Rupa Marya v. Warner Chappell Music Inc

Filing 243

MINUTES (In Chambers) Order Re: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Evidence 197 and (2) Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application Seeking Leave to File Response Under L.R. 7-10 239 by Judge George H. King. In light of our concurrently filed Order regarding the Parties' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs' above-captioned motions are DENIED as moot. (lom)

E-FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-4460 GHK (MRWx)

Title

Rupa Marya, et al. v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc.

Presiding: The Honorable

Date

September 22, 2015

GEORGE H. KING, CHIEF U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Beatrice Herrera

N/A

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order Re: (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Evidence (Dkt. 197)
and (2) Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application Seeking Leave to File Response Under
L.R. 7-10 (Dkt. 239)

In light of our concurrently filed Order regarding the Parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary
Judgment, Plaintiffs’ above-captioned motions are DENIED as moot.
Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Evidence, (Dkt. 197), we need not decide the
admissibility of Exhibits 101 through 104 because Defendants have conceded that they are not
registration and renewal certificates. We need not decide the admissibility of Exhibits 106 or 119
because we have resolved the Parties’ Cross-Motions on other grounds.
Concerning Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application Seeking Leave to File Response Under L.R. 7-10,
(Dkt. 239), we need not consider any additional response by Plaintiffs, as any alleged new arguments in
Defendants’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Evidence in
Support of Motion for Summary Judgment did not affect the outcome of our Summary Judgment Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Deputy Clerk

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

AB for Bea

Page 1 of 1