Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO WITHDRAW
ADMISSIONS; MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT THEREOF
v.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Defendants.
27
28
1
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 10, 2016, at 9:00 am, or as soon
thereafter as this matter can be heard before the Honorable R. Gary Klausner of the
United States District Court for the Central District of California, at 312 N. Spring
Street, Courtroom 850, Los Angeles, California, 90012, Plaintiff Michael Skidmore,
Trustee for the Randy Craig Wolfe Trust, will move and hereby moves to withdraw
to file such a motion on March 7, 2016 (Doc. No. 118-7, at 27) and Defendants so
10
responded. (Doc. No. 129-3). In addition, on March 24 and 25, 2016, Plaintiffs
11
counsel attempted to initiate a meet and confer with defense counsel but was either
12
unable to reach counsel and later was told they were unavailable. Malofiy Decl., at
13
8.
14
15
support thereof, the declaration of Francis Malofiy in support thereof, and all files
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS
1
2
INTRODUCTION
Defendants served requests for admissions on Plaintiff on December 4, 2015.
See Malofiy Decl., at 2, Exhibit 1. The requests ask that Plaintiff admit that The
Taurus Composition is a work for hire and thus does not have standing to sue. Such
demonstrate that Taurus was written well before the work made for hire contract
and law which does not allow a work to retroactively be designated as made for
hire.
10
However, due to the fact that Plaintiff was injured in an accident in December
11
2015, and Plaintiffs counsel was traveling to London for depositions in the case at
12
bar, answers denying the admissions were not filed in 30 days pursuant to Federal
13
Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Plaintiffs counsel, however, believed that Mr.
14
Anderson, as both sides were routinely providing discovery past the pertinent
15
16
counsel and Plaintiffs counsel has a discussion concerning the late answers and
17
Plaintiffs counsel told defense counsel that Plaintiff would be providing answers.
18
19
the requests for admissions denying that Taurus is a work for hire. Defense counsel
20
had every opportunity to question and cross examine Plaintiff in regards to the
21
responses to the requests for admissions. Plaintiff notes that he is filing this motion
22
to withdraw to preserve his rights but that that he does not concede that the requests
23
24
In addition, at a meet and confer before the summary judgment motion was
25
filed, defense counsel never indicated they believed the admission were deemed
26
admitted and that that would a main basis on which they were asking for summary
27
judgment. Had Plaintiff known, this issue could have been addressed earlier.
28
1
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS
1
2
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Randy Craig Wolfe wrote the song Taurus in 1966 and performed it regularly
throughout 1967 in Los Angeles clubs with Spirit. On August 29, 1967, Wolfe
signed a contract with Hollenbeck Music providing that future music he wrote
would be a work made for hire. A copyright for Taurus was registered in 1968.
asking that Plaintiff admit that Taurus was a work made for hire. Declaration of
Francis Malofiy, at 2. It is simply not true that Taurus is a work for hire. Such a
10
was created not as a work for hire for Hollenbeck Music after the August 29, 1967
11
contract, but instead was created well before in 1966 and played widely at clubs in
12
Los Angeles in early to mid-1967. See Andrea Wolfe Decl., at 4-5 (Doc. No. 118-
13
3); Janet Wolfe Decl., at 4-5 (Doc. No. 118-4); Malofiy SJ Decl. (Doc. No. 124),
14
Exhibit 8 Andes Depo., p.150-156; Barry Hansen Decl. (Doc. No. 119-1), 1-2 &
15
Emails; Skidmore Decl. (Doc. No. 119-4), at 12; Brian Bricklin Decl. (Doc. No.
16
118-10), Audio Exhibits 33-36 (recordings of Taurus played live before August 29,
17
18
compositions as made for hire.. See Gladwell Govt. Services Inc. v. County of
19
Marin, 265 Fed. Appx. 624 2008 WL 268268 (9th Cir. 2008). In addition, Taurus
20
has never been registered with the Copyright Office as a work for hire, Mr. Wolfe
21
has always been listed as the author (Doc. No. 97-11, at p.225), and the renewal
22
registration is in Mr. Wolfes name (Doc. No. 31, Exhibit 1)prima facie evidence
23
24
25
Plaintiff was injured in an accident earlier in December 2015, because of the holiday
26
season, and because Plaintiffs counsel was preparing to travel to London for the
27
depositions of defendants James Patrick Page and John Paul Jones in early January.
28
counsel indicated that the responses were late and Plaintiffs counsel responded that
he would get him the answers. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiffs counsel understood because of
this interaction that there was in fact an implicit extension to answer the requests for
admissions. Id. This understanding was also based on the fact that compliance with
discovery by both parties had been lax (Defendants produced document discovery
over one and half months late), and that defense counsel had been provided informal
Plaintiff did provide formal answers denying the requests for admissions on
February 5, 2016, before the start of Plaintiffs deposition, so that Defendant could
10
11
At a later meet and confer on February 18, 2016, in advance of the filing of
12
the summary judgment motion, defense counsel never disclosed that Defendants
13
motion would be relying upon the position that requests for admission had been
14
15
did claim that the requests were deemed admitted under Rule 36.
