Bryan Pringle v. William Adams Jr et al

Filing 283

DECLARATION of Tal E. Dickstein in support of MOTION for Attorney Fees of all Defendants 280 filed by Defendants David Guetta, Frederick Riesterer, Shapiro Bernstein and Co. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15)(Miller, Donald)

1 Dean A. Dickie (apearing Pro Hac Vice)
Dickie@MillerCan eld.com
2 Kathleen E. Koppenhoefer(appearing Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
3 Katharine N. Dunn (appearing Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
4 MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C.
225 West Washington Street, Suite 2600
5 Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: [phone]
6 Facsimile: 312.460.4288
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Ira Gould (appearing Pro Hac Vice)
Gould@i ouldlaw.com
Ryan L. Greely (appearing Pro Hac Vice)
Rgreely@
jigouldlaw.com
GOULD LAW GROUP
120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2750
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 312.726.1328
George L. Hampton IV (State Bar No. 144433)
ghampton.hamptonhol ey.com
Colin C. Holley (State Bar No. 191999)
[e-mail]
HAMPTONFrOLLEY LLP
2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 260
Corona del Mar, California 92625
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 949.718.4580
Attorneys for Plaintiff
BRYAN PRINGLE

18
19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21

SOUTHERN DIVISION

22 BRYAN PRINGLE, an individual,
Plaintiff,

23
24

v.

25 WILLIAM ADAMS, JR.• STACY
FERGUSON; ALLAN PINEDA; and
JAIME GOMEZ, all individually and
26
collectively as the music group The Black
27 Eyed Peas, et al.,
28

Defendants.

Case No. SACV 10-1656 JST(RZx)
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT STACY
FERGUSON'S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Complaint Filed: October 28, 2010
Trial-Date:
January 24, 2012

1 PROPOUNDING PARTY:

Defendant STACY FERGUSON

2 RESPONDING PARTY:

Plaintiff BRYAN PRINGLE

3 SET NO.:

One

4
5

Plaintiff Bryan Pringle submits this Answer to Defendant, Stacy Ferguson's

6 ("Ferguson"), First Set of Interrogatories (the "Interrogatories ").
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1.

Plaintiff objects to each interrogatory insofar as it is vague, overly

broad, not limited in time and scope, oppressive, harassing or vexatious, imposes
burden or expense that outweighs the likely benefit, seeks legal conclusions, and/or
seeks information not relevant to the lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
2.

Plaintiff objects to the extent that these interrogatories seek information

protected by the attorney/client or the work product privilege. Plaintiff will not
provide any such privileged information.
3.

The following answers are given based upon the information and

documents of which Plaintiff's counsel is currently aware. Plaintiff's investigation
continues and Plaintiff specifically reserves the right to supplement the following
answers as this litigation proceeds. The following answers are given herein without
prejudice to Plaintiff's right to supplement or change its answers or objections and to
produce evidence of additional facts.
4.

Plaintiffs answers are not an admission that any such information is

relevant or admissible.
5.

Plaintiff objects to each interrogatory, instruction or definition that

purports to impose any obligation greater than or different from those required under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Orders of the Court.
6.

Plaintiff specifically reserves the right to assert additional objections.
2

ANSWER: See answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 12.
2
3
4
5
6
7

Investigation continues.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15: State all FACTS that evidence that any of the
DEFENDANTS actually copied the MUSICAL COMPOSITION, TAKE A DIVE
(DANCE VERSION), when creating the MUSICAL COMPOSITION entitled "I
Gotta Feeling.”

8

ANSWER: See answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 13.

9

Investigation continues.

HAMPTON HOL LEY Lu,

10 INTERROGATORY NO. 16: State all FACTS that YOU contend demonstrate
11 that any of the DEFENDANTS had ACCESS to TAKE A DIVE (DANCE
12 VERSION) SR prior to 2009. The term "ACCESS" as used herein means to have
13 actually heard, or had a reasonable opportunity or possibility to hear, the SOUND
14

RECORDING at issue.

