Gordon v. DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. et al

Filing 52

Opposition re 50 MOTION for Leave to File A REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HIS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SANCTIONS filed by DreamWorks Animation LLC, DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation. (Shope, John)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

JAYME GORDON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG,
INC., DREAMWORKS ANIMATION
LLC, and PARAMOUNT PICTURES
CORP.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-10255-JLT

DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF
WITH NEW AFFIDAVITS AND ARGUMENTS
Defendants DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., DreamWorks Animation LLC, and
Paramount Pictures Corporation respectfully submit this memorandum in opposition to plaintiff
Jayme Gordon’s request for leave to file a reply to their opposition to Gordon’s Motion for a
Protective Order and Sanctions (Dkt. # 50). The proposed “reply” brief raises new arguments and
issues not raised in his motion, and attaches new affidavits.
The proper function of a reply brief is to respond to arguments in the opposition brief that
were not reasonably anticipated in the moving party’s opening brief, not to make new arguments
or introduce new purported facts. See, e.g., Financial Resources Network, Inc. v. Brown &
Brown, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 2d 128, 139-140 (2010) (arguments first raised in reply are waived)
(citing cases). Here, Mr. Gordon introduces not only new affidavits and new arguments
(including confidential settlement discussions), but also several pages of a gratuitous attacks on
the character of Defendants and their counsel, which attacks have utterly no connection to Mr.

Gordon’s claim that, by hiring a private investigator to investigate Gordon’s background and
allegations, Defendants’ counsel have committed a felony and violated ethical rules such that
Mr. Gordon should be excused from attending his deposition and should be given access to
Defendants’ protected work product.
In the event that the Court nonetheless elects to entertain the few portions of the reply
brief that bear on the motion before it, Defendants request that the Court consider the arguments
presented in Defendants’ proposed Reply Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss For
Plaintiff’s Refusal to Appear at his Deposition, filed concurrently herewith, which addresses
much of the same material.
Dated: November 14, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG, INC.,
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION, LLC, and
PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORP.,
By their attorneys,
/s/ John A. Shope
John A. Shope (BBO #562056)
Julia Huston (BBO #562160)
David A. Kluft (BBO# 658970)
FOLEY HOAG LLP
Seaport West, 155 Seaport Boulevard
Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2600
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 617.832.7000
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Jonathan Zavin
LOEB & LOEB LLP
345 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10154
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212.658.9105
[e-mail]
David Grossman
LOEB & LOEB LLP
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2200
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 310.282.2200
[e-mail]

2

Certificate Of Service
I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants on the above date.
/s/ David A. Kluft
B3946324.v2

3