Rupa Marya v. Warner Chappell Music Inc

Filing 238

DECLARATION of Adam Kaplan In Support of Defendants' Reply Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Leave To File Supplemental Evidence In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 223 filed by Defendants Summy-Birchard Inc, Warner Chappell Music Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A To Declaration Of Adam Kaplan ISO Defendants' Reply Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Leave To File Supplemental Evidence In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment, # 2 Exhibit B To Declaration Of Adam Kaplan ISO Defendants' Reply Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Leave To File Supplemental Evidence In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment, # 3 Exhibit C To Declaration Of Adam Kaplan ISO Defendants' Reply Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Leave To File Supplemental Evidence In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment)(Kaplan, Adam)

Exhibit C

Ex.C

14

1 GLENN D. POMERANTZ (State Bar No. 112503)
[e-mail]
2 KELLY M. KLADS (State Bar No. 161091)
[e-mail]
3 ADAM I. KAPLAN (State Bar No. 268182)
adam.ka]Jlan@mto. com
4 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
355 South Grand Avenue
5 Thirty-Fifth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
6 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
7
Attorneys for Defendants
8 Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. and
Summy-Bircnard, Inc.
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION

10
11
12

13 GOOD MORNING TO YOU
PRODUCTIONS CORP.; et al.,
14
Plaintiffs,
15
v.
16
WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC.,
17 et al.,
Defendants.

18

Lead Case No. CV 13-04460-GHK
(MRWx)
DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED NOTICE
OF TAKING DEPOSITION OF THE
PERSON MOST
KNOWLEDGEABLE OF
DEFENDANT
WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC,
INC.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DEFS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' RULE
30(b)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)

23568047.1

Ex.C
15

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 30(b)(6),

2 Defendant Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. ("Warner/Chappell") hereby objects and
3 responds to Plaintiffs' Amended Notice of Taking Deposition of the Person Most
4 Knowledgeable of Defendant Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., served on May 19,
5 2014.

6

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

7

The following General Objections are incorporated by reference into

8 each response to

e~ch

topic of examination, whether or not such General Objections

9 are expressly incorporated by reference in such response.

1.

10

WarnedChappell objects to the deposition notice and to each and every

11 topic of examination listed therein, to the extent they purport to impose on
12 Warner/Chappell any obligation that is different from or greater than any imposed
13 by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the United States
14 District Court for the Central District of California, or any other applicable law, rule
15 or order.
16

2.

Warner/Chappell objects to the deposition notice and to each and every

I 7 topic of examination listed therein, to the extent the notice purports to require
18 Warner/Chappell to produce the person "most knowledgeable" as to each or any
19 topic. Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6)(6), Warner/Chappell will designate a corporate
20 representative(s) who consents to testify on its behalf"about information known or
21 reasonably available to the organization."
22

3.

Warner/Chappell objects to the deposition notice and to each and every

23 topic of examination listed therein that contains the undefined term "Happy
24 Birthday to You" as vague and ambiguous. Warner/Chappell's construes "Happy
25 Birthday to You" to mean the works copyrighted under copyright registration
26 certificates E51988 or E51990 and timely renewed.
27
28
2);68047.1

Ex. C -116

DEFS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' RULE
30(b)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)

1

4.

Warner/Chappell objects to the deposition notice and to each and every

2 topic of examination listed therein, to the extent that they are excessive, unduly
3 burdensome and/or intended to harass.
4

5.

Warner/Chappell objects to the deposition notice, and to each and every

5 topic of examination listed therein, as so general, wide ranging, and directed to
6 matters more properly addressed by document discovery or other means that they
7 are as a whole excessive and abusive.
8

6.

Warner/Chappell objects to the deposition notice and to each and every

9 topic of examination listed therein, to the extent that they do not describe with
10 reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested as required
11 by Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
12

7.

Warner/Chappell objects to the deposition notice and to each and every

13 topic of examination listed therein, to the extent they employ terms or phrases that
14 are overbroad, vague or ambiguous.

