Briggs v. Blomkamp et al

Filing 78

ORDER REGARDING 53 PLAINTIFF'S JULY 10, 2014 MOTION TO COMPEL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 8/7/2014.(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
STEVE WILSON BRIGGS,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
v.

No. C 13-04679 PJH (LB)
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
JULY 10, 2014 MOTION TO COMPEL

13
SONY PICTURES ENTM’T, INC., et al.,

[Re: ECF No. 53]

14
15
16

Defendants.
_____________________________________/
In this action, Plaintiff Steve Wilson Briggs has sued Defendants Neill Bomkamp, Sony Pictures

17

Entertainment, Inc., Tristar Pictures, Inc., Media Rights Capital II LP, and QED International for

18

copyright infringement. First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 17. In essence, Mr. Briggs

19

claims that Defendants, through their production, distribution, and display of the film Elysium,

20

infringed his copyright in a screenplay he wrote called Butterfly Driver. Mr. Briggs served requests

21

for production of documents (“RFP”) on Defendants, and now has filed a motion to compel

22

Defendants to further respond to two of them: RFP Nos. 4 and 6. Motion, ECF No. 53. Defendants

23

oppose the motion. Opposition, ECF No. 62. The court held a hearing on August 7, 2014, and rules

24

as follows.

25

I. RFP NO. 4

26

As clarified by Mr. Briggs, RFP No. 4 seeks “[a]ll documents (emails, texts, memos, letters or

27

any other communication) pertaining to Elysium between Defendant Neill Blomkamp and Elysium’s

28

film editors Julian Clarke and Lee Smith between June 2013 and August 9th, 2013.” Errata, ECF
ORDER
C 13-04679 PJH (LB)

1

No. 56; RFPs, ECF No. 62 at 13. During the parties’ meet-and-confer session, Defendants’ counsel

2

informed Mr. Briggs that Mr. Blomkamp had no documents responsive to RFP No. 4 and that

3

Defendants would serve a supplemental response to this effect. Korn Decl., ¶ 4, ECF No. 62 at 7.

4

Per Mr. Briggs’s suggestion, Defendants’ counsel also spoke with Mr. Clarke, who confirmed over

5

the phone and by email that the editing of Elysium concluded well before June 2013, and that there

6

were therefore no communications between the editors and Mr. Blomkamp about the film from June

7

2013 to August 9, 2013. Id. ¶ 8, ECF No. 62 at 8. Defendants subsequently did serve a

8

supplemental response to RFP No. 4 that states that they have no documents responsive to that

9

request. Id., Ex. 4, ECF No. 62 at 23.

10

At the hearing, Mr. Brigg confirmed that he had received the supplemental response and that the
issue is moot. Accordingly, the court denies as moot Mr. Briggs’s motion to compel Defendants to

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

further response to RFP No. 4.

13

II. RFP NO. 6

14

RFP No. 6 seeks “[a]ll contracts and agreements between any and all Defendants pertaining to

15

their participation in ANY facet of the writing, production, making, distribution, marketing, etc., of

16

the film ‘Elysium.’” RFPs, ECF No. 62 at 13. Defendants object to this request as overbroad.

17

Opposition, ECF No. 62 at 5. They point out that its broad language would encompass innumerable

18

contracts, many of which do not relate in any way to Mr. Briggs’s copyright infringement claims

19

(e.g., contracts with actors, composers, crew, and others who were not involved with the writing of

20

the film’s script; location agreements; contracts with caterers and equipment rental companies; etc.).

21

Id. at 5-6. Defendants also object to producing documents responsive to this request in light of Mr.

22

Briggs’s refusal to enter into a protective order that covers confidential information. Id. at 6.

23

Defendants do, however, propose a compromise: Given that Mr. Briggs wants to identify other

24

potential defendants to his copyright infringement action, Defendants offer to provide a verified

25

interrogatory response that identifies all of the entities responsible for the production and

26

distribution of Elysium. Id. At the August 7, 2014 hearing, Mr. Briggs acknowledged that his goal

27

was to obtain the names of potential infringers and that Defendants’ compromise served that end.

28

Accordingly, the court orders the verified interrogatory response that Defendants offered.
ORDER
C 13-04679 PJH (LB)

2

1

CONCLUSION

2

This disposes of ECF No. 53.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: August 7 2014

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
C 13-04679 PJH (LB)

3