Gordon v. DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. et al

Filing 41

AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 39 Opposition to Motion for a Protective Order and Sanctions. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Shope, John)

Fish & Richardson p.c.
Frederick P. Fish
1855-1930
W.K. Richardson
1859-1951

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
October 6, 2011
David Grossman, Esq.
Loeb & Loeb LLP
10100 Santa Monica Blvd.
Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Re:

601 Lexington Avenue,
52nd Floor
New York, New York
10022
Telephone
212 765-5070
Facsimile
212 258-2291
Web Site
www.fr.com

Jayme Gordon v. DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., et al.,
USDC, D. Mass. C.A. No. 1:11-cv-10255-JLT

Dear David:

~

This letter responds to your letter dated September 29, 2011.

a tlan ta
au s tin
b o s ton
da llas
de la war e
h ou s ton
m un ich
n e w yor k
s i lico n va lle y
s ou thern ca li forn ia
twi n c i ti e s
wa sh in gton , dc

As we previously advised you in our letter dated September 1, 2011, responsive
documents in the possession of Mr. Partello were produced in accordance with the
Court’s automatic disclosure requirement. For example, copies of relevant drawings
were produced, Mr. Partello’s signed statement was produced, the assignment
agreement was produced, and an agreement that was superseded by the
aforementioned assignment agreement was later produced. Further, Mr. Kluft
inspected the original drawings of the deposit copies submitted in connection with
Mr. Gordon’s copyright registration that identifies Mr. Partello. Based on our present
knowledge, it is our understanding that there are no relevant documents in the
possession of either Mr. Partello or Ms. Gordon that have not already been produced.
However, we will again ask Mr. Partello and Ms. Gordon to confirm that they have
searched all relevant files, including electronic files, and that all relevant documents
within their possession have been produced. To the extent any such documents exist,
we will produce them.
Regarding JG 1651-1658, the personal telephone numbers of the signatories were
redacted. These are irrelevant and constitute personal information of individuals not
parties to this case. Unredacted copies of these statements will not be produced.
As we advised you during our September 9 telephonic meet and confer, based on our
present knowledge, it is our understanding that Mr. Gordon has produced all
electronic images and files in his possession that are relevant to this case. Defendants’
understanding that Mr. Gordon has produced only the discs that were deposited with
the Copyright Office is incorrect. We refer you to JG 1692-1693, which identify
thousands of native files of Mr. Gordon’s prior website material.
Defendants’ current request for “any electronic images or files relating to any of the
characters that were included on Mr. Gordon’s website” is overbroad because it seeks
images and files relating to Mr. Gordon’s works that are not at issue in this case.
Please explain the basis for this request, and the relevancy of such images and files.

F i s h & R i c h a r d s o n p.c.
David Grossman, Esq.
October 6, 2011
Page 2

Lastly, while Mr. Madera noted that Mr. Gordon has computers, Mr. Madera also
noted that these computers were recently purchased by Mr. Gordon and do not
contain any files relevant to this litigation. For this reason, we do not understand the
basis for Defendants’ reiteration of their request for a forensic examination of Mr.
Gordon’s computers, and we do not intend to produce them for forensic examination.

Very truly yours,
s/ Kristen McCallion

cc:

Julia Huston, Esq. (by email)
David A. Kluft, Esq. (by email)
Jonathan Zavin, Esq. (by email)
John Shope, Esq. (by email)
Mark A. Fischer, Esq. (by email)