Brownmark Films, LLC v. Paramount Pictures Corporation et al

Filing 34

MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law, # 2 Wickers Dec with Exhibits A-I, # 3 Peterson Dec with Exhibit J, # 4 Appendix, # 5 Proposed Order)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

BROWNMARK FILMS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 2:10-cv-01013-JPS

COMEDY PARTNERS, MTV
NETWORKS, PARAMOUNT
PICTURES CORPORATION, SOUTH
PARK DIGITAL STUDIOS LLC, and
VIACOM INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendants.

DECLARATION OF ALONZO WICKERS IV IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO RECOVER ATTORNEYS' FEES WITH EXHIBITS A-I

I, Alonzo Wickers IV, declare:
1.

I am an attorney licensed to practice law before the courts of the State of

California and before the Eastern District of Wisconsin. I am a partner in the law firm of Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP, counsel of record for defendants Comedy Partners, MTV Networks,
Paramount Home Entertainment Inc., South Park Digital Studios LLC, and Viacom International
Inc. (collectively "the South Park Defendants") in this lawsuit. Unless expressly stated on
information and belief, the matters stated below are true of my own personal knowledge.
2.

In late September 2008, Plaintiff threatened a copyright-infringement lawsuit

arising from South Park's parody of the "What What (in the Butt)" ("WtWITB") viral video. A

'
true and correct copy of the letter from Brian Kopec-Farrell, then-counsel for Brownmark Films
LLC, to the South Park Defendants received on September 23, 2008 is attached to this
declaration as Exhibit A.

DWT 17637631vl3970094·000069

3.

In response, the South Park Defendants sent a detailed, seven-page letter to

Plaintiff's counsel on October 2, 2008, predicting that "a federal district court would dismiss
[any] copyright-infringement claim" because South Park's use was a fair use, "urg[ing Plaintiff!
to reconsider its threatened lawsuit," and cautioning that such "a lawsuit would expose [Plaintiff!
to liability for Comedy Central's attorneys' fees and costs." A true and correct copy of the letter
from the South Park Defendants' counsel, Robyn Aronson, to Mr. Kopec-Farrell sent on October
2, 2008 is attached to this declaration as Exhibit B.
4.

Mr. Kopec-Farrell responded with a one-sentence email on October 2, 2008

warning that "the next time we will talk will be in the Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin." A true and correct copy of the email sent by Mr. Kopec-Farrell to my colleagues
and me on October 2, 2008 is attached to this declaration as Exhibit C.
5.

More than two years later, in November 2010, Brownmark Films LLC filed its

copyright-infringement lawsuit against the South Park Defendants. During a subsequent
telephone conference, I explained to Plaintiffs new counsel, Caz McChrystal, that South Park's
use of the "What What (In The Butt)" ("WWITB") video was a fair use, and that unless
Brownmark dismissed the lawsuit voluntarily, the South Park Defendants would move to dismiss
and would seek to recover their attorneys' fees and costs.
6.

After the Court dismissed the case on fair-use grounds on July 6, 2011, I called

Garret Galster and I sent an email to Mr. Galster and Mr. McChrystal offering to waive the South
Park Defendants' right to seek attorneys' fees in exchange for Brownmark's waiver of its right to
appeal this Court's order granting the motion to dismiss, and thereby to put an end to this
meritless litigation. Because of the relatively short deadline under Rule 54 to file a fee motion, I
asked Plaintiffs attorneys to respond to the offer at their earliest convenience. A true and
correct copy of my July 12, 2011 email to Mr. Galster and Mr. McChrystal is attached to this
declaration as Exhibit D.

2
DWT 1763763Ivl3970094·000069

7.

Mr. Galster responded that he would be checking with Brownmark about the

South Park Defendants' offer and would get back to the South Park Defendants with an answer.
A true and correct copy of Mr. Galster's July 12, 2011 email to me is attached to this declaration
as Exhibit E.
8.

On July 13,2011, I sent a followup email to Mr. Galster asking for a response

from Brownmark. Instead of responding, however, Plaintiff waited several days and filed a
notice of appeal. A true and correct copy of my July 13, 2011 email to Mr. Galster is attached to
this declaration as Exhibit F.
9.

Davis Wright Tremaine is a national law firm of more than 500 lawyers, with its

largest office in Seattle, Washington. During the past fifteen years, its Los Angeles office has
become increasingly well-known for its work in the fields of media and entertainment law. The
firm is well-known nationally for its First Amendment, communications law, and intellectual
property litigation practice, including copyright litigation. In addition to the South Park
Defendants, the firm's clients in this area include Sony Pictures Entertainment, CBS
Broadcasting, CNN, HBO, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, Discovery
Communications, E! Entertainment Television, A&E Television Networks, Electronic Arts,
Simon & Schuster, and Random House.
10.

The Davis Wright Tremaine attorneys who represented the South Park Defendants

in this matter- Robyn Aronson, Jeff Glasser, and I- all practice almost exclusively media and
intellectual property litigation. Ms. Aronson, who is now senior counsel at MTV Networks,
practiced at Davis Wright Tremaine for four years as a senior associate concentrating on
intellectual property litigation and counseling. Mr. Glasser has nearly four years of experience in
intellectual property and First Amendment litigation, including copyright litigation. I have been
a partner in the firm's Los Angeles office since 2000, and have 18 years of litigation experience,
specializing in the representation of book, newspaper, and magazine publishers, television

3
DWT 17637631v13970094-000069

networks, and other content creators in copyright, trademark, and First Amendment matters. Mr.
Glasser's and my web bios are attached to this declaration as Exhibits G and H.
11.

Based on my experience in this field, my previous work as a lawyer at Jones, Day,

Reavis & Pogue, my review oflegal bills from other law firms that practice media law, my
review of the bills attached to fee motions filed by those firms in other cases, and my
participation in media bar events, I believe that the discounted hourly rates that the South Park
Defendants were billed for our services in 2008-$310.25 for Ms. Aronson- and in 2010 and
2011-$225.25 for Mr. Glasser's time and $416.50 for my time- are easily within the range of
rates charged by other lawyers with similar expertise and experience in this market. True and
correct copies of the bills submitted to the South Park Defendants for this case are attached as
Exhibit I. The bills have been redacted to eliminate tasks for which the South Park Defendants
do not seek reimbursement. In a very few instances, certain task descriptions have been redacted
to protect information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product
doctrine. The billing statements identify each task for which the South Park Defendants seek
reimbursement, the attorney or paralegal who performed the task and his or her billing rate, and
the amount of time expended on each task. These billing statements either have been paid by
MTV Networks or represent outstanding obligations ofMTV Networks. In total, Ms. Aronson
spent 5 hours on the matter, Mr. Glasser spent 79.8 hours, and I spent 39 hours. DWT paralegal
Ben Planchon spent 3.7 hours, document clerk Kristina Roth spent 2.8 hours, and librarian Chris
Gilbertson spent 1.5 hours on this matter.
12.

As reflected in the billing statements, the total legal fees i!Ild costs incurred by the

South Park Defendants to date from work performed by Davis Wright Tremaine LLP is
$36,919.06, which includes $1,520.23 in fees incurred in responding to the 2008 cease-anddesist letter. I am informed and believe that the South Park Defendants also incurred $9,856.17
from legal work performed by Godfrey & Kahn in Wisconsin. The total legal fees incurred by
the South Park Defendants to date are $46,775.23.

4
DWT 1763763Iv!3970094·000069

13.

The South Park Defendants will also supplement the fee request with the exact

amount of fees and costs incurred in bringing this fee motion and in bringing the fee reply, which
they will submit with their reply papers.
This declaration was executed on July 20, 2011, in Los Angeles, California. I declare
under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of
Wisconsin that the foregoing is true and correct.

5
DWT 17637631 v 1 3970094·000069

EXHIBIT A

Creative Legal Collective
Brian Kopec-Farrell
PO Box2156
Milwaukee, WI 53201-2156
[phone]

Dear Warren Solow,
I am writing this letter on behalf of my client, Browmnark Films LLC, in response to its
discovery that you have made unauthorized use of its copyrighted work entitled "What
What (In the Butt)" (hereinafter the "Work") in the creation and distribution of a work
derived therefrom. My clients have reserved all rights in the Work, first published in
2007, and have registered copyright therein. Integral portions of your work, the episode
of South Park originally aired on April 2, 2008 (hereinafter the "Episode"), are
essentially identical to the Work and clearly used the Work as its ba:sis.

In the Episode, a character in that show, Butters, is seen singing the musical composition
"What What (In the Butt)" as part of a music video that is a frame-by-frame recreation of
that created and copyrighted by my client. The Episode was aired on Comedy Central,
and-portions of. the Episode that infringe.!Jl.y client'~_copyright contii).U!:l,tO appear on the
website www,southparkstudios.com. Furthermore, it has- cpme to .my.clienfs attention
that Comedy Central and Paramount Home Entertainment have announced plans to
release a l;>VD entitled '~The C:ult of Cartman" that includes material derived from the
Work.
Neither South Park, Comedy Central, nor Viacom requested nor received permission
from Brownrnark Films LLC to use the Work as the basis for the Episode nor to make or
distribute copies, including electronic copies, of same. In addition, please be aware that
under the terms of its agreement with Southern Fried Records, the Work may not be
licensed to third-parties without the written consent of Browmnark Films LLC.
Therefore, I believe you have willfully infringed my clients rights under 17 U.S.C.
Section 101 et seq. and could be liable for actual or statutory damages and reasonable
attorney's fees as set forth in Section 504(c)(2) and 505, respectively.
On behalf of my clients, I demand that you immediately cease the use and distribution of
all infringing works derived from the Work, arid all copies, including electronic copies, of
same, that you desist from this or any other infringement of my clients rights in the
future, and that you give an accounting of all profits derived from the infringed work. If I
have not received an affirmative response from you by October 10, 2008, indicating that
you have fully c.omplieq with these requirements, I shall !Je forced- to -take further action.
. ..

.

You.sh~uld unde~stand that tlrl~ letter col).l>tit'qtes notice-10 you thltt, the saJe and/qr other
distribution of this product is unauthorized. Tills letter does not constitute a-waiyer "of

any right to recover damages incurred by virtue of any such unauthorized activities, and
such rights as well as claims for other relief are expressly retained.
Sincerely,

IJ-4-~
Brian Kopec-Farrell
Attorney at Law
Creative Legal Collective
POBox2156
Milwaukee, WI 53201-2156
[phone]
NOTICE: The complaining party has a good faith belief that the use of copyrighted
material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent,
or the law. Furthermore, the above signed party asserts that the information contained in
this document is accurate, and under penalty of perjury that the complaining party is
authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

EXHIBIT B

LAWYERS

Davis Wright Tremaine
ANCHORAGE

BELLEVUE

LOS ANGELES

ROBYN ARONSON

Direct (213) 633·6816
robyn n ro ns on@ d w t. com

NEW YORK

LLP

PORTLAND

SAN FRANCISCO

SUITE 2400
865 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017-2566

SEATTLE

SHANGHAI

WASHINGTON, D.C.

TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

www.dwt.com

October 2, 2008
Via Email ([e-mail]) and U.S. Mail
Brian Kopec-Farrell, Esq.
Creative Legal Collective
P..O. Box 2156
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201-2156

Re:

South Park/"What What (ln the Butt)"

Dear Mr. Kopec-Farrell:
We represent Comedy Central, and write in response to your letter to Warren Solow
regarding South Park's parody of your client's "What What (In the Butt)" viral music video.
After reviewing your letter, the video, and the South Park episode at issue, we are confident that
South Park's parody would be fully protected against any copyright-infringement claim. If your
client nevertheless insists on pursuing its threatened claim, Comedy Central will vigorously
defend its rights under the fair-use doctrine and the First Amendment, which protect such
parodies.

