Rupa Marya v. Warner Chappell Music Inc

Filing 240

DECLARATION of Betsy C. Manifold in Support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to file Response under L.R. 7-10 #239 filed by Plaintiffs Good Morning to You Productions Corp, Majar Productions LLC, Rupa Marya, Robert Siegel. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Manifold, Betsy)

8

FRANCIS M. GREGOREK (144785)
[e-mail]
BETSY C. MANIFOLD (182450)
[e-mail]
RACHELE R. RICKERT (190634)
[e-mail]
MARISA C. LIVESAY (223247)
[e-mail]
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 2770
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 619/234-4599

9

Interim Lead Class Counsel for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

WESTERN DIVISION

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC, )
)
INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

GOOD MORNING TO YOU
PRODUCTIONS CORP., et al.,

Lead Case No. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)
DECLARATION OF BETSY C.
MANIFOLD IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE
APPLICATION SEEKING LEAVE TO
FILE RESPONSE UNDER L.R. 7-10
Judge:
Courtroom:
Fact Discovery Cutoff:
MSJ Hearings
Pretrial Conference:
Trial:

Hon. George H.
King, Chief Judge
650
July 11, 2014
March 23, 2015
and July 29, 2015
N/A
N/A

1

I, Betsy C. Manifold, hereby declare as follows:

2

1.

I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the States of California,

3

New York, and Wisconsin, and before this Court. I am a partner with the law firm

4

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, interim lead class counsel for

5

plaintiffs and the class. I have personal knowledge of the following facts, and if

6

called upon to do so, I could and would competently testify as to them.

7

2.

I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application

8

seeking leave to file a response to Defendants’ Reply Memorandum (“the Reply”) in

9

Support of Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Evidence in Support of Motion for

10

Summary Judgment (“Defendants’ Motion”). See Dkt. 237. A copy of Plaintiffs’

11

proposed response is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Defendants’ Motion is currently

12

set for a hearing on August 31, 2015, prompting the need for ex parte relief so the

13

Court may consider the response before the hearing date.

14

NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION PURSUANT TO L.R. 7-19.1

15

3.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-19.1, on August 20, 2015 at 4:22 p.m.,

16

Plaintiffs informed counsel for Defendants (Adam Kaplan) by leaving a voice mail

17

message that they intended to file this ex parte application on August 21, 2015.

18

Shortly thereafter at 4:49 p.m. on the same day, Plaintiffs sent a detailed e-mail to all

19

Defendants’ counsel identified on Defendants’ Motion. A copy of the e-mail is

20

attached as Exhibit B to the Manifold Declaration.

21

4.

In response to the e-mail, Plaintiffs received an automated message that

22

Mr. Klaus was out of the country until August 21st and Ms. LeMoine was traveling

23

with limited availability until September 8, 2015. At 5:32 p.m., I received an e-mail

24

from Glenn Pomerantz also advising me that Adam Kaplan was out of the office, that

25

Mr. Klaus was out of the country, and that Defendants would contact Plaintiffs’

26

counsel on August 21, 2015. On August 21, 2015, Defendants’ counsel (Adam

27

Kaplan) contacted plaintiff’s counsel via electronic mail and advised them that the

28
-1-

1

Defendants would oppose this application. On the same day, I advised Mr. Kaplan

2

that Plaintiffs would serve and file their application on August 24, 2015.
5.

3

On August 24, 2015, Plaintiffs electronically served a copy of this ex

4

parte application and supporting papers on Defendants’ counsel prior to filing.

5

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

6

6.

The Court initially set the fact discovery deadline for June 27,

7

2014. (Dkt. 92), which was extended by Magistrate Judge Wilner, in connection

8

with this Court and at the request of both parties, to July 11, 2014. (Dkt. 106).

9

Summary Judgment Briefing

10

7.

On November 25, 2014, the parties filed Joint Cross-Motions for

11

Summary Judgment (Dkts. 179, 181, 182), a Joint Statement of Uncontroverted Facts

12

(Dkts. 180, 183), and an extensive Joint Evidentiary Appendix (Dkts. 167-178)

13

(which was amended by Court Order and re-filed). (Dkts. 185, 187-195). Oral

14

argument was held on March 23, 2015. (Dkt. 207).
8.

15

On May 18, 2015, the Court ordered further briefing on the issue of

16

abandonment (Dkt. 215) which was submitted pursuant to Stipulation and Court

17

Order by the parties on June 15, 2015 (Dkt. 217, 219). In the May 18, 2015 Order,

18

the Court stated that “[t]he Parties shall not submit any new evidence.” Dkt. 215 at

19

1. Oral argument on the Supplemental Briefing was heard on July 29, 2015. (Dkt.

20

229).

21

Supplemental Production by Defendants

22

9.

Nearly one year after the close of fact discovery, on July 9, 2015,

23

Defendants advised Plaintiffs that they were providing a supplemental production of

24

documents. Due to technical issues, Plaintiffs were unable to access the secure

25

production link until July 13, 2015.

26

10.

On July 13, 2015, Plaintiffs were finally able to access the secure

27

database link of approximately 500 pages of documents.

28

///
-2-

1
2

Defendants’ Motion to Supplement the Record
11.

3

On July 23, 2015, Defendants filed their Motion and asked the Court to

4

consider some British copyright records as support for their argument that Ex. 106 is

5

a copy of the work deposited with the registration for E51990. See Dkt. 223 at 3-

6

5. On August 10, 2015, Plaintiffs opposed Defendants’ Motion. See Dkt. 236. In

7

Defendants’ reply filed on August 17, 2015 (Dkt. 237), Defendants added a new

8

argument that the scope of the copyright covered by E51990 is broader than the

9

application or the registration certificate and covers work not done by Mr. Orem and

10

cited, for the first time, two cases that supposedly support their argument that the

11

copyright covers work not done by Mr. Orem. See Dkt. 237 at 4 (citing Sylvestre v.

12

Oswald, No. 91 Civ. 5060 (JSM), 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7002, at *3-6 (S.D.N.Y.

13

May 18, 1993) and Williams v. Bridgeport Music, Inc., No. LA CV13-06004 JAK

14

(AGRx), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182240, at *25 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2014)).
12.

15

The hearing on Defendants’ motion is set for August 31, 2015. It is

16

likely that the Court will take this motion under advisement and Plaintiffs will not

17

have an opportunity to address Defendants’ new arguments.

18

12.

Plaintiffs are not at fault in the need for this ex parte relief; any

19

prejudice to Defendants was created by their own conduct in raising new argument

20

and law in the Reply.

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
-3-

EXHIBITS

1
2
3
4
5

13.

Attached hereto are true and correct copies of the following

documents:
Exhibit A: Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for
Leave to File Supplemental Evidence.

6

Exhibit B: Electronic Mail dated August 20, 2015 from Plaintiffs’ counsel

7

(Betsy C. Manifold) to Defendants’ counsel (Kelly Klaus, Adam Kaplan, Glenn

8

Pomerantz and Melinda LeMoine).

9

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

10

Executed this 24th day of August 2015, in the City of San Diego, State of California.

11
By:

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

WARNER/CHAPPELL:22077.decl.bcm

28
-4-

/s/ Betsy C. Manifold
BETSY C. MANIFOLD