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)

Download PDF
GLENN D. POMERANTZ (State Bar No. 112503) 1 KELLY M. KLAUS (State Bar No. 161091) 2 MELINDA E. LeMOINE (State Bar No. 235670) 3 ADAM I. KAPLAN (State Bar No. 268182) 4 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 5 355 South Grand Avenue Thirty-Fifth Floor 6 Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 7 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 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)

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?