South Park's "Canada On Strike" Episode·
As it enters its twelfth season, South Park has becoiJ).e "well known for its pop-culture
parody, scatological humor, and satirical handling of current events." Wikipedia, "South Park"
(emphasis added). The program has poked fun at such individuals as Paris Hilton, AI Gore, and
Saddam Hussein, and has parodied such works as The Wizard of Oz, The Island ofDr. Moreau,
and Heavy Metal. In "Canada on Strike," the program ridiculed the WGA's demands in the
then-recent writers' strike, and the inanity of some popular viral videos.
As you may recall, the striking writers demanded, among other things, a greater share of
the entertainment studios' Internet revenues. In the episode, the boys attempt to make money on
the Internet to satisfy the demands of the striking Canadians. To do so, the boys decide to create
a viral music video, which turns out to be an animated spoof of"What, What (ln the Butt)"
performed by the sweetly naive character Butters. Later, when the boys try to cash in on their
video, they find themselves in a bank waiting room with other viral-video stars, including Tay
DWT ll852l04v3 3970094·000059
Los Angeles

Brian Kopec-Farrell, Esq.
October 2, 2008
Page2

Zonday of"Chocolate Rain," the "Numa Numa" Guy, the Tron Guy, the Star Wars Kid, the
Dramatic Gopher, the Laughing Baby, the Sneezing Panda, and Afro Ninja. Like the "What,
What" video, all of these figures are recognizable to regular Internet users and YouTube fans. In
the waiting room, each figure acts out moments from his signature videos- the "Numa Numa"
guy lip-synchs, the Afro Ninja trips over himself, the Sneezing Panda sneezes, and, of course, the
Dramatic Gopher looks very dramatic. By the end of the Program, the viral-video stars have
killed one another, the Canadians have ended their strike, and Kyle has given a speech about the
difficulty of monetizing Internet celebrity. In sum, the episode spoofs the very nature of Internet
success, including your client's success with its "What What" video.
South Park's Parody Is Protected As A Fair Use Under The Copyright Act.
Courts consistently have recognized that parody enjoys broad protections under the First
Amendment and the Copyright Act The Supreme Court has explained that a parody is an
"artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or
ridicule." Campbell v. Aczif.f-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 580 (1994). In a leading recent
decision, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that "parody is a form of social and literary criticism," and
"has socially significant value as free speech under the First Amendment" Matte! Inc. v.
Walking Mountain Prods., 353 F.3d 792, 801 (9th Cir. 2003) ("Walking Mountain"). Because
parody implicates such "core" constitutional concerns, Cardtoons, L. C. v. Major League
Baseball Players Ass 'n, 95 F.3d 959, 972 (1Oth Cir. 1996), courts uniformly have noted "the
broad scope permitted parody in First Amendment law." Clifft Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday
Dell Publ:g Group, Inc., 886 F.2d 490,493 (2d Cir. 1989).
These principles are reflected in Section 107 of the Copyright Act, which codifies the
fair-use doctrine and creates a "privilege to use copyrighted material in a reasonable manner
without the consent of the copyright owner[.]" Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo ofAmerica,
964 F.2d 965, 969 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted)(emphasis added); 17 U.S.C. § 107. In the
preamble to Section 107, Congress identified several illustrative fair uses, including "criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching[,] ... scholarship, or research." (Emphasis added.) As the
Supreme Court has explained, Section 107 balances "the interests of authors ... in the control
and exploitation of their [works] ... on the one hand, and society's competing interest in the free
flow of ideas, information, and commerce on the other hand[.]" Sony Corp. v. Universal City
Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417,429 (1984).
To facilitate this balancing process, Congress set forth four, non-exclusive factors that a
court shall consider in determining whether a particular use of a copyrighted work is a fair use:
(1)
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2)

DWT 11852104v3

Los Angeles

·-·

.~

.. ;·.·:·.

the nature ofthe copyrighted work;

3970094~000059

Brian Kopec-Farrell, Esq.
October 2, 2008
Page3

(3)
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole; and
(4)

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted

work.
17 U.S.C. § 107(1)-(4). Within this framework, the fair-use doctrine "calls for case-by-case
analysis." Campbell, 510 U.S. at 577. All four factors must be balanced and "weighed together,
in light of the purposes of copyright." !d. at 578.
Here, the balance of the factors weighs heavily in favor of a finding that South Park's
parody of the "What What" video is a protected fair use.
Purpose And Character Of The Use

The first factor in the fair-use inquiry is the "purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." 17 U.S.C.
§ 107. The Supreme Court has emphasized that whether the use is for a commercial or a nonprofit educational purpose "is only one element of the first factor enquiry into its purpose and
character." Campbell, 510 U.S. at 584. As the Court reasoned, if"commerciality carried
presumptive force against a finding of fairness, the presumption would swallow nearly all of the
illustrative uses listed in the preamble paragraph to § 107, including news reporting, comment,
criticism, teaching, scholarship, and research, since these activities 'are generally conducted for
profit in this country."' !d. at 584; see also Maxtone-Graham v. Burtchaell, 803 F.2d 1253, 1262
(2d Cir. 1986) ("[w]e do not read Section 107(1) as requiring us to make a clear-cut choice
between two polar characterizations, "commercial" and "non-profit"; "[w]ere that the case, fair
use would be virtually obliterated, for '[a]ll publications presumably are operated for profit")
(citations omitted).
Since the for-profit nature of a defendant's activities carries little weight in the fair-use
analysis, the first factor of the test has been found to favor a wide range of commercial entities,
including cable television networks that sell advertising. See, e.g, Kane v. Comedy Partners,
2003 WL 22383387 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Monster Communications, Inc. v. Turner-Broadcasting
System, Inc., 935 F. Supp. 490,493-494 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Therefore, the fact that Comedy
Central is a for-profit enterprise does not tip the first factor in your client's favor.
Instead, the Supreme Court has made clear that the first-factor inquiry is to be "guided by
the examples given in the preamble to § 107, looking to whether the use is for criticism, or
comment, or news reporting, and the like[.]" Campbell, 510 U.S. at 578-579. The "central
purpose" of this inquiry is to ascertain whether the allegedly infringing work merely
"supersedes" the original, or whether it "adds something new, with a fi.rrther purpose or different
character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message[.]" !d. (citations omitted).
"[I]n other words," a court must determine "whether and to what extent the new work is
'transformative. "' !d. (citations omitted).
DWT l!S52104v3 3970094·000059

Los Angeles

.

----~-----·--::::~."::".-;:::-::-::::::::-:::::::::::::::

····--· .......... ,.,__ ···-·· ........... -- ...

·····-····----

···-······

Brian Kopec-Farrell, Esq.
October 2, 2008
Page4

In Campbell, the Court declared that "parody has an obvious claim to transformative
value." !d. (emphasis added). There, the band 2 Live Crew incorporated elements of Roy
Orbison's classic song "Pretty Woman"- including the first line verbatim- into a vulgar and
highly sexual rap song with the same title. The Supreme Court found that the stark contrast
between the 2 Live Crew song and the genteel original "can be taken as a comment on the
naivete of the original of an earlier day, as a rejection of its sentiment that ignores the ugliness of
street life and the debasement that it signifies." !d. at 584. For that reason, the Court found that
the first fair-use factor weighed in 2 Live Crew's favor. ld
Another recent parody decision also is instructive. In Walking Mountain, Matte! brought
copyright and trademark-infringement claims against an artist who created and sold photographs
depicting Matte!' s iconic Barbie doll in incongruous, sexually-charged situations, with the goal
of"critiqu[ing] the objectification of women" and "lambast[ing] the conventional beauty myth
and the societal acceptance of women as objects." 353 F.3d at 792, 795. Affirming that the first
factor favored fair use, the court observed that Matte! had created associations of"beauty,
wealth, and glamour" with Barbie's image, and that the artist's work "turns this image on its
head" by portraying Barbie in bizarre and fraught scenarios. ld at 802. By putting Barbie in this
new context, the court held that the artist "transformed Barbie's meaning" by "creat[ing] the sort
of social criticism and parodic speech protected by the First Amendment and promoted by the
Copyright Act." !d. at 802-803.
An even more recent fair-use decision from the Central District of California is closely on
point. In Burnett v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 491 F. Supp. 2d 962 (C.D. Cal. 2007),
comedienne Carol Burnett sued the producers of the animated series Family Guy for copyright
infringement, trademark infringement, and misappropriation based on the series' parody of her
beloved, wholesome "Charwoman" character from her 1970s sketch-comedy program. In the
Family Guy episode in question, the lead character goes to a porn shop, and mentions that the
store is cleaner than he had expected. !d. at 966. A friend explains that "Carol Burnett works
part time as a janitor," as the screen cuts to an animated version of the Charwoman mopping the
floor near some pornographic merchandise and music that evokes The Carol Burnett Show's
theme song plays in the background. !d. The Family Guy characters then go on to joke about
Ms. Burnett, including her familiar habit of tugging her ear at the end of her show. !d.
On a motion to dismiss the copyright and trademark claims, the court considered whether
the parody was protected by the fair-use doctrine. Ms. Burnett argued that the first factor of the
test- the purpose and character of the use- favored her, since the use of her name and the gag
about her tugging her ear meant "the target of the Family Guy parody was not the Charwoman
character as such, but Carol Burnett herself." !d. at 968. The court rejected this supposed
distinction, stating that "it is immaterial whether the target of Family Guy's 'crude joke' was
Burnett, The Carol Burnett Show, the Charwoman, Carol's Theme Music or all four." !d. What
mattered was that the show attempted to ridicule them all. !d. at 969. Because "Family Guy put
a cartoon version of Carol Burnett/the Charwoman in an awkward, ridiculous, crude, and absurd

DWT 11852104v3 3970094·000059
Los Angeles

Brian Kopec-Farrell, Esq.
October 2, 2008
Page5

situation in order to lampoon" her, the program was a parody, and the first factor of the test
weighed decidedly in favor offair use. !d.
Here, South Park plainly is parodying your client's viral video. As the Supreme Court
reiterated in Campbell, "[p]arody needs to mimic an original to make its point." 510 U.S. at 578.
South Park evokes your client's video by incorporating certain distinctive images- such as the
striped set, the fireworks graphics, and the "What What" pants -but immediately signals its
parodic intent by having Samwell's sexually explicit song acted out by Butters, a naYve blonde
animated youngster who dresses up like a daisy, a teddy bear, and an astronaut during the video.
The Program thus is the mirror image of the Family Guy episode mocking Carol Burnett, or the
Walking Mountain photographs commenting on Barbie: instead of poking fun at a wholesome
figure by adding incongruously sexualized elements, South Park pokes fun at your client's
sexually-charged video by adding incongruous elements of wholesome innocence. And by
putting Butters in the same room as the "Numa Numa" kid, the Sneezing Panda, and their
Y ouTube peers, the program's creators pointedly comment on puzzling popularity of so many
viral videos, including "What What." Under these circumstances, the creators of South Park
unmistakably transformed the meaning of your client's viral video. See Walking Mountain, 353
F.3d at 802. Consequently, the first factor weighs heavily in favor offair use.
Nature Of The Copyrighted Work

