Rupa Marya v. Warner Chappell Music Inc

Filing 259

DECLARATION of Betsy C. Manifold in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to AMEND Amended Complaint, 95 Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to Amend and File Fifth Amended Complaint 258 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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

FRANCIS M. GREGOREK (144785)
[e-mail]
BETSY C. MANIFOLD (182450)
[e-mail]
RACHELE R. RICKERT (190634)
[e-mail]
MARISA C. LIVESAY (223247)
[e-mail]
BRITTANY N. DEJONG (258766)
[e-mail]
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 2770
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 619/234-4599
Interim Lead Class Counsel for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION

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’ NOTICE OF MOTION
AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND AND FILE FIFTH AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Date:
Time:
Judge:
Room:

November 30, 2015
9:30 a.m.
Hon. George H. King,
Chief Judge
650

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 the motion by plaintiffs Good

8

Morning To You Productions Corp., Robert Siegel, Rupa Marya d/b/a Rupa & The

9

April Fishes, and Majar Productions, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) for an order granting leave

10

to amend the operative complaint.

11

PRE-FILING CONFERENCE OF COUNSEL

12

3.

On October 8, 2015, Plaintiffs provided Defendants with a draft Fifth

13

Amended Complaint and asked Defendants to stipulate to its filing without prejudice

14

to Defendants’ right to file a Rule 12 motion. Plaintiffs followed up with a revised

15

draft on October 14, 2015 adding additional detail.

16

4.

On October 16, 2015, Defendants responded that they were inclined to

17

agree with Plaintiffs’ request to stipulate but required a discovery stay for any

18

responsive documents prior to 2009 pending the Court’s resolution of any Rule 12

19

motion. Plaintiffs did not accept this offer.

20

October 19, 2015 Status Conference

21

5.

At the October 19, 2015, Status Conference, the Court directed the

22

parties to stipulate and lodge the proposed Fifth Amended Complaint on or before

23

October 26, 2015 if an agreement could be reached. See Dkt. 248. On October 23,

24

2015, Defendants provided a draft stipulation which again requested a discovery stay

25

for any responsive documents prior to 2009 pending the Court’s resolution of

26

Defendants’ Rule 12 motion, despite the short timeline for completing this case set

27

by the Court at the Status Conference on October 19, 2015.

28
-1-

6.

1

In light of the Court’s directives at the October 19, 2015, Status

2

Conference to move this case quickly, Plaintiffs could not agree to Defendants’

3

proposed stay of discovery. The timing requested by Defendants was impossible

4

under the Court’s Phase Two Scheduling Order. With 30 days to respond to

5

Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Complaint (to be lodged by October 26, 2015),

6

Defendants’ Rule 12 Motion would be filed on or before November 25, 2015. The

7

first available hearing on the Court’s motion calendar under Local Rule (“L.R.”) 6-1

8

is January 4, 2016. December 28, 2015, the earliest notice date, is a closed hearing

9

date. Therefore, the earliest hearing date for Defendants’ Rule 12 motion is January

10

4, 2016.

11

7.

Staying any discovery pending the Court’s decision on such a motion

12

would put Defendants’ proposed discovery stay out to the January 18, 2016, deadline

13

for Plaintiffs’ class certification motion. Defendants declined to stipulate to the filing

14

of the proposed Fifth Amended Complaint absent a discovery stay, and Plaintiffs

15

could not agree to any stay.
8.

16

Absent agreement of the parties, the Court directed Plaintiffs to file their

17

motion for leave to amend within twenty-one (21) days or on or before November

18

16, 2015. Plaintiffs are filing their motion now and, because of the need to move the

19

litigation forward, concurrently file with their motion a joint stipulation to shorten

20

the briefing and hearing schedule by approximately two weeks to permit the Court to

21

hear and decide this motion on November 16, 2015.

22

PROPOSED AMENDED PLEADING ATTACHED – L.R. 15-1 AND 15-2

23

9.

A copy of Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Complaint is attached hereto as

24

Exhibit A pursuant to L.R. 15-1.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

-2-

1

10.

A redlined copy of Plaintiffs’ [Proposed] Fifth Amended Complaint is

2

attached hereto as Exhibit B in addition to the clean copy attached as Exhibit A, so

3

the Court can easily view all of the amendments and additions given the limited

4

changes Plaintiffs seek to make by this amendment.

5

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

6

Executed this 29th day of October 2015, in the City of San Diego, State of

7

California.

8

By:

9

/s/ Betsy C. Manifold
BETSY C. MANIFOLD

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

WARNER/CHAPPELL:22344.decl.bcm

-3-