15
16
17

ANSWER: See answer and objections to Interrogatory No.
Investigation continues.

18 INTERROGATORY NO. 17: List in seriatim and in full and explicit terms, each
19 similarity YOU perceive to exist between TAKE A DIVE (DANCE VERSION) SR
20 and "I Gotta Feeling."
21
22

ANSWER: See answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 13.
Investigation continues.

23
24 INTERROGATORY NO. 18: State all FACTS that any of the DEFENDANTS
25 physically appropriated any portion of TAKE A DIVE (DANCE VERSION) SR
26 when creating "I Gotta Feeling."
27

ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 18

28

because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and requires the
9

▪

1

disclosure of attorney work product and attorney client privileged

2

information. Without waiving said objections, Plaintiff refers

3

Defendant to the report of expert Mark Rubel attached to Plaintiff's

4

Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Investigation continues.

5
INTERROGATORY NO. 19: State with specificity, and according to YOUR
6
7 personal knowledge, each and every PUBLIC PERFORMANCE, throughout the
8

) world, of the MUSICAL COMPOSITION, TAKE A DIVE (DANCE VERSION),

including FACTS concerning when, where, by what means, and by whom the work
9
10 was performed.
11

ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to interrogatory No. 19 because

12

it is unduly burdensome. Without waiving his objection, TAKE A DIVE

13

(DANCE VERSION) was played throughout North America and

o =;

14

Western Europe on the internet and the radio. Investigation continues.

;

15

C
0.

,,,

o co

—1 ;
•

!
.

E

▪

f1 0

o
C

16

• °)
(

17

• .
;
6

18
19

INTERROGATORY NO. 20: State with specificity, and according to YOUR
personal knowledge, each and every DISTRIBUTION, throughout the world, of the
MUSICAL COMPOSITION, TAKE A DIVE (DANCE VERSION), including
FACTS concerning when, where, by what means, by whom, and to whom the work
was distributed.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 20 because
it is vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving his
objection, from around 1999 through 2006, Plaintiff submitted hundreds
of demo cd's and tapes, all of which included "Take a Dive (Dance
Version)," to various music publishers, record companies, talent
managers, songwriters, booking agents and radio stations, including but
not limited to: Universal (UMG), EMI, Interscope/Geffen, EMI Music
Publishing (Jody Gerson, Big Jon Platt, Benjamin Groff, Andy
10

1 that YOU claim were created prior to 2009 and YOU claim are relevant to this
2 lawsuit, please list all such adaptations.
3

ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 25 because

4

it is vague and overly broad. Without waiving his objection, Plaintiff

5

states that there were multiple derivative versions of "Take a Dive" that

6

were included on Plaintiffs' demo cds and tapes, including several

7

where the guitar twang sequence was soloed out as the introduction of

8
9
10

the song. Plaintiff also states that the MUSICAL COMPOSITION is
based at least in part, on Plaintiff's song copyrighted songs "Faith" and
"Faith Re-mix". Investigation continues.

11
•0
;m
02
;

O L•
pU

o•
;

12 Dated: April 13, 2011
13
14
15

0

16

ly;
o
,

17
18
19
20

Dean A. Dickie (appearing Pro Hac Vice)
Kathleen E. Koppenhoefer (appearing Pro Hac Vice)
Katharine N. Dunn (appearing Pro Hac Vice)
MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE,
P.L.C.
Ira Gould (appearing Pro Hac Vice)
Ryan L. Greely(appearing Pro Hac Vice)
GOULD LAW GROUP
George L. Hampton IV (State Bar No. 144433)
Colin C. Holley (State Bar No. 191999)
HAMPTONHOLLEY LLP
•
By:
Attori.. eys for Plaintiff Bryan Pringle

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13

1
2
3

VERIFICATION

4 I, Bryan Pringle, state that I have knowledge of the foregoing events, and that the
answers made to Defendant Ferguson's
5 correct, to the best of my knowledge First Set of Interrogatories are true and
6 I declare the foregoing to be true under penalty of perjury.
7
8
9
10 April 12, 2011.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

gN
e