8.

15

Warner/Chappell objects to the deposition notice and to each and every

16 topic of examination listed therein, to the extent that they seek information that is
17 not relevant to the subject matter of this action, is not reasonably calculated to lead
18 to the discovery of admissible evidence, and/or are lacking in the reasonable
19 particularity required by law.

9.

20

Warner/Chappell objects to the deposition notice, and to each and every

21 topic of examination listed therein, to the extent they seek information protected by
22 the attorney-client privilege; the attorney work-product doctrine, or any other
23 privilege or protection from disclosure. Warner/Chappell intends to and does claim
24 all such privileges and protections, and any inadvertent disclosure of privileged or
25 protected infonnation shall not give rise to a waiver of any such privil<:<ge or
26 protection. Furthermore, Warner/Chappell will not designate any' witness, and any
27 witness that Warner/Chappell produces will not be prepared to discuss and will not

28
23568047.1

Ex. C

17

-2-

DEFS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' RULE
30(b)(6) DEPOSIT! ON NOTICE
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)

1 testify to, any information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
2 work-product doctrine, or any other privilege or protection from disclosure.

10.

3

Warner/Chappell objects to the deposition notice, and to each and every

4 topic of examination listed therein, to the extent they seek information not in
5 Warner/Chappell's possession, custody, or control; or information that is publicly
6 available or equally available to Plaintiff; or information that could be derived or
7 ascertained by Plaintiff with substantially the same effort that would be required of
8 Warner/Chappell or from sources that are more convenient, less burdensome, less
9 expensive, or more readily available to Plaintiff than to Warner/Chappell.

10

11.

Warner/Chappell objects to the deposition notice, and to each and every

11 topic of examination listed therein, to the extent that they seek discovery of

12 confidential, trade secret, proprietary, financial, or commercially sensitive
13 information, and/or the disclosure of documents and information protected by
14 statutory, constitutional and/or common law privacy rights, including any right to
15 privacy under any applicable state or federal law, client information, and/or
16 information that the Warner/Chappell is obligated to maintain as confidential.

17

12.

Wamer/Chappell objects to the deposition notice, and to each and every

18 topic of examination listed therein, to the extent they seek testimony regarding the
19 legal basis for Wamer/Chappell's contentions or allegations, as these are not the
20 appropriate subject for deposition discovery.

21

13.

Warner/Chappell objects to each topic of examination to the extent that

22 it seeks legal conclusions or contentions, the application of law to fact, or expert
23 analyses.

24

14.

Wamer!Chappell objects to each topic of examination to the extent that

25 it is cumulative and duplicative of written discovery already served by Plaintiffs.
26

15.

Warner/Chappell objects to the noticed time and place, and will meet

27 and confer with Plaintiffs to detem1ine a mutually agreeable and convenient time
28 and location for the deposition.
23568047.1

Ex. C -318

DEFS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' RULE
30(b)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)

1

16.

'
These General Objections are incorporated below into each response to

2 each topic of examination without further reference.
3 TOPIC NO. 1:

4

Copyright applications relating to Happy Birthday to You including

5 work registered with copyright office as Reg No. E51988 and E51990 and
6 subsequent renewal thereof.
7 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 1:
8

Warner/Chappell incorporates its General Objections.

9 Warner/Chappell specifically objects to this topic of examination to the extent that it
10 is vague and ambiguous, including in its use of the undefined term Happy Birthday
II to You, which Warner/Chappell construes as defined in General Objection 3, above.
12 Warner/Chappell objects to this topic to the extent it purports to require
13 Warner/Chappell to produce a witness to testify about any information protected by
14 the

attorney-cli~nt

privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, or any other

15 privilege or protection from disclosure. Warner/Chappell also objects to this topic
16 of examination to the extent that it is overbroad, compound and unduly burdensome.
17 Warner/Chappell also objects to this topic of examination to the extent that it does
18 not describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is
19 requested as required by Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
20