The second factor in the fair-use inquiry is the "nature of the copyrighted work." 17
U.S.C. § 107(2). "This factor calls for recognition that some works are closer to the core of
intended copyright protection than others[.]" Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586. As the Supreme Court
pointed out in Campbell, however, the second factor cannot be given much weight in considering
whether a parody is fair use, "since parodies almost invariably copy publicly known, expressive
works." !d. at 586.
Even in non-parody cases, however, courts consistently have recognized that the second
factor ordinarily weighs in favor of fair use when the copyrighted work already has been
published. See, e.g., Los Angeles News Service v. KCAL-TV Channel 9, 108 F.3d 1119, 1122
(9th Cir. 1997) (''the fact that the tape was published" before defendant's use "strongly" supports
finding of fair use); Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo ofAmerica, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 1283,
1293 (N.D. Cal. 1991) ("the works' published nature supports the fairness of the use"), aff'd, 964
F .2d 965 (9th Cir. 1992). Because the "What What" video has been published, and because
South Park obviously parodies that underlying work, the second factor also favors a finding of
fair use.
Amount Used

As for the third factor- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole- the inquiry is "a flexible one." Nunez v. Caribbean Jnt'l News
Corp., 235 F.3d 18,24 (1st Cir. 2000). Because this factor "harken[s) back to the first of the
statutory factors, ... the extent of permissible copying varies with the purpose and character of
DWT 11852104v3 3970094-000059
Los Angeles

------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.--

Brian Kopec-Farrell, Esq.
October 2, 2008
Page6

the use." Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586-587; see also Karl/ v. Curtis Publ'g Co., 39 F. Supp. 836,
837-838 (B.D. Wise. 1941) (where a defendant's work "differs greatly in nature, scope, and
purpose from the original, a larger liberty in making quotations and extracts will be permitted").
Since "[p]arody needs to mimic an original to make its point," courts have recognized that the
third factor carries little weight in parody cases. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 578. "Parody's humor,
or in any event its comment, necessarily springs from recognizable allusion to its object through
distorted imitation. Its art lies in the tension between a known original and its parodic twin." !d.
at 588. Courts thus do not "require parodic works to take the absolute minimum amount of the
copyrighted work possible." Walking Mountain, 353 F.3d at 804. Even if a parody takes more
than is necessary to conjure up the original, this factor will have "little, if any, weight against fair
use so long as the first and fourth factors favor the parodist" - as they do here. Leibovitz v.
Paramount Pictures Corp., 137 F.3d 109, 116 (2d Cir. 1998). See also Eveready Battery Co. v.
Adolph Coors Co., 765 F. Supp. 440,447-448 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (rejecting strict limits on amount
of the plaintiffs work that a parodist may use; finding likelihood that defendant's parody of
plaintiffs "Eveready Bunny" ads was protected as fair use).
Effect Of The Use On The Market

The fourth and final factor- the "effect of the use upon the potential market for or value
of the copyrighted work"- also supports Comedy Central's fair-use defense. 17 U.S.C.
§ 107(4). The United States Supreme Court squarely has held that even a "commercial" use of a
copyrighted work does not permit a court to presume economic harm to the plaintiff. In
Campbell, the Court flatly held that any such presumption of market harm was "error," and could
not be applied to any "case involving something beyond mere duplication for commercial
purposes." 510 U.S. at 591.
Generally, the fourth factor weighs in favor of a defendant-parodist. While most fourthfactor analyses rest on whether the defendant has supplanted the marketplace for licensed uses of
the original material, that calculation has no relevance to parodies. As the Supreme Court has
noted, "there is no protectible derivative market for criticism . ... lnhe unlikelihood that creators
of imaginative works will license ... lampoons of their own productions removes such uses from
the very notion of a potential licensing market." Campbell, 510 U.S. at 592 (emphasis added).
The reason for this rule is clear: if only licensed parodies were permitted, a copyright owner
effectively could prevent parodies of his work. See, e.g., Walking Mountain, 353 F.3d at 806.
Ultimately, "the economic effect of a parody with which [a court is] concerned is not its potential
to destroy or diminish the market for the original- any bad review can have that effect- but
rather whether it fulfills the demand for the original." Fisher v. Dees, 594 F.2d 432, 437-438
(9th Cir. 1986) (emphasis in original). See also Maxtone-Graham, 803 F.2d at 1264 (fact that
copyrighted work and allegedly infringing work served "fundamentally different functions"
weighed in favor of fair use finding on fourth factor).
Here, South Park's parody does not remotely fulfill the same demand as "What What."
Yom client's viral video promotes Samwell's sexually suggestive song; South Park's parody of

DWT IIS52104v3
Los Angeles

3970094~000059

Brian Kopec-Farrel!, Esq.
October 2, 2008
Page7

that video comments on the inanity of the song and many of the viral videos that captnre public
attention. Because the two works serve "fundamentally different functions," the fourth factor
weighs strongly in favor of fair use.
Conclusion
We understand that your client may be unhappy that its work was parodied on South
Park. But that parody reflects the publicity that your client's viral video has attracted- publicity
that makes the work a target for South Park's protected commentary. Because the fair-use
doctrine protects South Park in these circumstances, we are confident that a federal district court
would dismiss your client's threatened copyright-infringement claim and would deny any request
for injunctive relief. We also note that any such lawsuit would expose your client to liability for
Comedy Central's attorneys' fees and costs. See, e.g., Matte/, Inc. v. Walking Mountain
Productions, 2004 WL 1454100 at *1-*4 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (awarding prevailing Copyright Act
and Lanham Act defendant more than $1.8 million in attorneys' fees and costs where plaintiff
prosecuted action despite obviously parodic natnre of defendant's work).
For these reasons, we decline your demand to cease "the use and distribution" of the
South Park episode at issue, and urge your client to reconsider its threatened lawsuit.
If you would like to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at (213) 6336816, or my colleague AI Wickers at [phone]. 1

~-------Robyn Aronson
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

cc:

Joella West, Esq.
Michelena Hallie, Esq.
Alonzo Wickers, Esq.

1

This letter is sent without any waiver or relinquishment of Comedy Central's rights or
remedies, all of which are expressly reserved.

DWT 118;2104v3 3970094-000059

Los Angeles

--------------------------~-----~-~--------------------------------------------------

EXHIBIT C

From: Creative Legal Collective [mailto:[e-mail]]

Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 6:13 PM
To: Solano, Carolina
Cc: [e-mail]; Wickers, Alonzo; Aronson, Robyn
Subject: Re: South Park/"What What (In the Butt)" - Letter to Brian Kopec-Farrell dated October 2, 2008

Then the next time we will talk will be in the Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Atty. Brian Kopec-Farrell

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Solano, Carolina <[e-mail]> wrote:
Hard copy to follow via U.S. Mail.

«img-X021447-0001.pdf»
Carolina Solano 1 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Assistant to Alonzo Wickers IV and Jeffrey Glasser
865 S Figueroa Street, Suite 2400 1 Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail] 1 Website: www.dwt.com
Anchorage 1 Bellevue 1Los Angeles 1 New York 1 Portland I San Francisco 1 Seattle] Shanghai 1 Washinglon, D.C.

1

. EXHIBIT D

From: Wickers, Alonzo

Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:11 AM
To: Garet Galster; '[e-mail]'
Subject: Comedy CentralfBrownmark Films
Garet and Caz
This email follows up on my voicemail message for Garet today. Comedy Central is willing to waive its right to seek to
recover its attorneys' fees and costs from plaintiffs, in exchange for plaintiffs' waiver of their right to appeal or otherwise
challenge the Court's order and judgment. Please let me know at your earliest convenience if your clients will accept this
offer or if we should proceed with our fee motion.
I'm out of the office this week, but please feel free to call me on my cell-- 213 308 1463 --or to call my colleague Jeff
Glasser-- 213 633 6864.
Thank you.
AI

Alonzo Wickers IV I Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
865 S Figueroa Street, Suite 2400 I Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: [phone] I Fax: [phone] Mobile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail] I Website: \V'I\'W.dwt com
Bio: w\vw.dwt.com/people/AionzoWickersiV
Anchorage 1Bellevue [Los Angeles 1 New York 1 Portland I San Francisco 1 Seattle 1 Shanghai 1 Washington, D.C.

1

EXHIBIT E

From: Garet Galster [mailto:[e-mail]]

Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:48AM
To: Wickers, Alonzo; [e-mail]

Subject: RE: Comedy Centrai/Brownmark Films
Hi, AI,
Thank you for the voicemail and e-mail. We have contacted our client to determine its desired course of action.
Best regards,
-garet
Garet K. Galster
Attorney at Law
Registered Patent Attorney
RYAN KROMHOLZ & MANION, S.C.
3360 Gateway Road
Brookfield, WI 53045
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 262.783.1211
http://www.rkmiplaw.com
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF
THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS NAMED ABOVE. This message may be an attorney-client communication, and as such is
privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for
1

delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error, and that
any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone [phone]) and email. Thank you.

From: Wickers, Alonzo [mailto:[e-mail]]

Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 2:11AM
To: Garet Galster; [e-mail]

Subject: Comedy Centrai/Brownmark Films
Garet and Caz
This email follows up on my voicemail message for Garet today. Comedy Central is willing to waive its right to seek to
recover its attorneys' fees and costs from plaintiffs, in exchange for plaintiffs' waiver of their right to appeal or otherwise
challenge the Court's order and judgment. Please let me know at your earliest convenience if your clients will accept this
offer or if we should proceed with our fee motion.
I'm out of the office this week, but please feel free to call me on my cell-- 213 308 1463 --or to call my colleague Jeff
Glasser-- 213 633 6864.
Thank you.
AI

Alonzo Wickers IV 1 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
865 S Figueroa Street, Suite2400 I Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Mobile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail] I Website: www.dwt.com
Bio: W\VW.d\\lt.com/people/Aion7..oWickerslV
Anchorage 1 Bellevue JlosAngeles 1New York 1 Portland 1San Francisco I Seattle I Shanghai !Washington, D.C.

2

EXHIBIT F

A

From: Wickers, Alonzo

Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 7:14PM
To: 'Garet Galster'; [e-mail]

Subject: RE: Comedy Centrai/Brownmark Films
Garet
Just checking to see if your clients have decided whether to accept our offer. Given the deadline for us to file our fee
motion, we'd appreciate hearing at your earliest convenience.
Thanks!
AI

1

EXHIBIT G

·urn Davis Wright

•• Trema1ne LLP

Jeff Glasser
Jeff Glasser advises clients on legal issues related to intellectual property,
with a focus on the media and the entertainment industries. Prior to
practicing law, he worked as a senior editor at U.S. News & World Report.
He was also a researcher and collaborator with Bob Woodward on the
1999 No. 1 bestseller "Shadow: Five Presidents & The Legacy of
Watergate."
Selected Experience
Brownmark Films v. Comedy Partners
Comedy Central, South Park Studios
Ongoing
Defending Comedy Central and Soulh Park Studios against copyrightinfringement action in federal district court in Wisconsin arising from South
Park's parody of the Internet viral video "What What in the Butt."
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights v. U.S. Treasury
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights (LCCR)
Ongoing
Successfully prosecuted Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to compel the
public disclosure of documents reflecting individuals mistakenly identified
on the federal government's public terrorist watch lisl.
Los Angeles Times Communications LLC v. Los Angeles Sheritrs
Department and Long Beach Police Officers' Association v. City of
Long Beach
Los Angeles Times
Ongoing
Representing Los Angeles Times in these two Public Records Act lawsuits
concerning whether the names of peace officers who shoot and kill people
while on duty should be made public.
Sacramento County Employees' Retirement System v. Superior Court
California media organizations
Ongoing
Representing a coalition of California media organizations in filing an
amicus curiae brief concerning public access to pension records under the
Public Records Acl. The case is pending in the Third Appellate District
Court of Appeal.