16
17
and does not believe that any admissions were admitted, he is filing this motion out
18
19
aware that Plaintiff was opposing their work for hire argument, which is fatally
20
flawed as Taurus was created well in advance of the work made for hire agreement.
21
22
23
III.
24
25
there was an extension of time to answer, the Courts favor not deeming the requests
26
admitted under Rule 36, especially if holding the requests as admitted would
27
28
After a request for admission has been deemed admitted, a party can move to
withdraw the unanswered admissions (note Plaintiff has already answered the
admissions). Conlon v. U.S., 474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir. 2007). When considering a
motion to withdrawn admissions, the Court focuses on the two factors in Rule 36(b):
(1) whether allowing withdrawal will aid resolution of the case, and (2) whether the
propounding party can establish prejudice at trial if the admissions are withdrawn.
Conlon, 474 F.3d at 621. Notably, the Ninth Circuit has observed that a court
necessities of the situation require it. Hadley v. U.S., 45 F.3d 1345, 1350 (9th Cir.
10
11
1995).
The first prong [of Rule 36(b)s test for withdrawal of an admission], which
12
essentially asks if allowing the withdrawal will aid in the resolution of the case,
13
favors allowing [the party] to withdraw the admissions. Gallegos v. City of Los
14
Angeles, 308 F.3d 987, 993 (9th Cir. 2002). Allowing withdrawal under the first
15
prong is satisfied when upholding the admissions would practically eliminate any
16
presentation of the merits of the case. Conlon, 474 F.3d at 622 (internal quotation
17
marks omitted). In essence, the Ninth Circuit states that cases should be decided on
18
the merits.
19
The second prong requires that Defendants demonstrate that they will be
20
21
contemplated by Rule 36(b) . . . relates to the difficulty a party may face in proving
22
its case, including problems caused by the unavailability of key witnesses, or the
23
sudden need to obtain evidence with respect to the questions previously deemed
24
admitted.' Gallegos, 308 F.3d at 993 (quoting Hadley v. United States, 45 F.3d
25
1345, 1348 (9th Cir. 1995)); see also Conlon, 474 F.3d at 622. Inconvenience does
26
27
28
should focus on the prejudice that the nonmoving party would suffer at trial. Id. at
4
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS
623 (emphasis added) (citing Sonoda v. Cabrera, 255 F.3d 1035, 1039-40 (9th Cir.
2001)). The Conlon court noted that in the Sonoda case the motion to withdraw was
made and granted before trial and did not hinder the opposing partys ability to
present evidence. It is important to note that the Ninth Circuit has held that reliance
constitute prejudice. Conlon, 474 F.3d at 623 (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit
also concluded that when deemed admissions resulted in another party choosing not
to engage in other discovery, it did not amount to prejudice. Id. It specifically noted
that under those circumstances the district court has the option of re-opening
10
discovery and reiterated that the prejudice in question must relate to the hardship the
11
12
IV.
13
14
15
meaning they were due on January 3, 2016. However, given that the Holidays had
16
just passed, as well as Plaintiff was injured in an accident, and Plaintiffs counsel
17
was flying to London for depositions, providing timely and accurate answers was
18
not possible. Defense counsel subsequently did note that the responses were late in
19
January 2016 and Plaintiffs counsel told them that the answer were coming.
20
Defense counsel never claimed that answering was unnecessary or that they viewed
21
22
extension had been given by defense counsel. This was especially so because
23
Plaintiffs counsel had given defense counsel courtesies and leniencies in serving
24
25
Please note that under Rule 36, untimely answers are deemed automatically
26
admitted if not answered in thirty days. Thus, when defense counsel mentioned to
27
Plaintiffs counsel that the answers were late and Plaintiffs counsel stated that
28
2
3
13
Here, the Court has before it two conflicting assertions with regard to
any extension or extensions of time given regarding the discovery at
issue. Simply stated, Defendant contends it gave a single thirty-day
extension of time whereby Plaintiff's responses became due no later
than December 7, 2011. (Doc. 30 at 3.) On the other hand, Plaintiff's
counsel declares that at some point after receiving the thirty-day
extension of time, he and defense counsel spoke on the telephone
about an open extension of time because Plaintiff's counsel wished
to complete the demand and manage expenses. Plaintiff's counsel
further declares that defense counsel agreed to his request. (Doc. 30 at
7.) The Court has carefully reviewed the numerous exhibits attached
to Defendant's motion (Doc. 24), and, on this record, is unwilling to
grant Defendant's request. To do so would effectively eviscerate
Plaintiff's action. (See Doc. 24, Ex. E.)
14
1:10-CV-02180 AWI, 2012 WL 439400, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2012). Here, there
15
is also a dispute about whether there was an extension to answer the requests for
16
admission and the defendants are also attempting to terminate Plaintiffs action with
17
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Based on the courtesies that were being extended between counsel, and the
18
19
nature of interactions between counsel implying that Plaintiff could still answer the
20
requests for admissions, the requests should not be considered deemed admitted
21
22
V.