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to

21 the foregoing construction, Warner/Chappell responds as follows: Warner/Chappell
22 will produce a witness to testify regarding non-privileged infonnation reasonably
23 available to Warner/Chappell regarding the applications, certificates of registration,
24 renewal applications, and certificates of renewal for Reg No. E51988 and E5!990.
25 TOPIC NO. 2:
26

Basis of any claim by Warner/Chappell as to its copyright ownership

27 for Happy Birthday to You.
28
23568047.1

Ex. C -419

DEFS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' RULE
30(b)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)

1 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 2:
2

Warner/Chappell incorporates its General Objections.

3 Warner/Chappell specifically objects to this topic of examination to the extent that it
4 is vague and ambiguous, including in its use of the undefined term Happy Birthday
'

5 to You, which Warner/Chappell construes as defined in General Objection 3, above.
6 Warner/Chappell objects to this topic to the extent it purports to require
7 Warner/Chappell to produce a witness to testify about any information protected by
8 the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, or any other
9 privilege or protection from disclosure. Warner/Chappell also objects to this topic
10 of examination to the extent that it is overbroad, compound and unduly burdensome.
11 Warner/Chappell also objects to this topic of examination to the extent that it does
12 not describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is
13 requested as required by Rule 30(b )(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to

14

15 the foregoing construction, Warner/Chappell responds as follows: Warner/Chappell
16 will produce a witness to testify

r~garding

non-privileged information reasonably

17 available to Warner/Chappell regarding the certificates of registration and.
18 certificates of renewal for Reg No. E51988 and E51990, and the fact of
19 Warner/Chappell's acquisition of the same.
20 TOPIC NO. 3:
21

Assignment of rights to Warner/Chappell of the copyrights relating to

22 Happy Birthday to You.
23 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.3:
Warner/Chappell incorporates its General Objections.

24

25 Warner/Chappell specifically objects to this topic of examination to the extent that it
26 is vague and ambiguous, including in its use of the undefined term Happy Birthday
27 to You, which Warner/Chappell construes as defined in General Objection 3, above.
28 Warner/Chappell objects to this topic to the extent it purports to require
23568047. I

Ex. C -520

DEFS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' RULE
30(b)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)

1 Warner/Chappell to produce a witness to testify about any infonnation protected by

2 the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, or any other
3 privilege or protection from disclosure. Warner/Chappell also objects to this topic
4 of examination to the extent that it is overbroad, compound and unduly burdensome.
5 Warner/Chappell also objects to this topic of examination to the extent that it does
6 not describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is
7 requested as required by Rule 30(b)(6) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
8

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to

9 the foregoing construction, Warner/Chappell responds as follows: Warner/Chappell
10 will produce a witness to testify regarding non-privileged information reasonably
11 available to Warner/Chappell regarding the certificates of registration and
12 ceiiificates of renewal for Reg No. E51988 and E51990, and the fact of
13 Warner/Chappell's acquisition of the same.
14 TOPIC NO.4:
15

Historical facts suggesting Patty Hill may have been involved in

16 writing lyrics to Happy Birthday to You in conjunction with Mildred J. Hill.
17 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 4:
Warner/Chappell incorporates its General Objections.

18

19 Warner/Chappell specifically objects to this topic of examination to the extent that it
20 is vague and ambiguous, including in its use of the undefined term Happy Birthday
21 to You, which Warner/Chappell construes as defined in General Objection 3, above.
22 Warner/Chappell objects to this topic to the extent it purpmis to require
23 Warner/Chappell to produce a witness to testify about any information protected by
24 the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, or any other .
25 privilege or protection from disclosure. Warner/Chappell also-objects to this topic
26 of examination to the extent that it is overbroad, compound and unduly burdensome.
27 Warner/Chappell also objects to this topic of examination to the extent that it does
28
23568047.1

Ex. C -621

DEFS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' RULE
30(b)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)

1 not describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is
2 requested as required by Rule 30(b)(6) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to