Jeff Glasser

Associate

[e-mail]
213.633.6864 direct
213.633.6899 fax
Suite 2400
865 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, California 90017
Related Practices

Media & First Amendment
Intellectual Property Litigation
Access to Public Records &
Proceedings
Defamation & Privacy
Misappropriation & Right of
Publicity
Government Regulation of Content

Pre-Publication & Pre-Broadcast
Review
Prior Restraints
Subpoenas & Reporters' Privilege
Theft of Ideas
Related Industries

Communications, Media &
Technology
Entertainment

Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association v. Superior Court
The Press Democrat
Ongoing
Representing The Press Democrat in Public Records Act lawsuit seeking
information about pensions paid to retired public employees. The case is
pending in the First Appellate District Court of Appeal.
Strouse-Johnson v. Penguin Group
Penguin Group
Ongoing

www.dwt.com

Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP
Defending Penguin against defamation, privacy, and right-of-publicity
claims based on statements by author of memoir about her experience as a
member of a royal harem in Brunei. Penguin's anti-SLAPP motion is
pending.

Jeff Glasser
Associate

[e-mail]
213.633.6864

The Press-Enterprise v. San Bernardino County Employees'
Retirement Association
The Press-Enterprise
Ongoing
Representing The Press-Enterprise in Public Records Act lawsuit seeking
information about pensions paid to retired public employees.
Wetzel v. San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office, et al.
San Bernardino Sun
Ongoing
Representing San Bernardino Sun and its reporter in libel case brought by
candidate for public office who was ruled ineligible to hold office based on
prior convictions.
Hollingsworth v. Perry
2010
Represented national media coalition in expedited proceedings over the
course of a week in the U.S. District Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
and in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Chief Judge Vaughn Walke~s
proposal to broadcast trial proceedings to five overfiow courtrooms in five
cities and to make the proceedings publicly available on YouTube.com in
this landmark federal constitutional challenge to California's Proposition 8,
banning same-sex marriage. Read the Media Coalition's U.S. Supreme
Court brief.
Los Angeles Times Communications LLC v. Superior Court
Los Angeles Times Communications LLC

2010
Successfully represented Los Angeles Times in securing order from
California Court of Appeal lifting prior restraint that had prohibited the
newspaper from publishing photographs of a murder defendant that its
photographer had taken in open court.
Crowder & Freitas v. NBC Universal Inc, et al.
NBC/Universal

2009
Represented NBC Universal against a last-minute TRO application filed by
screenwriters who attempted to enjoin nationwide release of the Jennifer
Aniston film, "Love Happens." The plaintiffs' claim that the film's script was
substantially similar to a script they claimed to have previously pitched to
NBC/Universal was rejected by the federal district judge, who found that
the two scripts were not at all similar. Immediately following the decision,
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit.
Freedom Communications v. Superior Court
Freedom Communications I The Orange County Register
2008

www.dwt.com

·m Trema1ne
Davis VJright
l!...

LLP

Petitioned Court of Appeal for emergency writ to vacate prior restraint
against newspaper. Court granted petition and issued published opinion
reaffirming strong constitutional presumption against prior restraints.
Lopes v. Bay Area News Group, Argus
Bay Area News Group
2008
Obtained order striking libel complaint under anti-SLAPP and awarding
attorneys' fees in libel case stemming from pape(s reporting of candidate's
background and qualifications for office.

Jeff Glasser
Associate

[e-mail]
213.633.6864

Savage v. Council on American-Islamic Relations
Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
2008
Obtained summary dismissal of a copyright/RICO lawsuit brought by
conservative syndicated radio talk show host Michael Savage targeting the
free speech rights of the nation's largest Muslim civil rights organization.
Additional Qualifications
•
•

Senior Editor; Midwest Bureau Chief; Associate Editor- U.S. News
& World Report
Researcher/Collaborator with Bob Woodward, "Shadow: Five
Presidents & The Legacy of Watergate"

Advisories
Bonds Juror Questionnaires to Be Made Public During Voir Dire; Juror
Names to Be Withheld Until Trial End, 03.16.11
U.S. Court Rejects Journalist's First and Fourth Amendment Claims in
Accident Coverage, 06.11.09
California Court of Appeal Says MySpace Not Private, 04.08.09
California Court of Appeal Affirms Defamation Decision: Court supports
broad opinion protection and rejects survey evidence in establishing
defamatory meaning, 05.02.08
Books I Publications
"A Deeply Split Supreme Court Bars Cameras in Prop. 8 Same-Sex
Marriage Trial," MLRC MediaLawLetter, MLRC MediaLawLetter, January
2010
"First Amendment Law Letter," Davis Wright Tremaine, October 2009
Professional & Community Activities
•

Fellow, Leadership Program, United States-Japan Foundation

Education
J.D., University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 2007

www.dwt.com

Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP
•
•

Member, Board of Advocates
Teaching Assistant, Written & Oral Advocacy and Appellate
Advocacy classes

B.A., History, Yale University, 1996
•

Jeff Glasser

Associate
[e-mail]

213.633.6864

Editor-in-Chief, Yale Daily News

Admissions
California, 2007

www.dwt.com

EXHIBIT H.

Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP
Alonzo (AI) Wickers IV
AI Wickers focuses on media and entertainment law, assisting clients in a
range of matters, including copyright, trademark, right of publicity,
defamation, invasion of privacy, and theft of ideas litigation. He also has
extensive expertise in defending news organizations against subpoenas, in
gaining access to court proceedings and records, and in California Public
Records Act, Freedom of Information Act, and Brown Act litigation. In
addition to his litigation practice, AI regularly provides production, prepublication and pre-broadcast counseling.
AI is a member of the firm's executive committee.

Alonzo (AI) Wickers IV
Partner

Selected Experience
Beckham v. Bauer Publishing
Bauer Publishing
Ongoing
Defending Bauer, publisher of In Touch Weekly, in a defamation lawsuit
filed by soccer star David Beckham over article reporting on alleged tryst
with a call girl.
Brown v. Electronic Arts and Keller v. Electronic Arts
Electronic Arts
Ongoing
Defended Electronic Arts against Lanham Act and misappropriation lawsuit
filed by former NFL star over Madden NFL video game. A federal court
granted Electronic Arts' motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds.
The order can be viewed here. Brown's appeal is pending before the 9th
Circuit and has been coordinated with the appeal in Keller v. Electronic
Arts.
Brownmark Films v. Comedy Partners
Comedy Central, South Park Studios
Ongoing
Defending Comedy Central and South Park Studios against copyrightinfringement action in federal district court in Wisconsin arising from South
Park's parody of the Internet viral video "What What in the Butt."
Intellectual Property/First Amendment counsel
Entertainment Software Association
Ongoing
First Amendment counsel to the Entertainment Software Association, the
trade association that represents major video-game publishers in the
United States. Worked with the ESA on proposed right-of-publicity bills in
Michigan, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York,
encouraging lawmakers to afford video games the same protections as
other expressive works. Testified before legislative committees, met with
lawmakers, submitted written comments to proposed legislation, and
helped formulate ESA's strategy.

[e-mail]
213.633.6865 direct
213.633.6899 fax
Suite 2400
865 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, California 90017
Related Practices

Media & First Amendment
Copyright Litigation
Trademark Litigation

Intellectual Property Litigation
Defamation & Privacy
Government Regulation of Content
Misappropriation & Right of

Publicity
Access to Public Records &
Proceedings

Subpoenas & Reporters' Privilege
Commercial Speech & Advertising
Pre-Publication & Pre-Broadcast
Review

Theft of Ideas
Related Industries
Communications, Media &

Technology
Entertainment

Cable
Digital Media
Film
Publishing
Games
Television Programming &

Production

www.dwt.com

·um Tremarne LLP
oavisyYright
••
Los Angeles Times Communications LLC v. Los Angeles Sheriff's
Department and Long Beach Police Officers' Association v. City of
Long Beach
Los Angeles Times
Ongoing
Representing Los Angeles Times in these two Public Records Act lawsuits
concerning whether the names of peace officers who shoot and kill people
while on duty should be made public.

Alonzo (AI) Wickers IV
Partner
[e-mail]
213.633.6865

McGhee v. MTV Networks
MTV Networks
Ongoing
Defending MTV against idea-submission claims targeting hit reality show
"Randy Jackson Presents: America's Best Dance Crew."
Production & pre-broadcast counseling
Comedy Central, Showtime Networks, HBO, Versus, truTV and others
Ongoing
Regularly provide production and pre-broadcast advice for television
programs, webcasts and documentary films, including "South Park,"

"Tosh.O," 11 Californication," 11 United States of Tara," "Dexter, 11 and "Sports
Soup.n
Strouse-Johnson v. Penguin Group
Penguin Group
Ongoing
Defending Penguin against defamation, privacy, and right-of-publicity
claims based on statements by author of memoir about her experience as a
member of a royal harem in Brunei. Penguin's anti-SLAPP motion is
pending.
The Press-Enterprise v. San Bernardino County Employees'
Retirement Association
The Press-Enterprise
Ongoing
Representing The Press-Enterprise in Public Records Act lawsuit seeking
information about pensions paid to retired public employees.
Dane v. Gawker Media
Gawker Media
2010
Defended Gawker Media in a copyright-infringement lawsuit filed by actors
Eric Dane and Rebecca Gayheart, based on Gawker.com's publication of a
news item that included a clip from a videotape showing the couple and
another woman naked. In December 2009, the federal district court granted
Gawker's motion to strike plaintiffs' claims for statutory damages and
attorneys' fees. Case subsequently was resolved.
Rooke v. MTV Networks
MTV Networks
2010

www.dwt.com

Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP
Defended MTV Networks in an invasion-of-privacy, trespass, and
negligence lawsuit arising from the production and broadcast of the popular
reality television series "The Hills." MTV moved to strike the plaintiffhomeowner's claims under California's anti-SLAPP statute. After the court
dismissed the privacy and trespass claims and deferred ruling on the
negligence claim, the homeowner voluntarily dismissed all of his claims
against MTV to avoid liability for MTV's attorneys' fees.

Alonzo (AI) Wickers IV

Partner
[e-mail]
213.633.6865

Williams v. McGraw-Hill
McGraw-Hill

2010
Defended McGraw-Hill against copyright-infringement claim based on use
of allegedly copyrighted material in textbook. The district court granted
McGraw-Hill's motion to dismiss.
Hilton v. Hallmark Cards
Video Game Publishers

2009
Represented several video game publishers as amici counsel in connection
with rehearing petition in 9th Circuit in right-of-publicity case arising from
the use of Paris Hilton's likeness on a parodic greeting card. Court modified
original opinion, adopting amici's arguments.
lshkanian v. Baker
Wenner Media

2009
Successfully represented Wenner Media, publisher of US Weekly, in
persuading the California Court of Appeal to overturn a trial court's order
denying the magazine's special motion to strike a former employee's $55
million lawsuit for defamation and other torts. On remand, the trial court
awarded Wenner Media its attorneys' fees.
Mete v. Showtime Networks Inc.
Showtime Networks

2009
Defended Showtime Networks against idea-submission lawsuit filed by
woman who pitched idea for online reality program. Court sustained
Showtime's demurrer to complaint without leave to amend, and entered
judgment in favor of Showtime.
Freedom Communications v. Superior Court
Freedom Communications I The Orange County Register

2008
Petitioned Court of Appeal for emergency writ to vacate prior restraint
against newspaper. Court granted petition and issued published opinion
reaffirming strong constitutional presumption against prior restraints.
Mattei v. MCA
McGraw Hiii/BusinessWeek

2008

www.dwlcom

Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP
Defended BusinessWeek reporter who was subpoenaed to testify by Mattei
in multibillion-dollar civil lawsuit arising from ownership of "Bratz" dolls.
Relying on First Amendment reporter's privilege, we successfully opposed
Mattei's motion to quash and motions for reconsideration before the
discovery master, and Mattei's motions asking the district court judge to
reverse the master's orders.

Alonzo (AI) Wickers IV
Partner

[e-mail]
213.633.6865

Clark v. Cable News Network and Larry King
Cable News Network (CNN)

2007
Defended CNN and Larry King against defamation lawsuit filed by actress
Lynn Red grave's ex-husband, based on statements about their divorce
proceedings made on "Larry King Live." The 9th Circuit affirmed the district
court's order dismissing the lawsuit.
Spears v. US Weekly
US Weekly

2007
Defended US Weekly against libel claim by Britney Spears. Court granted
the magazine's anti-SLAPP motion, dismissed the lawsuit, and awarded
the magazine its attorneys' fees.
Board of Trustees of California v. Superior Court
Copley Press

2005
Represented The Copley Press, publisher of the San Diego Union-Tribune,
in a Public Records Act lawsuit against San Diego State University. The
courts ordered the university to release several documents, and awarded
the newspaper its attorneys' fees and costs.

In re Molz
California Newspaper Publishers Association

2005
Represented the California Newspaper Publishers Association as amicus
curiae in an important newspaper adjudication case. The Court of Appeal
allowed us to participate in oral argument and issued a published decision
adopting CNPA's position.
Los Angeles Times v. Board of Supervisors
Los Angeles Times

2003
Obtained important published decision from the Court of Appeal, reversing
a trial-court order denying attorneys' fees to a successful plaintiff in a
Brown Act open-meetings case.
Presentations
"California's Public Records Act: Nuts 'n Bolts," California Newspaper
Publishers Association Press and Governmental Affairs Summit, 04.16.11
"Privacy, Publicity, and Use and Protection of Data," NAAINAB/MLRC
Media Law Conference, Chantilly, Va.- Co-Chair, 2010

www.dwlcom

Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP
"Catastrophes: Case Studies, Can Attorneys Work Well with Others to
Manage and Survive Big Problems?" 7th Annual Media Law Resource
Center/Southwestern Law School Entertainment and Media Law
Conference, 2010

Alonzo (AI) Wickers IV
Partner
[e-mail]
213.633.6865

"Developments in Entertainment Law," ABA Forum on Communications
Law, 2008
"Developments in Entertainment and First Amendment Law," Entertainment
and Sports Law Conference and Intellectual Property Law Institute (GA,
NY, FL, TN State Bars), 2008
"Developments in Newsgathering," National Association of Broadcasters
Annual Conference, 2007
Newsgathering Breakout Session - Facilitator, 2007
MLRC/Southwestern Law School Digital Revolution Conference - Co-Chair,
2007
"Newsgathering and Pre-publication Review," HBO Legal Retreat, 2006
"Developments in Indecency Regulation," Entertainment and Sports Law
Conference and Intellectual Property Law Institute (GA, NY, FL, TN State
Bars), 2005
"Diversity in the Media Bar," ABA Forum on Communications Law,
Scottsdale, Airz., 2003
ABA Forum on Communications Law, Media Law Advocacy Workshop Faculty, 2003-2005, 2007-2009
"Access to Courtrooms and Court Records in High-Profile Trials," California
First Amendment Coalition Open Government '03 Conference, 2003
"Asserting Your CPRA Rights to Government Records," California First
Amendment Coalition Open Government '02 Conference, 2002
"Developments in Newsrack Law," Cal-Western Circulation Manager's
Annual Conference, 2002
"Defamation, Privacy and Publicity," UCLA Extension, Legal and Business
Program, 2000

Advisories
9th Circuit: California Idea-Submission Claims Not Preempted by Copyright
Act, 06.01.11
9th Circuit Significantly Revises Its Opinion in Hilton v. Hallmark Cards,
05.19.10
California Supreme Court Strongly Reaffirms Right of Access to Information
about Public Employees, 08.27.07
California Supreme Court Applies Electronic-Recording Statute to Calls
Placed from One-Party-Consent State into California, 07.28.06

www.dwlcom

Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP
Professional & Community Activities
•
•
•

Instructor, "Law of Mass Communications," Annenberg School for
Communication, University of Southern California, Fall 2000-2007
Founding Co-Chair, Media Law Resource Center, California
Chapter
Board ofTrustees, Hollywood United Methodist Church

Alonzo (AI) Wickers IV
Partner
[e-mail]
213.633.6865

Professional Recognition
•

•

•

•
•

Named as one of "America's Leading Lawyers for Business" in
Media & Entertainment: Litigation (California) by Chambers USA,
2006-present
Named as one of the "Best Lawyers in America" in Media Law by
Woodward/White, 2007-present; named in First Amendment Law,
201 a-present
Selected to "Southern California Super Lawyers" in First
Amendment/Media/Advertising, Entertainment & Sports, Law &
Politics, 2004-2011
Named as one of Lawdragon's "500 New Stars, New Worlds,"
2006
Named as one of California Law Business' "20 Under 40," 2000

Education
J.D., University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1993
A.B., History, Harvard College, 1989, magna cum laude
Admissions
U.S. Supreme Court, 2005
U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit, 2005
U.S. District Court Northern District of California, 2002
U.S. District Court Eastern District of California, 2000
U.S. District Court Central District of California, 1994
U.S. District Court Southern District of California, 1999
U.S. District Court Western District of Wisconsin, 2001
California, 1993

www.dwt.com

EXHIBIT I

LAWYERS

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
ANCHORAGE

BELLEVUE

LOS ANGELES

NEW YORK

PORTLAND

SAN FRANCISCO

SUITE 2200
1201 THIRD AVENUE
SEATTLE, WA 98101-3045

SEATTLE

SHANGHAI

WASHINGTON, D.C.

TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
www.dwt.com

FEDERAL ID #91-0839480

Viacomlnc.

October 16, 2008
Invoice No. 5734459

OCTOBER INVOICE FOR
STATEl\IIENT OF
SERVICES AND DISBURSEl\IIENTS
ELECTRONIC BILLING- DO NOT MAIL
FOR FILING PURPOSES ONLY
Period Covered Through: Sep 30, 2008
Re:

Case Name:
Client:
Matter:

3970094-000059
COl\IIEDY CENTRAL (See Narrative)
Brownmark What Cease and Desist

Date
09/23/08

Professional
A. Wickers

ABA
Code
Ll20

09/27/08

R. Aronson

Ll20

LOO

09/28/08

R.Aronson

Ll20

0.80

09/29/08

A. Wickers

Ll20

2.90

Time
0.40

Amount DescriJ!tion of Services
196.00 Telephone call with Ms.
West regarding demand
letter (J); review same (.1);
confer with R. Aronson
regarding response (.2)
Draft and revise response to
365.00
Brownmark letter
292.00 Revise response to
Brownmark letter
1,421.00 Confer with R. Aronson
regarding letter to counsel
for Brownmark (.2); edit
draft ofletter responding to
cease and desist letter from
Brownmark regarding Sou1h
Park's parody ofWhat What

PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE
INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED ON INVOICES WHICH ARE 45 DAYS PAST DUE
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE WILL BE REFLECTED ON NEXT MONTH'S BILLING

nwT 17629857vl 3970094-000069

Date

Professional

ABA
Code

Time

Amount Descri[!tion of Services
video (2.7)

09/30/08

R.Aronson

L120

0.30

109.50 Research fair-use cases in
Wisconsin/7th Circuit for
Brownmark letter (.3)
$2,383.50

Total Services

5.40

TOTAL SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS- TillS INVOICE
Total Current Services

$2,383.50

Less Courtesy Discount

($357.53)

Adjusted Current Services
Total Current Disbursements
Total Current Invoice

PLEASE REMIT WITH PAYMENT
nWT 171l29R57v I

~Q70094-0000h9

$2,025.97
$0.00
$2,025.97

LAWYERS

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
ANCHORAGE

BELLEVUE

LOS ANGELES

NEW YORK

PORTLAND

SAN FRANCISCO

SEATTLE

SUITE 2200
1201 THIRD AVENUE
SEATTLE, WA 98101-3045

SHANGHAI

WASHINGTON, D.C.

TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
www.dwt.com

FEDERAL ID #91-0839480

Viacom Inc.

October 16, 2008
Invoice No. 5734456
SENT ELECTRONICALLY

OCTOBER INVOICE FOR
STATEMENT OF
SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS

ELECTRONIC BILLING -DO NOT MAIL
FOR FILING PURPOSES ONLY
Period Covered Through: Sep 30, 2008
Re:

Case Name:
Client:
Matter:

3970094-000008
COMEDY CENTRAL (See Narrative)
Comedy Central/General Advice - LA

Time Description of Services

Professional
09/23/08

R. Aronson

09/24/08

R. Aronson

C300

09/25/08

R. Aronson

1.10 Confer with A. Wickers regarding
Brownmark claim letter and draft response
letter ( 1.1)
.80 Draft response to Brownmark claim letter
(.8)
.90 Research and draft response to Brownmark
claim letter (.9)

C300

C300

Total Hours

2.80

PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE
INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED ON INVOICES WHICH ARE 45 DAYS PAST DUE
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE WILL BE REFLECTED ON NEXT MONTH'S BILLING

DWT I 7629932vl 3970094-000069

TOTAL SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS- TillS INVOICE
Total Current Services

$1,022.00

Less Agreed Discount

($153.30)

Adjusted Current Services

$868.70

Total Current Invoice

$868.70

PLEASE REMIT WITH PAYMENT
nWT 17629932vl3970094·000069

LAWYERS

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
ANCHORAGE

BELLEVUE

LOS ANGELES

NEW YORK

PORTLAND

SAN FRANCISCO

SUITE 2200
1201 THIRD AVENUE
SEATTLE, WA ·98101-3045

SEATTLE

SHANGHAI

WASHINGTON, D.C.

TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
www.dwt.com

FEDERAL ID #91-0839480

Viacom Inc.

November 13, 2008
Invoice No. 5743047

NOVEMBER INVOICE FOR
STATEMENT OF
SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS
Period Covered Through: Oct 31, 2008
Re:

Case Name:
Client:
Matter:

3970094-000059
COMEDY CENTRAL (See Narrative)
South Park Brownmark Claim

ABA
Date
10/02/08

Professional
A. Wickers

Code
Ll20

Time
0.90

10/03/08

A. Wickers

L120

0.80

10/06/08

A. Wickers

Ll20

0.40

Amount Description of Services
441.00 Review additional Seventh
Circuit case law and add to
letter (.5); finalize letter (.4)
392.00 Telephone call with Ms.
West regarding claimant's
response to letter (.1);
telephone call with Ms. West
and Ms. Hallie regarding
same (.2); search for
information regarding local
counsel in Wisconsin (.2);
review materials relating to
Episode 1204 of South Park,
including parody video (.3)
196.00 Confer with Ms. West, Ms.
Windt, and attorneys in
Wisconsin regarding
potential South Park claim
and pull materials related to
same (.4)

PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE
INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED ON INVOICES WHICH ARE 45 DAYS PAST DUE
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE WILL BE REFLECTED ON NEXT MONTH'S BILLING

DWT I7630019vl3970094-000069

Date
10/07/08

Professional
A. Wickers

ABA
Code
L120

Total Services

Time
1.30

3.40

Amonnt Descril!tion of Services
637.00 Confer with Mr. Peterson
regarding status and strategy
(.2); prepare for conference
call (.3); conference call with
Ms. Windt and Mr. Peterson
regarding case (.4); review
(.4)
$1,416.10

TOTAL SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS- THIS INVOICE
Total Current Services

$1,960.00

Less Agreed Discount

($294.00)

Adjusted Current Services

$1,416.10

Total Current Invoice

$1,416.00

PLEASE REMIT WITH PAYMENT
DWT J7630019vl3970094·000069

·m Davis Y'Jright
l!