23
24
Even if the requests for admission are deemed admitted by the Court, Plaintiff
25
26
admissions to be withdrawn the Court should focus on the factors of whether (1)
27
withdrawal will favor resolution of the case on the merits, and (2) allowing
28
withdrawal will cause the opposing party prejudice at trial. See FRCP 36.
6
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS
Withdrawal should be permitted here because it will favor the resolution of this case
on the merits and because Defendants can identify no prejudice they will suffer at
trial.
With respect to the first prong, withdrawal will favor resolution of this case on
the merits. Plaintiff adamantly denies that the work in question is a work made for
hire as it was created in 1966 well before the work for hire contract in August 1967.1
It is basic law that a work for hire contract cannot retroactively designate a work as
made for hire. See Gladwell Govt. Services Inc. v. County of Marin, 265 Fed. Appx.
624 2008 WL 268268 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Dumas, 53
10
F.3d 549, 558-59 (2d Cir .1995); Schiller & Schmidt, Inc. v. Nordisco Corp., 969
11
F.2d 410, 412-13 (7th Cir. 1992) (The writing must precede the creation of the
12
13
14
should only be invoked when absolutely necessary. Hadley, 45 F.3d 1345 at 1350.
15
As allowing withdrawal will benefit the resolution of this case on the merits, and not
16
allowing withdrawal may eviscerate the action, the first prong favors Plaintiff.
17
With respect to the second prong, Defendants cannot show any prejudice at
18
19
20
474 F.3d at 623 (emphasis added). Defendants argument for why Taurus is
21
allegedly a work for hire is based on the relatively undisputed facts in the record that
22
Taurus was registered after the work for hire contract was signed. Under the 1909
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants are advancing the legally unsupported argument that a work that was formally
copyrighted after a work for hire agreement is a work for hire under the 1909 Act. But the
pertinent rule is that the work made for hire contract must exist before the material in
question. Schiller & Schmidt, Inc. v. Nordisco Corp., 969 F.2d 410, 412-13 (7th Cir. 1992)
(The writing must precede the creation of the property to qualify as a work-for-hire
agreement.). Taurus was written and created well before the work made for hire agreement.
In addition, the copyright for Taurus was renewed in Randy Wolfes name which prima facie
establishes that he is a valid owner and that it is not work for hire. (Doc. No. 31, Exhibit 2).
In fact, since 1968 Mr. Wolfe has been listed as the author of the Taurus copyright. (Doc. No.
97-11, at p.225)
7
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS
Defendants work made for hire argument claims that as long as a work was
registered after a work made for hire contract, it is a work for hire under the 1909
Act. This is primarily a legal argumentalbeit erroneous. Thus, it is hard to see how
Defendants will be prejudiced at trial if the admissions are withdrawn. They will still
prejudice because they neglected to depose Lou Adler, who owns Hollenbeck
Music. Doc. No. 129-3, at 13. But this argument missed the mark by many miles as
10
Adler has been known to both sides since the beginning of this litigation, was on
11
both parties initial disclosures, and Defendants subpoenaed Adlers companies for
12
documents but deliberately chose not to depose him. Id. at 3. It also must not be
13
forgotten that under Conlon the failure of Defendants to depose Adler cannot
14
constitute prejudice because it does not speak to prejudice Defendants would suffer
15
at trial. Conlon, 474 F.3d at 623 (concluding that when deemed admissions resulted
16
in the opposing party choosing not to engage in other discovery it does not constitute
17
18
19
with sufficient facts in the recordand because Defendants were well aware of this
20
issue and the pertinent witnesses for the entirety of the discovery period and in fact
21
22
23
Thus, both prongs under Rule 36(b) favor allowing withdrawal of the deemed
24
admissions (if the requests were in fact deemed admitted). Plaintiff notes that he
25
answered the admissions within the discovery period, believed he had an informal
26
27
discovery.
28
8
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS
VI.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully request that the Court either
rule that the admission were not deemed admitted or grant the instant motion to
withdraw admissions.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff hereby represents that Plaintiffs Motion to Withdraw Admissions has been served
upon counsel by email:
Helene Freeman, Esquire
666 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10103-0084
T: (212) 841-0547
F: (212) 262-5152
E: hfreeman@phillipsnizer.com
Attorneys for Defendants James Patrick Page, Robert Anthony Plant, and John Paul Jones
(collectively with John Bonham (Deceased), professionally known as Led Zeppelin)
Peter J. Anderson, Esquire
100 Wilshire Blvd. | Suite 2010
Santa Monica, CA 90401
T:(310) 260-6030
F: (310) 260-6040
E: pja@pjanderson.com
Attorney for Defendants Super Hype Publishing, Inc., Warner Music Group Corp.,
Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., Atlantic Recording Corporation, and
Rhino Entertainment Company
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
*****
Respectfully submitted,
25
26
27
28
10
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS