/s/ KELLY M. KLAUS
KELLY M. KLAUS
Attorneys for Defendants Warner/Chappell
Music, Inc. and Summy-Birchard, Inc.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-

DEFS.’ STATEMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’
SUBMISSION OF SUPP’L EVIDENCE ON REPLY
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)