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle. WA 98101-3045

•• Trematne LLP

206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

Viacominc.

March 16, 2009
Invoice No. 5773156
SENT ELECTRONICALLY

MARCH INVOICE FOR
STATEMENT OF
SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS

ELECTRONIC BILLING -DO NOT MAIL
FOR FILING PURPOSES ONLY
Period Covered Through: Feb 28, 2009
Re:

Case Name:
Client:
Matter:

3970094-000059
COMEDY CENTRAL (See Narrative)
South Park Brownmark Claim

Date
02/09/09

Professional
R. Aronson

ABA
Code
Ll20

Time
0.10

02/10/09

A. Wickers

Ll20

0.30

02/11109

A. Wickers

Ll20

0.10

Amonnt Description of Services
38.00 Review correspondence from
producers of What What
video
147.00 Review email from
claimants to Mr. Parker and
Mr. Stone and confer with
Ms. Sankton regarding same
(.2); telephone call to Mr.
Goodman regarding same
(.1)
49.00 Telephone call to claimant's
counsel regarding status of
representation and claimants'
letter to Mr. Parker and Mr.
Stone (.1)

PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE
INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED ON INVOICES WHICH ARE 45 DAYS PAST DUE
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE WILL BE REFLECTED ON NEXT MONTH"S BILLING
Anchorage

I

NewYork

Bellevue

Portland
San Francisco

Los Angeles

I

DWT 17630087v13970094·000069

Seattle
Shanghai

I Washington, D.C.

www.dwt.coni-

Date
02/12/09

Professional
A. Wickers

ABA
Code
Ll20

Time
0.50

02/25/09

A. Wickers

Ll20

0.20

1.20

Total Services

Amount DescriJ!tion of Services
245.00 Telephone call with Ms.
Windt regarding letter from
claimants to Mr. Stone and
Mr. Parker (.2); telephone
call to Mr. Goodman
regarding same (.1); draft
letter to claimant's counsel
(.2)
98.00 Confer with Ms. Sankton
regarding response to Mr.
Swant's and Mr. Ciraldo's
letter to Mr. Parker and Mr.
Stone
$490.45

TOTAL SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS -THIS INVOICE
Total Current Services

$577.00

Less Agreed Discount

($86.55)

Adjusted Current Services

$490.45

Total Current Invoice

$490.45

PLEASE REMIT WITH PAYMENT

I

Anchorage
Bellevue
Los Angeles

NewYork

I

Portland
San Francisco

DWT !7630087v!3970094-000069

I

Seattle
Shanghai
Washington. D.C.

www.dwt.coni-

iiJ Davis \(\/right
a:.. Trema1ne

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045

LLP

206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

Viacom Inc.

January 12, 2011
Invoice No. 5942569
SENT ELECTRONICALLY

JANUARY INVOICE FOR
STATEMENT OF
SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS

ELECTRONIC BILLING -DO NOT MAIL
FOR FILING PURPOSES ONLY
Re:

Case Name:
Client:
Matter:

Period Covered Through: Dec 31,2010
3970094-000069
COMEDY CENTRAL (See Narrative)
Brownmark

Date
11/13/10

Professional
A. Wickers

ABA
Code
C300

11/15/10

A. Wickers

C300

0.90

11/16/10

A. Wickers

C300

0.60

Time
0.20

Amount Descril!tion of Services
83.30 Review complaint filed
against Comedy Central,
South Park Studios, and
others in Wisconsin ( .2)
374.85 Telephone calls with Mr.
Mauceri, Mr. Fox, and Ms.
Garefino regarding What
What in the Butt lawsuit (.5);
review previous letters to
plaintiff's counsel regarding
same (.3); review press
statement(.!)
249.90 Review materials related to
Canada on Strike episode

PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE
INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED ON INVOICES WHICH ARE 45 DAYS PAST DUE
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE WILL BE REFLECTED ON NEXT MONTH'S BILLING
NewYork

Anchorage

Bellevue

I Los Angeles

I

Portland

San Francisco

DWT 176301!8vl 3970094-000069

Seattle

Shanghai

I Washington. D.C.

WWW'.dwt.coni-

Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP

Suite 2200

1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045
206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

Date

Professional

ABA
Code

Time

11/18/10

A. Wickers

C300

0.40

11/30/10

A. Wickers

C300

0.20

12/01/10

A. Wickers

C300

0.60

12/02/10

A. Wickers

C300

1.20

12/02/10

J. Glasser

C300

0.60

12/03/10

A. Wickers

C300

0.50

Anchorage
Bellevue

I

Los Angeles

I

NewYork
Portland
San Fmncisco

DWT l7630118vl 3970094-000069

Amount DescriJ!tion of Services
and forward to Ms. Aronson
(.3); communicate with Ms.
Aronson ( .3)
166.60 Communicate with Ms.
Aronson (.2); analyze
standing issues for
Brownmark in light of
copyright registration
certificate (.2)
83.30 Communicate with Ms.
Aronson regarding service
and review waiver of service
of summons (.2)
249.90 Telephone call with Ms.
Aronson regarding strategy
for responding to complaint
and related issues (.3);
review service materials(.!);
pull materials regarding
Seventh Circuit copyright
cases (.2)
499.80 Communicate with J. Glasser
regarding Seventh Circuit
research and other preresponse issues (.3); review
clips (.2); review Eastern
District of Wisconsin local
rules (.2); review
information about judge and
communicate with C.
Gilbertson regarding
research about judge's
copyright opinions (.4);
communicate with Ms.
Aronson regarding same (.1)
135.15 Review complaint, video,
and copyright records and
related conferring with A.
Wickers ( .6)
208.25 Review results of research

Seattle

I

Shanghai

Washington. D.C.

www.dwt.com-

Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045
206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

Date

Professional

ABA
Code

Time

12/03/10

J. Glasser

C300

3.60

12/03/10

C. Gilbertson

C300

1.50

12/06/10

A. Wickers

C300

0.70

12/06/10

J. Glasser

C300

1.00

12/07/10

A. Wickers

C300

0.10

12/09/10

A. Wickers

C300

0.50

12/12/10

A. Wickers

C300

0.40

12113/10

A. Wickers

C300

0.30

12/14/10

J. Glasser

C300

0.60

12115/10

A. Wickers

C300

1.00

Anchorage
Bellevue
Los Angeles

I

NewYork
Portland

I San Francisco

DWT !7630118v!3970094-000069

Amount DescriJltion of Services
(.4); attention to waiver of
service forms (.1)
810.90 Research and draft
memorandum (3.6)
95.63 Search for copyright
decisions by Judge J.P.
Stadtmuller for A. Wickers
(1.5)
291.55 Review results of additional
research for possible motion
to dismiss (.5); communicate
with Ms. Aronson regarding
waiver of service of
summons (.1 ); draft letter to
opposing counsel (.1)
225.25 Research and draft
memorandum (1.0)
41.65 Communicate with Ms.
Aronson ( .1)
208.25 Telephone call with Mr.
McChrystal regarding
service issues (.2); revise
letter to Mr. McChrystal (.1);
telephone call with Ms.
Aronson regarding possible
motion to dismiss (.2)
Review Ninth Circuit parody
166.60
cases and annotate for use on
12(b )(6) motion (.4)
124.95 Review copyright opinions
from judge assigned to case
(.3)
135.15 Draft budget for copyright
infringement case involving
Brownmark Films and
Comedy Central and related
conferring with A. Wickers
(.6)
416.50 Telephone call with Mr.
Peterson (Wisconsin

Seattle
Shanghai

I Washington, D.c.

www.dwt.corri-

·uiil Davis \(\/right
•• Trema1ne

Suite 2200

1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045

LLP

206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

Date

Professional

ABA
Code

Time

12/15/10

J. Glasser

C300

1.00

12/16/10

A. Wickers

C300

0.20

12119/10

J. Glasser

C300

1.30

12/20/10

A. Wickers

C300

0.50

12/20/10

J. Glasser

C300

1.60

12/21/10

A. Wickers

C300

0.30

12/22/10

A. Wickers

C300

0.20

12/28/10

A. Wickers

C300

0.10

Total Services

I

Anchorage
Bellevue
Los Angeles

NewYork

I

Portland

San Francisco

DWT 17630118vl3970094-000069

20.10

Amount Descril!tion of Services
counsel) regarding
procedures in Eastern
District of Wisconsin and
related issues (.3); meet with
J. Glasser to analyze issues
for motion to dismiss (.6);
review Rule 15 (.I)
225.25 Meeting with A. Wickers
regarding bringing 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss on fair use
grounds and related
conference call with local
counsel and Mr. Wickers in
Comedy Central case against
Brownmark (1.0)
83.30 Communicate with Ms.
Aronson regarding strategy
(.2)
292.83 Research and related
correspondence with A.
Wickers for Brownmark case
(1.3)
208.25 Review cases from J. Glasser
(.5)
360.40 Research and draft
correspondence to Ms.
Aronson and A. Wickers
(1.6)
124.95 Review and edit draft
memorandum to Ms.
Aronson regarding legal
research ( .3)
83.30 Review results of research
(.2)
41.65 Communicate with Ms.
Aronson regarding ( .1 );
finalize budget (No Charge)
$5,987.41

Seattle
Shanghai

I Washington, D.C.

www.dwt.coni-

il Davis Y'fright
a: •• Trema1ne

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045

LLP

206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

TOTAL SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS- TillS INVOICE
Total Current Services
Less Agreed Discount

Los Angeles

$5,987.41

Total Current Invoice

I

($1,056.60)

Adjusted Current Services

Anchorage
Bell ewe

$7,044.01

$5,987.41

NewYork
Portland

I San Francisco

DWT 17630118vl3970094-000069

Seattle
Shanghai

I Washington. D.C.

www.dwt.corri-

Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045
206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederallD #91-0839480

Viacomlnc.