3

4 the foregoing constmction, Warner/Chappell responds as follows: Warner/Chappell
5 will produce a witness to testify regarding non-privileged information reasonably
6 available to Warner/Chappell regarding facts known to Warner/Chappell regarding
7 the possibility that Patty Hill may have been involved in writing lyrics to Happy
8 Birthday to You, as defined in General Objection 3, above, in conjunction with
9 Mildred J. Hill.
I 0 TOPIC NO. 5:
11

Historical facts suggesting that Mildred J. Hill or Preston Ware Orem

12 wrote the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You.
13 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.5:
14

Warner/Chappell incorporates its General Objections ..

15 Warner/Chappell specifically objects to this topic of examination to the extent that it
16 is vague and ambiguous, including in its use of the undefined te1m Happy Birthday
17 to You, which Warner/Chappell constmes as defined in General Objection 3, above.
18 Warner/Chappell objects to this topic to the extent it purports to require
19 Warner/Chappell to produce a witness to testify about any information protected by
20 the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, or any other
21 privilege or protection from.disclosure. Warner/Chappell also objects to this topic
22 of examination to the extent that it is overbroad, compound and unduly burdensome.
23 Warner/Chappell also objects to this topic of examination to the extent that it does
24 not describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is
25 requested as required by Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
26

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to

27 the foregoing constmction, Warner/Chappell responds as follows: Warner/Chappell
28 will produce a witness to testify regarding non-privileged infmmation reasonably
23568047.1

Ex. C -722

DEFS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' RULE
30(b)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)

1 available to Warner/Chappell regarding the facts known to Warner/Chappell
2 evidencing that that Mildred J. Hill or Preston Ware Orem wrote the lyrics to Happy
3 Birthday to You, as defined in General Objection 3, above.
4 TOPIC NO. 6:

5

Facts admitted in Defendants' Amended Answer to Plaintiffs' Fourth

6 Amended Complaint.
7 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 6:

8

Warner/Chappell incorporates its General Objections.

9 Warner/Chappell specifically objects to this topic of examination to the extent that it
10 seeks Warner/Chappell's contentions and/or legal theories. Warner/Chappell objects
11 to this topic to the extent it purports to require Warner/Chappell to produce a
12 witness to testify about any information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
13 the attorney work-product doctrine, or any other privilege or protection from
14 disclosure. Warner/Chappell also objects to this topic of examination on the ground
15 that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and/or intended to
16 harass. Warner/Chappell also objects to this topic of examination on the ground that
17 it does not describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination
18 is requested as required by Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

19 Claim One of Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint contains hundreds of
20 allegations, and Warner/Chappell's Amended Answer to Plaintiffs' Fourth
21

Amended Complaint admits a number ofthese allegations. Wamer/Chappell will

22 not designate a witness to testify in response to this patently overbroad and
23 undefined topic.
24 TOPIC NO.7:
25

Facts denied in Defendants' Amended Answer to Plaintiffs' Fourth

26 Amended Complaint.
27
28
23568047.1

Ex. C -823

DEFS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' RULE
30(b)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)

1 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.7:
2

Warner/Chappell incorporates its General Objections.

3 Warner/Chappell specifically objects to this topic of examination to the extent that it
4 seeks Warner/Chappell's contentions and/or legal theories. Warner/Chappell
5 objects to this topic to the extent it purports to require Warner/Chappell to produce a
6 witness to testify about any information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
7 the attomey work-product doctrine, or any other privilege or protection from
8 disclosure. Warner/Chappell also objects to this topic of examination on the ground
9 that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and/or intended to
10 harass. Warner/Chappell also objects to this topic of examination on the ground that
11 it does not describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination
12 is requested as required by Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
13 Claim One of Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint contains hundreds of
14 allegations, and Warner/Chappell's Amended Answer to Plaintiffs' Fourth
15 Amended Complaint denies many of these allegations. Warner/Chappell will not
16 designate a witness to testify on this patently overbroad and undefined topic.
17 TOPIC NO. 8:
Facts set forth in Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of

18

19 Interrogatories assembled by "authorized employees or agents of Warner/Chappell
20 who informed [Nathan A. Osher] that the facts as to which [Nathan A. Osher] [did]
21 not have personal knowledge are true."
22 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 8:
23

Warner/Chappell incorporates its General Objections.

24 Warner/Chappell specifically objects to this topic of examination to the extent that it
25 seeks Warner/Chappell's contentions and/or legal theories. Wamer/Chappell objects
26 to this topic to the extent it purports to require Warner/Chappell to produce a
27 witness to testify about any information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
28 the attorney work-product doctrine, or any other privilege or protection from
23568047.1

Ex. C -924

DEFS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' RULE
30(b)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)

1 disclosure.

Warner/Chappell also objects to this topic of examination on the

2 ground that it is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. Warner/Chappell also objects
3 to this topic of examination on the ground that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome,
4 and/or intended to harass. Warner/Chappell also objects to this topic of examination
5 to the extent that it does not describe with reasonable particularity the matters on
6 which examination is requested as required by Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
7 Civil Procedure.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections,

8

9 Warner/Chappell responds as follows: Warner/Chappell will produce a witness to
10 testifY regarding non-privileged information reasonably available to
11 Warner/Chappell regarding facts known to Warner/Chappell as stated in response to
12 Plaintiffs First Set oflnterrogatories.
13 TOPIC NO.9:
Defendants' production of documents responsive to Plaintiffs' First Set

14

15 of Requests for Production of Documents assembled by "authorized employees or
16 agents of Warner/Chappell who informed [Nathan A. Osher] that the facts as to
17 which [Nathan A. Osher] [did] not have personal knowledge are true" on or about
18 April11, 2014 and May 9, 2014, numbered WC000001-WC001908.
19 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.9:
20

Warner/Chappell incorporates its General Objections.

21 Warner/Chappell specifically objects to this topic of examination to the extent that it
22 seeks Warner/Chappell's contentions and/or legal theories. Warner/Chappell
23 objects to this topic to the extent it purports to require Warner/Chappell to produce a
24 witness to testifY about any information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
25 the attorney work-product doctrine, or any other privilege or protection from
26 disclosure. Warner/Chappell also objects to this topic of examination on the ground
27 that it is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. Plaintiffs have defined this topic to
28 link Warner/Chappell's verification of its Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of
23568047.1

Ex. C -1025

DEFS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' RULE
30(b)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MR Wx)

1 Interrogatories to Warner/Chappell's responses to Plaintiffs' requests for
2 production, which responses are not (and are not required to be) verified.
3 Warner/Chappell does not know what Plaintiffs mean by their apparent attempt to
4 link the topic of Warner/Chappell's production of documents to a quotation from
5 Warner/Chappell's verification ofits Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of
6 Interrogatories. Warner/Chappell also objects to this topic of examination on the
7 ground that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and/or intended to harass.
8 Warner/Chappell also objects to this topic of examination to the extent that it does
9 not describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is
I 0 requested as required by Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
11 Warner/Chappell has produced thousands of pages in response to Plaintiffs' First
12 Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Warner/Chappell will not designate a
13 witness to testify on this patently overbroad and unintelligible topic.
14 TOPIC NO. 10:
15

Facts set forth in and which fanned the basis of any denial or qualified

16 admission, Defendants' Responses toP!aintiffs' First and Second Set of Requests
17 for Admission assembled by "authorized employees or agents of Warner/Chappell
18 who informed [Nathan A. Osher] that the facts as to which [Nathan A. Osher] [did]
19 not have personal knowledge are true."
20 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 10:
21

Warner/Chappell incorporates its General Objections.

