Capitol Records, LLC v. Redigi Inc.

Filing 310

LETTER addressed to Judge Richard J. Sullivan from Richard S. Mandel dated January 24, 2017 Document filed by Capitol Christian Music Group, Inc., Capitol Records, LLC, Virgin Records IR Holdings, Inc..(Mandel, Richard)

COWAN
LIEBOWITZ
LAYMAN'

Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C.
1 West 47th Street
14
New York, NY 10036
[phone] Tel
[phone] Fax
www.cll.com
Richard S. Mandel
[phone]
[e-mail]

January 24, 2017
VIA ECF and EMAIL
Hon. Richard J. Sullivan
United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square, Room 2104
New York, NY 10007
Re:

Capitol Records, LLC et al. v. ReDigi Inc. et al., 12 cv. 0095 (RJS)

Dear Judge Sullivan:
We represent Plaintiffs in the above-referenced action. In connection with preparing the
joint appendix to be submitted to the Second Circuit on Defendants' appeal from the Court's
summary judgment order in this case (Docket No. 109), an issue has arisen regarding the
docketing of one of Capitol's declarations submitted in support of its summary judgment motion.
While our records indicate that the declaration of Colleen Hall, Capitol's paralegal, was served
on opposing counsel and included in the Court's courtesy copies, we have discovered that
Plaintiff inadvertently failed to file the declaration via ECF at the time of the motion. We write
to request the Court's permission to file such declaration via ECF now so that the docket can
accurately reflect the full set of materials considered by the Court on the motion.
On July 20, 2012, Capitol served and filed its summary judgment motion and submitted
courtesy copies of its moving papers to your Honor's chambers. As indicated by the cover letter
to the Court and the certificate of service filed electronically (Docket No. 48-1), the Hall
declaration was included in the service copies delivered to ReDigi's counsels and the courtesy
copies sent to your Honor's chambers. The underlying facts referenced in the declaration
concerning the ability of Capitol's paralegal to purchase certain Capitol recordings on the ReDigi
website were not in dispute, as confirmed by ReDigi's admission of such facts in response to
paragraphs 68 and 69 of Capitol's 56.1 statement referencing the Hall declaration. See Docket
Nos. 50, 83 In 68-69; see also Docket No. 109 (Court summary judgment opinion) at 8 (citing
56.1 statements in holding "[t]here is no dispute that sales occurred on ReDigi's website").
Because the Hall declaration was part of the materials made available to the Court in
connection with the summary judgment motion, Plaintiffs respectfully submit that it is
appropriate to permit it to be added to the docket and included in the joint appendix for the
1The full set of papers were served on counsel by hand because the publicly filed
documents were redacted due to the inclusion of certain confidential information.
29503/003/2194997.1

Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C.
Hon. Richard J. Sullivan, U.S.D.J.
January 24, 2017
Page 2
Second Circuit. We have conferred with Defendants' counsel and they have indicated they have
no objection to Plaintiffs' request so long as the declaration was made available to the Court in
connection with the summary judgment motion.
Respectfully,

Richard S. Mandel
cc:

All Parties Receiving Notice via ECF

29503/003/2194997.1