February 28, 2011
Invoice No. 5954316
SENT ELECTRONICALLY

FEBRUARY INVOICE FOR
STATEMENT OF
SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS

ELECTRONIC BILLING -DO NOT MAIL
FOR FILING PURPOSES ONLY
Re:

Case Name:
Client:
Matter:

Period Covered Through: Jan 31,2011
3970094-000069
COMEDY CENTRAL (See Narrative)
Brownmark

Date
01/03/11

Professional
A. Wickers

ABA
Code
C300

Time
0.30

01/13/11

A. Wickers

C300

0.10

01117/11

A. Wickers

C300

0.20

Amount Description of Services
124.95 Telephone call with
plaintiff's counsel regarding
standing issue and possible
amendment (.2);
communicate with Ms.
Aronson regarding same (.1)
41.65 Telephone call to Mr.
McChrystal regarding
schedule for amended
complaint and responsive
pleading (.1)
83.30 Attention to schedule for
plaintiff's amended

PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE
INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED ON INVOICES WHICH ARE 45 DAYS PAST DUE
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE WILL BE REFLECTED ON NEXT MONTH'S BILLING
Anchorage

I

Bellevue

Los Angeles

I

NewYork
Portland
San francisco

DWT 17630136vl 3970094-000069

Seattle
Shanghai

I Washington, D.C.

www.dwt.com-

Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045
206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

Date

Professional

ABA
Code

Time

01/19/11
01/19/11

A. Wickers
J. Glasser

C300
C300

0.20
0.60

01/20/11

J. Glasser

C300

0.50

01/25/11

J. Glasser

C300

0.10

01/26/11

J. Glasser

C300

1.20

01127/11

J. Glasser

C300

5.80

Total Services

9.00

Amount Descril!tion of Services
complaint and responsive
pleading (.2)
83.30 Edit stipulation (.2)
135.15 Call Mr. McChrystal and Mr.
Peterson re stipulating to
time for filing of amended
answer and extending time
for responsive pleading (.2);
Draft stipulation and
proposed order and related
conferring with A. Wickers
(.4)
112.63 Revise stipulation, call cocounsel, Mr. Peterson, and
related correspondence with
opposing counsel, Mr.
McChrystal and A. Wickers
22.53 Correspondence with Mr.
McChrystal regarding
Court's order granting
stipulation
270.30 Research and draft motion to
dismiss/motion for summary
judgment based on fair use
doctrine
1,306.45 Research and draft motion to
dismiss/motion for summary
judgment based on fair use
doctrine
$2,180.26

PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE
INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED ON INVOICES WHICH ARE 45 DAYS PAST DUE
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE WILL BE REFLECTED ON NEXT MONTH'S BILLING

I

Anchorage
Bellevue
Los Angeles

NewYork
Portland

I San Francisco

DWT 17630136vl 3970094-000069

Seattle

I

Shanghai

Washington. D.C.

www.dwt.com-

Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP

Suite 2200

1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA98101-3045
206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

TOTAL SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS- TillS INVOICE
Total Current Services
Less Agreed Discount
Adjusted Current Services
Total Current Disbursements
Total Current Invoice

$2,565.01
($384.75)
$2,180.26
$0.00
$2,180.26

PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE
INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED ON INVOICES WHICH ARE 45 DAYS PAST DUE
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE WILL BE REFLECTED ON NEXT MONTH'S BILLING

I

Anchorage
Bellevue
Los Angeles

NewYork

I

Portland
san FranciSco

DWT !7630136v!3970094-000069

Seattle

I

Shanghai

Washington. D.C.

www.dwt.com-

Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045

206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

Viacominc.

March 31, 2011
Invoice No. 5962190
SENT ELECTRONICALLY

MARCH INVOICE FOR
STATEMENT OF
SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS

ELECTRONIC BILLING -DO NOT MAIL
FOR FILING PURPOSES ONLY
Re:

Case Name:
Client:
Matter:

Period Covered Through: Feb 28, 2011
3970094-000069
COMEDY CENTRAL (See Narrative)
Brownmark

Date
02/01111

Professional
J. Glasser

ABA
Code
C300

Time
6.30

02/02/11

J. Glasser

C300

7.30

02/04/11

A. Wickers

C300

0.50

02/08/11

A. Wickers

C300

1.60

Amount Descri(!tion of Services
1,419.08 Research aod draft motion to
dismiss/motion for summary
judgment based on fair use
doctrine
1,644.33 Research aod draft motion to
dismiss/motion for summary
judgment based on fair use
doctrine
208.25 Review aod annotate first
draft of motion to dismiss
666.40 Annotate aod edit draft of
motion to dismiss (1.2);
communicate with J. Glasser

PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE
INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED ON INVOICES WHICH ARE 45 DAYS PAST DUE
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE WILL BE REFLECTED ON NEXT MONTH'S BILLING
Anchorage

I

NewYork

Bellevue

Portland

Los Angeles

I

San Francisco

DWT 17630143vl 3970094-000069

Seattle

I

Shanghai

Washington. D.C.

www.dwt.coni-

Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045

206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

Date

Professional

ABA
Code

Time

02/08/11

J. Glasser

C300

0.60

02/09/11

A. Wickers

C300

0.20

02/09/11

J. Glasser

C300

0.10

02/10/11

A. Wickers

C300

0.20

02/10/11

J. Glasser

C300

7.40

02/11111

A. Wickers

C300

0.50

02/11111

J. Glasser

C300

2.30

02/12/11

A. Wickers

C300

4.60

02113111
02/15111

A. Wickers
A. Wickers

C300
C300

3.60
0.40

02/15/11

J. Glasser

C300

1.70

Amount DescriJ!tion of Services
regarding revisions for
motion (.4)
135.15 Communicate with A.
Wickers regarding motion to
dismiss (.4); correspondence
with Mr. Peterson regarding
Eastern District of
Wisconsin requirements (.1)
83.30 Communicate with J. Glasser
regarding issues for motion
to dismiss (.2)
22.53 Correspondence with Mr.
Peterson regarding motion to
dismiss
83.30 Review amended complaint
(.2)
1,666.85 Research, draft, and revise
motion to dismiss/motion for
summary judgment based on
fair use doctrine
208.25 Attention to standing issue
and assignment by fewer
than all joint owners (.5)
518.08 Confer with A. Wickers
regarding strategy for motion
(.1); draft motion (.2);
research assignment issue
and draft section of brief on
this issue (2.0)
1,915.90 Edit draft of motion to
dismiss, including review of
cases (4.6)
1,499.40 Edit motion to dismiss (3 .6)
166.60 Attention to motion to
dismiss, including
procedural issues in Eastern
District of Wisconsin (.4)
382.93 Draft request for judicial
notice, Glasser declaration,
and proposed order for

PLEASE REMIT WITH PAYMENT

I Anchocage
Bellevue
Los Angeles

I NewYo'k
Portland
San Francisco

DWT 17630143vl3970094-000069

I Shanghai
Seottle
Washington, D.C.

www.dwt.com-

iiJ., Davis Y\fright
11• Trematne

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045

LLP

206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

Date

Professional

ABA
Code

Time

02/16/11

A. Wickers

C300

0.40

02/16/11

B. Planchon

C300

2.80

02/17/11

A. Wickers

C300

1.20

02/17/11

J. Glasser

C300

0.50

02/18/11

A. Wickers

C300

0.40

Amount

Descri~tion

of Services
judicial notice (1.6);
correspondence with Mr.
Peterson regarding motion to
dismiss (.1)
166.60 Attention to issues for
motion to dismiss (.4)
428.40 Review Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint or for Summary
Judgment for all cites to
judicial authority and
prepare negative history
report and review report and
prepare summary for J.
·Glasser
499.80 Communicate with J. Glasser
regardiog exhibits for motion
( .1 ); edit draft of request for
judicial notice and proposed
order (.6); review and
analyze Ms. Aronson's
redline comments (.2);
telephone call with Ms.
Aronson regarding motion
(.1); prepare for filing (.2)
112.63 Call with Ms. Aronson and
A. Wickers regarding motion
to dismiss and related
correspondence with Ms.
Aronson (.1); confer with A.
Wickers and H. Murray
regardiog DVD exhibits (.3);
correspondence with Mr.
Peterson regarding getting A.
Wickers and J. Glasser
admitted to the Eastern
District of Wisconsin ( .1)
166.60 Communicate with Ms.
Aronson regardiog exhibits
for reply brief (.1); attention

PLEASE REMIT WITH PAYMENT

I

Anchorage
Bellevue
LDsAngeles

I

NewYork
Portland

San Fmncisco

DWT 17630143vl 3970094-000069

I

Seattle
Shanghai

washington, D.C.

www.dwt.corri-

Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045

206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

Date

Professional

ABA
Code

Time

02/18/11

J. Glasser

C300

1.30

02/20/11

J. Glasser

C300

1.20

02/21111

A. Wickers

C300

1.70

02/21111

J. Glasser

C300

0.20

02/22/11

A. Wickers

C300

1.00

Amount Descril!tion of Services
to Eastern District of
Wisconsin procedures (.3)
292.83 Call with Mr. Peterson
concerning motion to
dismiss, pro hac vice
applications, and related
issues (.2); confer with A.
Wickers, H. Murray and G.
Pesqueira regarding DVD
exhibits (.3); revise motion
to dismiss and related
correspondence with A.
Wickers (.8)
Revise memorandum oflaw,
270.30
request for judicial notice,
proposed order regarding
judicial notice, and Glasser
declaration, and draft
proposed order regarding
motion to dismiss
708.05 Review and finalize drafts of
motion to dismiss,
supporting memorandum of
points and authorities,
request for judicial notice,
declaration, and proposed
orders, including review of
Mr. Peterson's suggestions
and communications with J.
Glasser (1. 7)
45.05 Correspondence with A.
Wickers regarding Mr.
Peterson's edits and
comments and discussion of
exhibits and declaration
416.50 Prepare for filing, including
attention to corporate
disclosure issues (.9);
communicate with Ms.
Garefino regarding motion

PLEASE REMIT WITH PAYMENT

I

Ancho<age
Bellevue
Los Angeles

I

NewYork
Portland

San Francisco

DWT !7630143vl3970094-000069

I

Seattle
Shanghai

Washington, D.C.

www.dwt.com

-

iftl Davis \Afright
a: •• Trema1ne

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045

LLP

206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

Date

Professional

ABA
Code

02/22111

J. Glasser

C300

4.10

02/24/11

J. Glasser

C300

0.50

02/25/11

A. Wickers

C300

0.10

Total Services

Time

52.70

Amount DescriJ:!tion of Services
(.1)
923.53 Revise and proof motion to
dismiss, Glasser Declaration,
request for judicial notice,
two proposed orders, and
Local Rule 70) Appendix
(3.1); draft corporate
disclosure statement and
related calls and
correspondence with Mr.
Peterson, Ms. Aronson and
A. Wickers (.9);
correspondence with Mr.
Peterson regarding whether a
hearing will be held and
briefing schedule (.1)
112.63 Draft Amended Corporate
Disclosure Statement and
related correspondence with
Mr. Peterson and A. Wickers
( .3 ); correspondence with
Mr. Peterson and A. Wickers
regarding procedure in
Eastern District of
Wisconsin for these 1ypes of
motions and related review
of Eastern District of
Wisconsin rules (.2)
41.65 Attention to briefing
schedule and local practice
regarding hearings ( .1)
$14,804.92

PLEASEREMITWITHPAYMENT
Anchorage

I

NewVork

Seattle

Bellevue
Los Angeles

Portland

Shanghai

I

San Francisco

DWT 17630!43vl3970094-000069

I Washington, D.C.

www.dwt.conl-

·um Davis \(\/right
•• Trema1ne

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045

LLP

206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

TOTAL SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS- THIS INVOICE
Total Current Services

$17,417.55

Less Agreed Discount

($2,612.63)

Adjusted Current Services

$14,804.92

Total Current Disbursements
Total Current Invoice

$0.00
$14,804.92

PLEASE REMIT WITH PAYMENT

I

Anchorage
BeUevue
Los Angeles

I

NewYork
Por11and
San Francisco

DWT 17630!43vl3970094-000069

I

Seattle
Shanghai

Washington. D.C.

www.dwt.com-

Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045
206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

Viacom Inc.

