Bryan Pringle v. William Adams Jr et al

Filing 230

APPLICATION to Continue Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment and Trial and Pre-Trial Dates Re: MOTION for Summary Judgment 159 , Order, Set/Reset Motion Hearing and R&R Deadlines 183 , Order, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,, 179 filed by Defendants David Guetta, Frederick Riesterer, Shapiro Bernstein and Co. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Barry I. Slotnick, # 2 Proposed Order)(Miller, Donald)

Download PDF
1 DONALD A. MILLER (SBN 228753) 2 BARRY I. SLOTNICK (Pro Hac Vice) 3 TAL E. DICKSTEIN (Pro Hac Vice) 4 LOEB & LOEB LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 2200 5 Los Angeles, California 90067-4120 Telephone: 310-282-2000 6 Facsimile: 310-282-2200 7 Attorneys for Defendants SHAPIRO, BERNSTEIN & CO., INC., 8 FREDERIC RIESTERER, AND DAVID GUETTA 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 14 15 16 SOUTHERN DIVISION BRYAN PRINGLE, an individual, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM ADAMS, JR.; STACY 17 FERGUSON; ALLAN PINEDA; and JAIME GOMEZ, all individually and 18 collectively as the music group The Black Eyed Peas, et al., 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. SACV 10-1656 JST(RZx) Hon. Josephine Staton Tucker Courtroom 10A DECLARATION OF BARRY I. SLOTNICK IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE AND TRIAL DATE Complaint Filed: October 28, 2010 Trial Date: March 27, 2012 24 25 26 27 28 SLOTNICK DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO CONTINUE DATES 1 I, BARRY I. SLOTNICK, declare as follows: 2 1. I am a partner of the law firm Loeb & Loeb LLP, attorneys for David 3 Guetta, Frederic Riesterer and Shapiro, Bernstein & Co., Inc. (collectively “Guetta 4 Defendants”) in this action. I am lead counsel for the Guetta Defendants in this 5 action. I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of New York and 6 have been admitted to practice in this Court pro hac vice by Order dated December 7 21, 2010 (Doc. 70). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth hereinafter, and 8 I submit this declaration in support of the Guetta Defendants’ Application to 9 Continue the Hearing Date for Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion, Pretrial 10 Conference Date and Trial Date. 11 2. On or about December 8, 2011, I learned that the January 23, 2012 12 hearing date for the Guetta Defendants’ summary judgment motion conflicted with a 13 jury trial that had been scheduled to commence on January 23, 2011 in a copyright 14 dispute pending before Judge Pauley in the Southern District of New York (“New 15 York jury trial”) in which I am also lead trial counsel. At that time, the New York 16 jury trial was expected to last only five days and to be concluded by January 27, 17 2012. 18 3. To accommodate that scheduling conflict, the parties to this action 19 stipulated to a one-week adjournment of the January 23, 2012 hearing date to 20 January 30, 2012 (Doc. 182), and the Court granted that request on December 13, 21 2011 (Doc. 183). 22 4. On January 18, 2012, I participated in a pretrial conference with Judge 23 Pauley, in which I learned that the New York jury trial will likely carry over to the 24 week of January 30, 2012 and conflict with the January 30, 2012 hearing date for 25 Defendants’ summary judgment motion in this action. When I advised Judge 26 Pauley of the January 30, 2012 hearing date, he inquired as to whether the hearing 27 could be adjourned. 28 1 SLOTNICK DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO CONTINUE DATES 1 5. As demonstrated by the Guetta Defendants’ summary judgment reply 2 papers (Doc. 213-223), ample grounds exist to grant Defendants’ Motion for 3 Summary Judgment without a holding hearing, including but not limited to the fact 4 that (a) Plaintiff concedes that it would have been technologically impossible for 5 Defendants to have sampled from the work he registered for copyright, (b) there is 6 no evidence that the creators of “I Gotta Feeling” ever had access to Plaintiff’s 7 music, and (c) Plaintiff’s own musicologists acknowledge that there are no 8 protectable similarities between “I Gotta Feeling” and Plaintiff’s song “Take a 9 Dive”. 10 6. Nevertheless, should the Court have any concerns granting Defendants’ 11 summary judgment motion without holding a hearing, I respectfully request that the 12 Court adjourn the hearing to a date when all lead counsel are able to attend, so that 13 the Court has the full benefit of their arguments and input. Based on my office’s 14 communications with counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for the other Defendants, it 15 appears that March 5, 2012 is the next available hearing date on which all lead 16 counsel are available. 17 7. Should the Court grant a continuance of the summary judgment hearing 18 date, I respectfully submit that the Court should also grant an extension of the 19 pretrial and trial dates. By operation of the Local Rules and this Court’s February 20 24, 2011 Order on Jury Trial Procedures (Doc. 116), the presently scheduled March 21 12, 2012 final pretrial conference and March 27, 2012 trial date trigger the 22 following deadlines: 23 24 25 26 27 February 1, 2012 Deadline to conduct meeting of counsel before final pretrial conference, including (i) agreement on stipulated facts, (ii) disclosure of all exhibits to be used at trial, (iii) identification of all witnesses to be presented at trial, (iv) attempt to resolve all evidentiary objections, and (v) identify all deposition testimony to be offered at trial and objections thereto. See Local Rule 16-2. 28 2 SLOTNICK DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO CONTINUE DATES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 February 13, 2012 Deadline to file Motions In Limine. See Local Rule 6-1; Order on Jury Trial Procedures § C.1. Defendants currently anticipate the need to file approximately twelve Motions In Limine. February 17, 2012 Deadline to file Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and Law. See Local Rule 16-4; Order on Jury Trial Procedures § B. February 17, 2012 Deadline for oppositions to Motions In Limine. See Local Rule 7-9; Order on Jury Trial Procedures (Doc. 116) § C.1. February 27, 2012 Deadline for replies to Motions In Limine. See Local Rule 7-10; Order on Jury Trial Procedures § C.1. March 1, 2012 Deadline to file Final Pretrial Conference Order. See Order on Jury Trial Procedures § B. March 5, 2012 Deadline to file (i) Joint Statement of the Case, (ii) Voir Dire Questions, (iii) Joint Witness Lists, (iv) Joint Jury Instructions, (v) Special Verdict Forms, (vi) Joint Exhibit List. See Order on Jury Trial Procedures § C. 2-7. 8. The need to expend significant party resources preparing these various 14 pretrial materials will be obviated in the event the Court grants Defendants’ 15 summary judgment motion. At the very least, a decision on Defendants’ summary 16 judgment motion will likely narrow the issues that need to be tried and thus the 17 scope of the pretrial materials. It would therefore be significantly more efficient to 18 postpone these various pretrial deadlines until after a decision on Defendants’ 19 motion for summary judgment. That will prevent unnecessarily expending both 20 party and judicial resources preparing to adjudicate claims and issues which may 21 never be tried. 22 9. As a result, if the Court believes it would benefit from a hearing on 23 Defendants’ summary judgment motion and therefore grants Defendants’ request to 24 adjourn the hearing to March 5, 2012, I respectfully request that the Court also grant 25 a 45-day continuance of the final pretrial conference and trial date, which will have 26 the effect of adjourning the above deadlines by the same length of time. 27 28 3 SLOTNICK DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO CONTINUE DATES 1 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 2 Executed this 20th day of January, 2012, in New York, New York. 3 4 /s/ Barry I. Slotnick 5 BARRY I. SLOTNICK 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 SLOTNICK DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO CONTINUE DATES

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?