22 Warner/Chappell specifically objects to this topic of examination to the extent that it
23 seeks Warner/Chappell's contentions and/or legal theories. Warner/Chappell
24 objects to this topic to the extent it purports to require Warner/Chappell to produce a
25 witness to testify about any information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
26 the attorney work-product doctrine, or any other privilege or protection from
27 disclosure. Warner/Chappell also objects to this topic of examination on the ground
28 that it is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. Plaintiffs have defined this topic to
23568047.1

Ex. C -11-

26

DEFS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' RULE
30(b)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE
CASE NO. CV 13·04460-GHK (MRWx)

1 link Warner/Chappell's verification of its Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of
2 Interrogatories to Warner/Chappell's responses to Plaintiffs' first and second set of
3 requests for admission, which responses are not (and are not required to be) verified.
4 Warner/Chappell also objects to this topic of examination to the extent that it does

5 not describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is
6 requested as required by Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
7 Warner/Chappell will not designate a witness to testify on this patently overbroad

AttorneJ!sfor Defendants Warner/Chappell
Music, Inc. and Summy-Birchard, Inc.

Ex. C -1227

DEFS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' RULE
30(b)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE
CASE NO. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)

PROOF OF SERVICE
Good Morning to You Productions Corp., et al. v.
Warner/Chappel Music, Inc., et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. CV 13-04460-GHK. (MRWx)

1
2
3

4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
5

·
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a _party to this
action. I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, s-tate of California.
6 My business adcfress is 560 Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor, San Francisco,
CA 94105-2907.
·

7

On May 27, 2014, I served true copies of the following document(s)
8 described as

9

10

DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED NOTICE OF
TAKING DEPOSITION OF THE PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE OF
DEFENDANT WARNER/CHAPPEL MUSIC, INC.

11 on the interested parties in this action as follows:

**SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST**

12

BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package
addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the
14 envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am
readily familiar with the firm's practice for collecting and processing
15 correspondence for mailing. On the same day that tne correspondence is placed for
colJection and mailing, it .is d~posited in the ordinarY. course of business wi.th the
16 Umted States Postal Serv1ce, m a sealed envelope With postage fully prepa1d, as
indicated on the attached service list.
17
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: As indicated on attached Service List. I caused
18 such document(s) to be sent by electronic mail for instantaneous transmittal via
telephone line.
19
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
20 America that the foregoing is true and correct and that I am employed in the office
of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made.
21
Executed on May 27, 2014, at San Francisco, California.
22
13

23

if*·

24

Lunsford ·

25
26
27

28
23093455.1

-1-

Ex. C
28

PROOF OF SERVICE
CASE NO. CV 13-04460 GHK

SERVICE LIST

1
2
3 Betsy C. Manifold
Francis M. Gregorek
4 Rachele R. RicKert
Marisa C. Livesay .
5 WOLF HALDEN STEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
6 750 B Street Suite 2770
San Dief!o. California. 92101
7
Mark C. Rifkin
8 Janine Pollack
Beth A. Landes
9 Giti Baghban
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
10
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
11 New York. New York 10016

Via E-Mail & U.S. Mail

12 Randall S. Newman
RANDALL S. NEWMAN PC
13 37 Wall Street, Penthouse D
New York. New York 10005
14
Orne! A. Nieves
15 Alison C. Gibbs
Kathlynn E. Smith
16 HUNT ORTMANN PALFFY NIEVES
DARLING & MAH INC.
17 301 North Lake Avenue, ih Floor
Pasadena. California 91101
18
William R. Hill
19 Andrew S. MacKay
Daniel J. Schacht
20 DONAHUE FITZGERALD ft~P
1999 Harrison Street, 25 Floor
21 Oakland. California 94612-3520

Via E-Mail & U.S. Mail

Via E-Mail & U.S. Mail

22 Lionel Z. Glancy
Marc L. Godino
23 GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
24 Los Anf!e!es. California 90067

Via E-Mail & U.S. Mail

Via E-Mail & U.S. Mail

Via E-Mail & U.S. Mail

25
26
27

28
23093455.1

-2-

Ex.C
29

PROOF OF SERVICE
CASE NO. CV 13-04460 GHK