April27, 2011
Invoice No. 5969431
SENTELECTRONlCALLY

APRIL INVOICE FOR
STATEMENT OF
SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS

ELECTRONIC BILLING -DO NOT MAIL
FOR FILING PURPOSES ONLY
Re:

Case Name:
Client:
Matter:

Period Covered Through: Mar31, 2011
3970094-000069
COMEDY CENTRAL (See Narrative)
Brownmark

Date
03/15/11

Professional
A. Wickers

ABA
Code
L240

Time
0.70

03/16/11

A. Wickers

L190

0.10

03/16/11

J. Glasser

L240

0.30

Amount Description of Services
291.55 Review and analyze
plaintiffs opposition to
motion to dismiss (.4);
attention to plaintiffs request
to schedule early meeting of
counsel (.3)
41.65 Communicate with Ms.
Gregor (local counsel)
regarding meet and confer
issue (.1)
67.58 Review opposition to motion
to dismiss filed by

PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE
INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED ON INVOICES WHICH ARE 45 DAYS PAST DUE
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE WILL BE REFLECTED ON NEXT MONTH'S BILLING
Anchorage

I

Bellevue
Los Angeles

NewVork
Portland

I San Francisco

DWT 17630149vl3970094-000069

Seattle
Shanghai

I Washington. D.C.

www.dwt.conl-

•f.l Davis yYright
l!•• Tremaine

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045

LLP

206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

Date

Professional

ABA
Code

Time

03/17/11

A. Wickers

Ll90

0.80

03/17/11

J. Glasser

Ll90

0.40

03/18/11

J. Glasser

Ll10

3.60

810.90 Call and correspondence
with M. Nelson re standing
issue (.4); research and draft
reply (3.2)

03/21111

J. Glasser

Ll20

2.20

495.55 Research and draft reply

03/23/11
03/24/11
03/25/11

J. Glasser
J. Glasser
A. Wickers

Ll20
Ll20
L240

4.20
6.30
0.90

03/25/11

J. Glasser

L110

6.80

03/28/11

A. Wickers

Ll20

0.50

03/28/11

J. Glasser

L110

1.20

Descri~tion of Services
Brownmark
333.20 Communicate with J. Glasser
regarding issues for reply in
support of motion to dismiss,
additional research issues,
and structure of brief (.5);
brief research regarding
sarne(.3)
90.10 Meeting with A. Wickers
concerning reply in support
of motion to dismiss (.4);
leave message forM. Nelson
concerning standing issue
(.1)

Amount

946.05 Research and draft reply
1,419.08 Research and draft reply
374.85 Communicate with J. Glasser
regarding issues for reply
brief (.4); review initial draft
of reply brief(.5)
1,531.70 Research and draft reply and
related correspondence with
A. Wickers
208.25 Communicate with Ms.
Aronson regarding reply
brief (.2); attention to
standing section of brief (.3)
270.30 Research cases
distinguishing Edgenet,

PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE
INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED ON INVOICES WHICH ARE 45 DAYS PAST DUE
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE WILL BE REFLECTED ON NEXT MONTH'S BILLING

I

Anchorage
Bellevue
Los Angeles

I

NewYork
Portland
San Fmncisco

DWT 17630149vl 3970094·000069

I

s"ttle

Shanghai

Washington, D.C.

www.dwt.com-

·m
l!

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045

Davis yYright

•• Trema1ne LLP

206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

Date

Professional

ABA
Code

Time

03/28/11

K.Roth

Ll40

3.70

03/29/11

A. Wickers

Ll20

1.20

03/29/11

J. Glasser

Ll20

1.70

03/30/11

A. Wickers

Ll20

0.60

03/30/11

J. Glasser

Ll20

0.90

36.10

Total Services

Amount Descri[!tion of Services
Copyright.net, etc. and
supporting Sybersound and
revise reply
235.88 Cite check reply regarding
Motion to Dismiss
499.80 Edit revised draft of brief
(1.2)
382.93 Calls with Mr. Peterson and
Ms. Gregor re reply and
related conferring with A.
Wickers (.3); research
citations by Seventh Circuit
to Ninth Circuit authority
and revise brief (1.4)
249.90 Final review of reply brief
(.6)
202.73 Research, revise reply brief,
and related correspondence
with A. Wickers and Ms.
Gregor
$8,452.00

PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE
INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED ON INVOICES WHICH ARE 45 DAYS PAST DUE
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE WILL BE REFLECTED ON NEXT MONTH'S BILLING
Anchorage

I

Bellevue
Los Angeles

I

NewYork
Portland

San Francisco

DWT !7630149vl3970094-000069

Seattle
Shanghai

I Washington, D.C.

www.dwt.corri-

DavisWright
Tremaine LLP

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045
206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

TOTAL SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS- TIDS INVOICE
Total Current Services

$9,943.52

Less Agreed Discount

($1,491.52)

Adjusted Current Services

$8,452.00

Total Current Invoice

$8,452.00

PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE
INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED ON INVOICES WHICH ARE 45 DAYS PAST DUE
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE WILL BE REFLECTED ON NEXT MONTH'S BILLING

I

Anchorage
Bellevue
Los Angeles

NewVork

I

Portland
San FranciSco

DWT 17630149vl3970094-000069

Seattle
Shanghai

I Washington. D.C.

www.dwt.coni-

Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045
206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

Viacomlnc.

May 16,2011
Invoice No. 5974690
SENT ELECTRONICALLY

MAY INVOICE FOR
STATEMENT OF
SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS

ELECTRONIC BILLING -DO NOT MAIL
FOR FILING PURPOSES ONLY
Re:

Case Name:
Client:
Matter:

Period Covered Through: Apr 30, 2011
3970094-000069
COMEDY CENTRAL (See Narrative)
Brownmark

ABA
Date
04/06/11

Professional
A. Wickers

Code
Ll20

Time
0.20

04/08/11

J. Glasser

Ll20

0.50

Amount Description of Services
83.30 Review new First
Amendment case from
district court in Seventh
Circuit and communicate
with J. Glasser regarding
possible notice of
supplemental authority (.2)
112.63 Review Best v. Berard
decision and analyze
whether to submit as
supplemental authority (.3);
call with Ms. Gregor re
whether to file supplemental
authority with the Court on

PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE
INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED ON INVOICES WHICH ARE 45 DAYS PAST DUE
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE WILL BE REFLECTED ON NEXT MONTH'S BILLING

I

Anchorage
Benevue

Los Angeles

NewYork

Seattle

Portland

Shanghai
Washington, D.C.

I San Francisco

DWT 17630160vl3970094-000069

I

www.dwt.conl-

Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP

Suite 2200

1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045
206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

Date

Professional

ABA
Code

Time

0.70

Total Services

Amonnt Descri)ltion of Services
the motion to dismiss issue
and related correspondence
and conferring with A.
Wickers (.2)
$195.93

TOTAL SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS- TillS INVOICE
Total Current Services

$230.51

Less Agreed Discount

($34.58)

Adjusted Current Services

$195.93

Total Current Disbursements
Total Current Invoice

$0.00
$195.93

PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE
INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED ON INVOICES WHICH ARE 45 DAYS PAST DUE
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE WILL BE REFLECTED ON NEXT MONTH'S BILLING
Anchorage

I

Portland

Seattle

NewYork

Bellevue

Los Angeles

I

San Francisco

nwT I7630!60v13970094-000069

I

Shanghai

Washington, D.C.

www.dwt.coni-

·m Davis Y'fright
l!•• Trema1ne

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045

LLP

206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

Viacomlnc.

June 17,2011
Invoice No. 5982732
SENT ELECTRONICALLY

JUNE INVOICE FOR
STATEMENT OF
SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS

ELECTRONIC BILLING -DO NOT MAIL
FOR FILING PURPOSES ONLY
Case Name:
Client:
Matter:

Re:

Date
05/24/11

Professional
J. Glasser

Period Covered Through: May 31,2011
3970094-000069
COMEDY CENTRAL (See Narrative)
Brownmark
ABA
Code
1130

Total Services

Time
0.20

0.20

Amount Description of Services
45.05 Confer with A. Wickers and
C. Solano regarding
admissions to Eastern
District of Wisconsin and
related preparing of forms
for admission
$45.05

PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE
INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED ON INVOICES WHICH ARE 45 DAYS PAST DUE
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE WILL BE REFLECTED ON NEXT MONTH'S BILLING

I

Anchorage
Bellevue
Los Angeles

rmrr 17,:;1111 ?;7v1

I

NewYork
Portland
San Francisco

1Q7110QA.~0000r'\Q

Seattle

I

Shanghai

Washington, D.C.

www.dwt.coni-

iP.J Davis \(Vright

a: ••

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 96101-3045

Trema1ne LLP

206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

TOTAL SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS- TillS INVOICE
Total Current Services

$53.00

Less Agreed Discount

($7.95)

Adjusted Current Services

$45.05

Total Current Disbursements

$0.00

Total Current Invoice

$45.05

PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE
INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED ON INVOICES WHICH ARE 45 DAYS PAST DUE
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE WILL BE REFLECTED ON NEXT MONTH'S BILLING
Anchorage
Bellevue
Los Angeles

I

I

NewYork
Portland

San Francisco

DWT 17630167vl3970094-000069

Seattle
Shanghai

I Washington. D.C.

www.dwt.coni-

Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045
206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

Viacomlnc.

July 15, 2011
Invoice No. 5988758
SENT ELECTRONICALLY

JlJLY INVOICE FOR
STATEMENT OF
SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS

ELECTRONIC BILLING -DO NOT MAIL
FOR FILING PURPOSES ONLY
Re:

Case Name:
Client:
Matter:

Period Covered Through: Jun 30, 2011
3970094-000069
COMEDY CENTRAL (See Narrative)
Brownmark

Date
06/01111

Professional
J. Glasser

ABA
Code
LBO

Time
0.10

06/06111

A. Wickers

Ll20

0.10

Total Services

0.20

Amount Descri)!tion of Services
22.53 Call with Ms. Gregor re
filing papers for admission to
B.D. Wisconsin and related
correspondence with A.
Wickers
41.65 Review materials from Ms.
Gregor regarding admission
to Eastern District of
Wisconsin (.1)
$64.18

PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE
INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED ON INVOICES WHICH ARE 45 DAYS PAST DUE
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE WILL BE REFLECTED ON NEXT MONTH'S BILLING
Anchorage

NewYork

Bellevue

Portland

I

Los Angeles

I

San franciSco

nWT 17630!93vl 3970094-000069

I

Seattle
Shanghai

Washington. D.C.

www.dwt.coni-

·um Davis yvright
•• Trema1ne LLP

Suite 2200
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-3045
206.622.3150 tel
206.757.7700 fax
FederaiiD #91-0839480

DISBURSEMENT DETAIL
DESCRIPTION
Copying charges

QUANTITY
6

Legal Fee-- CLERK OF THE COURT- 6/2/11 Admission
fees for A. Wickers
Legal Fee-- CLERK OF THE COURT- 6/2/11 Admission
fees for J. Glasser
Outside delivery service - - FED EX ERS - 05/31/11 Delivery
to One E Main St Madison WI per Jeffrey Glasser
Total Current Disbursements

AMOUNT
0.60

1

185.00

1

185.00

1

17.57
$388.17

TOTAL SERVICES AND DISBURSEMENTS- TIDS INVOICE

Total Current Services

$75.51

Less Agreed Discount

($11.33)

Adjusted Current Services

$64.18

Total Current Disbursements

$388.17

Total Current Invoice

$452.35

PAYMENT IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE
INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED ON INVOICES WHICH ARE 45 DAYS PAST DUE
PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF THIS INVOICE WILL BE REFLECTED ON NEXT MONTH'S BILLING
Anchorage
Bellevue
Los Angeles

I

NewYork

I

Portland
San Francisco

OWT 17630193vl3970094-000069

Seattle
Shanghai

I Washington, D.C.

wvvw.dwt.corri-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 20, 2011, I caused the foregoing document to be electronically filed
with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will make this document available to all
counsel of record for viewing and downloading from the ECF system.

Dated: July 20, 2011.

Is/ Alonzo Wickers IV
Alonzo Wickers IV